PDA

View Full Version : What wiped out the dinosaurs :?



littlesprout85
07-03-2010, 10:33 PM
Why did the dinosaurs faded away ?

Sprouty would like to prepare for history repeating itself :eek:

-Sprout85 =)

Hobbes
07-03-2010, 10:40 PM
http://tinyurl.com/yenx84e

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2010, 10:48 PM
http://tinyurl.com/yenx84e
I show that pic in Q&A times if anyone asks that question (among other things (http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter19.pdf) of course).

Garvinator
07-03-2010, 10:48 PM
I blame Axiom!

Basil
07-03-2010, 11:01 PM
I caught the tail-end of a Dr Karl piece on JJJ last week and learned that dinosaurs didn't die out - birds descended from (are) them.

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2010, 11:06 PM
Asteroid not comet actually but I thought that was close enough. However there were probably several other contributing factors involved in climate change around that time.

Ian Murray
07-03-2010, 11:07 PM
The aforementioned theories seem to be discredited in the current issue of Science:


Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;327/5970/1175-a?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=dinosaurs&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&issue=5970&resourcetype=HWCIT) 5 March 2010:
Vol. 327. no. 5970, p. 1175
DOI: 10.1126/science.327.5970.1175-a

CREDIT: TOBIAS SALGE AND PETER SCHULTE

According to the fossil record, the rule of dinosaurs came to an abrupt end ~65 million years ago, when all nonavian dinosaurs and flying reptiles disappeared. Several possible mechanisms have been suggested for this mass extinction, including a large asteroid impact and major flood volcanism. Schulte et al. (p. 1214) review how the occurrence and global distribution of a global iridium-rich deposit and impact ejecta support the hypothesis that a single asteroid impact at Chicxulub, Mexico, triggered the extinction event. Such an impact would have instantly caused devastating shock waves, a large heat pulse, and tsunamis around the globe. Moreover, the release of high quantities of dust, debris, and gases would have resulted in a prolonged cooling of Earth's surface, low light levels, and ocean acidification that would have decimated primary producers including phytoplankton and algae, as well as those species reliant upon them.

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2010, 11:13 PM
I wouldn't assume that was necessarily the end of the debate.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2010, 01:00 AM
"Dinosaur heretic" Robert Bakker argued in a dino documentary that a meteorite impact would wipe out crocodiles, lizards and turtles. Also, a number of "Upper Cretaceous" dinos became extinct before the K-T boundary, so couldn't have been wiped out by the meteorite that supposedly struck then. See also Princeton geoscientist offers new evidence that meteorite did not wipe out dinosaurs (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/11/90M29/index.xml?section) (2009), about Gerta Keller who argued that many species persisted above the impact layer.

Rincewind
08-03-2010, 07:19 AM
"Dinosaur heretic" Robert Bakker argued in a dino documentary that a meteorite impact would wipe out crocodiles, lizards and turtles. Also, a number of "Upper Cretaceous" dinos became extinct before the K-T boundary, so couldn't have been wiped out by the meteorite that supposedly struck then. See also Princeton geoscientist offers new evidence that meteorite did not wipe out dinosaurs (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/11/90M29/index.xml?section) (2009), about Gerta Keller who argued that many species persisted above the impact layer.

Interesting you would quote both Bakker and Keller when neither of them are "flood-guys*".

The asteroid impact is pretty well documented and at the right time. Other things would have contributed of course, tsunamis, dust in the atmosphere, possibly more volcanic activity, but my money is on the impact as the root cause. If it never happened, the KT extinction event would not have happened.

* guy is used to mean someone of either sex.

Ian Murray
08-03-2010, 09:50 AM
I wouldn't assume that was necessarily the end of the debate.
I doubt the debate will ever end. However the existence of a global iridium geological stratum (of extraterrestrial origin, as there is no possible source on earth) dating around 65m years ago is consistent with ejecta from a massive asteroid strike. The ensuing fires and tsunamis followed by impact winter then acid rain and CO2-induced global warming would finish off the food chain and any surviving dinosaurs.

Bad luck for the dinosaurs, but it's an ill wind ... Then came mammals, and here we are!

Desmond
08-03-2010, 10:08 AM
Someone used a red button. Possibly morally; we might never know.

Spiny Norman
08-03-2010, 10:37 AM
I voted for Other. Its clear to me that the dinosaurs were wiped out by Global Warming, trigger by all the hot air proceeding from the orifices of scientists who keep making pronouncements about what killed the dinosaurs, then change their minds every few years.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2010, 01:20 PM
Interesting you would quote both Bakker and Keller when neither of them are "flood-guys*".
Well of course. The point is that even some non-Flood guys (of both sexes) dissent from the "bolide impact killed the dinosaurs" dogma. As stated, some reptiles survived that shouldn't have, as did some light-sensitive shallow-water species that would not like a "dust blocked sun" period", and some dinosaurs died before the impact, which in turn was before K-T, even according to dating of non-Flood guys. Another dissenting book is Charles Officer and Jake Page, The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy, Helix Books, Massachusetts, 1996. This shows that while the impact hyposthesis was hugely publicized, it had minority acceptance among paleontologists.


The asteroid impact is pretty well documented and at the right time.
But that is also questionable. E.g. Gerta Keller again, with others, Keller, G., and six others, Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary mass extinction (http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3753.abstract), PNAS 101(11):3753–3758, 2 March 2004 | 10.1073/pnas.0400396101:

Since the early l990s the Chicxulub crater on Yucatan, Mexico, has been hailed as the smoking gun that proves the hypothesis that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs and caused the mass extinction of many other organisms at the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary 65 million years ago. Here, we report evidence from a previously uninvestigated core, Yaxcopoil-1, drilled within the Chicxulub crater, indicating that this impact predated the K-T boundary by ≈300,000 years and thus did not cause the end-Cretaceous mass extinction as commonly believed. The evidence supporting a pre-K-T age was obtained from Yaxcopoil-1 based on five independent proxies, each with characteristic signals across the K-T transition: sedimentology, biostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, stable isotopes, and iridium. These data are consistent with earlier evidence for a late Maastrichtian age of the microtektite deposits in northeastern Mexico.

Also, volcanism is a known source of iridium. E.g. 1983 eruption of Kilauea in Hawaii produced a high level of iridium in airborne particles. Volcanism would be a better explanation of the key site in Gubbio, Italy, that started the whole Alvarez theory: there were enhanced iridium leves for over half a million evolutionary years. Conversely, most other huge bolides do not correlate with iridium.

BTW, attributing the impact to a comet is just a sign of the persistence of the bolide paradigm. This was originally ostensibly irrefutably supported by iridium, supposedly demanding an extraterrestrial source. Yet comets are very low in iridium.


Other things would have contributed of course, tsunamis, dust in the atmosphere, possibly more volcanic activity, but my money is on the impact as the root cause.
But would such an impact, powerful enough to blast a crater 200 km in diameter, necessarily cause global extinctions? There are other huge craters with no correlation with extinctions.

Much of the popularity of the Alvarez bolide hypothesis was connected to Carl Sagan's "nuclear winter" scaremongering. According to Officer and Page, many scientists didn't want to counter the Alvarez hypothesis in case it upset Sagan's anti-nuclear activism and led them to be accused of being war-mongers.

littlesprout85
08-03-2010, 06:19 PM
WOooooo Doggies :eek:

Hold da phone there Jono- Sprouty would have corrected the #option -earth hit by a comet. The correct option# is - earth hit by an astroid(space junk)

Unfortunatly Sprouts couldnt design the poll box in the 5 min time frame of da thread :| So ems got KB's to help out =D

One other thang to note about the volcanoe option# - its suppose to read: volcanic activity-da ring of fire :doh:

Whew, thanks =0)

-Sprout85 =)

Adamski
08-03-2010, 07:32 PM
I have heard and read that it was an Ice Age which killed the dinosaurs. And it was post- Universal Flood.

Rincewind
08-03-2010, 07:54 PM
Well of course. The point is that even some non-Flood guys (of both sexes) dissent from the "bolide impact killed the dinosaurs" dogma. As stated, some reptiles survived that shouldn't have, as did some light-sensitive shallow-water species that would not like a "dust blocked sun" period", and some dinosaurs died before the impact, which in turn was before K-T, even according to dating of non-Flood guys. Another dissenting book is Charles Officer and Jake Page, The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy, Helix Books, Massachusetts, 1996. This shows that while the impact hyposthesis was hugely publicized, it had minority acceptance among paleontologists.

I'm not sure as to the popularity of the asteroid theory among palaeontologists, but the existence of a few contrary books is not evidence of minority support of the theory. Still I don't claim much palaeontology theory and if the dissenters are as numerous as you say, they have certainly not done well in the PR race.

However, my bemusement with your references is that I thought a YEC would find any palaeontologist or geologist who put any store in plate tectonics or the geological column to be operating in a fatally flawed paradigm and thus their findings would be fruit from a poisoned tree.


But that is also questionable. E.g. Gerta Keller again, with others, Keller, G., and six others, Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary mass extinction (http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3753.abstract), PNAS 101(11):37533758, 2 March 2004 | 10.1073/pnas.0400396101:

Since the early l990s the Chicxulub crater on Yucatan, Mexico, has been hailed as the smoking gun that proves the hypothesis that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs and caused the mass extinction of many other organisms at the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary 65 million years ago. Here, we report evidence from a previously uninvestigated core, Yaxcopoil-1, drilled within the Chicxulub crater, indicating that this impact predated the K-T boundary by ≈300,000 years and thus did not cause the end-Cretaceous mass extinction as commonly believed. The evidence supporting a pre-K-T age was obtained from Yaxcopoil-1 based on five independent proxies, each with characteristic signals across the K-T transition: sedimentology, biostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, stable isotopes, and iridium. These data are consistent with earlier evidence for a late Maastrichtian age of the microtektite deposits in northeastern Mexico.

Also, volcanism is a known source of iridium. E.g. 1983 eruption of Kilauea in Hawaii produced a high level of iridium in airborne particles. Volcanism would be a better explanation of the key site in Gubbio, Italy, that started the whole Alvarez theory: there were enhanced iridium leves for over half a million evolutionary years. Conversely, most other huge bolides do not correlate with iridium.

BTW, attributing the impact to a comet is just a sign of the persistence of the bolide paradigm. This was originally ostensibly irrefutably supported by iridium, supposedly demanding an extraterrestrial source. Yet comets are very low in iridium.

I agree we don't know everything and these large collisions are (thankfully) pretty rare. If all the world's palaeontologists and geologists came out tomorrow and said the asteroid theory was a dead such at it was say basalt lava flows then I would be fine with that.

The important thing is that scientific debate is continuing and good science is getting published in good journals (like PNAS).


But would such an impact, powerful enough to blast a crater 200 km in diameter, necessarily cause global extinctions? There are other huge craters with no correlation with extinctions.

Much of the popularity of the Alvarez bolide hypothesis was connected to Carl Sagan's "nuclear winter" scaremongering. According to Officer and Page, many scientists didn't want to counter the Alvarez hypothesis in case it upset Sagan's anti-nuclear activism and led them to be accused of being war-mongers.

There are a lot of specifics involved concerning locals and knock on impacts like potentially triggering tsunamis, geological instabilities and periods of higher volcanic activity. The other thing to consider is perhaps the Cretaceous ecosystems were more prone to collapse when disrupted by the event and the knock on effects to the climate than the ecosystems in place at the time of the other impacts.

Anyway, as I said I don't have a huge emotional investment in the outcome so happy to leave the question to the experts and have them report things from time to time.

Rincewind
08-03-2010, 07:55 PM
I have heard and read that it was an Ice Age which killed the dinosaurs. And it was post- Universal Flood.

You really should get out more.

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2010, 07:56 PM
and some dinosaurs died before the impact

The question there is whether the extinction rate was very significantly elevated before the impact and it is a hard job picking this sort of thing out from the fossil record.

Dinosaurs were around for a long time and there were lots of species, so some rate of extinctions would have occurred naturally.

Capablanca-Fan
09-03-2010, 02:21 AM
I'm not sure as to the popularity of the asteroid theory among palaeontologists, but the existence of a few contrary books is not evidence of minority support of the theory. Still I don't claim much palaeontology theory and if the dissenters are as numerous as you say, they have certainly not done well in the PR race.
Indeed, because of the dramatic nature of the bolide theory, the huge media publicity, and the link to the politically correct nuclear winter theory at the time. Also, supporters can claim that an iridium-rich horizon is irrefutable proof of an impact, then switch to an impact by an iridium-poor comet.


However, my bemusement with your references is that I thought a YEC would find any palaeontologist or geologist who put any store in plate tectonics or the geological column to be operating in a fatally flawed paradigm and thus their findings would be fruit from a poisoned tree.
Not at all. It's use of a hostile witness to demonstrate that dissent from the Alvarez theory is not confined to YECs. Also, YECs don't necessarily reject the geological column as a correlated sequence; nor do they necessarily reject plate tectonics, but think that catastrophic plate tectonics makes better sense of the evidence than uniformitarian plate tectonics.

littlesprout85
09-03-2010, 09:20 PM
Hmmmm,

Lets see, It seems to sprouty that there is a good explaination for each theory put forth by meh here in this thread. Any which theory could have wiped out the dinosaurs back in the day.

Would like to thank KB's theory of the beast just dying off naturally. It is a good theory KB's ;) Other options might be -Dino's dying off due to diseases,pests,hunted down by other dino's,lack of food due to drought or slight climate change. All of these options should be listed up in this thread.

Climate change due to man should be another option. This option ultimatly might be the plague of future life on earth. The Dino's are just showing man the way out :doh:

-Sprout85 =)

Ian Murray
09-03-2010, 10:30 PM
Hmmmm,

Lets see, It seems to sprouty that there is a good explaination for each theory put forth by meh here in this thread. Any which theory could have wiped out the dinosaurs back in the day.


Or alternatively perhaps they're not extinct at all. Maybe there really is a Lost Valley somewhere still inhabited by dinosaurs just waiting to be stumbled on by a resourceful hero and helpless heroine, plus accompanying film crew.

Rincewind
09-03-2010, 10:50 PM
Or alternatively perhaps they're not extinct at all. Maybe there really is a Lost Valley somewhere still inhabited by dinosaurs just waiting to be stumbled on by a resourceful hero and helpless heroine, plus accompanying film crew.

Last time I saw those guys they were wrangling a 40 foot gorilla.

Saragossa
10-03-2010, 02:10 PM
http://www.geekologie.com/2009/12/14/dear-god-1.jpg

Saragossa
10-03-2010, 02:12 PM
Well that just about explains it! I'm however with Gunner on this one. I think the anatomy of a dinosaur was not economic at all, thus they refined their being. Go them.

Rincewind
10-03-2010, 02:54 PM
Well that just about explains it! I'm however with Gunner on this one. I think the anatomy of a dinosaur was not economic at all, thus they refined their being. Go them.

But how about the crocoduck?

http://timcooley.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/crocoduck.jpg

Space_Dude
10-03-2010, 04:24 PM
it was chuck norris' sneeze.

littlesprout85
16-08-2010, 12:36 PM
Oh YeaH !!!!

Sprouty bringing this thread out and dusting it off cause its a goodie- Not Extinct Yet :eek:

That Guy voted for all the theorys, meh thinking that all of them make sense too. Havent totally committed to voting yet.

The leading theory so far to date on meh lil thread is "a comet hitting the earth wiped out da dino's". :eh:

This poll is still open for anyone who is late da partay-plz have some refreshments apon exiting the voting booth :D
-Sprout85

ER
16-08-2010, 07:41 PM
Don't know if that was stated before, but I don't think you can survive for long if you need half a forest (along with its inhabitants) for breakfast only!

Rincewind
16-08-2010, 08:43 PM
Don't know if that was stated before, but I don't think you can survive for long if you need half a forest (along with its inhabitants) for breakfast only!

I don't know... 165 millions years isn't that short a run.

Sinister
16-08-2010, 08:59 PM
all of the options make sense and could have some sort of chronological order like if the comet hit the ocean and caused tsunamis that flooded the land in some areas and if the comet hit there would be seismic activity that can cause volcanic eruptions or the comet had an alien on board that roundhouse kicked the lizards in the face, this alien is currently referred to as Chuck Norris
:lol: :owned:

littlesprout85
17-10-2010, 04:36 PM
hmmmmm,

Perhaps the dino's dropped from valleyfever spores :eh:

-Sprout85 =)

antichrist
17-10-2010, 05:34 PM
I recently heard that the Christian response was that they could not fit on the Ark - that was the early response at the time of Darwin's book, was in Darwin's Dangerous Ideas TV show

littlesprout85
18-05-2011, 01:25 PM
Wow- The Debate Rages onz in meh lil thread here :P

Seems to sproutums that The jurassic park theory is gaining strength in the science world as of lately.:eek: Recently a scientist extracted dino dna from a huge prehistoric insect incased in amber(prehistoric sap) From this sample ems is figuring out that that alot of deseases were running rampid because of alot of pest feeding on dino's. Another point is that back then the insect pest were drawn to huge dino fights & kills laying around. This in effect would create a pandemic amongst the beast :doh:

-Sprout85

Bereaved
19-05-2011, 12:59 AM
seemingly on topic :)1728

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

antichrist
19-05-2011, 01:05 AM
any question that goes back beyond about 3000 I find almost irrelevant until there is a definite reason for example like climate change

how done pyramids?? dont find much intersting
how universe was?? same

Desmond
19-05-2011, 03:48 AM
seemingly on topic :)1728

Take care and God Bless, Macavity
They displeased Zeus and he smotethed them down.

littlesprout85
17-08-2011, 09:19 PM
Right Onz !!1

Sproutums is feeling the vibe tonight & started thinking about Dino's fate.:rolleyes:

Meh begining to think it might have been a major heat wave that wiped em out. Due to the size of the Beastie ems jsut couldnt handle the Heat- BBQ Dino tonight Again :S

-Sprout85 =)

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
18-08-2011, 12:37 AM
BAD DIET.

too many meal upgrades at kentuky fried.

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2011, 12:50 AM
Television. The iridium layer claimed to be from a comet is actually the remnants of their equivalent of a plasma screen.

littlesprout85
18-08-2011, 09:05 PM
lol,

Thanks mac for adding some humor to meh Dino Thread- KB's gets a giggle from time too time.:lol:

JaK & Juicy is hinting at a poor diet that led to the dino's decline. Meh might have to agree With this theory, For Them Huge Plant Eaters might Have Eated Up all da Dang Trees & GRrrr No More food- without huge plant eating beast the Meat Eating dino's had to just eat twiggy men folk & thus they starved too.Starving marvin is no way too live :'(

Wazz^ Murrays- See your putting forth the theory that there is still dino's roaming the earth- But on a lost island somewhere Like in da movies:whistle:

All are very temping theorys that the chess chat crew has- still dont know which way meh voting yet- so far the "Astroid hitting da earth "is in da lead- sprout is leaning towards the "other" catagory right now-hard too tell:hmm:


-Sprout85 =)

Mischa
18-08-2011, 09:12 PM
India...my daughter...at the age of 4 drew a picture of a HUGE rock and two dinosaurs...in a very 4 year old way.
She titled it..."the dinsores are very scared of the big rock cors it kills them"

rqbxo
30-08-2011, 04:38 PM
Look, I am no scientist. But from docos I have watched a big stumbling block is the "frog problem". That is, 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs vanished there is no gap in the fossil record for frogs. Yet frogs are environmentally sensitive to any change and should have been wiped out by anything on the poll. Even a flood would bring in a lot of silt, change the food chain etc and wipe out frogs in spite of them being aquatic.

So I think that all unusual options are open. Magnetic pole reversal? Aliens landed and worshipped frogs?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
30-08-2011, 05:58 PM
Look, I am no scientist. But from docos I have watched a big stumbling block is the "frog problem". That is, 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs vanished there is no gap in the fossil record for frogs. Yet frogs are environmentally sensitive to any change and should have been wiped out by anything on the poll. Even a flood would bring in a lot of silt, change the food chain etc and wipe out frogs in spite of them being aquatic.

So I think that all unusual options are open. Magnetic pole reversal? Aliens landed and worshipped frogs?

i always suspected that kermit was up to something.

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2011, 06:07 PM
Look, I am no scientist. But from docos I have watched a big stumbling block is the "frog problem". That is, 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs vanished there is no gap in the fossil record for frogs. Yet frogs are environmentally sensitive to any change and should have been wiped out by anything on the poll.

Frog sensitivity is something that gets exaggerated a bit. Some frogs are very sensitive and are becoming extinct in seemingly "untouched" areas (quite likely because of diseases spread into new environments) but other species are tough and live in areas that are actually very polluted. We don't know enough about the fossil record to say that no species became extinct, only that no major lineages appear to have snuffed it. Some things can be inferred about the nature of impacts given that frogs as a group survived (perhaps eg that there was probably not severe global acid rain) but nothing that contradicts the main going scientific theories on the matter.

Max Illingworth
01-09-2011, 06:26 AM
Why did the dinosaurs faded away ?

Sprouty would like to prepare for history repeating itself :eek:

-Sprout85 =)

Maybe the real question is not why the dinosaurs faded away, but why they survived for so long. ;)

Rincewind
01-09-2011, 10:04 AM
Maybe the real question is not why the dinosaurs faded away, but why they survived for so long. ;)

That's easy. Lack of a compelling reason to become extinct. :)

littlesprout85
04-09-2011, 02:53 AM
Hmmmmm,

was just thinking today that perhaps land became scarce when the floods came.Whole species of dino's didnt know how to swim or tread water For long periods of time & became shark food (one heck of a way to loss weight ) :wall:

-Sprout85 =)

littlesprout85
15-07-2012, 07:21 PM
. .. . . . . .. Thump ! . . . . DeThumP Thump !!!. . . . .. . .

RAWR !!!!! Tis is sprouty bring back that ancient Rainforest Dino look Dis Summer Here Stateside :P

. . . .. .........Hold da phone . .. .. . . . .We Have Breaking news . . . . . from . . . From Argintina :o . .. . . . .A Neva Before Seen in da Modern World . . . . . .A New Breed Of Dinosaur Called Bangasauris With Da !!! on the BangA part of it :eek:

This new dinosaur probably is a relative of the T-Rex for they look alike but the Bangasauris is on a smaller Scale. Kinda like the raptors in the movie jurassic park, just a lil bigger but smaller than a Huge T-rex :hmm:

-Sprout85 =)