Re: coal again!
Bill Payne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:23:46 -0600
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:24:48 -0600 email@example.com (Keith B Miller)
>>I appreciate your input. Briefly, I have now seen rootlets, axial
>>systems, tree trunks and tree stumps, all associated with coal seams,
>>lack of preservation is _not_ the reason the root systems are not
>>preserved. Gastaldo's paper clearly states that stigmarian axial
>>systems did in fact penetrate the substrate, and he includes a
>>his 1984 paper of several examples.
>You argued that you have _not_ seen "intensely and deeply rooted
>with little or no interbedded structure." Furthermore you state that
>observations would invalidate your model.
>I replied that such would not be expected because rooting is not
>preserved, and the evidence for paleosols rest with the macro- and
>microstructural features. Saturated soils are characteristically
>deeply or intensely rooted soils. (I never stated that no roots are
>present!) In addition, I state that water saturated soils are poorly
>developed and often retain some of their depositional fabric.
>what you demand for falsification of your interpretation is invalid,
>it is not the expectation of the in situ model of coal formation. By
>disallowing all evidence other than what you choose, you effectively
>insulate your position from falsification. Paleosols below coal are
>reality, by the standards used to describe and recognize any other
>paleosols. You have already admitted that you are not knowledgable
>paleosols, and that you do not have time to read the literature.
>do, I do not see how you can dismiss the in situ origin of
>Keith B. Miller
>Department of Geology
>Kansas State University
>Manhattan, KS 66506
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]