16 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2024
    1. Permineralization occurs when an organism is buried, and then elements in groundwater completely impregnate all spaces within the body, even cells. Soft body structures can be preserved in great detail, but stronger materials like bone and teeth are the most likely to be preserved. Petrified wood is an example of detailed cellulose structures in the wood being preserved.

      I don't get why they used the word "impregnate all spaces within the body, even cells." that just sounds really weird to say and read.

    2. Fossils are any evidence of past life preserved in rocks. They may be actual remains of body parts (rare), impressions of soft body parts, casts and molds of body parts (more common), body parts replaced by mineral (common) or evidence of animal behavior such as footprints and burrows.

      To me it has always been crazy how little the amount of fossils actually survived.

    1. Many elements have both stable and unstable isotopes. For the hydrogen example, 1H and 2H are stable, but 3H is unstable. Unstable isotopes, called radioactive isotopes, spontaneously decay over time releasing subatomic particles or energy in a process called radioactive decay.

      If I remember correctly, the only reason why 3H was unstable was because of the extra isotope that it had, because it was able to function normally with 1 or 2 but when it got 3 it couldn't handle the pressure/energy or something.

    1. This is a type of unconformity called a disconformity, where either non-deposition or erosion took place. In other words, layers of rock that could have been present, are absent. The time that could have been represented by such layers is instead represented by the disconformity. Disconformities are unconformities that occur between parallel layers of strata indicating either a period of no deposition or erosion.

      So disconformity is a specific type of geological layer, how do people tell them apart semi easily because I feel like its very difficult to do.

    2. The photo shows layers of rock on top of one another in order, from the oldest at the bottom to the youngest at the top, based on the principle of superposition. The predominant white layer just below the canyon rim is the Coconino Sandstone. This layer is laterally continuous, even though the intervening canyon separates its outcrops. The rock layers exhibit the principle of lateral continuity, as they are found on both sides of the Grand Canyon which has been carved by the Colorado River.

      I remember this from Highschool, the older the layers are the older the rock is typically, and the older marking of the rock were at the bottom, meanwhile the (Younger) markings of the rock were newer. Never really expected to remember that.

  2. Jan 2024
    1. The Proterozoic Eon, meaning “earlier life,” is the eon of time after the Archean eon and ranges from 2.5 billion years old to 541 million years old. During this time, most of the central parts of the continents had formed and the plate tectonic process had started.

      I don't understand when it says, "Most of the central parts of the continents had formed and the plate tectonic process had started." wouldn't there need to be plate tectonics already in order for the continents to be formed the way they were?

    1. In order for plate tectonics to work as it does currently, it necessarily must have continents. However, the easiest way to create continental material is via assimilation and differentiation of existing continents (see Chapter 4).

      Then how did plate tectonics work when the entire world was just one country called Pangea?

    1. Jupiter’s gravity accelerated the movement of nearby materials, generating destructive collisions rather than constructively gluing material together [14]. These collisions created the asteroid belt, an unfinished planet, located between Mars and Jupiter. This asteroid belt is the source of most meteorites that currently impact the Earth.

      I never really understood why the Asteroid belt never really disbanded, because its in between Mars and a Gas Giant Jupiter.

    2. The nebular hypothesis is the idea that a spinning cloud of dust made of mostly light elements, called a nebula, flattened into a protoplanetary disk, and became a solar system consisting of a star with orbiting planets [12]. The spinning nebula collected the vast majority of material in its center, which is why the sun Accounts for over 99% of the mass in our solar system.

      I never really understood how Scientists figured out some of this information since I feel like there really wouldn't be enough to know about.

    1. If the star has enough mass and reaches a point at which the primary fusion element, such as helium, is exhausted, fusion continues using new, heavier elements.

      It always fascinated me with how basically ALL of our elements are the result of a star being made or dying.

    1. By 1918, women had helped Britain to victory by making drugs, explosives, insecticides, alloys, electrical instruments and other essential laboratory products, and by carrying out research, running hospitals and teaching students.

      I found it fascinating that during that time, women were able to contribute not only to Britain's victory but also made captivating discovery's with their ability to swiftly master these diverse roles, and manufacturer essential items in a short period of time.

    1. Modern science is based on the scientific method, a procedure that follows these steps: Formulate a question or observe a problem Apply objective experimentation and observation Analyze collected data and Interpret results Devise an evidence-based theory Submit findings to peer review and/or publication

      I wonder what was the previous scientific method that past scientists had to use in order to prove that their work was valid?

    2. Originating from the work of Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century, the theory of evolution has withstood generations of scientific testing for falsifiability.

      Why was Charles Darwin's word considered the Original, wouldn't there have been some other scientist who had some similar idea?

    1. Science denial generally uses three false arguments. The first argument tries to undermine the credibility of the scientific conclusion by claiming the research methods are flawed or the theory is not universally accepted—the science is unsettled. The notion that scientific ideas are not absolute creates doubt for non-scientists; however, a lack of universal truths should not be confused with scientific uncertainty. Because science is based on falsifiability, scientists avoid claiming universal truths and use language that conveys uncertainty. This allows scientific ideas to change and evolve as more evidence is uncovered. The second argument claims the researchers are not objective and motivated by ideology or economic agenda. This is an ad hominem argument in which a person’s character is attacked instead of the merit of their argument. They claim results have been manipulated so researchers can justify asking for more funding. They claim that because the researchers are funded by a federal grant, they are using their results to lobby for expanded government regulation. The third argument is to demand a balanced view, equal time in media coverage and educational curricula, to engender the false illusion of two equally valid arguments. Science deniers frequently demand equal coverage of their proposals, even when there is little scientific evidence supporting their ideology. For example, science deniers might demand religious explanations to be taught as an alternative to the well-established theory of evolution [39; 40]. Or that all possible causes of climate change be discussed as equally probable, regardless of the body of evidence. Conclusions derived using the scientific method should not be confused with those based on ideologies.

      Undermining scientific credibility, attacking researchers' motives, and demanding false balance, these are some of the key tactics in science denial. This shows the importance of understanding scientific uncertainty.

    1. the laws of nature are uniform across space and time. Geologists often state that “the present is the key to the past,” meaning they can understand ancient rocks by studying modern geologic processes.

      How is it that "The present is the key to the past" if in the past something terrible could've happened like a volcano erupted and caused massive damage to the land around it? In that case wouldn't that essentially erase the past leaving only the cooled molten rocks in the present?

    1. Both types of reasoning are important in science because they emphasize the two most important aspects of science: observation and inference.

      I wonder why these wouldn't be considered the two MOST important aspects of Science.