BIOL 400 final

Q: From what two types of questions did the science of geology arise?

A: From practical questions (e.g., finding resources) and theoretical questions (e.g., how Earth and its features formed).

Q: Who was James Ussher, and what did he publish in the 17th century?

A: James Ussher was the Archbishop of Armagh who published a chronology of human history, including Biblical events, between 1650–1654.

Q: What date and time did Ussher give for the beginning of divine creation?

A: 12:00 noon on October 23, 4004 BC.

Q: How did Ussher arrive at his date for Creation?

A: Through extensive Biblical and non-Biblical research, resulting in a 2000-page chronology of all human history.

Q: Were Ussher’s conclusions unique among scholars of his time?

A: No. Other scholars using similar methods reached similar dates for Creation.

Q: According to the Genesis / Ussher view, what is the one major geological event that significantly shaped the Earth?

A: The Great Flood of Noah.

Q: What did Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation successfully explain that had been mysterious?

A: The daily tides on Earth.

Q: How did Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation influence thinking about Earth’s origins?

A: It encouraged the development of theories of the Earth based on physical laws (cosmogony), rather than only on scripture or myth.

Q: What is “cosmogony” in this context?

A: The study of the origin and development of the universe and the Earth using physical laws.

Q: What did early scientific models of the Earth try to incorporate?

A: The new knowledge of physics (especially Newtonian mechanics) and astronomy (planets, comets, orbits) into accounts of Earth’s origins and history.

Q: What was the main aim of early scientific theories of the Earth?

A: To provide an account of Earth’s origins and geological history using the new physics and astronomy.

Q: Who wrote New Theory of the Earth and when was it published?

A: William Whiston wrote it; it was published in 1696.

Q: What did Whiston try to do in New Theory of the Earth?

A: He tried to explain Biblical events by means of cometary events, using Newtonian physics.

Q: What was Whiston’s operating principle regarding the Bible?

A: Accept the Bible as literally true, except if you have reason to believe otherwise.

Q: According to Whiston, from what point of view is Genesis written?

A: From the point of view of an observer on the surface of the Earth, not the cosmos as a whole.

Q: What important consequence follows from Whiston’s Earth-surface reading of Genesis?

A: Genesis is not an account of the origin of everything; it is focused on Earth, so he could accept pre-existing stars and comets without rejecting Scripture.

Q: In Whiston’s theory, what was the Earth before the Biblical creation story begins?

A: A comet with a highly elliptical orbit.

Q: How, according to Whiston, did Earth’s orbit change from comet-like to planetary?

A: God made Earth’s orbit more circular, working through Newton’s laws; physical laws are the tools of God.

Q: What did Whiston say about physical laws and God’s action?

A: Physical laws are the tools of God; God acts by setting up and using these laws.

Q: In Whiston’s theory, what event accompanied the Fall of Man and the expulsion from Eden?

A: The impact of a comet hitting the Earth.

Q: How did Whiston use a comet impact to explain the Fall of Man?

A: He linked the Fall to a comet impact that could cause geological and environmental changes associated with human sin and expulsion from Eden.

Q: In Whiston’s theory, what caused the Flood of Noah?

A: A close encounter between Earth and the water in the tail of a passing comet.

Q: According to Whiston, how did the comet’s tail contribute water to the Flood?

A: Earth passed through or very near a water-rich comet tail, adding new water to Earth’s surface.

Q: How did tidal forces from the comet help cause the Flood in Whiston’s theory?

A: The comet’s gravity caused extreme tides that opened cracks in Earth’s surface, forcing subterranean water upward, which added to the Flood.

Q: How did Whiston’s account of the Flood combine theology and physics?

A: It kept the Flood as a God-guided event but explained it using Newtonian gravity and cometary dynamics.

Q: What is the “coming conflagration” in Whiston’s theory?

A: A future event where another comet approaches Earth, strips the atmosphere, raises molten interior material, and makes Earth’s orbit more elliptical, causing great destruction.

Q: What did Whiston predict would happen to Earth’s atmosphere and interior in the coming conflagration?

A: The atmosphere would be stripped away, and molten interior material would be raised to the surface.

Q: What orbital change did Whiston predict in the coming conflagration?

A: Earth’s orbit would become more elliptical again.

Q: What is “the consummation” in Whiston’s scenario?

A: The sequence in which Christ reigns for a thousand years, the Battle of Armageddon is fought, the righteous win and go to heaven, and Earth takes a direct hit from another comet.

Q: What final cosmic event ends Earth’s current state in Whiston’s view?

A: A direct hit from yet another comet that knocks Earth back into a highly elliptical orbit, marking the end.

Q: Why is Whiston’s New Theory of the Earth historically important for geology?

A: It is an early attempt to unify Scripture, Newtonian science, and catastrophic geological change into one coherent theory of Earth’s past and future.

Q: What is Telliamed (1748), and who is it associated with?

A: A book titled Telliamed, published in 1748 and associated with Benoit de Maillet (1656–1738).

Q: How did Benoit de Maillet present his ideas in Telliamed to avoid trouble?

A: He put radical ideas into the mouth of a fictional “mysterious philosopher from the East” in conversational form.

Q: Name three key ideas expressed in Telliamed.

A: (1) The Earth has seen eternal cycles of creation and destruction; (2) oceans once covered the Earth; (3) speculation about the origin and evolution of life.

Q: What did de Maillet claim about oceans in Earth’s past?

A: That oceans once covered the Earth.

Q: How did de Maillet’s ideas in Telliamed challenge traditional views?

A: By proposing long-term cycles, past global oceans, and development (evolution-like) ideas about life, which implied a much older and dynamically changing Earth.

Q: In this context, who is Buffon, and why is he mentioned “again”?

A: Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, a major 18th-century naturalist, is mentioned again because of his work on Earth’s history and natural history.

Q: What was Buffon’s distinctive position regarding theories of Earth and geology?

A: Buffon was the last person to try to integrate a theory of Earth’s origins with a theory of geological change into one grand system.

Q: What central question did the “problem of fossils” reduce to?

A: Whether fossils are actual remains of once-living organisms and thus tell us about life in the past.

Q: What did fossil skeptics believe about fossils?

A: That fossils were not the remains of organisms and therefore tell us nothing about past life.

Q: Why did many fossil skeptics reject the idea of extinction?

A: Because extinction seemed theologically untenable: it conflicted with the idea that a wise, all-powerful God created all species for a specific purpose.

Q: What is the “problem of extinction” in theological terms?

A: Extinction appears to contradict the belief that all species were created by a wise, all-powerful God for specific purposes, since it implies God-created species could simply disappear.

Q: What did Genesis paleontologists think fossils were?

A: They thought fossils were remains of organisms and tried to fit them into a Biblical framework.

Q: Who was Nicholas Steno, and what fossil-related problem did he work on?

A: Nicholas Steno (1638–1686) wrestled with the “solids within solids problem,” especially in relation to “tongue stones” (fossil shark teeth).

Q: What is the “solids within solids problem” Steno considered?

A: How one solid (like a fossil tooth or shell) can be enclosed within another solid (like rock), implying the rock formed around the fossil over time.

Q: Who was Robert Hooke, and what was his stance on Genesis geology?

A: Robert Hooke (1635–1703) was a Genesis skeptic in geology.

Q: What did Hooke argue about sedimentary rocks and the Flood?

A: He argued that sedimentary rocks are not simply remains of the Biblical Flood.

Q: What did Hooke say about Earth movements and geological layers?

A: He claimed Earth movements reform the Earth’s surface and can expose marine layers, showing complex geological history.

Q: What was Hooke’s position on extinction?

A: He argued that extinction is real.

Q: What was Neptunism (18th century) trying to explain?

A: Neptunism tried to explain geological formations, especially mountains, as a result of the recession of oceans and the precipitation of minerals from these receding oceans.

Q: Did most Neptunists rely on the Bible or the Flood in their theories?

A: No. Most Neptunists made no reference to the Bible or the Great Flood.

Q: What key stratigraphical principle did Neptunists help establish?

A: The principle of superposition.

Q: What is the stratigraphical principle of superposition?

A: In undisturbed sedimentary layers, the oldest layers are at the bottom and younger layers are on top.

Q: Whose earlier work influenced the principle of superposition?

A: Nicholas Steno’s work.

Q: What did Plutonism (late 18th century) emphasize as a geological agent?

A: Internal heat as an agent of geological change.

Q: Who founded Plutonism, and with what work?

A: James Hutton (1726–1797) founded Plutonism with Theory of the Earth, with Proofs and Illustrations (1795).

Q: Who later rewrote and popularized Hutton’s ideas, and in which book?

A: John Playfair rewrote and condensed them in Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth (1802).

Q: What is “uniformitarianism” in Hutton’s theory?

A: The view that the causes of geological change are slow, constant, and the same at all times; the processes operating now have always operated.

Q: How does uniformitarianism contrast with catastrophic explanations?

A: It explains geological change by continuous, gradual processes rather than rare, large catastrophes.

Q: What did Hutton argue about geological cycles and Earth’s long-term state?

A: He argued for geological cycles and a steady-state Earth: mountains erode, sediments deposit in oceans, pressure forms molten magma, magma rises and forms new land, with no long-term directional change.

Q: Summarize Hutton’s cycle of geological change.

A: Continental mountains erode → sediments are carried to oceans → sediment pressure forms molten magma → magma rises to the seafloor → new continental material forms.

Q: In Hutton’s model, is there long-term directional change to Earth?

A: No. The Earth is in a long-term steady state, with ongoing cycles but no overall directional trend.

Q: Who became the main defender of Hutton’s ideas and uniformitarianism in the 19th century?

A: Charles Lyell (1797–1875).

Q: What major work did Charles Lyell write, and when?

A: Principles of Geology (3 volumes, 1830–1833).

Q: Why is Lyell’s Principles of Geology historically important?

A: It was the 19th century’s most important geology textbook and strongly promoted uniformitarianism.

Q: In the diagram comparing Genesis geologists, Buffon/Neptunists, and Hutton, what do the “state of Earth vs. time” curves represent?

A: They represent different views of how Earth changes over time: Genesis geologists see a major one-time change (e.g., Creation + Flood), Buffon/Neptunists see long-term directional change, and Hutton sees repeating cycles with no net long-term trend.

Q: Who assembled the first stratigraphical columns, and when?

A: Georges Cuvier and William Smith, between 1800–1820.

Q: What is the key idea behind the stratigraphical column?

A: Fossils in rock layers are not random; they tell a chronological story and can be used to determine the relative ages of strata.

Q: On what two logical points does the use of fossils in stratigraphy depend?

A: (1) That particular fossil assemblages characterize particular time periods; (2) that sequences of these assemblages can be matched across different locations to infer relative ages.

Q: What is one biological implication of the stratigraphical column?

A: Life changes over time—different layers contain different fossil assemblages, indicating biological change.

Q: How does the stratigraphical column allow different sites to be related in time?

A: By matching layers with similar fossil assemblages, we can infer which strata at different sites are relatively older or younger.

Q: In the example with strata A–H, what can we conclude about the relative age of A vs. F, G, and H?

A: Even though A never appears in the same column as F, G, or H, we can conclude that A is younger than F, G, and H.

Q: In the 19th century, what were the two main debates about geological change?

A: (1) The rate of geological change; (2) the direction of geological change.

Q: What is uniformitarianism in the context of 19th-century debates?

A: A view emphasizing slow, uniform geological change operating continuously over long periods.

Q: What is catastrophism in geology?

A: A view emphasizing episodes of rapid, large-scale geological change (catastrophes) separated by long periods of relative changelessness.

Q: How do uniformitarianism and catastrophism differ regarding rates of change?

A: Uniformitarianism stresses slow, continuous processes; catastrophism stresses occasional rapid, large-scale events.

Q: What was the debate about the direction of geological change?

A: Whether Earth’s changes are directional (trending in one direction over time) or cyclic/steady-state (repeating cycles with no net trend).

Q: What is directional geology, and who are examples of directional geologists?

A: Directional geology sees Earth as undergoing long-term directional change; examples include Buffon and many Neptunists.

Q: What is cyclic, steady-state geology, and who are its main proponents?

A: It sees Earth as going through repeating cycles with no overall long-term trend; main proponents are James Hutton and Charles Lyell.

Q: What key contribution did geology make to evolutionary biology regarding time?

A: The concept of deep time—an immensely long Earth history, far beyond a few thousand years.

Q: How did fossils from geology contribute to evolutionary biology?

A: They established the reality of extinction and provided a record showing transitions from earlier life forms to later ones.

Q: What did geology show about extinction and past organisms?

A: That many organisms that once lived are now extinct, proving that species can disappear from Earth.

Q: How did the fossil record support the idea of evolutionary change?

A: It revealed a sequence of forms over time, suggesting a story of transition from earlier to later life forms.

Q: What idea about the rate of change did geology give to evolutionary biology?

A: The concept that major changes can result from very slow rates of change acting over vast periods of time.

Q: What is evolution (in the basic biological sense)?

A: Heritable change in a population or species over generational time, and the divergence of lineages from a common source.

Q: What does “heritable change” mean in the definition of evolution?

A: Change in traits that are passed from one generation to the next, via genetic or hereditary mechanisms.

Q: In what sense is evolution “creative”?

A: It can increase the fitness of a population over time; it does more than just eliminate inviable forms—it can produce better-adapted populations.

Q: Is evolutionary change open-ended or goal-directed?

A: It is open-ended; there is no final goal or natural stopping place.

Q: What does evolution imply about the relationships among species?

A: That species are related by descent and share common ancestors.

Q: How does essentialism pose an obstacle to evolutionary thinking?

A: Essentialism assumes fixed, unchanging essences for each species, which conflicts with the idea that species can change over time.

Q: What does everyday experience seem to show about generations that can hinder evolutionary thinking?

A: We typically see generational continuity (offspring resemble parents) rather than radical discontinuity, so large-scale change is not obvious in everyday life.

Q: How can literal interpretation of religious texts conflict with acceptance of evolution?

A: A strict literal reading, coupled with belief in supernatural causation in everyday events, can lead some people to reject scientific explanations, including evolution.

Q: What is “natural theology”?

A: An approach that interprets organismal structures and functions teleologically—as evidence of purposeful design—without relying on revealed religion; it was a key concept in the 18th and 19th centuries.

the study of God through human reason and observation of the natural world, rather than through divine revelation or scripture

Q: Does natural theology as a mode of thought go back only to the 18th century?

A: No, the teleological interpretation of organismal function goes back to ancient times; the term “natural theology” is newer.

Q: Who was the most important natural theologian in England around 1800?

A: William Paley.

Q: What influential book did William Paley write, and when?

A: Natural Theology, published in 1802.

Q: How did the incomplete fossil record act as an obstacle to accepting evolution?

A: Because the record appeared to show abrupt changes rather than gradual transitions, which seemed inconsistent with slow evolutionary change.

Q: What did Cuvier conclude about fossils and evolutionary change?

A: Cuvier (early 19th century) thought fossils showed abrupt, not gradual, changes in life and did not reveal the intermediates he expected to see if evolution had occurred.

Q: What is the “plenitude principle”?

A: The idea that all species that can exist, do exist; creation was fully stocked from the beginning, with no gaps.

Q: Why does the plenitude principle conflict with evolutionary thinking?

A: It denies that new species emerge over time or that there were ever “missing” forms, undermining the idea of species originating, changing, or going extinct.