The research conducted by Roy B. Van Arsdale and Randel T. Cox about their idea of the origins of the Mississippi embayment was based on other theories, work, and models produced by other scientists. The theories that the pair presented in the article published in the Scientific American magazine were easily understood by the non-scientist. The article seemed to lack any real scientific data from the pair that was original or from the two conducting any geological evidence of their own. This writer could understand why the magazine chose to publish the research because it did a good job of explaining Pangea and tectonic theories to the armchair scientist. This writer could not find any research by other reputable scientists that have proven or disproven the theory presented by Van Arsdale and Cox.
The research on the origins of the Mississippi river embayment was in an effort to explain why the land in that area is two meters below sea level. The research conducted was intended to determine the reasonable explanation of why the Mississippi river embayment near the Gulf of Mexico is below sea level. This research may help engineers develop new ways to protect the people who live there, from disastrous flooding. However, most of the research is based on the theory of Pangea and the Continental drift. Although the Pangea theory may be as close as modern scientists can get to a reasonable and plausible explanation of the rise and fall of landmasses across the globe, as well as the reason most landmasses seem to fit together like puzzle pieces, it is still a theory. This writer was able to discern that because the article referred to Pangea often, the research was generally based on this theory.
Although there seemed to be no specific sampling of physical data based on field research, the two authors did seem to base their conclusion on geological data collected by other scientists that conducted geological studies. The pair also used computer models of a possible geological history of the planet and the North American continent, during the time period from Pangea through the present. The models focused mostly on the paleo periods in prehistory. Information from the previous studies of data that were used to base a conclusion. The data may answer the question about why the Mississippi embayment is two meters below sea level. However, data presented was from previous geologists who sampled rock, sediment, and soil strata to determine conclusions such as, when the land sank, when the embayment was formed, and how the land was formed. Van Arsdale and Cox formed a theory on how it happened, based on previous data. The theory was based on data collected from the strata samples, proposed history of volcanic activity along the southeastern United States, and known earthquakes in the middle of the United States. The pair spent much of their research focusing on areas such as Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. They also focused on the Gulf of Mexico and data collected from researchers who studied the marine environment near there.
It is clear that Van Arsdale and Cox interpreted their results based on current theories of other models which show ways that the Great Lakes in South Canada and North Central United States, were formed. Theories for those lakes show the water coming from the Great Ice Melt after the last ice age, but the possibility for a hot spot raising land is also a theory. The models that were used to create their theory are computer generated and based on some geological evidence but also based on theory. Those factors create more questions than the two scientists were able to answer, in this writer’s opinion.
This writer agrees that the results of the study by Van Arsdale and Cox may be correct. However, that opinion is based exclusively on the reasonable agreement that their theory matches that of the Pangea Theory as truth. If the theory proposed by Van Arsdae and Cox is proven incorrect by field studies and data collected from geological evidence, this writer may change his or her opinion.
It is this writer’s opinion that the study of Mississippi’s embayment by Roy B. Van Arsdale and Randel T. Cox could have been more intensive and relied less on the studies of others. There was a lack of laboratory and field data conducted by the pair. Therefore, the results of the study were theory based on another theory that was created by someone else.
It is this writer’s opinion that this study may need to be repeated several times to prove or disprove the theory. The information that is available on an internet search, showed that there have not been any other scientists conduct this particular research. It is likely that their theory is correct, based on the current data of Pangea and Tectonic Plates, however, that does not mean that we should take one research study as the absolute truth. Instead, it is this writer’s opinion that more research is needed. This means that more field research and data collected from that research should be analyzed, before the theory is taught as an absolute to schoolchildren studying the geology of the Mississippi embayment and the history of the North American continent.
While nothing in this study confused this writer, the article was dry and consisted mostly of repeating the theories based around Pangea. The article was lacking in specific data or direct evidence from the authors, Van Arsdale and Cox. None of the evidence provided was original data or proof. The only things they presented were their ideas about how the Mississippi embayment was formed, using computer models. This type of research lacks creativity and true scientific research. It is the opinion of this writer that the artice, while easily understood by the non-scientist, was not only lacking in substantial data, it could be improved on and reprinted in a more academic or scholarly journal for it to be of any real help in the study of geology. As the current article was printed in the Scientific American magazine, it does a great job explaining to the non-scientist how Pangea formed, how plate tectonics played a role in the formation of the Appalachian Mountains, and how volcanic and seismic activity in areas surrounding the Mississippi embayment have formed, the article was lacking in complex data or proof to explain the theory.
Works Cited
Imlay, R.W., 1949. Lower Cretaceous and Jurassic formations of southern Arkansas and the oil and gas possibilities. Arkansas Resource and Development Commission, Division of Geology, Information Circular 12, 64.
Reelfoot Rift: Reactivated Precursor to the Mississippi Embayment. (n.d.). Retrieved March 19, 2016, from http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/86/9/1287.short
Stratigraphic Summary of the Mississippi Embayment and Gulf Coastal Plain. (n.d.). Retrieved March 19, 2016, from http://www.geology.ar.gov/geology/strat_missembayment_gulfplain.htm
Van Arsdale, R.B. & Cox, R.T. (2007). “The Mississippi’s curious origins”. Scientific American, Jan 2007, p. 76-82.
