Re: Whimpy Roots

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Payne" <bpayne15@juno.com>
To: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Cc: <ksharman@pris.bc.ca>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 8:37 PM
Subject: Whimpy Roots

Hi Bill,

> Now, will you agree with me that the simplest way to preserve delicate,
> thin, widespread partings is not to lift them above the base-level of
> erosion and start growing "pioneering vegetation" roots through the
> partings?
Yes, preservation would be favored by keeping them underwater or at the
water surface. They would not need to above the water table by much.
Intense rooting would be expected to destroy them, but less intense rooting
would not.

>Will you agree that grass, shrubs and trees growing in swamps
> do have roots that sink into and bioturbate their substrate?

Yes, they can grow into the substrate. Do they have to bioturbate it? I
say no - my photo of roots in the parting has at least two possible
explanations. One, your "stand up roots vertically in a turbidity current"
explanation, and my "in situ growth" explanation, with evidence of no
extensive bioturbation.
> Will you
> agree that a single stand of pioneering vegetation is not sufficient to
> support the entire root structure of all subsequent vegetation, and will
> you agree that trees don't have to wait on a meter-thick layer of
> pioneering-vegetation peat to accumulate before they bagin to grow, that
> trees can and do begin growing in moist soil (and therefore could grow in
> a bare parting - without veggie litter), and that trees growing in wet
> soil can and do sink their roots below the water table?
There are many examples of floors of coal seams with tree stumps having
roots spreading horizontally. These roots do not have to penetrate the
substrate to grow, and they do not need to be supported by a layer of
pioneering vegetation. The top surface of thin inseam partings is usually
not exposed for any great area, but I would not be surprised if roots
radiating horizontally from stumps were found on the top of some of these.
I know you will say that these are transported stumps in growth position,
but these stump horizons do not have mostly prostrate logs with the odd
stump in growth position, which is what one sees when this material is
transported.

> Face it, Glenn, the simplest explanation is that partings in coal were
> buried under water by floating organic debris.
Yes, this is a simple explanation, but you are not addressing some problems
with this. How can a thin parting avoid being squished by falling
vegetation? I have never seen partings with soft sediment deformation from
the overlying plants that would land on them in your scenario. Where are
the randomly oriented pieces of vegetation that would be jabbed into the top
surface of a very soft mud?

Bill, I agree with you that my explanation for partings is not 100%
satisfactory. I might even say that partings without roots may have been
covered by allochthonous peat IN THE SWAMP, then normal swamp plant growth
prevailed. Those partings that have roots support an insitu origin.
But, we must look at the big picture here. Your Biblical floating mat
scenario is simply unsupportable for the many reasons that I've outlined and
you have not addressed, and an in situ origin for coal IS supportable. As
Glenn has said, even if one horizon in the middle of so-called Flood
deposits contains in situ roots, your idea is falsified.

You have not buttressed your explanation of partings, especially tonsteins,
as turbidites with any further support, have you Bill? As I keep pointing
out: until you do, I don't consider it a viable mechanism.

Kevin
Received on Fri Mar 5 01:50:48 2004