[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
"Dewey M. McLean" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Response to Phil Bigelow's post of Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:39:34.
> For you to state that [Peter] Vail does not understand how to do
> is a disgusting insult to a forefront creative, accomplished,
> revered, and honored, scientist who has done much for the science of
I never wrote that Vail "doesn't know how to do stratigraphy".
I said that, prior to the discovery of a world-wide K-T chron layer (by
Alvarez et al.), no one had any experience studying such things.
Prior to Alvarez et al.'s discovery, how many world-wide, thin,
isochronous, combined marine-terrestrial layers had Peter Vail worked on?
(and, no, this question isn't rhetorical. I'm expecting an answer this
> Phil, a simplistic recitation on your part that you _believe_ that
> the K-T has only one "real" spike that has been reworked is not good
> You must back up your contention with hard data from the K-T
> transition geobiological record. Until you do that, your _belief_
> cannot be seriously considered as a meaningful contribution to K-T
It works both ways, Dewey. The "multiple-event" supporters must show
that a given stratigraphic section that contains multiple iridium spikes
wasn't re-deposited through slumping, overturning, wet-shearing,
knapping, or redeposition via currents. They must also show that a
smeared-out iridium "zone" wasn't created by bioturbation or by turbidity
Also keep in mind that redeposition isn't my idea. Some of your peers
(some of which are *very* good stratigraphers) have made that claim. I
just happen to agree with them.
And please don't mis-represent my posts again.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!