Analyzing Anomalous Topographic MapDrainage System and Landform Evidence as a Glacial History Paradigm Problem: A Literature Review

While not usually stated, detailed topographic maps show well-mapped anomalous drainage system and other erosional landform evidence the accepted North American Cenozoic geologic and glacial history paradigm (accepted paradigm) does not permit geomorphologists to satisfactorily explain. A new and fundamentally different paradigm able to explain the drainage system and other erosional landform evidence has recently emerged, but requires what the accepted paradigm considers to be the preglacial (and probably mid-Cenozoic) Bell River drainage system to have formed on a melting continental ice sheet’s floor. The new paradigm’s melting ice sheet had previously eroded bedrock underneath it and caused crustal warping that raised continental regions and mountain ranges so as to create and occupy a deep “hole” while massive and prolonged meltwater floods flowed across rising continental regions and mountain ranges to the south. The new paradigm leads to a completely different middle Cenozoic geologic and glacial history than the accepted paradigm describes and the two paradigms are analyzed according to good science expectations such as using evidence anyone can see, applying common sense logic during each research step, producing consistent results, and simplicity of paradigm generated explanations. The new paradigm uses topographic map evidence anyone can see, appears to use common sense logic during each research step, and produces remarkably consistent results leading to a simpler Cenozoic northern Missouri River drainage basin region geologic and glacial history than what the accepted paradigm describes. Further work is needed to test the new paradigm’s ability to explain drainage system and erosional landform evidence in other geographic regions such as in the Ohio River drainage basin.

section_content: Independent Researcher, 100 West Ave D-17, Jenkintown, PA, USA
section_name: Analyzing Anomalous Topographic Map Drainage System and Landform Evidence as a Glacial History Paradigm Problem: A Literature Review Eric Clausen

section_content: While not usually stated, detailed topographic maps show well-mapped anomalous drainage system and other erosional landform evidence the accepted North American Cenozoic geologic and glacial history paradigm (accepted paradigm) does not permit geomorphologists to satisfactorily explain. A new and fundamentally different paradigm able to explain the drainage system and other erosional landform evidence has recently emerged, but requires what the accepted paradigm considers to be the preglacial (and probably mid-Cenozoic) Bell River drainage system to have formed on a melting continental ice sheet's floor. The new paradigm's melting ice sheet had previously eroded bedrock underneath it and caused crustal warping that raised continental regions and mountain ranges so as to create and occupy a deep "hole" while massive and prolonged meltwater floods flowed across rising continental regions and mountain ranges to the south. The new paradigm leads to a completely different middle Cenozoic geologic and glacial history than the accepted paradigm describes and the two paradigms are analyzed according to good science expectations such as using evidence anyone can see, applying common sense logic during each research step, producing consistent results, and simplicity of paradigm generated explanations. The new paradigm uses topographic map evidence anyone can see, appears to use common sense logic during each research step, and produces remarkably consistent results leading to a simpler Cenozoic northern Missouri River drainage basin region geologic and glacial history than what the accepted paradigm describes. Further work is needed to test the new paradigm's ability to explain drainage system and erosional landform evidence in other geographic regions such as in the Ohio River drainage basin.
section_name: Abstract

section_content: Even though excellent detailed topographic maps exist, most modern-day United States geomorphologists avoid using those maps to do regional drainage history research. This was not always the case as early literature summaries like the Fenneman [1] [2] "Physiography of the Western United States" and "Physiography of Eastern United States" and Thornbury [3] "Regional Geomorphology of the United States" identify hundreds of regional drainage history studies (which relied on detailed topographic maps), yet since the mid 20 th century similar regional drainage history studies have rarely been published. Did geomorphologists answer all possible regional drainage history questions? No, instead geomorphologists could not provide satisfactory answers for many of their regional drainage history questions and by the mid-20 th century (in spite of expanding topographic map coverage) most geomorphologists gave up on trying to use topographic maps to answer regional drainage history questions. Arthur Strahler, for example, was trained to do regional drainage history research, but after failing to advance the study of Pennsylvania stream development (described in a 1945 paper [4] ), he abandoned such drainage system origin studies and turned instead to developing what he called the dynamic basis of geomorphology [5]. However, in some of the last classes Strahler taught at Columbia University (in which Clausen, the author of this paper, was a student), considerable time was spent discussing still unanswered regional drainage history questions. 

Regional drainage history research requires the interpretation of drainage system and other erosional landform evidence (often best observed on detailed topographic maps) the accepted Cenozoic geologic and glacial history paradigm (accepted paradigm) does not satisfactorily explain, and why would competent
section_name: Introduction: The Anomalous Evidence Problem

section_content: The accepted North American Cenozoic geologic history paradigm describes the Missouri River in South and North Dakota and eastern Montana (see Figure 1 )

to have been formed when a continental ice sheet blocked north-oriented drainage routes leading to a preglacial drainage system named as the Bell River brador Sea (see McMillan [7] and Duk-Rodkin and Hughes [8] ). Jackson [9] in a general audience article describes the Bell River drainage system and includes a discussion of a Sears [10] hypothesis that the Colorado River during Miocene time made a turn in the Grand Canyon area to flow in a north direction so as to join the Bell River drainage system. White [11] [12] argued deep continental ice sheet erosion should have destroyed those partially buried "pre-glacial" valleys, but Gravenor [13], Sugden [14], and other glacial geologists disagreed and almost all glacial geologists have since ignored White's warning. that according to the accepted paradigm flowed to the preglacial Bell River drainage system and predate North American (Cenozoic) continental ice sheets. As a result, geomorphologists such as Russell [15] and White [16] tried to develop somewhat complicated hypotheses attributing the aligned drainage to the prevailing wind directions although other workers including Shurr [17] tried to associate aligned drainage orientations with subsurface lineaments. In any case, no consensus has ever been reached and the regional aligned drainage remains a well-known, but poorly explained geomorphic feature.
section_name: The Bell River Drainage System Relative Age Problem

section_content: North Dakota is a zone of only coarse-grained glacial erratic materials which extends several tens of kilometers to the south and west of the Missouri River valley (which marks the southern and western limit of the finer-grained glacial deposits). This glacial erratic zone is well known and is shown on the Geologic Map of North Dakota [18] and is discussed by Flint [19] who studied South Dakota glacial deposits and who determined glacial erratic boulders on both sides of the Missouri River show the same amount of weathering. For this reason, River tributaries in the western Dakotas and eastern Montana that link the aligned northwest-and southeast-oriented tributaries and also that the northand northeast-oriented Missouri River tributary valleys were formed in an identifiable sequence (from southeast to northwest). This evidence is discussed and illustrated in several new paradigm demonstration papers including [20] and [21]. While map evidence suggests north-and northeast-oriented Missouri River tributary valleys eroded headward in sequence across large southeast-oriented ice-marginal floods that interpretation from the accepted paradigm perspective is impossible because the north-and northeast-oriented valleys already existed prior to any continental ice sheets and even if continental ice sheet melt water had eroded the north-and northeast-oriented valleys, the north-and northeast-oriented valleys would have had to erode headward from the continental ice sheet location and also because some north-and northeast-oriented valleys (and the low points along drainage divides linking the northwest-and southeast-oriented secondary drainage routes) continue headward into the much higher elevation Rocky Mountain region. There is no accepted paradigm mechanism able to explain why valleys could have eroded headward from a continental ice sheet location and then headward into high elevation areas, which is one of the many reasons why the detailed topographic map evidence drainage system and erosional landform evidence cannot be satisfactorily explained.
section_name: Further complicating topographic map interpretation in western South and

section_content: The presence the new paradigm becomes a powerful tool providing remarkably precise explanations for much if not all of the northern Missouri River drainage basin drainage system and other erosional landform topographic map evidence. 

For example, one of the new paradigm demonstration papers [25] describes how large and prolonged southeast-oriented floods carved a previously unexplained complex of diverging and converging valleys into an emerging South Dakota Black Hills upland while another new paradigm demonstration paper [26] describes how headward erosion of the northeast-oriented Cheyenne River valley (to the east of the Black Hills) captured the massive southeast-oriented floods and left the large Sage Creek and Scenic Basins as abandoned southeast-oriented flood-formed headcuts and still another new paradigm demonstration paper [27] shows how massive southeast-oriented floods flowed across the Powder River Basin (to the west of the Black Hills). Evidence for Cheyenne River capture of southeast-oriented streams was previously described from the accepted paradigm perspective by several workers including Todd [28] and Harksen [29], who discussed alluvium from a powerful river that flowed from the central Black Hills onto the Great Plains, and more recently Zaprowski et al. [30] and Stamm et al. [31] who used ash dates obtained by Stafflin [32] to suggest the captures took place after about 660 ka, although these and other previous workers did not address why and how Cheyenne River valley headward erosion was able to capture multiple southeast-oriented streams, or explain the obvious diverging and converging abandoned valley complex crossing what is now the highest Black Hills drainage divide (evidence easily observed on detailed topographic maps). 

At this point in its development the new paradigm's greatest strength is its ability to explain topographic map drainage system evidence such as drainage divides, barbed tributaries, abrupt drainage route directions changes, asymmetric drainage divides, mountain passes and similar erosional landform features. 

Another new paradigm demonstration paper [33] Lillegraven [36] reported finding no evidence a river had flowed through the region and attributed the tilted sedimentary blocks to subsurface faulting. Supporting the Toepelman and Gill interpretations Clausen [37] found rounded cobbles and small boulders associated with all of the Toepelman and Gill mapped landslide blocks. 

Except for changing the Bell River drainage system formation relative age position from pre-glacial (possibly middle Cenozoic) to late during the first (Cenozoic) North American continental ice sheet's melt history the new paradigm does not change previously determined relative ages, but probably requires meltwater floods to have deposited many Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene sediments and possibly even some Eocene sediments. As mentioned, the first new paradigm continental ice sheet was heavy, meaning it was several kilometers thick and when fully developed it stood higher than any present-day North American mountain ranges (even after the crust underneath it had subsided and the ice sheet had deeply eroded the underlying bedrock). Like in high mountain ranges today climatic conditions on the ice sheet high elevation surface would have been much different than at the ice sheet's base and elsewhere on the con- gists usually correctly report where fossils were found (which can be checked by anyone willing to look). However, fossils need to be interpreted, which can mean placing the fossils in a sequence of faunal or floral succession and/or using the fossils to interpret a depositional environment. Such interpretations can be paradigm influenced and may or may not be made differently from a different paradigm's perspective. In other words, fossils address the first science research expectation to extent fossils exist and are usually found where reported to have been found, but may or may not satisfy that expectation when used as evidence of a rock unit's age or depositional environment. Many absolute age dates, especially radiometric age dates, like fossil interpretations, may be paradigm influenced and may or may not be interpreted the same way from a different paradigm's perspective.
section_name: New Paradigm Summary

section_content: Turning to the second science research expectation the new paradigm uses topographic map interpretation methods which consider low points along drainage divides (unless there is reason to think otherwise) to be places where a stream or river once flowed in one direction or the other across the drainage divide. Closely spaced low points along a drainage divide (especially if opposing valleys draining from those low points converge in downstream directions) can be considered possible evidence of a flood-formed converging and diverging channel complex that once crossed the drainage divide. When determining why a stream or river or diverging and converging channel complex no longer crosses the drainage divide the map interpretation methods look for logical explanations. For example, drainage divides following mountain range crests logically might have formed due to faster mountain range uplift than the valleys could be eroded. In other cases, topographic maps can be interpreted to show how headward erosion of a much deeper valley beheaded a stream, river, and/or diverging and converging channel complex and created the drainage divide by reversing the flow direction on the beheaded channel upstream end(s). Stream capture evidence in the form of barbed tributaries and abrupt drainage route direction changes is abundant on detailed topographic maps and while Bishop [38] argues beheading of drainage routes by the headward erosion of deeper valleys under normal conditions does not easily occur, the new paradigm describes large continental ice sheet meltwater floods that created the abnormal conditions needed to explain the abundant topographic map recorded stream capture events. The new paradigm expects common sense logic to be used during every research process step and appears to address the second science research expectation. 

Almost all researchers following accepted paradigm rules believe they use Mears [40] summarizes accepted paradigm interpretations in a history that when following mid-Eocene deformation erosion lowered the mountain crests and

(after some intervening late Eocene events) the eroded sediments and volcanic ash filled the valleys and intermontane basins and buried or partially buried the mountain ranges with Oligocene and Miocene sediments until mid-Miocene when regional uplift took place and exhumation of the mountain valleys and intermontane basins began. In contrast the new paradigm interpretation is Rocky Mountain and regional uplift occurred due to continental ice sheet related crustal warping while immense melt water floods flowed across and eroded the rising Rocky Mountain region. Again, which paradigm uses the fewest assumptions and describes the simplest history? Before answering that last question, a reader might remember geologic maps such as the Love and Christiansen [44] Geologic Map of Wyoming do not support a hypothesis that Oligocene and Miocene sediments once filled intermontane basins and buried or partially buried mountain ranges as Pelletier [45] and others claim. While from the accepted paradigm perspective a relationship between continental ice sheets and regional and Rocky Mountain uplift is usually not reported, glacial isostatic adjustment is well-documented with Sella et al. [46], for example, reporting present-day uplift of about 10 mm per year near the now ice sheet free Hudson Bay region.
section_name: Analysis of the Two Competing Paradigms

section_content: The accepted North American Cenozoic geologic and glacial history paradigm is like a tall building still under construction. staircases, and elevator shafts to connect as they should. In addition, lying in the weeds some distance away and almost forgotten about are the solid foundation stones (the ignored drainage system and erosional landform topographic map evidence) that should be in the foundation supporting the building. The time is coming when those solid foundation stones will need to replace flawed foundation stones upon which the building now rests and when that time comes, the building may have to be torn down and then reconstructed with the discarded and more solid foundation stones at its base. 

Kuhn [6] describes a paradigm as being a set of rules enabling scientists to explain evidence (to finish rooms in the tall building analogy) and to find new research opportunities (to add new floors on top of the building), but also with the ability to identify anomalous evidence the paradigm cannot explain or explain well (the discarded and forgotten about and ignored drainage system and erosional landform topographic map evidence). As described geomorphologists working from the accepted paradigm perspective are unable to satisfactorily explain much of the topographic map drainage system and erosional landform evidence and for that reason many no longer try to do so. Drainage systems and erosional landforms are large-scale features found almost everywhere and any Cenozoic geologic and glacial history must satisfactorily explain them. Yet, like in the above tall building analogy builders of the accepted North American Cenozoic geologic and glacial history paradigm discarded and have forgotten about the detailed topographic map drainage system and erosional landform evidence. 

Without that solid foundation, the accepted North American Cenozoic geologic and glacial history paradigm rests on foundation stones like the hypothesized Bell River drainage system "pre-glacial" age and the remarkable coincidence that multiple and independent continental ice sheets expanded into almost identical regions of the North American continent. 

In conclusion, anomalous evidence can threaten any scientific paradigm, and in this case well-mapped anomalous drainage system and erosional landform evidence threatens the accepted Cenozoic geologic and glacial history paradigm.
section_name: Discussion and Conclusion

section_name: Acknowledgements

section_content: Preliminary work leading to the new paradigm development was done while employed as a Minot State University faculty member. The author thanks Arthur Strahler (then at Columbia University) and Brainerd "Nip" Mears, Jr. (then at the University of Wyoming ) for introducing numerous unsolved regional drainage history problems.
section_name: Acknowledgements

section_name: Conflicts of Interest

section_content: The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
section_name: Conflicts of Interest