Archaeopteryx: The Icon of Evolution

As with the museum posts(page) it really don't make sense search wise to name my book review posts book review # so I am going to go to naming them the title of the book for simplicities sake. Now on to the review.

It was a typical day in the Late Jurassic (Tithonian to be specific) on a small island located in the Tethys Ocean on what is currently the Bavarian region of Germany. The climate was warm and dry and the sun was beaming down on the small bush sized plants that covered the island. Out over the sea a group of pterosaurs (for me I will say Rhamphorhynchus muensteri) caught fish that swam to close to the surface near the reef while the breath of some of the marine reptiles (e.g. ichthyosaurs) broke the surface on occasion. On shore small theropod dinosaurs poked around in the bushes hoping to find a lizard or insect that they may be able to eat. The young Archaeopteryx had watched this scene play out plenty of times but only recently away from the safety of her mother's nest but at least now she could fly, well at least short distances and her flight wasn't very powerful due to her sternal keel still being cartilage. Her black feathers glistened in the sunlight and as a curious Compsognathus got too close she snapped her toothed jaw at it and flew slightly higher out of grasp for the dinosaur. She of course was a dinosaur too but there was something special about her she also had a lot of features that made her look more bird like than dinosaur like except for her long tail and her toothed "beak", and she certainly wasn't the first dinosaur to look bird-like but she would become when discovered one of the most important. As she looked out over the sea toward the dark black clouds that had been approaching for a while now she realized she was hungry it had been a while since she ate after all. Something hit her on the head and then more and more she wasn't quite sure what this was after all it hadn't rained, at least not much, her entire life. The rain drops also disturbed a dragonfly nearby from the branch it was sitting on and she took off after it. As she closed in a strong gust of wind blew her out over the reef, this was further out to sea than she had ever been. She looked toward shore and then the wind picked up even more. 150 million years later, in 1861, a slab of limestone is split from a quarry in the Solnhofen formation and she would again see the light of a new day but the world would be completely different than the one she lived in but she too would change it greatly.

While that story is clearly fictional the idea behind it is the vast amount of information that we have learned about Archaeopteryx lithographica since the first one was discovered in 1861. While most of this knowledge has been out there for years the first time that I truly saw it all compiled in one place was in a book I just finished called Archaeopteryx: The Icon of Evolution by Dr. Peter Wellnhofer (someone really needs to update and expand on his Wikipedia page). In this book we are taken to Solnhofen where we learn about the limestone that Archaeopteryx was deposited in and how this helps understand the environment that this animal lived in. We then learn about the animal itself and Dr. Wellnhofer tries to fit it into a phylogenetic location which includes a discussion on the different views of how birds evolved as well as the evolution of flight. While there have only been a total of ten (well eleven but the most recent one hasn't been published on yet and was just found late in 2011) body specimens and one isolated feather found we know so much about this animal. Part of the reason is how complete the specimens are with most being nearly complete but what I think the main reason for the amount we know about the animal is the just sheer amount of research that has been done on the specimens since it was the first animal found that truly showed the evolution of organisms in action, in this case the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.

This book is exceptionally well written and that is due to the sheer amount of knowledge that Dr. Wellnhofer has on paleontology and in particular the Solnhofen region. If you want to learn about Archaeopteryx or if you want to learn about Solnhofen geology or if you just want a book with really really nice pictures of really amazing fossils this is the book for you. Detailed images of all 10 of the specimens are included including pictures taken using infrared which really helps show off a lot of the soft tissue preserved in the specimen. There is a detailed description of the genus in general as well as where it fits evolutionarily which includes a very through description of the origin of birds including the many hypothesis of what the evolved from, and he, logically, leans toward them evolving from theropod dinosaurs. There is also a brief overview of the different ideas of how flight and feathers evolved and a basic overview of known, as of 2009, Mesozoic bird species.

If there is one fault in the book it is that it is too detailed. At times I felt like I was dredging through scientific papers, this is part of the reason it took me so long to finish, so if you aren't an expert in the field or haven't spent a lot of time reading scientific papers on dinosaur and bird evolution you might struggle a bit through parts. Most of the book is easily readable and the parts that are technical can be skipped or skimmed over without missing the overall point or theme of the section so don't let the technical nature scare you off. The price might scare you off but it is worth it for all the knowledge contained within.

The only other problem is that the book is dated which should say something about how fast the science has come since 2009. This is really that much of a problem after all how was Dr. Wellnhofer supposed to know that since I started reading the book early last year that phylogenetic studies would say that Archaeopteryx is not a bird (Naish et al., 2011; Xu et al. 2011), although at least one study disagrees (Lee & Worthy, 2011), that the color of the feathers would be determined (Carney et al., 2012), and that an even earlier feathered dinosaur would be discovered (Liu et al., 2012) (I got the e-mail about that last one as I was working on this review). So I will forgive the book seemingly being slightly dated since there are so many new specimens found in the paleontology world every year, there have been several new Mesozoic birds found in the past year (e.g. Xu et al., 2011).

This book is very interesting and worth picking up. It is a handy reference for the currently known specimens as well as about the evolution of birds in general. Oh and did I mention it has very awesome pictures, yeah they are very pretty. I will leave you, again, with a picture of the one specimen of Archaeopteryx that I have seen, the Thermopolis specimen, it was a great experience.

Book citation
Wellnhofer, P. 2009. Archaeopteryx: The Icon of Evolution. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munchen, 208p.

References
Lee, M. S. Y., & T. H. Worthy. 2011. Likelihood reinstates Archaeopteryx as a primitive bird. Biology Letters doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0884.

Liu, Y.-Q., Kuang, H.-W., Jiang, X.-J., Peng, N., Xu, H., & Sun, H.-Y. 2012. Timing of the earliest known feathered dinosaurs and transitional pterosaurs older than the Jehol Biota. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2012.01.017.

Naish, D., Dyke, G., Cau, A., Escuillié, F. & Godefroit, P. 2011. A gigantic bird from the Upper Cretaceous of Central Asia. Biology Letters doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0683 (I should note that there is some doubt if this is actually a bird anymore but that shouldn't change the phylogentic tree published within)

Xu, X., You, H., Du, K. & Han, F. 2011. An Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China and the origin of Avialae. Nature 475, 465-470.

Book review page

Conservation in Costa Rica

This post is going to pick up where the previous Costa Rica post left off because it is important to understand. When most people think of rain forests like the ones that exist in Costa Rica they think of plentiful large plant life and lots of exotic animals. This often leads to the association of plants in more temperate areas that have extensive amounts of soil under them. Well what you should notice based on the picture to the left [photo of a root ball on a tree in Costa Rica by author, I could not find a more temperate forest root ball to compare it to so if you know of one feel free to post the link below] is that this is not true. The actual soil in most rain forests is typically very thin but why is this and what does this have to do with conservation?

Well the reason for this is due directly to the large amount of plants and animals along with the large amount of rain that occur in rain forests. When a dead organisms falls to the ground in a more temperate forest decay begins immediately but is slowed by a lower amount of rain and as one goes further north colder winter temperatures. In the rain forest you have warm humid climatic conditions year round, these are ideal conditions for decomposers so decomposition takes place very quickly. This means in order for plants and animals to get nutrients from decomposing organisms they must be able to do so quickly so this leads to a huge competition for these nutrients and with so many organisms competing for these nutrients the soil very quickly depletes the soil.

Rain also effects the soil in any given environment. If a farmer clears land then it proceeds to rain the rain will wash away some of the soil. The same thing occurs in nature in forests as well. In a temperate forest the rain may wash away some of the soil but typically plants grow up in the thicker soil before the rain has a chance to wash it away and the plants help lock down the soil. In rain forests we have a perfect storm we have already thin soil and we have plentiful pretty much daily rain so before plants have a chance to start growing a lot of the soil is lost [photo at right of a dead crab, you can ignore this for this post on very depleted soil by author]. This leads to areas where the soil remains exposed we end up with typically iron and felsic rich soils. These soils do not have the nutrients that are needed to support plant life and do to the large amount of rain it is hard to get plants to regrow in these areas. So what does this mean?

This basically means that if we cut and burn and start trying to farm is these types of environments we lose most of the soil very quickly so we need more land. The land that had been farm land does not grow any plants anymore and continues to become more and more enriched in iron etc and gets more and more depleted in nutrients. This land eventually becomes almost rock like and will not grow plants so the farmers need more land so they slash and burn more land in the forest to be able to grow more crops, this is a big problem in places like Brazil.

Humans need food, however, so we need to do something. Well there are a couple ways to address this the first is that these countries could import food from countries that do not have similar problems. This is expensive, however, and leaves that country open to manipulation by foreign countries in exchange for food and as such is not preferable. The other main option is a crop rotation pattern. You could allow native plants to grow for a little while develop a more native soil pattern then cut it back and farm it for a couple of years then allow the forest to come back. This idea in and of itself isn't perfect and in the long run could prevent a country from growing enough food to support itself.

So which is best? I can't say and in fact their could be other options that I did not list here, feel free to put some in the comments section. It is important to note that in many parts of Costa Rica the locals have, however, taken advantage of the more natural way of growing food in many areas and if you stay try to stay at a ecolodge. These ecolodges typically produce their power and get food from sustainable sources which is good for Costa Rica and the world in general. The next post will also partially deal with conservation but in a slightly different way, as always I more than welcome your questions or comments below.

Geology of My Trip to Costa Rica

This article is a continuation of the series that I started a few days ago discussion several select topics in relation to my recent honeymoon to Costa Rica more specifically the Osa Peninsula. Now I am going to lead this article off by admitting that for the most part this topic seems to be under researched overall. There are a lot more personal observations in here than there are sources to peer reviewed published citations, which I am pretty upset about personally, so I do recommend you do your own research to find out more. I should point out that there are 3 sources (here, here, and here) that if I would have had access to them may have added some to the discussion here, so if you have read them feel free to post anything you know in the comments.

Overall Costa Rican Geology

The map at the top of the article was first published by the USGS in 1987. It has since been updated and digitized in 1996 by Paul G. Schruben, see larger version of the map here. So why am I using a map from 1987, the map is only a year younger than I am that should say something? Well the reason is that this is the only geologic map of the country that I could find so I am sure that it is slightly out of date. On another note here is the website for the Costa Rican Geological Survey.

Two things I notice right away just by looking at the map is that there is a lot of igneous rocks in the country and that there are not rocks visible on the surface that are older than the Jurassic. Both of these things exist for the same reason. When the continents first started rifting apart from the super continent of Pangaea North and South America were not connected, at least not in the same way they are today. This rifting because in the late Triassic/early Jurassic and the rates and directions of spreading varied in different parts of the Atlantic. This is why the oldest rocks are Jurassic in age. For millions of years the two Americas remained separated but eventually the Pacific Plate began to subduct under the North American Plate and the Caribbean Plate. This subduction caused more and more of Central America to be pushed up so for a bunch of volcanic islands to what we have in Costa Rica and Panama now, this initiated what is known as the Great American Interchange. According to discussions that I had while in country the Pacific Plate underwent a very shallow subduction this is what caused many of the volcanoes in the center of the country become dormant or extinct. These seems plausible but I don't know enough about the study in the area to be able to say for sure, I am going to admit here that Igneous and Metamorphic rocks were never my strong suit so I welcome anyone else to say if they know better.

Geology of the Osa Peninsula

The Osa Peninsula and the Gulfo Dulce represent a very unique geologic set up compared to the rest of the country. A lot of travel brochures refer to Gulfo Dulce as a "tropical fjord" due to the great depth of the gulf and the steep drop-off to that depth as well as the surrounding land being mountainous. Fjord by definition cannot form in tropical environments because they need to be formed by glaciers, which this gulf was not, and they need to have more of a u-shape as well as having the mountain slopes forming right up to the edge of the water. But what explains the great depth?

This is actually a pretty simple answer the Osa Peninsula is composed primarily of basalt. Basalt is a rock that is typically associated with ocean floor rocks and differs from continental igneous rocks which tent to have more silica in them and as such are actually less dense than basaltic rocks. So the depth of the Gulfo Dulce is due to the fact that as the Pacific plate subducted under the Caribbean Plate the Osa Peninsula was pushed up on the Pacific plate side. So the gulf actually represents the spot where the Pacific plate is subducting and is just a continuation of the trench that runs along the Pacific coast of most of South and Central America. But why did the Osa Peninsula not subduct with the rest of the Pacific Plate?

A completely honest answer is that we (or maybe just I) don't know. This is one of the great things about science is that we can admit that but I can put through a couple of hypotheses that can eventually be tested. The first one is that the Osa Peninsula represents a spot where the Pacific plate has bent to such a high degree that it caused the Peninsula to be pushed up above water and eventually it will be subducted eventually. Now by itself I don't think this explains the Peninsula or we would expect to see a great many more islands like this following the boundary of the Pacific Plate. Another possibility is that for some reason the basalt that forms the rocks on the Osa Peninsula is less dense than the normal basalt. As I explained above silica rich rocks tend to be less dense than the basaltic rocks and running through the basalts visible on the beach were many many quartz seams. Quartz is made up of Silica and Oxygen and is a typical constituent of continental rocks, it is also the main constituent of most beach sands. This would have made the rocks less dense and more likely to but uplifted and less likely to be subducted which would cause the Osa Peninsula to stick up and eventually be accreted to the mainland of Central America. Now I will admit I like this last one better but it is honestly just a very basic hypothesis.

One more thing I hadn't noticed that there are supposed to be a lot of sedimentary rocks on the Osa Peninsula. Now while these break down before they can be seen on the surface and are likely just covering the basaltic rocks they aren't talked about much. Something you may notice in the picture that I posted at the start of this section is that yellow staining on the basaltic rocks, this picture was taken by the author and shows some of the rock visible on the Pacific side of the Osa Peninsula. Soil is thin in the area and most of these smaller streams don't carry much in the way of physical sediments what this yellow staining looked a lot like to me is travertine. This could be resulting from the few limestone rocks on the peninsula dissolving and the calcite reprecipitating on the rocks at the beach, if you want to know more about travertine look at my two posts on two of the caves in the National Park system, here and here. This post went far longer than I would have liked and there is another aspect I would like to cover that I can tie into another post so that is what I will try to do, also I should point out that I only just barely touched on some complicated topics so if you have any questions about any of that let me know. If you want to read a little bit more about this area geologically read this article from 2009 in Earth Magazine.

Right Under You

Another great comic by xkcd. Make sure you visit the comic itself and check out the scroll over.

My Rock!!!

As a geologist I can relate to video, I have plenty of rocks myself. Let us just hope that the ASPCA doesn't consider rocks to be pets or they will be after me big time.

Book Review #6

Have I really not done a book review since June 8th, wow! I guess that is what happens when you stop reading books and spend most of your time reading scientific papers. Oh well on to the review.

In 1859 when Charles Darwin first published The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection he knew that the keys to his theory would lie in the fossil record. In 1861 a fossil would be found that would lend huge credence to his evolutionary theory. This fossil would eventually be named Archaeopteryx lithographica, the name was originally just given to a feather but I will let this post flush out that problem, and would be come one of the most famous fossils in history. The fossil was found in rocks in the Bavarian region of southern Germany in a formation named after a small town known as Solnhofen. Since then the Solnhofen Formation (or Plattenkalk) is one of the most well known formations in the world famous for Archaeopteryx as well as several genera of pterosaur.

The formation has probably been known about for as long as humans have been in the region for its ability to split into thin sheets that are perfect for roofing [Image below and right is of a specimen of a Coelacanth Coccoderma nudum from the Solnhofen limeston by author at the Houston Musuem of Natural Science by author]. The Roman buildings in the region often incorporate pieces of the formation. Being a limestone, which dissolves easily in acid, it was eventually discovered that it could be used to make lithographic plates for art. During this time fossils had to have been discovered and eventually during the 1700s when science started to take off they were finally noticed. Fossils from the formation have now been scattered around the globe as they preserve beautifully the soft tissue of many of the organisms that lived in the region. The problem is that even though the area has been well known for a long time there has been very little published in English for an English speaking audience. That changed with the publication in 1990 of Solnhofen: A Study in Mesozoic Palaeontology by K.W. Barthel, N.H.M. Swinburne, and S. Conway Morris (Amazon page). This book will be the focus of this review, lets read the back cover.

The celebrated Solnhofen Limestone is among the most important fossil deposits because of its astonishing diversity of organisms, many exquisitely preserved. Marine and terrestrial creatures and plants, buried 150 million years ago in soft lagoonal muds, provide a unique glimpse into the true diversity of Jurassic life. Articulated skeletons are preserved, as well as some soft-bodied animals that otherwise would be too delicate to survive fossilisation. Among the highlights are superbly preserved jellyfish, crustaceans, squid, fish and flying reptiles. Perhaps most important of all is Archaeopteryx - the celebrated 'missing link' which has the skeleton of a dinosaur but is covered in feathers, revealing a crucial evolutionary transition between the reptiles and the birds. Solnhofen opens a window into a vanished world, and reveals the unexpected richness of a land and sea teeming with life.

This book is a revised and updated translation of Werner Barthel's classic work Solnhofen: Ein Blick in die Erdgeschichte. In revising the text, Nicola Swinburne and Simon Conway Morris have added a considerable amount of new material whilst preserving the spirit of the original book. This is an authoritative account of the geological history, palaeoecology, palaeoenvironment and fossil taxonomy of this classic location. Not only will it be of great interest to palaeontologists and evolutionary biologists, but it will also be of value to amateur collectors, natural historians and also those with an interest in the history of life.

Overall I would say this book is an interesting read. I first started this book over a year ago when I was trying to figure out the basic geologic background to the area and I was struggling to find much published on the area in English. The geologic background in this book gave me a good starting point so I could find other English sources and eventually understand where the current state of understanding of the formation is. It does a really good job of this but if you don't have much of a geologic background you may want/need to study up before you get there. All of the sources are cited but it gets a little technical at times. I recently figured I should finish reading it, aka today I have been referring back to the geologic setting portions a lot recently, and finished off the summary of the fossil organisms present. This was interesting because without mentioning phylogenetics the majority of the organisms are organized phylogenetically, except for the last three on dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and birds.

My only real complaint about this book, and one everyone trying to understand the geology of the region needs to understand, is that it is dated. This isn't bad considering it was published in 1990 and much of the geologic setting is the same but there are some minor changes that have occurred in the 20 years, wow really, since this was published. This includes the discovery of an additional four specimens of Archaeopteryx. If you want the most up to date geologic data in an easy to read book pick up Dr. Peter Wellnhofer's Archaeopteryx: The Icon of Evolution (Amazon page), I haven't read the whole thing yet (read: should be the next book review) but the geologic setting is up to date and easy to read.

Overall this book is easy to read and gives good background information on the formation and surrounding areas. It is a little dated so if this is your first foray into the geology of the area make sure you find some of the newer papers and catch up but this is a good starting point. If you do not have much of a geologic background it shouldn't be too hard to catch up but you will most likely need to do so before you get too far into the book or you will get left in the dust. I will end this post with an image I took of a the Thermopolis specimen of Archaeopteryx when it was on display at the Houston Museum of Natural Science (see post on this trip here).

Book Citation

BARTHEL, K. W., N. H. M. SWINBURNE, AND S. C. MORRIS. 1990. Solnhofen: A study in Mesozoic palaeontology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ix, 236 p.

Book review page

Great Summary of Cave Fossil Preservation

Expect me to reference this post by David Bressan over at History of Geology regarding cave taphonomy anytime I am talking about fossils found in caves. It is so well done here read a paragraph or two.

A peculiar bone bed formation found in caves is under sinkholes. Fissures, hidden under vegetation, snow cover or a thin soil layer can act like a pitfall trap - animals fell trough them and die on the impact or later by starvation. Under these natural traps a talus of rubble accumulates that contains a chaotic assemblage of bones from animals died at different times.

In parts of the cave accessible by animals, and used as shelter or resting place, animals that die of natural causes, get lost or become entrapped can became accumulated. Many carnivorous animals, mammals and birds, carry their prey or parts of it in their shelter, were the bones later are found (a prominent recent example is the den of the man-eaters of Tsavo).

This is a great read as is most of the stuff over at History of Geology so if you are a huge dork (me a dork, what?) I recommend you subscribe to the feed and keep on reading the other excellent posts that will come in the future. Also expect another post from me soon where I will reference this particular article.

New Creationist "Museum"

There are several creationist "museums" spread throughout the country, the most famous of which is the one in Kentucky. What might surprise people is the number in Texas. I know when I think of Texas I think of a state that is very much a part of the "Christian Right". This isn't completely accurate yes it is in the top 10 for the importance of religion it is actually tied for 10th with Kentucky, as of 2008 (source). There are 2 creationist museums within the state of Texas that are open right now. The most famous of the two is the Creationist Evidence Museum in Glen Rose (Official Site). The other one is the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum in Crosbyton (Official Site), which I have mentioned before. Neither of these, however, are within a major metropolitan area, the Creationist Evidence Museum in Glen Rose is the closest but it is still a fair trip from the Dallas-Fort Worth Area to Glen Rose. Well it appears that a new one is about to open up within Dallas itself.



I have actually known about this for about 6 months or so and would like to point out that they have had the same status on their webpage for that whole time so I don't know how much progress they are making. I obviously would prefer if they don't build this because it perverts science and outright lies to people but it is perfectly within their rights to build it. If it is anything like the one they have in Arkansas (Official Site) they will be using the same creationist arguments that have been tried and refuted for the past 20+ years.

Devils Tower

Devils Tower National Monument(NPS site and the Wikipedia article) is a massive tower of igneous rocks in eastern Wyoming (apparently I have really wanted to talk about Wyoming recently), very close to the border with South Dakota. I have personally been there, photo left is from my trip there during the summer of 2007, and I must saying standing look up toward to top of the tower really makes you feel insignificant. This area is sacred to the Native American tribes (see here) in the area and is a climber's dream, they only allow a limited number of climbers a year (see here) and seeing the climbers up against the sheer rock surfaces really makes you realize just how huge it truly is, you probably get the idea that it is huge by now. The formation of the rocks themselves are very well understood so you can imagine my surprise when I saw this on the left hand side of Conservapedia:

"Atheists have no plausible explanation for Devils Tower, which sits in a plain like a watch found on a beach."

Couple of things about that. First Atheists are not the ones studying the geology of Devils Tower, that would be geologists. I personally know plenty of geologists that believe in God. But beyond the semantics and wording of the statement geologists do have explanations for the formation of Devils Tower, if you have ever been to the visitors center at the site you would know (or just been to the NPS site). In fact the idea that it was formed by Igneous rocks pushing up through the older sedimentary rocks has been around since the late 1800's. Effinger (1934) summarizes this discussion well:

Carpenter (1888) interpreted Devils Tower to represent a volcanic plug, being the duct through which the subterranean magmas passed to higher level in the earth's crust. Russell (1896) proposed the name plutonic plug for the intrusive bodies of the Black Hills, stating that they differ from the laccoliths described by G. K. Gilbert (1877) in the fact that the molten rock did not spread out horizontally among the stratified beds so as to form "stone cisterns", although some of the hills not thoroughly examined by him might reveal this structure with further study. "As they are composed of igneous matter forced into sedimentary strata and have a plug-like form, it will be convenient to call them plutonic plugs." Devils Tower is believed by him to represent an extreme type of plug, the part now remaining being an erosional remnant, where the arch of stratified rock which once surmounted the summit of the mass has been completely removed and the surrounding strata eroded away.

This pretty much means that it is an igneous rock and may have the same source as many of the other igneous mountains in the area. Effinger (1934) summarize the origin of Devils Tower as such:

From a consideration of the evidence presented it would seem most reasonable to believe that Devils Tower represents a remnant of a laccolith, probably rather small in comparison with others of the Black Hills, and separate from the Laccolith of the Little Missouri Buttes. It would seem probable that the duct through which the igneous material was injected lies beneath the tower or the talus. The stages in the formation of Devils Tower according to this hypothesis might be represented diagramatically as is shown in the succeeding charts.

Several more years of study lead to Robinson (1956) saying:

Much more detailed geologic work will have to be done in the surrounding area before the mode of origin of Devils Tower may be proved conclusively. The evidence gathered during the present investigation, however, suggests that Devils Tower is a body of intrusive igneous rock, which was never much larger in diameter than the present base of the Tower, and which at depth (1,000 feet or more) is connected to a sill or laccolith type body. The bases for this theory are—

1. The exposed portion of the Tower is the result of recent erosion. At the time of its intrusion it was surrounded and probably covered by several hundred feet of sedimentary rock.

2. The mineral composition and texture are more typical of shallow intrusive rocks, which are formed at depth, than extrusive rocks, which are formed on the surface.

3. No evidence of extrusive igneous activity has been found in the surrounding area.

4. Missouri Buttes, about 4 miles to the northwest, and the Tower have the same composition so it is assumed that they were derived from a common magma; possibly the magma of a large intrusive body, such as a laccolith or sill.

5. In a well drilled about 1-1/2 miles southwest of Missouri Buttes, near the center of a structural dome, rock similar to the Tower and Missouri Buttes was encountered at about 1,400 feet below the base of Missouri Buttes. Inasumuch as the thickness of the sedimentary rocks in this area is normally much greater than this depth, the rock in the drill hole probably represents an intrusive body, rather than the Precambrian igneous rocks upon which the younger sedimentary rocks were deposited.

6. The relatively small amount of talus, slope wash, or terrace gravel derived from the Tower and Missouri Buttes suggests that they have not been extensively eroded, and therefore the original igneous bodies were not much larger than at present.

7. Columnar jointing is common in intrusive bodies formed at comparatively shallow depths.

But wait these paper says that there are still questions as to the origin of Devils Tower. Yes in a way, we know it is igneous and we know how it got to where it is so when I think origin this is what I mean but the main question right now is did this igneous rock reach the surface and form a volcano (Effinger, 1934; Robinson, 1956). In other words we know what Devils Tower is and how it got there, but we don't know if it reached the surface, far from a question of origins.

So I figured I would check to see what the Conservapedia article of Devils Tower said to see if maybe there was further explanation. The relevant part of the article reads (click here to read the version of the article from the date I read the article, 8/28/2010):

There are two implausible atheistic theories about the origin of Devils Tower:

one theory is that it was formed by molten igneous rock forcing its way into the area's sedimentary rock, cooling before reaching the surface, and the sedimentary rock being eroded away.[2]

the other theory is that Devils Tower is the remains of a volcano, though no other evidence of volcanic activity has been found in the area.

Both theories are baseless and absurd because there is no extrusive igneous activity in the area, and there is no evidence of volcanic activity in the area either.[3]

Intelligent design explains the rock well: it is a work of art worth seeing.

Hey look those are in fact the two competing ideas for what happened during the formation of Devils Tower. My question is how does not finding extrusive igneous rock near by invalidate both hypothesis? No extrusive igneous activity would tend to lead to the first theory you stated that the magma did not reach the surface. The only thing is that area that was the surface at the time has since eroded away which could lead to the possibility of the magma as having reached the surface but it is something we will most likely never know for sure, although maybe there is a more recent paper that I didn't find that has settled the debate. I also don't see how a rock monolith shows intelligent design but I will agree with them on one thing, this National Monument is definitely worth going to see at some time. I'll leave you with one more of my pictures this time of the talus pile at the base of the tower.


Sources:
Effinger, W.L., 1934, A report on the geology of Devils Tower National Monument: National Park Service, Field Division of Education: Berkeley, California

Robinson, C.S., 1956, Geology of Devils Tower National Monument, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1021-1

Both papers can be read online if you want to read the whole thing Effinger (1934), click on contents on the left hand side, and Robinson (1956), click on table of contents on the bottom of the screen and from there you can navigate to any part of the paper. I found them thanks to this site which has a list of papers published about many of the National Park Service entities.

National Park Service Series

What is the use of Geology in Louisiana

So Louisiana is at it again, and by it I mean doing something that they will probably regret in the long hall. So while I have covered many other things that I consider stupid in political actions in Louisiana (see here and here) this threatens the very safety of the state itself. The current budget for the upcoming fiscal year at LSU does not cover the cost of the Louisiana Geological Survey (Source).

Let me give you a little background. Unlike most states where the state geological survey is under the control of the state government directly in Louisiana the geological survey exists within the auspices of Louisiana State University, see link article for why. Well over the last few years LSU, along with most other major public universities, have been facing budget shortfalls. This is bad because it means that the universities must make some sacrifices this typically entails no new hires until the economy is turned around. LSU was facing a bigger budget crisis than most other major universities to the point that programs as large as some library functions were in the talks to get cut. Unfortunately for LGS they are one of the programs that is currently on the chopping block.

Now I am probably a little biased because I am a geologist by training but I find not just the LGS but also the USGS and most geological surveys to be important to the infrastructure of the state/country. In Louisiana this is especially important. Why? The main reason is that Louisiana's very existence is dependent on what the LGS finds.

LGS Director Chacko John said he was not previously approached about the decision, and he was surprised when he heard LGS was facing the axe in the next round of budget cuts.
John stressed the importance of the department’s work to the oil and gas industry. The LGS discovers new oil and gas deposits using geological mapping, which greatly benefit the industry.

John said no institution in the state ranks near LGS in many areas, like modeling of aquifers, locating of natural resources and mapping the state.

It is also important in these state completely dependent on the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico that it understands how levees on the sides of the river work because the elevation of New Orleans is between -6.5 and 20 feet (-2 and 6 meters) (Source). This makes the area prone to massive storm damage during hurricanes (see Hurricane Katrina). Also the geologic map of Louisiana is currently out of date and the LGS is in the process of updating it this will help with future understanding of both where the Mississippi River has been and where it might go in the future and how we can save lives.

So I plead with you Louisiana save the Louisiana Geological Survey, and to anyone who might be reading this make sure you spread the word.

30 Years Ago Today

If you are following me you probably have already read multiple stories about this and already know what I am going to say. 30 years ago today was the eruption of Mount St. Helens. While I was not alive at the time of the eruption I am a geologist by training so this eruption is studies in depth because of all the data we got from it. We have learned not just about the eruption itself but, as National Geographic points out, we also learned how wildlife responds. Life returned to the area much faster than was expected and although some of the ecosystems were changed, see Spirit Lake.

My one personal antedote to add is that at the time of the eruption my parents were living in Laramie, Wyoming and they remember the ash coming down. While the ash was not as intense there as it was closer to the volcano they still had darker days and travel was severely restricted.

I'll leave you with an image from the eruption:

Facts vs Politics

So some times I have to look for something to go off about and sometimes you just pick it up on the way to your office. Today it was the later when I came across this article in today's Daily Toreador, the school paper for Texas Tech.

So most of the article is not what I want to deal with it is kind of blah and not really something I care to make an statement on and there were somethings I actually agreed with while reading this. That was until I came to these next few statements:

The fact these individuals believe [...] or that we did not evolve from lower forms of life [...] does not make them evil people.

and then further on

However, if we turn off our minds to their reasoning([...] they do not bow to the supposed all-powerful altar of scientific theory, etc.) we only damage ourselves.

This pretty much pissed me off but what did I expect I am in West Texas. A scientific theory is not a matter of personal belief it is based on evidence, far too much to list right now. You are truing off your reasoning by accepting what has been told to you by church leaders for hundreds of years. Examine the evidence, all of it, with open eyes not with the idea that it is already wrong. The fact that they mix in evolution with Political ideals such as socialism etc is exactly what makes me mad it is not a political issue it is not an idea to be put up for debate by the common person the ideas are being refined and debated amongst scientist and trust me if someone disproves evolution it will very quickly be published in the popular media.

So some of you might be wondering why I don't write a reply in the student paper. I am not because 1) my writing is pretty obviously crappy because I know what I think just not how to write it down and 2) That is not the main topic that they are talking about in their piece, although with the way these topics are included he kind of goes against the main point in his article. Anyway feel free to leave any comments if you think I am over reacting or under reacting here as well as state your opinion on the page for the article itself.

Interesting way to handle this

So I was just cruising the internets tonight and came across the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Aquarium and having been to this aquarium before, given it was years ago, I figured I would cruise over to their website (found here). When I got to their website I see that they are going to open a new exhibit in about 56 days. So I decided I would check what all exhibits they currently have there, you have your standard sharks, seals, and turtles (among others) then I went to the new exhibit, found here, where I read this:

The Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center will unveil its spectacular $25 million renovation in 2009. Restless Planet is four immersive habitats, dozens of new exhibits and 110,000 gallons of new aquariums. The Aquarium’s original main exhibit gallery has been dramatically overhauled to represent Restless Planet, where we can see how diverse environments from Virginia’s past compare to similar environments still in existence today

Awesome I thought but they aren't really going to reference geologic time periods are they?

The Malaysian Peat Swamp, resembling Virginia during the Carboniferous period

Yes they are this is awesome and should be an interesting way to help kids see how the Earth and in particular Virginia have changed environments throughout the millions of years of earth's history.

They will have the Malaysian Peat Swamp (representing the Carboniferous), the Coastal Sahara Desert Habitat (representing the Silurian), the Red Sea Habitat (representing the rifts valleys of VA during the "Jurassic" I might lean toward Triassic since they are called the Triassic rift basins [sorry]), and the Indonesia’s Flores Island Habitat (representing the volcanic Precambrian [this might be a stretch but OK]).

Overall I hope that these end up being a good exhibit when it opens if there is anyone reading this who can get there when it opens let me know what it is like, hopefully I can get out there in the next few years but I doubt it.

Earth Science Video

So this video was made by The American Geological Society (AGI), website here. Anyway someone posted it on YouTube so I figured I would pass it along.

Must see channel on Youtube

Ok so I know that I haven't posted much this month, heck we are approaching the low of June, but this whole run up to getting started again in school has been slowing me down. Anyway I took today off to relax one last day before I actually start school and watched all of the videos on this (http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610) channel. I don't know if it makes me a loser or just a science nerd, heck those two are probably tied together, but I wanted to spread the channel to anyone who reads my blog and might not have seen this channel. I recomend it to people on both sides of the argument because he does a good job of stating where his evidence is coming from. Now while I know most people can't just sit down and watch all of the videos right in a row I recommend to watch them when you get a chance, I learned quite a bit I didn't know and I know that he will be getting a lot more references from me from people who try to deny global warming.

One last thing I have been working on another big refuting post that if I can get my act together will be put out by the end of the month but there is a very good possibility it might not be out till sometime in September it depends on how much time I get to work on it over the next few days.

Creation Museum

Ok so there hasn't been much anti-science out there recently. If I had to guess I would say it is because of the health care reform stuff going on in the US right now and since I try to stay away from political issues on here I am not going to discuss it, yes I have an opinion but I don't think anyone really wants to hear my side right now. I also, for all the VT fans who read this, know the Evans tore his ACL and is out for the season but I think this got enough coverage over the past 24 hours that there isn't really anything else for me to say on it.

What I wanted to post was this:
http://www.ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/
For anyone who has ever wanted to visit the creation museum without having to pay for it this is your chance. I personally have thought about it but it is far too far away from me and I really don't want to pay the $20 to get in and support what they are doing. But from the looks of it they don't raise any points that haven't been refuted before. It was still interesting to see the pictures and read some of what the signs said. To any creationist who might read this think about where the money to build this came from originally. I wonder if Ken Ham will be able to pass this off the way Kent Hovind did as a tax exempt thing or if he is playing the safe card and paying taxes on what he makes. Since I don't wish anyone ill I'll hope for the latter.

UPDATE: I don't know if this means anything but last year when I was heading south on I-71 through Cincinati there was one sign for the "museum" but when I drove through today I saw at least three signs and they had gone from a very simple sign to very fancy catch your eye type signs. I don't know what to make of that but I just figured I would point that out.

40 years ago today

While I am sure that most people reading this already know this I figured since I was a science blog I had to say something about it. Well here it is today is the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the moon. In my opinion this is probably the greatest scientific achievement ever accomplished by the human race at least as of right now, that is until we put a man another another planet. So to honor those brave men and now women who serve/ed/or will serve in the space program I figured I would post this:



Raise your drink twice tonight one for the past and one for the future.

On a couple of unrelated notes I wanted to post these two videos, the first one because it is very educational and should help anybody who has ever had any long conversation with a creationist debunk much of what they have to say:



This last one because I am a big fan of thinking and it is interesting to see what these famous thinking men, and Homer Simpson, had to say about God:



Final thing I came across this last night but it made me more ready for the football season than before. They are backgrounds for your computer that have the VT football schedule on them so take a look:
http://www.cruhland.com/desktops/downloads.html

As always if you come across anything let me know and remember,