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

Re: Ponderings

<<Were dinosaurs conclusively reptiles or does the warm blooded/cold blooded
debate keep this classification as questionable?>>

Birds are conclusively reptiles, seen from the perspective of common
descent, and are more closely related with crocs than those critters are
with any other living reptiles.  You don't have to be 'cold-blooded' to be a

<<Finally, as millions of plants and animals die, the material that breaks
down adds to soil depth, along with the defecation of living creatures, so
wouldn't the earth's crust be much thicker now then it was when dinosaurs

That would depend upon how much of the crust is actually provided from such
sources.  A quick bout of hole digging in the
garden should reveal the soil depth isn't worth taking into account.  You're
doing well to get more than a couple of metres.  You'd then be left with
possibly considering the quantities of stuff like coal (not worth counting
in most places) and, to be generous, limestone, chalk and something I might
have forgotten.  The overwhelming sources of lifestone (that's a typo, but I
rather like it as a general word for rock derived from once living critters)
are small shelled things in coastal waters.

I know of nothing suggesting there have been major increases in the
production of limestone and chalk since many hundreds of millions of years
ago, but that could be my ignorance.  Anyway, assuming I'm anything like
right, it's only been a mere 65 million years since the end of the
Cretaceous.  Set that against the accumulation of limestone pre-dating the
Mesozoic, and it's very small beer.