[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Asteroid impact finally confirmed?
Firstly to disagree with your subject. It wasn't a case of "finally
confirmed" - the impact has been known and accepted for a long time.
did do was strengthen the link between the impact and the extinction.
trouble had been the the KT boundary had only been seen in low
the whole period represented by only 1cm or so, so you get lots of
at the bottom, a thin smear of iridium clays and glass and then
of fossils straight afterwards with a differing species distribution.
different for these cores is that the 'thin smear' is expanded up to
10cm, and we can clearly see that what looked like an instant
life with differing species present was actually a significant period
sparse life followed by a slow buildup of certain surviving phyla.
That is a
tighter causal link between the impact and the extinction than we had
Jonathan Woolf wrote:
> I've wondered more and more about the "asteroid impact" theory over the
> past year or two. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense. The
> general outline hangs together, but one simple question still lacks an
> answer. Very simply, if this asteroid-induced holocaust swept the world,
> reached every continent and every corner of the ocean, wiped out
> dinosaurs, mosasaurs, pterosaurs, ammonites, etc., _everywhere_, with 100%
> success -- then how did anything survive at all?
It sounds like you are envisioning the day of the impact as being the
of the wipeout. Sure maybe continents-worth of creatures got wiped out
the firestorm, but the main killer would be the century or so of low
and wintry conditions that having a dust-laden stratosphere would
Certain plants would die completely, surviving only as seeds in the
Others would become dormant, not fruiting or flowering. The creatures
depended on these plants for food or shelter would perish with them.
turtles today cannot breed if the summer temperature drops below a
value. they would be wiped out in a single generation in a 'dark
that caused climate change. Sex distribution in offspring of
crocs/alligators is detemined by incubation temperature: maybe certain
dinosaurs died out because their last generations were 90% male. These
just a few possible mechanisms. The general point is that the most
successful organisms tend to be the most highly adapted to their
environment (leaving intelligence out for a moment). If that
niche changes significantly, those adaptations become a liability. The
niche-specific generalists that scrape a living at the edges during
times come into their own at that point, able to exploit the new
in ways the others can't. It becomes a race to find who can cling on
enough to adapt to the new conditions, and how successful you have
until that point has no bearing on how well you will do in this
> Can anyone offer a possible reasonable answer to this?
Thats my take, above.
-=-=-=-=-=- -.-. .- .-.. .-.. -- . -.-.--- --- ... .-.-.-
Mark O'Leary Voice: +44 116 2506201
Network and Communications Group Fax: +44 116 2577169
De Montfort University Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Keeper of the Sci.Skeptic FAQ