3 ms·

The paper addresses this objection in section 1.3: “That this paper’s title question is worth posing is a function of the incompleteness of the geological recor

by sjy 6y ago

The paper addresses this objection in section 1.3: “That this paper’s title question is worth posing is a function of the incompleteness of the geological record … The oldest extant large-scale surface is in the Negev Desert and is ~1.8 Ma old. However, pre-Quaternary land-evidence is far sparser, existing mainly in exposed sections, drilling and mining operations. In the ocean sediments, due to the recycling of ocean crust, there only exists sediment evidence for periods that post-date the Jurassic (~170 Ma).”

ardit33 6y ago
that is disingenuous... and is just word playing with definitions. Most mountains in Europe have surfaced with the last 10-20 mill years, and they have turned earth around to the point that you routinetly find marine fossis in top of 2000m mountains. If any civilization was around, it would have left a mark somewhere, and mountains would be a great place to spot them. BTW: According to most scientists, the oldest mountain range on Earth is called the Barberton Greenstone Belt and is found in South Africa. It's estimated that the range is at least 3.2 billion (yes, billion!) years old.
- sjy 6y ago
  I was also surprised by the statement that the oldest extant large-scale surface is ~1.8 Ma old. There is a citation provided for this [1]. It seems the point is that older features like mountain ranges are subject to significant erosion (as you point out, a marine environment can become alpine during the life of a mountain range) and that this could destroy or disperse most evidence of an industrial civilisation that lives for only a few centuries. The oldest surface which preserves archaeological evidence, due to its low rate of erosion, is merely in the millions of years, whereas what we know about earlier periods is extrapolated from a tiny sample of exposed sections of the earth’s crust. Meanwhile, the seabed is recycled on the 100 Ma scale, and eukaryotic life has been around for 2 Ga. That is a lot of recycling. [1] http://geomorphology.sese.asu.edu/Papers/Matmon%20et%20al.%20-%202009%20-%20Desert%20pavement--coated%20surfaces%20in%20extreme%20desert%20(1).pdf http://geomorphology.sese.asu.edu/Papers/Matmon%20et%20al.%2...

by sjy 6y ago

ardit33 6y ago

that is disingenuous... and is just word playing with definitions. Most mountains in Europe have surfaced with the last 10-20 mill years, and they have turned earth around to the point that you routinetly find marine fossis in top of 2000m mountains. If any civilization was around, it would have left a mark somewhere, and mountains would be a great place to spot them. BTW: According to most scientists, the oldest mountain range on Earth is called the Barberton Greenstone Belt and is found in South Africa. It's estimated that the range is at least 3.2 billion (yes, billion!) years old.

sjy 6y ago
I was also surprised by the statement that the oldest extant large-scale surface is ~1.8 Ma old. There is a citation provided for this [1]. It seems the point is that older features like mountain ranges are subject to significant erosion (as you point out, a marine environment can become alpine during the life of a mountain range) and that this could destroy or disperse most evidence of an industrial civilisation that lives for only a few centuries. The oldest surface which preserves archaeological evidence, due to its low rate of erosion, is merely in the millions of years, whereas what we know about earlier periods is extrapolated from a tiny sample of exposed sections of the earth’s crust. Meanwhile, the seabed is recycled on the 100 Ma scale, and eukaryotic life has been around for 2 Ga. That is a lot of recycling. [1] http://geomorphology.sese.asu.edu/Papers/Matmon%20et%20al.%20-%202009%20-%20Desert%20pavement--coated%20surfaces%20in%20extreme%20desert%20(1).pdf http://geomorphology.sese.asu.edu/Papers/Matmon%20et%20al.%2...