[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: CORRELATIVE AND CAUSITIVE SCIENCE WHEN DEALING WITH EXTINCTION SCENARIOS



Peter:

    The problem you have with the 'rock from the sky explanation' is that it
happens at roughly the same time as the extinctions, but you see no
causative link.  The multiple effects that I detailed (and there are more)
are related to a sufficiently large rock (or whatever) hitting the earth.
(By the way, on that standard 12 inch globe the hole left by the 'tiny' rock
[itself, larger than Manhattan] would be nearly 1/2 inch in diameter - large
enough to easily swallow the entire State of New Jersey, and New York City,
and the State of Rhode Island - some might say "Good Riddance").  Several
good physicists have calculated the amount of energy released by this
impact, and how much dust.  There are disagreements (as there almost always
are in science), but that tiny speck could throw up into the atmosphere a
HELL of a lot dust, etc.

    The effects listed need not have all ocurred to their greatest possible
extent, but would be enough to upset the ecological balance of the entire
planet, so that the extinctions would occur as an offshoot of the impact.

    Feel free to see no causative link, others will.  Just as in some areas
where you see a causative link, some others will not.  I personally,
obviously, lean towards seeing that link in this case.

    Cheers:

        Allan Edels


-----Original Message-----
From: Tetanurae@aol.com <Tetanurae@aol.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>; Dinogeorge@aol.com
<Dinogeorge@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 5:52 PM
Subject: CORRELATIVE AND CAUSITIVE SCIENCE WHEN DEALING WITH EXTINCTION
SCENARIOS


>This is my one and only post on dinosaur extinctions in the last 2 years or
>so.  To tell you the truth, I really don't give a damn about dinosaur
>extinction, but there are a few things that just irk me when people are so
>sure of the rock from the sky explanation.
>
>George Olshevsky wrote:
><<We have a hole in the ground, we have lots of missing animals, and, most
>important, we have extremely good information on the timing of these two
>events. As far as we can tell, within the bounds of error, they occur
>simultaneously.>>
>
>Yes, yes, blah.  They happened at roughly the same time: so what?  I brush
my
>teeth at roughly thr same time I take a shower.  That doesn't mean I brush
my
>teeth while I'm in the shower.  You have a correlation, and that's just it.
>
>What you need is a positive cause of the extinctions that would have come
from
>rocks falling from the sky.  So far all I have seen are either rediculous,
>ludicrus, or ignorant explanations.
>
>They either pose a scenario which wouldn't have killed ANYTHING because the
>nuclear winter or whatever would have lasted about a week and would have
just
>yellowed the figurative grass.
>
>Or, they propose scenarios that would have killed everything on the planet.
>Decades of freezing or baking temperatures that would have either burnt,
>killed or froze every single plant, seed or spore on the planet, not to
>mention phytoplankton, and the starving animals that fed on them (and those
>that fed on them).  Point is: everything would have died.
>
>The ecosystem would not have been devistated, it would have been destroyed.
>
>Completely.
>
>Nothing would survive.
>
>There is no way that you could have killed off one group of organisms
without
>killing everything.
>
>Any in-between scenario would have to explain why the extinction was SOOOO
>selective when the agent of destruction was so all encompassing.  Counter
to
>George's claim to the contrary the rock from the sky supporters DO have to
>explain why some things survived with no problems.  Why did nautiloids go
on
>with no problems, while ammonites didn't.  Why did neornithine birds live
and
>enantiornithines die?
>
>Another thing I would like to point out to everyone is the size of the rock
>that fell from the sky.  Get a globe, your standard American 12" diameter
>globe will be fine for my example.  I have heard estimates of the size of
this
>rock from between 6 and 10 miles across.  That means that with the 12"
globe
>the rock that killed the dinosaurs would be between 1/110 and 1/66 of an
>inch!!!  This is bordering on microscopic.
>
>And this tiny partical of dust is supposed to kick up enough dust and rock
to
>cloud up the atmosphere, block out the sun, then bake the earth enough to
>cause massive firestorms!?  Give me a break!  Am the only one that thinks
that
>this is just slightly absurd?
>
>Peter Buchholz
>Tetanurae@aol.com
>
>Chee's da'ling
>