Re: "The Coconino formation"


"Seanpit" <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138063335.126174.326570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> George wrote:
>
>> I think it is safe to say that they are reptile tracks, and that the
>> formation is an aeolian sand dune deposit. As to whether or not they
>> are
>> traveling uphill, I couldn't say. It is possible, indeed, probably that
>> the strata is not entirely horizontal, since there is a regional dip to
>> beds at Grand Canyon, and some areas are faulted and even more acutely
>> tilted. I'd have to actually see the beds before I could make that
>> judgement.
>
> You'd be wrong about the trackways and their uphill orientation -
> uphill with respect to the original horizontal formation of the dunes.
>
>
> Brand, L.R. and Tang, T., 1991. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the
> Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for
> underwater origin. Geology, vol. 19,pp. 1201-1204.
>
>> George
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com

Like I said, it is "possible, indeed probable", not certain. As to whether
or not the tracks were formed under water, I completely disagree with the
authors of that report:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC365.html

Claim CC365:

Footprints in the Coconino Sandstone are attributed to animals making
tracks on damp sand dunes in a desert. However, they appear to have been
made underwater instead. Leonard Brand compared the Coconino footprints
with footprints made by actual reptiles under various conditions, and the
Coconino footprints best matched the footprints made underwater.
Source:
Brand, Leonard R., 1978. Footprints in the Grand Canyon. Origins
5(2):64-82. http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm
Brand, Leonard R. and Thu Tang, 1991. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the
Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater
origin. Geology 19(12): 1201-1204.
Snelling, Andrew A. and Steven A. Austin, 1992. Grand Canyon: Startling
evidence for Noah's Flood! Creation Ex Nihilo 15(1): 47.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v15n1_grandcanyon.asp

Response:

The evidence for footprints being made underwater comes from rather
ambiguous statistical studies, but is contradicted by evidence (Lockley
1992; Lockley and Hunt 1995; Loope 1992), including the following:

"One of the most common observations is that the tracks have bulges or sand
crescents on one side, thereby proving that they were made on inclined
surfaces" (Lockley and Hunt 1995).
a.. Tracks showing possible loping, running, and galloping gaits are
found throughout the Coconino Sandstone. These can only have been made on
dry land.
b.. Tracks of small arthropods, attributable to spiders, centipedes,
millipedes, and scorpions, occur abundantly in the Coconino Sandstone.
(Schur [2000] has some excellent pictures.) Some of these trackways can
only be made on completely dry sand.
c.. Raindrop impressions also appear.
The Coconino Sandstone covers an area of 200,000 square miles. Snelling and
Austin (1992) proposed that thousands of cubic miles of sand were
transported from hundreds of miles north. Forces violent enough to
transport the sand would have killed any animals that got in the way. There
would have been nothing alive within a hundred miles of where the
footprints were found.

Brand himself, in the conclusion to one of his papers, wrote that: "The
data do suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil trackways may have been
produced in either subaqueous sand or subaerial damp sand" (1996). So
Brand's own work, taken at face value, does not necessarily indicate that
the footprints were made underwater.


There is abundant geological evidence that the Coconino Sandstone was
eolian.
References:
1.. Brand, Leonard R., 1996. Variations in salamander trackways resulting
from substrate differences. Journal of Paleontology 70(6): 1004-1011.
2.. Lockley, M. G., 1992. Comment and reply on "Fossil vertebrate
footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona:
Evidence for underwater origin" Geology 20(7): 666-667.
3.. Lockley, M. and A. P. Hunt, 1995. Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil
Footprints of the Western United States. New York: Columbia University
Press.
4.. Loope, D. B., 1992. Comment and reply on "Fossil vertebrate
footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona:
Evidence for underwater origin" Geology 20(7): 667-668.
5.. Schur, Chris, 2000. (see below)
Further Reading:
Schur, Chris, 2000. Trace fossils and sedimentary structures: The Permian
Coconino sandstone. http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/cocotr.html ; (home
page at http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/paleo.html )
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/paleontology/pub/grd2/gsa13.htm

Cheers,

George


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rock dating help
    ...    Dr. ... by the tag-team of Snelling and Steve Austin. ... MILES/ of sand, okay? ... the Coconino Sandstone was laid down by the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Rock dating help
    ... the Coconino Sandstone. ... by critters fleeing the Flood. ... MILES/ of sand, okay? ... how could those trackways possibly have been laid ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Rock dating help
    ... Dr. Andrew Snelling - I didn't think my response was questioning ... the Coconino Sandstone. ... MILES/ of sand, okay? ... how could those trackways possibly have been laid ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The next wave
    ... Peter J Ross wrote: ... sand has a kitch biblical tone to it-- the title made me think it'd be ... What's Biblical about "footprints in the sand", ...
    (rec.arts.poems)
  • Re: H2O: FitS - Is there a cultural issue that Im missing? (semi-spoilerish)
    ... So, I've watched the first five episodes of H2O ~Footprints in the Sand~, ... and there's something about it that's irritating me. ...
    (rec.arts.anime.misc)