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

Re: Hell Creek (long)

In a message dated 5/29/2002 7:36:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dinoland@lycos.com writes:

Really?  I didn't see much new data at all in this article; really, just a bunch of rehash.

Well yes.... It's rehash of things I already knew about.... It was just nice to see it in print for regular Joe Public's consumption. Just go to anyone on the street and ask them what killed the dinosaurs.... Their answer is always the same......"Asteroid did it."... If you say "Well, maybe, but...." they look at you like you don't know a damn thing. It's always good to stir the coolaide once in a while.

Why?  Were dinosaurs really "better" suited to survive an impact?  I know this is often stated as a priori fact, but is there any true evidence of this?  If anything, some larger dinosaurs may be vulnerable.  Just a thought.

Go back over my original post...... Notice how I bolded the word "should"......... :-)

I've always thought that smaller animals can withstand extinction causing agents much better then larger ones can. Though this isn't proof for impact related extinction or for any other type of extinction cause for that matter, it makes sense when it comes to the vulnerability of larger animals.... They don't reproduce very quickly or in large numbers... They die off if they stay in an affected area..... They die off if they travel out of the affected area... Things break down.....Food chains go bye byes. Smaller animals can do well without large amounts of food.... crocodilians, turtles, etc.... and birds can fly to better areas quickly. Large land animals on the other hand have a serious problem. BUT..... What about all the small dinosaurs???? Can't larger animals travel longer and farther then smaller ones in order to find more suitable habitats???? What about all dinosaurs being prolific egg layers.... rebounding their populations????? Oh the inconsistencies!!!

And then you have Mr. Stanford chiming in with "Trackway evidence in Argentina suggests the existence of an very diverse dinosaurian fauna right up to the K/T impact."...... As you can tell from my original post, I put heavy weight on one thing that we do indeed have some type of understanding about when it comes to what environmental effects are caused by volcanoes and such and where and why they occur.... The weather sucks. These Argentinean dinosaurs might not of had a problem with volcanics and such since the weather patterns on that part of the globe kept the nasties coming from the Deccan Traps and the like from effecting them...... But.... the impactor that zoomed right over their heads caused them to be engulfed in the "small" blast wave/melt sheet that would have shot out of the rear of the crater. Who really knows???...... We can confidently say that the impact did indeed happen and it did indeed bring with it environmental effects... But exactly what effects i! t ! ! brought, how wide spread the effects were, and how severe they were, is still not understood.... and most likely never will be. Speculation is sooooooooo much fun.

As for the rest of what you wrote..... I agree with you.... Most of what you said is exactly what I had written..... You can never have enough studies..... There appears to be some impact relation to mass extinctions.... Compounded environmental effects from different sources conspired together...... Sampling from only ONE small area of the globe and applying it to the entire globe is bad mojo.....etc etc etc. The dinosaurs were around for such a long time..... and they obviously put up with many changes and stresses and survived them. What was taking place at the KT was just another season in their 160 myo run...... It just so happens that an asteroid came crashing down right in the middle of a very bad episode..... causing them to lose their contract renual.... And they went off the air for good.