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

Re: Extinction scenarios



But the point here is that neither the disease nor the bolide are sufficient to
wipe out all those species in and of themselves, it was the combination of both
that did the job, at least if this hypothesis is correct.  so you can't say, yes
the bolide killed them because it did not, according to this view. it would 
merely
have drastically reduced their populations.  The disease by itself would not 
have
done so, either so obviously the disease is not the culprit.  Putting it all on
the bolide's shoulders is an oversimplification.  Without the pathogen, the 
bolide
would not have wiped them out, so then it becomes the cold that killed the last
passenjer pigeon in your example.

Joe Daniel

Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 98-08-19 15:14:15 EDT, PTJN@AOL.COM writes:
>
> << So here's a question for George: In the scenario sketched in the above
>  paragraph, is it the disease or the bolide that "caused" the extinction?
>   >>
>
> As Jack Horner is said to have said, "If the last passenger pigeon died of a
> cold, does that mean the cold caused the pigeons' extinction?"
>
> Of course the bolide would have caused the extinction. Without the bolide, the
> populations would, presumably, have been able to resist the pathogens as
> usual.