Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Grand Canyon Is "Frankenstein" of Geologic Formations

Posted by timothy on from the but-it's-no-megavolcano dept.

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."

14 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. That's not what Frankenstein means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re: That's not what Frankenstein means by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re: That's not what Frankenstein means by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  2. So is this .... by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... another instance of Agile development?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:So is this .... by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, just another Waterfall variant.

  3. Erosion is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Erosion is a myth by rhodium_mir · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
  4. The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
    1. Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 3, Informative

      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."

      --
      In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
    3. Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
  5. Frankenstein was the doctor by gerardrj · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not the cobbled together monster!

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  6. Google River View by beaverdownunder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  7. Prediction: by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.