Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Paleontology'.
Found 2 results
-
"It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world." Reading this book made me think of that famous line uttered by Rick in "Casablanca." What a beautiful, wild and wondrous world this is. And what a tiny little speck am I in it. A friend loaned me this book, and he raved about it. I wasn't sure if I would enjoy it or not. I didn't study much science in college, taking "Understanding the Weather" for an easy A, only to find the cushy professor who always taught the class was replaced that year by someone who cared about cumulus clouds I loved this book, perhaps because of my lack of knowledge about the topic. Reading it on an airplane beside my college-aged kids, they rolled their eyes at me as I shared tidbits. "Everyone knows that, mom. We learned that in fourth grade." My educational shortcomings aside, this is a book that scientists and the less scientifically inclined can enjoy. Richard Fortey, a senior paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, writes extensively about life on earth, in all of its stages. I enjoyed his writing style, and I never felt like I was reading a biology textbook. His tone is conversational, and he even throws in pieces of poetry, here and there, for people whose brains work like mine. I learned a great deal reading this book, and I enjoyed every minute of it. -
A tired, hungry nucleus floated up to a group of cyanobacteria, and wearily asked: "You carry oats?" The leader of the gang moved forward, and replied, haughtily: "We're pros." (*) I'm reviewing a book ("Life" by Richard Fortey) that's discussing the time in our Earth's history when there was abundant life in the seas, but virtually none on land. The exact eon, era, period, epoch, or age isn't important, and you don't need to know anything about paleontology to answer; the basis for my question consists of two things: 1) nothing had yet crawled out of the seas, and 2) the greening of the earth had not yet occurred, so there was essentially no plant life on land. Okay, so picture the author going back in time, and standing on the seashore, where vast numbers of little squiggly things are swimming around, but behind him is a lifeless, barren, reddish-brown, mass of land with no sounds coming from it whatsoever - no birds chirping, no grass growing - just rock and soil that is completely devoid of life - for all practical purposes, not even bacteria was there, except incidental deposits from rainwater. This passage, on page 138, is what I have a question about (only the Bold part; the rest is there for context): "During the Cambrian, one-third of the world was devoid of life. The barren area was the land surface away from the sea. There may well have been bright stains of bacteria around springs, and covering such rocks as were washed regularly by showers. But the landscape would have been devoid of any softening tones of green. It would have seemed, to our eyes, naked and harsh. Nothing would have been there to consolidate loose soils, to absorb the worst of the weather, so that every rainstorm would have prompted a small flood, and stones and pebbles cascaded down slopes and tumbled freely into the choked beds of rivers." Why would there have been floods every time it rained? I understand that trees and grass and plants absorb rainwater, but why couldn't the rains just drop down to the water table? I don't think the Earth was a solid slab of stone; there must have been plenty of loose soil which is extremely permeable. That having been said, this author is very smart and detail-oriented (he's former President of the Geological Society of London!), so I doubt he's wrong: What am I missing? I wrote Professor Fortey and asked him, and with his permission, I'll pass along his response - in the meantime, if anyone could help, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, Rocks (*) As for McGuffins, you'll just have to read one of the Alfred Hitchcock threads.
