Summations Only

From your source:

quote:

---

The scientists recently discovered a piece of the Appalachian Mountains in southern Mexico, a location geologists long had assumed was part of the North American Cordillera. The Cordillera is a continuous sequence of mountain ranges that includes the Rocky Mountains. It stretches from Alaska to Mexico and continues into South America.

---

As I interpret the article: The Appalachian Mountains were created much earlier than the Cordillerian ("Rocky") mountains. They were studying an area of complex/complicated geology that had (wrongly) been thought to be part of the Cordillerian chain. It was found to instead be of the Appalachian chain. This made it part of the older mountain chain.Further study indicated that the area was a late formed aspect of the Appalachian Mountains, much younger than what was found elsewhere in Appalachian Mountains study. This area was formed 120 million years later than the older Appalachian Mountains. This is independent of age considerations elsewhere in the Appalachian Mountains.Seemingly, the article could have been more clearly written. My interpretation may be wrong, and if so, I welcome and encourage the better geologists to correct me.MooseABE3 note:The http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2006/11/061117123212.htm article
and
the Page not Found | Ohio University article
are the same.Percy supplied the "a much more clear explanation"
http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/...nt/103/6/817.abstract article.
I not sure about that "more clear" claim.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fix quote box and turn off signature. Yet another failure to use "preview" before posting.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Damn, I thought I turned that signature off.Edited by Minnemooseus, : ABE3.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Tweak subtitle. Better but still not good.

Well, he was talking folding lime mud, sand, and silt, not clay. That material may indeed just get all mixed up together . He was SORT OF on the right track, but didn't get it totally correct. Or something like that.But Pressie's point is that there can be soft sediment folding. FEY, see the Wiki article on soft-sediment deformation structures. Especially see the convolute bedding section. This deformation is probably usually (yes, weasel words) pretty small scale. You are not going to find large scale soft sediment folding (other geologists welcome to tell me I'm wrong).FEY, see what happens when you adopt the mainstream geology orthodoxy? Someone's going to hit you with the exception to the rule.Moose