Polystrate Fossils

[RocksInMyHead]

As I have made several discussions already in this thread, I simply repeated here that the origin of this polystrate fossil is still a geological puzzle to me, according to classical geology. You mentioned several environments that seem hard to be put together into one which is claimed by ICR to be responsible for the making of the fossil trees. But conditions provided by these unrelated environments are all sort of needed to make it happen. That is why it is a hard problem. Since you are a working geologist with a good attitude, let me summarized it for you:

* The fossil standing tree is buried in sand-rich, thin to median bed layers. This includes the roots of the tree. The standing trunk is about 10 feet tall on the showed image. The top of the tree is not seen in that environment.
* The tree itself, include the roots, is petrified. I don't know what is the secondary mineral. But, the surface texture of the tree is clearly seen and the species of the tree can be identified.
* There are coal beds up and below the sand-rich layer. Of course, coal related strata should also exist.
* The environment is identified as deltaic. May be swampy. People suggested that it was a eustatic cyclic depositional basin. So, I assume there was little fresh volcanic material involved.
* What shown in the image is not the only tree, there are many many others. Some taller, some shorter, distributed across strata, and all are petrified and standing.

Now, you tell me how did it happen according to your model.

I'm not really a sedimentary geologist and I don't know what type of trees those were, but my best guess for a modern analogue would be a mangrove swamp. Lots of trees in a coastal area, so they'd receive significant sand input, and the biological material from the trees would create peat (later coal) beds in between the sand, as well as thin shale beds. The thick sandstones could be the result of heavy storm surge, or just steady, rapid accumulation.

As for the statements I made earlier about the ICR article, they were directed at specific points made in that article. I wasn't positing anything about the origins of the trees.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Outstanding! You claim to be a faculty geologist. Then you should be more than willing to partake in a mapping challenge! Whata ya say, chap?

No no. To you, I am one who knows nothing about geology. You can be 100% sure about that.

And so it goes! Ever thus.

I love to see this because there was never any other option except outright ignoring the challenge.

I've read plenty of Juve's stuff and I'm not one bit surprised by this. Not one tiny clay sized bit of surprise.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not really a sedimentary geologist and I don't know what type of trees those were, but my best guess for a modern analogue would be a mangrove swamp. Lots of trees in a coastal area, so they'd receive significant sand input, and the biological material from the trees would create peat (later coal) beds in between the sand, as well as thin shale beds. The thick sandstones could be the result of heavy storm surge, or just steady, rapid accumulation.

As for the statements I made earlier about the ICR article, they were directed at specific points made in that article. I wasn't positing anything about the origins of the trees.

For one thing, I can understand why do they call the help of something related to volcano. It is because the tree is petrified. I can hardly imagine any sizable tree which could be petrified in a deltaic environment. Needless to say so many of them. I did see a lump of petrified wood in the Appalachian Basin (deltaic too). It turned into chert and is only a piece about a fist size.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

For one thing, I can understand why do they call the help of something related to volcano. It is because the tree is petrified. I can hardly imagine any sizable tree which could be petrified in a deltaic environment. Needless to say so many of them. I did see a lump of petrified wood in the Appalachian Basin (deltaic too). It turned into chert and is only a piece about a fist size.

My point was that if it was volcanic, it wouldn't look like it does. Sandstone is not volcanic material, and the coal bed at the bottom doesn't have bits of volcanic lithics in it (as the layer of bark at the bottom of Spirit Lake does).

And I've seen whole petrified logs (not upright though) in the Chinle Formation (Arizona - Petrified Forest). I've also seen some in Colorado, at the Florissant Fossil Beds, but I can't recall the name of the formation. Those are mainly stumps (it eroded fairly flat), so I'm not sure whether the whole trees were preserved. The stumps are in place though. Both of these were chert as well; I'm not sure what bearing that has on this discussion though since the ICR article didn't specify how the trees were preserved.

 

[thaumaturgy]

For one thing, I can understand why do they call the help of something related to volcano. It is because the tree is petrified. I can hardly imagine any sizable tree which could be petrified in a deltaic environment. Needless to say so many of them. I did see a lump of petrified wood in the Appalachian Basin (deltaic too). It turned into chert and is only a piece about a fist size.

I wish I understood why this is such a mystery to you, Juvenissun. I really honestly do.

Are you confused by large scale permineralization of woody tissue? Rest assured this isn't the only place you can find it.

Why in the U.S. we have the Petrified Forest park in Arizona:

(Now to be fair this guy was actually pretty big back in the '70's, so the scale may be off for you)

HERE's an explanation of how this occurred

 

[Orogeny]

As I said to thaumaturgy, it is pretty easy to tell what level a person knows about a disciplinary knowledge from a professional point of view, by just read a few lines of his discussion. One can fake all his identities to any higher level, but one can not do that to his knowledge. I have no doubt that orogeny is a master student in geology. Not because he claimed so, but because he talked like one. I can also sort of tell that you do not have your Ph.D. degree yet.

No need to wonder who the person is, simply focus on the issue.

It was a simple yes or no question. Why can't you answer it? I've asked you on multiple occasions, and you've never given an answer. Please do so now.

Look, I'll even make it easy for you:

YES

NO

Now just do that thing you always do, and highlight the one that is correct in blue. #rhymetime

 

[RocksInMyHead]

As I said to thaumaturgy, it is pretty easy to tell what level a person knows about a disciplinary knowledge from a professional point of view, by just read a few lines of his discussion. One can fake all his identities to any higher level, but one can not do that to his knowledge. I have no doubt that orogeny is a master student in geology. Not because he claimed so, but because he talked like one. I can also sort of tell that you do not have your Ph.D. degree yet.

No need to wonder who the person is, simply focus on the issue.

We wonder because we can't get a read on you. Sometimes you sound like an old professor, and other times, you don't appear to understand basic geology concepts. It's rather confusing. And argue all you want about being able to tell our education from our posts - the human mind is influenced by what it is told (and I know I've told you that I'm a PhD student).

Personally, I'm curious because you've used mild arguments from authority - referencing your experience as a geologist and/or educator. So do you teach at an accredited university? A community college? ICR or similar? Or maybe a high school earth science teacher (it's ok if you are - I know several who are excellent geologists)?

 

[Orogeny]

I've also seen some in Colorado, at the Florissant Fossil Beds, but I can't recall the name of the formation.

I think it's simply called the Florissant Formation, though it's been a while since I've been through there. Some of the best insect preservation I've ever seen, though.

There's also a spot near Creede (just south(?) of town) where there is roadcut outcrop of La Garita Caldera lacustrine deposits and if you spend a little time, you can find pretty well-preserved flies, bees, and mayflies. I've heard of small fish and dragon flies coming out of there too, but haven't found any myself. It's a neat spot for kids.

 

[thaumaturgy]

As I said to thaumaturgy, it is pretty easy to tell what level a person knows about a disciplinary knowledge from a professional point of view, by just read a few lines of his discussion. One can fake all his identities to any higher level, but one can not do that to his knowledge. I have no doubt that orogeny is a master student in geology. Not because he claimed so, but because he talked like one. I can also sort of tell that you do not have your Ph.D. degree yet.

No need to wonder who the person is, simply focus on the issue.

I have read more of your stuff than I am proud of myself for having read, Juvie and now aboout 2 years on I am still unsure what your level is.

You can talk occasionally with some degree of accuracy on geologic topics, but generally your skills seem quite limited.

It could also be a "language" issue. I have never quite been able to tell what your original language is. It surely isn't english. Your syntax is often severely broken. So maybe our problems in understanding your "points" spring not from your general lack of skill in geology but rather your inability to easily communicate in this language with facility.

This is not intended to be a "slam" or anything like that. It is an observation. I really have honestly wanted to know what your background is.

I'll gladly tell you mine, perhaps others of a geologic persuasion on here will do the same and you can tell us your background:

I did my BS in the midwest in geology with a minor in Chemistry. I worked for a year as a graphic designer and then went back to get my MS at a university in midwest. I did geology with a focus on organic geochemistry. I was studying the thermal maturity of shales overlying some lead deposits in order to determine if they were emplaced by hot basinal brines.

I spent a year working for an east coast research university in the oceanography department manning a GC in a lab. Realized I wasn't made for open ocean work so went back to the midwest and did my PhD in coal geology. Actually coal geochemistry with a significant focus on materials science. We were using coal as a feedstock to make carbon materials.

After my PhD I did two chemistry postdocs in carbon science. Then I meandered over into industry where I work on coatings chemistry for the past 11 years or so.

Along the way I've taught part-time in the evenings at some universities and a community college. Taught intro geology, mineralogy, environmental science and, of course, chemistry.

As a professional researcher and former teacher I value clear detailed explanations. I tend to be overly-focused on explaining my point with numerous references and a goodly bit of detail and verbiage.

So what is your background? Seriously. It doesn't have to be detailed. I've been able to explain my background without revealing too much about myself. But I feel it is useful to know what people's background is.

Yes, we can all agree to "focus on the topic", but I've never really gotten a good feel for what your focus is or where it is coming from.

 

[juvenissun]

I have read more of your stuff than I am proud of myself for having read, Juvie and now aboout 2 years on I am still unsure what your level is.

You can talk occasionally with some degree of accuracy on geologic topics, but generally your skills seem quite limited.

It could also be a "language" issue. I have never quite been able to tell what your original language is. It surely isn't english. Your syntax is often severely broken. So maybe our problems in understanding your "points" spring not from your general lack of skill in geology but rather your inability to easily communicate in this language with facility.

This is not intended to be a "slam" or anything like that. It is an observation. I really have honestly wanted to know what your background is.

I'll gladly tell you mine, perhaps others of a geologic persuasion on here will do the same and you can tell us your background:

I did my BS in the midwest in geology with a minor in Chemistry. I worked for a year as a graphic designer and then went back to get my MS at a university in midwest. I did geology with a focus on organic geochemistry. I was studying the thermal maturity of shales overlying some lead deposits in order to determine if they were emplaced by hot basinal brines.

I spent a year working for an east coast research university in the oceanography department manning a GC in a lab. Realized I wasn't made for open ocean work so went back to the midwest and did my PhD in coal geology. Actually coal geochemistry with a significant focus on materials science. We were using coal as a feedstock to make carbon materials.

After my PhD I did two chemistry postdocs in carbon science. Then I meandered over into industry where I work on coatings chemistry for the past 11 years or so.

Along the way I've taught part-time in the evenings at some universities and a community college. Taught intro geology, mineralogy, environmental science and, of course, chemistry.

As a professional researcher and former teacher I value clear detailed explanations. I tend to be overly-focused on explaining my point with numerous references and a goodly bit of detail and verbiage.

So what is your background? Seriously. It doesn't have to be detailed. I've been able to explain my background without revealing too much about myself. But I feel it is useful to know what people's background is.

Yes, we can all agree to "focus on the topic", but I've never really gotten a good feel for what your focus is or where it is coming from.

Thanks for the offering (?). But, thanks.
What is the good if I tell you anything about me? I can not see a single reason to do that. And, sorry to say this, you do not need to say so much about yourself either.

 

[Orogeny]

I'll play along.

I also received my BS in geology from a Midwestern university. From there, I went directly into my MS program at a Southwestern university, focusing on stratigraphy and tectonics. My thesis deals with characterizing outcrop analogues of petroleum systems and using the outcrop analogues to test and refine models for reservoir formation that were developed using subsurface data. In the next couple months I will be starting a career as a petroleum exploration geologist.

My teaching experience is limited to several semesters as a TA for both intro level and graduate level geology labs and half a semester as substitute lecturer for an introductory geology class, but I hope to teach evening classes at a community college.

 

[Orogeny]

Thanks for the offering (?). But, thanks.
What is the good if I tell you anything about me? I can not see a single reason to do that. And, sorry to say this, you do not need to say so much about yourself either.

It seems that the only people who are afraid to discuss their background are those of us without any. Prove me wrong, Juve.

 

[juvenissun]

My point was that if it was volcanic, it wouldn't look like it does. Sandstone is not volcanic material, and the coal bed at the bottom doesn't have bits of volcanic lithics in it (as the layer of bark at the bottom of Spirit Lake does).

And I've seen whole petrified logs (not upright though) in the Chinle Formation (Arizona - Petrified Forest). I've also seen some in Colorado, at the Florissant Fossil Beds, but I can't recall the name of the formation. Those are mainly stumps (it eroded fairly flat), so I'm not sure whether the whole trees were preserved. The stumps are in place though. Both of these were chert as well; I'm not sure what bearing that has on this discussion though since the ICR article didn't specify how the trees were preserved.

Petrified wood (tree, or anything) needs cations in groundwater to replace the wood. On land, the most common one is Fe or Ca. But if there is volcanic material nearby, it could also be Si. And the Si is the source for chert.

I am not surprised if the polystrate fossil is replaced by carbonates. But if it chert, then the source becomes a big problem. That is why volcanic material is suggested even no trace of the original material is found.

 

[Orogeny]

I did my BS [snip]

So what is your background?

Dang Thaum, you've been busy!

 

[Orogeny]

Petrified wood (tree, or anything) needs cations in groundwater to replace the wood. On land, the most common one is Fe or Ca. But if there is volcanic material nearby, it could also be Si. And the Si is the source for chert.

I am not surprised if the polystrate fossil is replaced by carbonates. But if it chert, then the source becomes a big problem. That is why volcanic material is suggested even no trace of the original material is found.

This is incorrect. Silica is the predominant constituent of most non-carbonate sediments, and even carbonates can contain significant amounts of silica, often opaline silica from sponge spicules. Opaline silica is easily mobilized because it lacks crystalline structure, and is often dissolved, transported, and precipitated as chert. Chert bands and silicification of fossils is ubiquitous in carbonate rocks, so it's no surprise that in other sedimentary rocks where silica is more common we would see the same effects. Juve, many, many sandstones have quartz cement, indicating that there was an abundance of silica in their pore fluids. Volcanics are not necessary for silicification of fossil fragments.

Edit: Not to mention that grasses contain opaline silica, and so if grasses are present in the terrestrial sedimentary rocks where a petrified tree is found, it is likely that much of the silica used in the permineralization process was derived from the grass.

 

[juvenissun]

We wonder because we can't get a read on you. Sometimes you sound like an old professor, and other times, you don't appear to understand basic geology concepts. It's rather confusing. And argue all you want about being able to tell our education from our posts - the human mind is influenced by what it is told (and I know I've told you that I'm a PhD student).

Personally, I'm curious because you've used mild arguments from authority - referencing your experience as a geologist and/or educator. So do you teach at an accredited university? A community college? ICR or similar? Or maybe a high school earth science teacher (it's ok if you are - I know several who are excellent geologists)?

Sorry I forgot about it. My impression is that you are working in the energy or the mining field. (right or wrong, it does not matter).

When you feel that I do not know the basic concept of geology, please let me know. It would be interesting to know what the occasion is.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thanks for the offering (?). But, thanks.
What is the good if I tell you anything about me? I can not see a single reason to do that. And, sorry to say this, you do not need to say so much about yourself either.

You don't need to say a thing. Your silence is enough. What good would it do? Not a darn thing. Wouldn't change a thing.

It would be nice, in a kind of "friendly" sort of exchange of our experiences in geology.

I've read enough of your stuff that frankly I have enough information to form an "opinion" of what your background is.

The fact that you will not give us even an inkling of your bona fides is probably more telling than anything.

I'm just saying: this is who I am. So if I speak on a geophysics you know that it is likely from a less-informed point than if I speak on geochemistry. If I talk about metamorphic mineral phase assemblages it is probably less informed than if you ask me about crystallography or organic petrology.

I'm proud of my path. It didn't end up where I wanted it to. But I loved the ride to get where I am.

I find people's backgrounds to be absolutely fascinating. I can read scientists biographies all day long! My bookshelves at home are filled with histories of science and I love to hear where a scientist comes from.

If you have nothing to say about who you are or where you are coming from then it is a loss. But it really changes nothing.

Let's say we knew even on iota about what your actual background was? We might be able to frame a response to your questions around things like polystrate fossils in terms of your background that might resonate with what you are familiar with.

But we don't have that luxury. We are left with a cypher. A placeholder with more questions than answers.

(Although to be fair, left without answers the temptation is to infer many, many interesting hypotheses.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'll play along.

I also received my BS in geology from a Midwestern university. From there, I went directly into my MS program at a Southwestern university, focusing on stratigraphy and tectonics. My thesis deals with characterizing outcrop analogues of petroleum systems and using the outcrop analogues to test and refine models for reservoir formation that were developed using subsurface data. In the next couple months I will be starting a career as a petroleum exploration geologist.

I am officially jealous. Exploration geology was what I always thought I'd end up doing. But every time I graduated the oil market was down. At one point I interviewed with some oil companies on campus in grad school. The geologists said "You're too much of a chemist, go talk to our recruiters over in chemistry" so I did that and they said "you're a geologist, why did the geology guys send you over here?"

I landed in chemistry. I'm happy, but my passion was geology. And many friends went into the oilpatch.

I know all the downside to fossil fuels and I know I'd have been selling my soul, but the science is just so cool!

Good luck in your upcoming career! (Although from friends who survived the oil patch, it sounds like it can be a tough gig since they hire and layoff at a whim based on a volatile petro market).

My teaching experience is limited to several semesters as a TA for both intro level and graduate level geology labs and half a semester as substitute lecturer for an introductory geology class, but I hope to teach evening classes at a community college.

I found teaching part-time in the evenings to be some of the most fun I'd had! I taught some evening geology classes which helped me keep feeling like a geologist as I was doing my chem postdoc. Then when I was knee-deep in chemistry and realized I was probably going to be a chemist for my career I taught some evening classes in chem.

All of it is fun. And teaching is the best way to stay fresh in your field.

I still get to play "kinda geologist" since most of my coating formulations contain mineral pigments, so in the company I work in I'm kind of the go-to guy for mineral questions. I'm still the only person in this company with rocks on his desk.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Petrified wood (tree, or anything) needs cations in groundwater to replace the wood. On land, the most common one is Fe or Ca. But if there is volcanic material nearby, it could also be Si. And the Si is the source for chert.

What an interesting claim. So what about chert nodules in Missouri? Which nearby volcano supplied the Si?

(I am also fascinated by the phrase "Si is the source for chert", I would rather assume that Si was not transported as Si4+ ions but rather as variants of silicic acid; Si(OH)4 )

I am not surprised if the polystrate fossil is replaced by carbonates. But if it chert, then the source becomes a big problem. That is why volcanic material is suggested even no trace of the original material is found.

A "big problem"? Why?

 

[Orogeny]

I am officially jealous. Exploration geology was what I always thought I'd end up doing. But every time I graduated the oil market was down. At one point I interviewed with some oil companies on campus in grad school. The geologists said "You're too much of a chemist, go talk to our recruiters over in chemistry" so I did that and they said "you're a geologist, why did the geology guys send you over here?"

I'm so excited to start. Luckily the petroleum industry is hiring like mad right now; every one of my colleagues who has pursued a petroleum job has received an offer. Most in production and most in shale gas plays so I don't quite envy them, but they're good jobs nonetheless. I think exploration will be so cool though, and the geology I'll be working on is complex and incredible.

I landed in chemistry. I'm happy, but my passion was geology. And many friends went into the oilpatch.

I know all the downside to fossil fuels and I know I'd have been selling my soul, but the science is just so cool!

There's definitely a soul-selling aspect to it, but it's worth it for the science and the toys I'll get to play with. The 3D seismic alone makes it for me.

Good luck in your upcoming career! (Although from friends who survived the oil patch, it sounds like it can be a tough gig since they hire and layoff at a whim based on a volatile petro market).

Thanks! I know about the volatility of the oil patch, but I'm hoping to get a little bit of stability from being at a decent-sized company and having a slightly different skill set than most.

I found teaching part-time in the evenings to be some of the most fun I'd had! I taught some evening geology classes which helped me keep feeling like a geologist as I was doing my chem postdoc. Then when I was knee-deep in chemistry and realized I was probably going to be a chemist for my career I taught some evening classes in chem.

All of it is fun. And teaching is the best way to stay fresh in your field.

The small amount of teaching I've done so far has been a great learning experience, and being able to enhance the students' appreciation of the sciences is such a privilege. My favorite thing is when a student comes and says 'Remember when you talked about such-and-such last week? I saw that for real the other day and it was SO COOL!'

Awesome.