Accretionary lapilli

| 18 Comments

Photograph by Matt W. Ford.

Photography contest, Honorable Mention.

Ford.Volcano.jpg

Accretionary lapilli from the area around an extinct shield volcano in Idaho.

18 Comments

Amazing; they all have left handed chirality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapilli says “Rounded tephra balls are called “accretionary lapilli” if they consist of volcanic ash particles. Accretionary lapilli are formed in an eruption column or cloud by moisture or electrostatic forces, with the volcanic ash nucleating on some object and then accreting to it in layers before the accretionary lapillus falls from the cloud. Accretionary lapilli are like volcanic hailstones that form by the addition of concentric layers of moist ash around a central nucleus.” If you cut them open do they show “growth rings?” How hard are these little balls of ash?

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

YECs can rejoice. The embedded “fossil” “proves” that the eruption occurred no earlier than 1959. ;-)

YECs will just say, “This evidence is faked, that penny was glued there.”

Frank B said:

YECs will just say, “This evidence is faked, that penny was glued there.”

Not if it helps their case. But you must be referring to the peppered moths, which YECs, OECs and IDers alike love to say were glued on tree trunks. But they always “forget” to mention that, even if that dramatization invalidated the experiment’s conclusions (it doesn’t), how that would support their mutually contradictory “theories.”

I have been reading Don Prothero’s book entitled Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. I am currently reading about the abundance of evolution (micro and macro) that is documented in the fossil record for invertebrate fossils such as these in the picture. If you like this picture, there are plenty more in Don’s book. I have rarely heard of invertebrate fossils mentioned in evolution vs creation debates, but thanks to Don I have added them to my arsenal of evidence.

Edwin Hensley Wrote:

I have rarely heard of invertebrate fossils mentioned in evolution vs creation debates, but thanks to Don I have added them to my arsenal of evidence.

To please their Biblical literalist fans, anti-evolution activists like to emphasise fossils that best promote doubt of our common ancestry, hence vertebrates, mammals, primates. But when they need to pretend that the Cambrian “explosion” is some sort of “special creation event,” then they are forced to emphasize invertebrates. But anything that gives them an incredulity argument will be exploited, so there’s the occasional plant, bacterial flagellum, etc. in their “arsenal.”

I have actually gotten bored in the last 5-10 years looking for more evidence for evolution, because the multiple lines of independent evidence (fossils, molecules, comparative anatomy, etc.) I have seen so far is so compelling, that I can’t even imagine any other explanation “fitting” it.

What I ironically find more interesting is taking what few alternate “explanations” anti-evolution activists have offered - note how vague they are becoming in terms of “what happened when” - and trying to force-fit the evidence to see if any of those mutually contradictory alternate “explanations” has any merit. What I find is that I gave to toss out nearly everything to get the slightest promise, which of course is the exact opposite of how science is done. But fortunately for the activists few nonscientists know that.

I suspect, more than most “Darwinists,” that most of the anti-evolution activists, especially those of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ID variety, know darn well that the evidence does not fit any of those alternate “explanations.” Which is why they devote 99+% of their efforts on the “weaknesses” of “Darwinism” instead of the “strengths” of their “theories.”

Edwin Hensley said: I am currently reading about the abundance of evolution (micro and macro) that is documented in the fossil record for invertebrate fossils such as these in the picture.

Uh, Ed…the little round items pictured are not “invertebrate fossils” - they are accreted volcanic ash particles. Think hailstones, except “frozen” ash instead of frozen water. (See the second comment above.)

Yes, Frank J, I was refering to the Peppered Moth photo. You get a cigar.

Frank B said:

Yes, Frank J, I was refering to the Peppered Moth photo. You get a cigar.

Thanks, but I don’t smoke. But I do like single malt scotch, and apparently Dembski owes us all a bottle.

Frank J said:

Frank B said:

Yes, Frank J, I was refering to the Peppered Moth photo. You get a cigar.

Thanks, but I don’t smoke. But I do like single malt scotch, and apparently Dembski owes us all a bottle.

If there’s free scotch involved, what do I need to do to be counted in? Tell Dembski that I prefer Islay.

Jesse Wrote:

If there’s free scotch involved, what do I need to do to be counted in? Tell Dembski that I prefer Islay.

Ah, the peaty “kind.” I like that in the winter, but I’m now in spring mode.

Hate to break it to you but Dembski is the world champ of “That’s not what I meant.” So even though I have been told that he promised that bottle to anyone who accepted his “challenge” (I forgot what it was, but do remember tht any reasonable person would conclude that he lost fair and square) I know that the chance of anyone getting that bottle are about as remote as us getting a “theory of ID.”

More importantly … which volcano in Idaho? (I grew up very near to several “extinct” volcanoes.)

Lagavulin, Distillers Edition, 1991 is an Islay single malt for all seasons. I’ll pray for a miracle that the Fig Newton of mathematics does pay up on his wager!

Dear Noodle, who art in pasta, hollowed be thy macaroni.…

Bowmore, if Isla. (Lagavulin is a little too iodine for my taste, though no argument that it’s a very, very fine single malt.) But if I’m allowed my druthers from the whole field, then the Macallan 18. Unless we are allowed to go superpremium, and I think that’s a little extreme, even to soak Dembski as he deserves.

Not a scotch drinker myself, but for scotch extremophiles, apparently there is going to be a drill crew sent to Antarctica to retrieve two cases of McKinlay and Co. (now Whyte & Mackay) scotch from Shackleton’s abandoned 1909 expedition. (No, this is not related to the posting date). Object is to see if they can resurrect the defunct brand. This was an Associated Press item that appeared in The Professional Edge (APEGS newletter, Jan/Feb 2010, issue 124). It isn’t on line yet, but should be in the not too distant future; here is the link (I don’t have the interest to track down the original AP story):

http://www.apegs.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=16

That’s page 24 in the APEGS newsletter (re: Antarctic scotch).

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on March 22, 2010 12:00 PM.

Life on the Discovery Channel was the previous entry in this blog.

Ada Lovelace Day is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter