Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
in upper ‘earlier’ strata
English answer:
in the upper strata of the very old rocks
Added to glossary by
Rachel Fell
Mar 19, 2009 16:07
15 yrs ago
1 viewer *
English term
in upper ‘earlier’ strata
English
Science
Geology
A religious book about the Creation/evolution debate
Notable examples of ‘living fossils’ in the wild are the Tuatara which are found in Cretaceous and ‘older’ rocks (on the classic geological time scale) but none in ‘recent’ strata higher up the geological column. Yet they are still living today and show no change despite the supposedly 135 million year gap. This is testimony against any evolutionary change. The Coelacanth (mentioned in Appendix C) was supposed to be a transition creature for fish to amphibians since fossils of these creatures are found in what is supposedly very old rock (but not ***in upper ‘earlier’ strata***). Yet the finding of an exact modern counterpart in 1938 is another embarrassing example of a ‘living fossil’. The record in the rocks is not one of transition, but of death and at times, extinction—such as the woolly mammoth and the pterodactyls, for which there are no modern counterparts.
Should they not be older strata if they are up?
Should they not be older strata if they are up?
Change log
Mar 19, 2009 16:07: changed "Kudoz queue" from "In queue" to "Public"
Mar 25, 2009 14:26: Rachel Fell Created KOG entry
Responses
+3
55 mins
Selected
in the upper strata of the very old rocks
i.e. the fossils are found in the VERY old/early rock strata but not in the top layers of these - i.e. from a very long time ago but not from a just a long time ago - that's how it seems to me.
3 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks"
+2
29 mins
It is confusing.
The older strata should be down below the newer strata.
Maybe the author meant to say "newer" instead of 'earlier'
Just my take.
Maybe the author meant to say "newer" instead of 'earlier'
Just my take.
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Kay Barbara
: yes, my thoughts exactly (but I was slower and a bit confused) ;)
9 mins
|
agree |
d_vachliot (X)
16 hrs
|
+1
34 mins
in upper ‘earlier’ strata --> probably correct
Hi Ana,
without knowing more about the stratigraphy in question, it would be a good choice to stick with the source text. The default assumption is that younger or more recent layers are on top of older ones. E.g. on the seafloor, marine sediments settle on top of existing (older) layers and are compacted to form a new stratum (which is younger).
There are, of course, several tectonic processes which result in older strata being moved above younger ones, but you would require more context to judge this.
So my advice is to trust the source if you consider it trustworthy.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 38 mins (2009-03-19 16:45:40 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Oops, I seemed to have "automatically corrected" the phrase in question. So I agree with JC, it should probably be "younger/newer"...
except if there is some more complex stratigraphy involved.
without knowing more about the stratigraphy in question, it would be a good choice to stick with the source text. The default assumption is that younger or more recent layers are on top of older ones. E.g. on the seafloor, marine sediments settle on top of existing (older) layers and are compacted to form a new stratum (which is younger).
There are, of course, several tectonic processes which result in older strata being moved above younger ones, but you would require more context to judge this.
So my advice is to trust the source if you consider it trustworthy.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 38 mins (2009-03-19 16:45:40 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Oops, I seemed to have "automatically corrected" the phrase in question. So I agree with JC, it should probably be "younger/newer"...
except if there is some more complex stratigraphy involved.
Something went wrong...