4
   

Soft tissue in hadrosaur remains

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 11:51 pm
@farmerman,
The greater diversity of life in the fossils of the Cryogenian and the Ediacarna are , I should have added, a function oif a Logarithmic increase in the PO2. There were about 4 distinct periods of the "Oxygen Crisis" on the planet. The last of which was the rapid increase of O2 in the Cryogenian (This was due to th fact that all other "sinks" of Oxygen including the oxidation of earth minerals and ALuminum/Iron were used up and oxygen began to accumulate rather rapidly, causing a greater turnover in diversity of life that had become accustomed and dependent on O2 (and this same gas was toxic to the earliest life forms which were non facultative anaerobes)

So we have vast deposits all over the planet of "banded iron stones, iron rich cherts, and limestones. These were follwoed by a "pre Cambrian explosion of mini diversity that preceded the well publicized (and midunderstood) "CAmbrian Explosion" of diversity.
All because of a fart gas.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 12:24 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
There might also be the possibility of defrosting from
falling extraterrestrial objects during those years


Quote:
Not to have gotten too geeky about it, there was evidence of one big mother bolide collision in the Area off what is now S Africa. It was , perhaps, based upon its crater footprint, the largest bolide ever to have hit the planet.
Its timig was at the end of the "cryogenian " period (named for the evidence of glaciers) which also had a low sea stand that continued through the Ediacaran and into the Basal Cambrian.

The geologic time scale has been renamed in 2004 by the ICS (International Commission on Stratigraphy), the initials ICS is , kind of, an embarrassment but the commission is made up of guys mostly from Sweden and Russia and Australia who dont give a **** about the Creation SCience guys over here.
SO, the ICS had added the Ediacaran and the Cryogenian based on evidence of glaciation AND, from the appearance of the more complex EDiacaran fauna that was clearly from the Pre Cambrian .


Well, I understand that the current thinking is that Earth got hit
with an even LARGER bolide collision with the planet Morpheus,
which remains with us, aggregating to the mass and enabling Earth
to hold an atmosphere, before the collision that generated the Moon.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 12:40 am

Just idly musing here:
with a vu toward rendering Mars habitable,
I wonder if it 'd be a good idea to steer some ice bearing comets
and asteroids in its direction. The generated impact heat woud
melt some Martian ice, hopefully for surface irrigation,
and added mass woud improve its gravitational ability
to hold an atmosphere. If, over time, we smacked it
with some big iron meteors, this might help to give Mars
a magnetic field to shield it from solar wind.

After a while, well over 6 weeks, we might learn a few tricks
about steering n herding asteriods in the right direction.





David
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 12:45 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Well, I understand that the current thinking is that Earth got hit
with an even LARGER bolide collision with the planet Morpheus,
which remains with us, aggregating to the mass and enabling Earth
to hold an atmosphere, before the collision that generated the Moon.
Now youre more in the realm of gnostic science. I have to plead ignorance (blissful ignorance cause Im stuck on earth tryin to peddle my wagon). I leave the planetessimal interactions to the gunga dept.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 02:05 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:


David wrote:
Quote:
Well, I understand that the current thinking is that Earth got hit
with an even LARGER bolide collision with the planet Morpheus,
which remains with us, aggregating to the mass and enabling Earth
to hold an atmosphere, before the collision that generated the Moon.


farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Now youre more in the realm of gnostic science. I have to plead ignorance
(blissful ignorance cause Im stuck on earth tryin to peddle my wagon).
I leave the planetessimal interactions to the gunga dept.

"I only know what I read in the newspapers." Will Rogers
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 11:48 am
@farmerman,
Struggling to follow here - by P in the PO2 you mean phosphorus, right? Not sure how that worked, but recall oceans wre anaerobic for many eons. Geological eons - will have to familiarize self with the new timescale nomenclature.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 12:27 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Not to put wors in gungas mouth. I believe that he does accept global tectonics. He just feels that, with a shorter time to accomplish it, continentaldrift would have to have occured at a much faster rate. Since we have evidence of at least 3 major sequences of continental collisions (Nunan;Rodinian;Gondwanan). There may have been more in the early earth but weve lost the records in the smear of rocks.
Now maybe gunga needs to consider the speeds at which his timeline would require to accomplish the same bit of drifting landmasses.
Or he can speak for himself.


More struggling to follow - even without measuring isotopes, how can these points of view be consistent? Geological eons and locations of fossils must of necessity be positively correlated. Found a paleogeology map from the estimated date of Gunga's original dead critter:
http://www2.nau.edu/%7Ercb7/060NAT.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/plate_pics/F1.11c.gif&imgrefurl=http://paleogeology.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_paleogeology_archive.html&usg=__xwGOIVV5a_tBV6he1QrwWyOhPqw=&h=351&w=431&sz=15&hl=en&start=19&um=1&tbnid=CenNg_vVpkeY-M:&tbnh=103&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpaleogeology%2Bmaps%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 02:43 pm
@High Seas,
SORRY HS, pO2 is the Principal Atmospheric level of the partial pressure of oxygen at any time in geo time.Heres a series of times and PO2 for the earth from Geochem et Cosmochem Acta (geochem and cosmic chem letters).Its not Phsosphorus , I should have used italics or something.
Quote:
Quote:
In the present state of knowledge, the data on the atmospheric oxygen rate, during various geological periods, are full of uncertainties, discussed by the various authors and prone to permanent calling in question, with the researchers works thread. In what follows, we tried, nevertheless, to establish a probable middle increase chronology in the oxygen rate in the Earth's atmosphere. Because of the preceding reserves, one must regard this chronology various stages more as magnitude orders that like precise and rigorous datings (Holland 1984-1998; Mason 1992). It is not excluded, moreover, that the PO2 P.A.L. rate knew fluctuations during geological periods.

Crust/ocean/atmosphere system enrichment in free PO2 P.A.L. intervened, mainly, following photochemical reactions grouped under the photosynthesis generic term (Rybak 1974) and, marginally, of the water vapor photolysis. This process is, presently, primarily, the plants fact. One considers the free molecular oxygen present percentage at 5 % oxygen present total at the earth's crust surface (Schidlowski, Eichman 1977).

We indicate below the earth's atmosphere in PO2 P.A.L. enrichment principal stages since the earth origin (4,6 Billion Years) until today, of which we gave, to Chapter VI, the essential data. The figures indicated are based, either on geological arguments (various radioactive elements isotopic ratios, U 238, K 40, C 14, etc...), or on biological arguments (biological processes physiological thresholds: aerobiosis, collagen production, cutaneous respiration, etc...).

1) Hadean (4,6 to 3,9 B.Y.) the earth paramount atmosphere is made up mainly hydrogen, methane and ammonia (planetologic arguments). This time intense volcanic degazifications do not contain free molecular oxygen. PO2 P.A.L. = 0

2) Archean (3,9 to 2,5 B.Y.) uraninite deposits (UO2.) and pyrite (FeS2) until towards 2,3 B.Y. indicate atmosphere not-oxydative conditions with PO2 P.A.L. rates probably going from 0,0005 to 0,005 (Holland 1998). PO2 P.A.L. = > 0,0005

3) Proterozoic (2,5 to 0,544 B.Y.)

a) Between 2,8 and 1,8 B.Y., B.I.F. deposits (Banded Iron Formations - ribboned iron Formations) alternate layers rich and low in magnetite (FeO4) (Guntflint Chert 1,9 B.Y.), also indicating not-oxydative atmosphere.The photosystème II, appeared towards 2,7-2,5 B.Y. seems to have been dominating and to have caused the increase in the O2 molecules in the atmosphere. Abundance peaks between 2,5 and 2 B.Y., coinciding with the uraninites disappearance indicate an increase in the PO2 P.A.L. rate (Holland 1998). PO2 P.A.L. = > 0,005

b) The Red Beds (Red Formations) hematite (FeO3) deposits appear towards 2,00 B.Y., indicating oxydative atmosphere conditions and lead to the B.I.F. disappearance towards 1,8/1,7 B.Y. with the ozone layer O3 development (Levin). The increase in the molecules O2 in the atmosphere allows the emergence of the oldest known aerobic eucaryote cells, approximately 1,9 B.Y. old (Gryptania spiralis - Pan Terra 1996); 0,01 threshold for the protists aerobic breathing (Holland 1998). PO2 P.A.L. = > 0,01

c) Vendian (0,565 B.Y.) Between 0,750 and 0,550 B.Y., the carbon isotopic composition suggest an appreciable increase in the PO2 P.A.L. rate before the cambrian era (Hoffmann, Kaufman, Halverson 1998). The geochemical data clearly indicate a rise in the PO2 P.A.L. rate right before the Vendian macroscopic animals appearance. They also show a phytoplankton dynamic evolution at the Precambrian/Cambrian (Knoll 1996) border. In addition, the apparition of the ediacarian fauna of soft body metazoa requires, for the collagen, muscles production and the cutaneous respiration (Dickinsonia: 1 meter length for a maximum thickness of 6 mm), a 0,07 PO2 P.A.L. minimum (Towe 1970 - Bruce Runnegar 1982 - Rudolf, Elizabeth Raff). PO2 P.A.L. = > 0,07

4) Paleozoic (0,544 to 0,250 B.Y.)

a) Cambrian (0,544 to 0,505 B.Y.) "the cambrian explosion", with its various episodes, S.S.F. (Small Shelly Fossils), tommotian and atdabanian radiations, the Burgess Shale fauna, implies an increase in PO2 P.A.L. necessary to the organisms complexification and their biomineralization. The correlation between PO2 P.A.L. and the living organisms evolution is corroborated by many data compilation which we indicated in Chapter VI and which we point out here. The analysis of these data (Rhoads, Morse 1971) made it possible to show the relation between the dissolved oxygen level and the fauna benthic presence in the basins on low oxygen level, in the Black Sea (Bacescu 1963), the Gulf of California (Parker 1964), the Basin of Santa-Barbara (Emery, Hulsemann 1961) and the Basin of San Pedro (Hartman 1955, 1966). They established that faunas can be classified in three facies correlated at different PO2 P.A.L. rates. With a value < 0,1 ml/l (approximately 0,01 PO2 P.A.L.), the marine sediments are primarily metazoa benthic deprived; for a value ranging between 0,3 ml/l and 1 ml/l (between approximately 0,03 and 0,10 PO2 P.A.L.), benthic faunas are made up small species mainly with soft body; when the level is higher than 1 ml/l (approximately 0,10 PO2 P.A.L.), faunas are relatively varied and made up many species which secrete skeletons limestones. Similar relations were observed in the Saanich split in the Vancouver Island (Tunnicliffe 1981). Rhoads and Morse proposed that these relations between the faunas emergence and the oxygen rates dissolved in these basins are regarded as analogues with the metazoa groups development during the Proterozoic last stages and the Phanerozoic first stages. PO2 P.A.L. = > 0,10

b) Ordovician (0,505 to 0,438 B.Y.) The first appearance of terrestrial life would go up in middle Ordovician where terrestrial spores traces are found (0,449/0,458 M.A.- Jane Gray) but not from vascular plants.The first spores would be perhaps dated from Cambrian. The PCO2 P.A.L. level before 0,440 B.Y. would have been higher 16 to 18 times on its present level (Crayton J.Yapp 1998). PO2 P.A.L. = > 0,10

c) Silurian (0,438 to 0,408 B.Y.) If the possibility of plants and terrestrial animals is probable in Ordovician, their obviousness is established in Silurian with the plants vascular fossils (Cooksonia), perhaps of Lycophytes (Baragwanathia?), mushrooms (ascomycetes) and Arachnida and millipede first fossils (Taylor and Taylor 1993). The analysis, by stable isotopes geochemical methods, makes it possible to provide the oxygen lower level rate, during the last 440 million years. This rate would not be lower than 0,13 (Crayton J.Yapp 1998). PO2 P.A.L. > 0,13

d) Devonian (0,408 to 0,360 B.Y.) From upper Silurian to higher Devonian, one attends a considerable development of the vegetable cover by terrestrial vascular plants with the sheets, roots, secondary tissues and seeds acquisition. Concomitantly, the PCO2 P.A.L.. rate falls quickly and in a very significant way (Algeo and Scheckler 1998). An imbalance between the oxygen production by the carbon cycle and its consumption by the sulphur cycle, by only 5 %, can increase the PO2 P.A.L. rate of 50 % in 40 million years. The iron cycle can also intervene in this imbalance. On the long term, a balance is roughly established between the sulphur cycle and the carbon cycle which is an atmosphere/ocean/terrestrial crust system redox state major element (Holland 1984). During middle and higher Devonian, the increase in the vegetable biomass accelerates the atmospheric CO2 "pumping" level towards the ground and establishes a carbon cycle new long-run equilibrium, between its production and its consumption, which is maintained until our days (Algeo, Scheckler and Maynard 1998). It is estimated that the atmospheric PCO2 P.A.L. level between Silurian and higher Devonian is divided by 5 or 6 (Berner 1994). One can suppose, reciprocally, an increase in atmospheric PO2 P.A.L. of the same magnitude order. This assumption is corroborated by Heinzinger, Schidlowski and Junge work (1974). These authors, by comparing the isotope § 18 O value (11,4 o/oo SMOW), in meteorite magnetite spangles dating from higher Devonian, found values around 0,65 (11,4/17,6) of those of the recent samples § 18 O (17,6 o/oo SMOW). Other magnetite spherules, dating from Oligocene gave values appreciably equivalent to those of today (17,4 o/oo SMOW). The atmospheric isotope § 18 O respective values give, for superior Devonian 17,3 o/oo SMOW, for the Oligocene one, 23,3 o/oo SMOW and 23,5 o/oo SMOW for today is a value of 17,3/23,5 = 0,74 PO2 P.A.L. for Devonian. PO2 P.A.L. = 0,65 to 0,74

e) Carboniferous/Permian (0,360-0,250 B.Y.)

5) Mesozoic (0,250 to 0,065 B.Y.)

The carboniferous flora and the terrestrial vascular plants radiations during the Permian and the Triassic, with the PCO2 P.A.L. rate decrease (Berner 1994), could carry the PO2 P.A.L. oxygen rate which one estimates at 0,93 with the Gymnosperms blooming (Coniferals) until lower Cretaceous. PO2 P.A.L. = 0,93

6) Cenozoic (0,065 B.Y. - present)

Of the Cretaceous until our days, develop Angiospermae. A last increase in PO2 P.A.L. partial pressure had to occur during the Cretaceous various oceanic anoxic events OAEs (Holland 1984), carrying it to its present value with the Cenozoic one. PO2 P.A.L. = 1



spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 03:18 pm
There you go HS. Wrap your noggin round that.


OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 05:17 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
There you go HS. Wrap your noggin round that.

Do u have an opinion
of the approximate age of this planet, Spendius ?





David


spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 05:21 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
No.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 05:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
The only date that spendi has on his mind is a "sell by" date on a keg
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 05:55 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

The only date that spendi has on his mind is a "sell by" date on a keg

I see.
I never had much taste for beer or ale.
I used to have to drink it sometimes, when I was a kid;
never liked it much.





David
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 08:25 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I never minded a good IPA but that too, was about it, and one bottle of a real strong ale or stoudt and that was it for me too.
I used to shoot competition pool and always would nurse a ginger ale while the other players got symmetrically drunk on beer. I won more games from being "with wit" than I did from pure talent on the table.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 12:01 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

I never minded a good IPA but that too, was about it,
and one bottle of a real strong ale or stoudt and that was it for me too.
I used to shoot competition pool and always would nurse a ginger ale
while the other players got symmetrically drunk on beer.
I won more games from being "with wit" than I did from pure talent on the table.

That proves another type of cleverness endemic to your being.





David
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 01:31 pm
@farmerman,
Ah, thanks, FM - particulary grateful for pointing out what P stands for. Am still attempting to work my way through your detailed post.

However, I (may) have some small contribution as well: in attempting to reconcile the deus ex machina part with known physical constants, I tripped over this study, which may account for the dogged persistence of one poster here: "It’s not magic, it’s neuroscience"
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/42623/title/Specialis_Revelio
Quote:
Neuroscience taps the age-old tricks of magicians to gain insight into perception, attention and the mind.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/42694/name/HARNESSING_ILLUSION_TO_REVEAL_THE_BRAIN
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 01:46 pm
@High Seas,
I've read your link HS.

I wouldn't say it's rubbish but it's close.

It's also a bit old fashioned despite the "cutting-edge" cliche which is, of course, a dab of word magic. There are many other such dabs in the piece.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/17/2019 at 07:12:27