RE: Moorad's assumed timeline

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Fri May 21 2004 - 09:53:48 EDT

Basically, this is a nomenclatural change. Not much more. The Ediacaran
Stage of the Algonkian Period of the Proterozoic(Neoproterozoic of the
article) Eon of the Precambrian Era has now been changed to the
Ediacaran Period of the Proterozoic Eon of the Precabmrain age (using
the nomenclature of Haq and Eysinga's 5th edition of the Geologic Time
Scale, Elsevier, 1998.

  It has been known for a long time that the Ediacaran stage was
special. At the base were a couple of glacial ages and then the first
signs of macroscopic life forms which grow in number from 600-545
million years ago. What they have done is recognize the importance of
that period of geologic history.

The argument of the Vendian vs the Ediacaran name involves more than
just priority. The Vendian was first, but in the Haq and Eysinga chart
on my wall, the Vendian is bigger than just the Ediacaran. The Ediacaran
is the uppermost part of the Vendian, and that may have played a role in
rejecting the Vendian.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 10:15 PM
> To: Glenn Morton; Michael Roberts;
> Subject: RE: Moorad's assumed timeline
> No one says that geologists do not use experimental science
> to set up their timeline. In fact, that is what I said that
> historical sciences are sciences owing to the use of
> experimental science. There are all sorts of data that one
> takes from different sites and sources and thus must
> coordinate the timeline according to all existing data.
> Perhaps you can help us understand the recent work where the
> geological time gets a new period----Ediacaran organisms
> appear after a series of ice ages that covered the Earth.
> Geologists have added a new period to their official calendar
> of Earth's history - the first in 120 years.
> <>
> Moorad
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn Morton []
> Sent: Thu 5/20/2004 10:44 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad; 'Michael Roberts';
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: Moorad's assumed timeline
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > [] On Behalf Of
> Alexanian, Moorad
> > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:58 PM
> > To: Michael Roberts;
> > Subject: RE: Moorad's assumed timeline
> >
> >
> > An attorney sets up a scenario in time and fits the known
> > data into that scenario. Doesn't the geologist fit data in a
> > scenario in time? How else can you talk about past events in
> > a time orderly fashion and not fit them in a time sequence?
> Sorry Moorad, what you are saying is pure misunderstanding and
> poppycock. Geologists have radiometric dating to pin
> certain points in
> the timeline via the laws of physics. And as Michael
> noted, there is
> relative dating, there is the observed rates of
> sedimentation for
> various rock types today, which if applied to the
> thickenesses of
> sediments we see in the geologic record fits remarkably
> well with the
> radiometric dates. When it comes to oceanic sediments we can
> radiometrically tie certain dead nannoplankton to age
> dates. These
> nannoplankton are found in an invariable order
> throughout the world's
> ocean basins. There have only been a few hudnred
> species of these type
> of plankton. They float in the ocean waters and float
> along with the
> currents which take them all over the world. So we
> know that these
> plankton form timelines in the sediments of the worlds
> oceans. Today
> our timelines are based upon the laws of physics. So
> you can't act as if
> this is just mere speculation.
Received on Fri May 21 09:54:20 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 21 2004 - 09:54:21 EDT