• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution: the Facts.

Urgent Question.

What geology texts should I buy?

This is urgent, I only have a brief opportunity here.
Geology is such a broad subject. It sounds like many of your questions relate to historical geology. This one is good, but very pricy. (Textbooks usually are.) You might also look at some sedimentology and stratigraphybooks or links if you're looking for depositional stuff. This link is a decent introduction.

For evaporites, you might try something on White Sands which is an active gypsum evaporite basin in the US. The Dead Sea and Great Salt Lake are saline evaporite lakes, actively depositing salt on their bottoms. The deposition is fast enough to be easily measurable.

Lithification of sedimentary rocks is indeed a continuous process. If you drill a well offshore, you grade from essentially muddy water to watery mud to solid mud and so on down until the "firmness" is enouth to consider it rock. Of course, you have to find a place with continuous deposition to do this.

But not all lithification happens at depth. Sometimes you get sands that are lithified near the surface as cement is deposited between the grains. This is called beach rock and it can be quite hard.

I'm not sure what you've heard about the formation of flint (which is just one of many kinds of cryptcrystalline quartz, or "chert") so I'm not sure what parts you find hard to believe. Remember though that lots rock processes occur under great heat and pressure which supersaturates the fluids with things you wouldn't normally consider soluble in water.

Yes, you can definitely see modern cross-bedding, not only on aeolean dunes, but even on beach and lake deposits, although they are smaller scale. In the field, one technique is to take a large pane of plexiglas with one sharpened edge and hammer it down into the dune, then scrape the sand off the side until you can see the "window" into the dune. They aren't as dramatic as ancient crossbeds because the boundaries in ancient beds are often enhanced by fluid movement through them. Also, differential erosion strongly highlights bedding planes. Still, modern cross-beds are easily detectible. They're one of the forms that you can actually study fairly quickly, because aeolean dunes form and migrate fairly rapidly unless held in place by vegetation. They may migrate many feet, or even miles in a single year.

I wish I could help you more, but these topics are wide-ranging. A lot of them might be answered by an introductory-level geology book. I haven't been to school in a long time, so mine are hopelessly out of date. Call your local university.
 
Thanks.

Yes, indeed, historical geology. Mainly because that's what's needed to understand the relationship of geology to evolution; but also because that's where the controversy is: no-one, I think, is going about denying that aragonite is orthorhombic.
 
I'm not sure what you've heard about the formation of flint (which is just one of many kinds of cryptcrystalline quartz, or "chert") so I'm not sure what parts you find hard to believe. Remember though that lots rock processes occur under great heat and pressure which supersaturates the fluids with things you wouldn't normally consider soluble in water.
It appears that I'm not alone in my bafflement:

Chert is also common in limestones as nodules, irregular spherical or oval masses whose diameters range in size from less than a centimeter to a meter. Many of these chert nodules are arranged along a single bedding plane; they contain the spicules of fossil sponges, small spiny secretions composed of opaline silica. Soon after burial of the limestone the nodules form as a segregation and recrystallization of the spicules by a process that we still cannot fully explain.

Mind you, that was written twenty years ago.
 
I've nearly finished filling in the gaps in my knowledge, but I'm still puzzled as to the difference, if any, between "bed", "layer", "lamina" and "stratum".

And some sources tell me that "foliation" means the same thing. I am going to ignore them, they are wrong.
 
Discussion on stochastic evolution split to new thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
Last edited:
Geology is such a broad subject. It sounds like many of your questions relate to historical geology. This one is good, but very pricy.
I got that for Christmas to supplement what I picked up second-hand, thanks.

It has a big red sign on the front cover saying that THIS EDITION IS NOT TO BE SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES, and warns that it has "content that may be different from the U.S. edition".

I'm wondering what the American one is like ...
 
Okay. Here we go.

[swiki]Minerals[/swiki].

Please give me all the negative feedback you can.

In this article I have to discuss chemistry. I've tried hard to get to grips with chemistry, but I have never really felt comfortable with it. If I have a chance to screw up and make a fool of myself in public ... this is it.

If you are wondering why this article belongs on the "Evolution The Facts" thread, it's for the same reason that I wrote a genetics textbook. I am now going to write a geology textbook. If you want to understand the facts, you don't start in the middle.
 
Really, any comments?

I'm here to be told. Otherwise, the next article will be called "Rocks".

---

The phrase that springs to mind is "from the ground up".
 
Really, any comments?
I'm willing to provide some constructive feedback but have a hunch I might be on your ignore list

ETA

First up:
readers who have forgotten everything they learned about chemistry at school can catch up by looking at our Appendix on Chemistry for Geologists, which contains a short review of everything you need to know.

As one who has forgotten forgotten much of what I lurned about chemistry at skule, it might be easier to read this entry if the Chemistry for Geologists link was active
 
Last edited:
I'm willing to provide some constructive feedback but have a hunch I might be on your ignore list
I have no idea why yout might think that.

For two reasons. The first is that I don't have anyone on ignore. The second is that even if I did, it wouldn't be you. I associate you with interesting and intelligent remarks about science. If there's some reason why we ought to be enemies, I've forgotten it completely ... are you a Libertarian or something?

Seriously, I have no idea.

As one who has forgotten forgotten much of what I lurned about chemistry at skule, it might be easier to read this entry if the Chemistry for Geologists link was active
It would, but I haven't written it yet.
 
I have no idea why yout might think that
Cool :)
It was just a hunch...

Ages ago I made some (geeky, jargon-heavy) suggestions re (I think) SkepticWiki that seemed to go down like a bucket of cold sick and the rest is conjecture
My analysts says I'm paranoid

But that's cos they all hate me

;)
For two reasons. The first is that I don't have anyone on ignore. The second is that even if I did, it wouldn't be you. I associate you with interesting and intelligent remarks about science.
Awww shucks.

You say the nicest thangs

are you a Libertarian or something?
I guess I must be 'something'... I sure as hell ain't no Libertarian!

Anyhoo... back to the Minerals entry


It would, but I haven't written it yet.
Hmmm... a minor stumbling block, but one that raises, for me, a salient point: Who is this article aimed at?

Is it people like me, who vaguely remember terms like valence and polarity and not much besides?

If so:
I'd suggest that, unless NaCl can be/is found in something other than a "cubic lattice", then the first example ought to concern a compound (or whatever they're called) that IS commonly 'found' (ETA: and described/illustrated/whatever) in varied arrangements

My reading of the entry suggests that CaCO3 might be an ideal candidate for the intro
If not:
please disregard the above :)

Like Arnie, I'll be back
 
Last edited:
Cool :)
It was just a hunch...

Ages ago I made some (geeky, jargon-heavy) suggestions re (I think) SkepticWiki that seemed to go down like a bucket of cold sick and the rest is conjecture
My analysts says I'm paranoid

But that's cos they all hate me

;)
Awww shucks.

You say the nicest thangs


I guess I must be 'something'... I sure as hell ain't no Libertarian!

Anyhoo... back to the Minerals entry
Oh well, I'm sure we've disagreed about stuff in the past. But you have to wrok hard to get on my Enemies List. Have you considered mailing me roadkill?

Hmmm... a minor stumbling block, but one that raises, for me, a salient point: Who is this article aimed at?

Is it people like me, who vaguely remember terms like valence and polarity and not much besides?

If so:
I'd suggest that, unless NaCl can be/is found in something other than a "cubic lattice", then the first example ought to concern a compound (or whatever they're called) that IS commonly 'found' (ETA: and described/illustrated/whatever) in varied arrangements

My reading of the entry suggests that CaCO3 might be an ideal candidate for the intro
If not:
please disregard the above :)

Like Arnie, I'll be back
Hmm ... you might be right ... in which case do it. We're only talking about four or five sentences here, so if you can write 'em, I'll draw the diagrams.
 
I would like to vouch for six7s because in my humble opinion, he rocks (and I'm not just talking geology here).
 
Have you considered mailing me roadkill?
Not until now

;)
if you can write 'em, I'll draw the diagrams.

One idea: simply remove the ref to NaCl, perhaps like so:

Minerals defined
A mineral is defined by its chemical composition and crystal structure. For example halite (rock salt) has the chemical formula NaCl (sodium chloride) with the atoms arranged in a cubic lattice, as shown to the right, so that each sodium is bonded to six chlorines, and each chlorine to six sodiums. The same molecules can form crystals in different ways; for example, molecules of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) can stick together in a triagonal lattice or an orthorhombic lattice; in the first case, the mineral is calcite, in the second case it is aragonite. Minerals with the same chemical composition but different crystalline structures will have different physical properties and different histories, so it is important to distinguish between them.

ETA

Or...

like so

Minerals defined
A mineral is defined by its chemical composition and crystal structure.For example halite (rock salt) has the chemical formula NaCl (sodium chloride) with the atoms arranged in a cubic lattice, as shown to the right, so that each sodium is bonded to six chlorines, and each chlorine to six sodiums. The same molecules can form crystals in different ways; for example, molecules of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) can stick together in a triagonal lattice or an orthorhombic lattice; in the first case, the mineral is calcite <insert>with each calcium bonded to X carbonates </insert>, in the second case it is aragonite <insert>with each carbonate bonded to X calciums</insert>. Minerals with the same chemical composition but different crystalline structures will have different physical properties and different histories, so it is important to distinguish between them.
 
Last edited:
Mmm, I begin to see a problem with that paragraph. It at least wants the phrase "With some chemicals" in there.

But I still think you've got to start with the simplest case.
 
Re:
...can stick together in a triagonal lattice or an orthorhombic lattice; in the first case...​

Are the terms triagonal and orthorhombic synonymous?

If so... how about
...can stick together in a triagonal (or orthorhombic) lattice; in the first case...​
 

Back
Top Bottom