Grand Canyon Is "Frankenstein" of Geologic Formations

sciencehabit writes "It's a debate that has vexed scientists for decades: Is the Grand Canyon young or old, geologically speaking? Both, a new study declares. A group of scientists reports that the famed formation is a hybrid of five different gorges of various ages--two of three middle segments formed between 70 million and 50 million years ago and between 25 million and 15 million years ago, but the two end segments were carved in the past 5 million to 6 million years--and the Colorado River only tied them into a single continuous canyon 5 million or 6 million years ago."

Comments

That's not what Frankenstein means

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what Frankenstein means, do you? Try reading it sometime. Here's a hint: start by reading the subtitle.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means

[hey!]

Well I *have* read the book and actually Viktor Frankenstein was *not* a doctor. He's an undergraduate *student* of natural philosophy who gets sidetracked into occult studies. He only became a doctor in the movies, which give the whole affair an anti-science spin, probably to cash in on peoples discomfort with anatomical research. The book is much less clear on exactly how Frankenstein constructs his monster, but it implies alchemy or other discredited pseudoscience is involved.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means

[SuricouRaven]

It doesn't really imply that. It does say that Frankenstein spent many years of his life devoted to occult studies in his desire to gain control over life and death - but also that he rejected that field after coming to the conclusion that it was all a load of worthless nonsense, and that he greatly regretted the time spent persuing what was not only a dead end but one that, in hindsight, should have been obvious as such. As soon as he realises that he turns towards medicine, recognising that even though this field makes far less grand promises it is able to make good on them. The book doesn't say exactly how he did it, but suggests that it was through entirely physical means - in particular it states that Frankenstein deliberately picked out the most oversized corpses and organs to work with, because the delicate surgical techniques would have posed much more difficulty had he been working with smaller components. That's why the monster created was so large and powerful.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means

[Zero__Kelvin]

Technically you are correct, however just like a hacker is someone who breaks into computers circa 2014 (still not true) Frankenstein has been the name of his monster for far longer. It turns out that if you get enough morons together they will gather together and carry torches if you point out how phenomenally under-educated and ludicrous they are.

So is this ....

[PPH]

... another instance of Agile development?

Re:So is this ....

[Aighearach]

No, just another Waterfall variant.

Erosion is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

I refuse to believe in "erosion" as they teach in schools. Sure you can see water moves small clumps of dirt and rocks, but to jump from observing anthills being washed away to huge canyons and moving continents is absurd.

WHERE IS THE MISSING LINK? Surely there would be mountains with small streams caving in on themselves this very minute. It should be happening all the time. Not even on the daily news, because it should be normal, the erosionists claim. Like, whoops, another mountain just caved in and became a canyon.

There should be rivers moving cities out of the way and leaving canyons to hell in their path. The truth is, all we ever see are small floods, AND THE WATER ALWAYS RECEDES, AND DOES NOT LEAVE A HUGE CANYON.

Erosion is not science. You cannot observe it. All you can do is assume. Even William Phipps Blake, the guy who came up with this "theory" recanted on his death bed. Said he made it all up for money.

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY.

Re:Erosion is a myth

[rhodium_mir]

In essence the Grand Canyon is a Beowulf cluster of canyons.

Re:Erosion is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

If Canons eroded from solid ground -- Then WHY IS THERE STILL SOLID GROUND?

The Grand Canyon is not a "formation"

[Mr. Firewall]

A formation is a layer of sediment that has been compacted into rock. There's more to the formal definition, but that will suffice for now.

The Grand Canyon cuts through dozens of formations, but cannot, itself, be a formation.

So much for "news for nerds."

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation"

[gerardrj]

There is much wrong with this article.
Geeks today aren't what they used to be.

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation"

[Aighearach]

Geeks today aren't what they used to be.

The user quality has certainly eroded, as has everything else around here.

Even the grits have deteriorated.

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation"

[Mr. Firewall]

If you can't come up with anything better (and dodges aren't better), "geologic formations" is good enough for laymen.

When I see the phrase "good enough for laymen" on slashdot, I know that /. has gone a LONG way downhill.

I think the word that Timothy was looking for is "feature."

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation"

[physicsphairy]

I'm all for precision in language, but in day-to-day speech a 'formation' is just something that is formed, and the grand canyon is indeed a formation even if it is not a 'geologic formation' proper. It's a bit like if mechanics decided to formally call washers 'round things' and then got particularly upset when a ball bearing was casually referrered to as a 'round thing' as well.

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation"

[mcgrew]

When I see the phrase "good enough for laymen" on slashdot, I know that /. has gone a LONG way downhill.

We're all laymen, except for the geologists here. You have a PhD in high energy physics? Still a layman, you don't know any more about geology than I do.

That said, the educational attainments of slashdotters seems to have slid greatly considering the number of grocer's apostrophes and homophone idiocy I see here lately so I do agree with your point. I attribute it to the fact that when slashdot was new, almost everybody on the internet was a nerd.

Frankenstein was the doctor

[gerardrj]

Not the cobbled together monster!

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor

[Bite The Pillow]

Having moved on, is the doctor named something else, and the monster now named Frankenstein?

Nothing has changed, except that we can tell who read the book, who is old enough to have watched talkies instead, and who is young enough to talk about things they heard about but have no first hand knowledge of.

Let's all move on and let the idiots self identify. Meanwhile, the Grand Canyon is either a self aware amalgamation with difficulty speaking, a cutting edge doctor, or Peter Boyle.

Case else, I would expect Slashdot to run "Gene Wilder found in desert" as the headline.

Google River View

[beaverdownunder]

For those who don't know, you can cruise through the Grand Canyon on the Colorado River via Street (River) view... but who the hell is the guy in the sunglasses?

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=grand+canyon&hl=en&ll=36.180562,-113.116608&spn=0.215596,0.885086&sll=-34.880632,138.660651&sspn=0.030277,0.055318&t=h&hnear=Grand+Canyon&z=11&layer=c&cbll=36.180623,-113.116661&panoid=3hhY7tdbII1RSBq3fRGQ6A&cbp=12,41.4,,0,-2.93

Re:Google River View

[cusco]

Sigh. Of course you're right, but life is too short to do all the really cool things we want to do. Worst of all, there are now too fucking many people to do a lot of it the way we want to. Did you know that the only way to hike the Inca Trail now is to go with one of two groups (one of 40 and the other of 70 people) allowed per day? When I did it there were 4 of us that got off the train, and we didn't see anyone else for the next three days until we got to the ruin. Well, hopefully I'll be hiking the Apurimac Valley from Cusibamba to Pacaritambo next year, while there are still only farmers who walk that trail. Five years from now there will probably be tour groups.

Prediction:

[SuricouRaven]

Within a couple of weeks creationists are going to start pointing to this finding as evidence that scientists are never to be trusted. If they keep changing their mind on things, how do we know they are right now? If scientists can't give a clear answer, the creationists will argue, we must turn to the one eyewitness account we have of all history - the bible. Which is infallable, of course.

Re:Prediction:

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is too many geologists resemble Baptist preachers in their adherence to what they believe is the truth, and lose the skepticism that should mark any good scientist. For example, there is much to be said for the theory that the Colorado River is simply following the path of least resistance through an area where an ancient sea had drained. The canyons were cut by eroding water as the sea disappeared.

Re:A lot of religious people...

[Mr. Firewall]

Last Tuesday? No, you old-Earth Creationist, His Noodliness created it along with the rest of the Universe five minutes ago.

What, you remember events in your life that happened longer ago than five minutes? Well, He created you with those memories already in your brain!

Go ahead, prove it ain't true meanwhile, I'll have another plate of spaghetti, please.

BUNK!

[WildYaker]

I live by the Grand Canyon. These scientists are idiots. Most of us that live here know that the Grand Canyon was formed in a very short period of time. It did not take millions of years to form. Scientist get one thing stuck in their head and then can't think of anything else. Answer me one question... if you can answer it then it will prove to me that the Grand Canyon developed over millions of years. Where is all the dirt?

With any river system where erosion occurs there is a delta. With the Grand Canyon system there is no delta... i.e... no erosion over millions of years. The erosion happened very quickly... most likely from 3 lakes similar to the Great Salt Lake that drained because a land dam broke in the top lake. The lakes drained into each other and over ran the lower lake's land dam. There is satellite imagery evidence of these 3 lakes that support his view.

Also there is other evidence to support this view. When Mount Saint Helens blew it created a similar canyon. There is also another “Grand Canyon” in Hawaii called Waimea Canyon. The Waimea Canyon was created very quickly as well. It was created when the land collapsed. In both of these cases there are no delta regions from long erosion periods.

Oh and for you closed minded people, no I am not a creationist.