[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Extinction from Space - again
Anything that did survive would have had to recover from large hits on
My theory (still on the drawing board) suggests that frogs could tell
when breeding season came around as they had functional pineal glands
that allowed a measurement of daylight periods. So could crocodiles,
mammals, and birds. It seemed rather odd to me that such a primitive
mechanism is so widespread amongst modern species and I wondered if
dinosaurs had it. I thought perhaps it was a survival mechanism that
helped to preserve species that had the functional use of a pineal gland
across some occurance where NOT having one caused extinction.
It seems dinosaurs of the Late Creatceous did not. (so far, but
hadrosaurs pareital bones are just plain wierd)
Thus frogs could more easily recover as they simply could tell the
passage of time better than a dinosaur more limited to indicators like
weather or temperature to breed. You see, if those indicators aren't
accurate, dinosaurs don't breed properly and so do not recover their
numbers. But frogs can both hybernate AND tell what time of year it
is. So frogs would have two advantages to recovering a population that
dinosaurs (apparently) did not have.
JAMES SUTTON wrote:
> Another point that I failed to make in the earlier post is the magnitude of
> the blast(s) at the K-T.
> A crater as big as the Chicxulub woud require roughly 10,000 times the
> entire peak nuclear arsenal of the world to produce. Chicxulub is what
> 150 km. Manson is about 40 km. So, are we talking about some
> simultaneous (relatively speaking) that ran up values of explosive force
> more than 15,000 times our peak power? Probably so. And we may also
> find other craters of 65 MYA of similar sizes. Somehow, I don't have
> much a problem accepting the demise of dinosaurs under the conditions
> of such a huge expenditure of energy, esecially when it may have been
> more distributed over the earth than we think. What I don't understand is
> the survival of the frogs.