Earth Recovered Quickly From Extinction Event

jmoloug1 writes "Traditional theory is that the earth took up to 10 million years to recover from the dinosaur extinction event. However a newly discovered site has revealed that this estimate may be way off. CNN has the article describing how quickly a tropical rain forest grew after the catastrophic event 65 million years a go."

Comments

Krakatau

[Perdo]

Krakatau volcano blew it's top in 1883. It has a ring of rainforest girdleing it's base despite it's continuing eruptions. Krakatau's explosion is still considered to be the most energetic single event in civilized history. Krakatau is now home to many species of birds, monkeys and smaller cousins of the komodo dragons.

I'd venture that life did not take 1.5 million years to recover from the extinction event. We just have not looked in the right places for the right fossils. I'll bet that someday we will find a meteoric Vesuvius/Pele, and right on top of it we will find the fossils of life that came back immediately after the event.

Re:Krakatau

[Perdo]

There would be a period where extremophiles ruled the earth. Given their vast variety, it would not take long for them to capitalize on areas that were both less extreme and lacking in competition. Look at some of the non-extremophile phyla life forms that nonetheless live in extreme environments. Ice worms live in glaciers and have antifreeze for blood. Blind cave dwelling newts and fish whose ancestors have not seen light for 20,000 years. Rodents who spend their entire lives underground and have an ant like organization and social structure. Arctic wildflowers that have 5 weeks of summer and are absolutely frozen the rest of the year. The ability of life to re-colonize devastated areas even if evolution is required to survive in it's new environment is well documented. Obvious examples are Krakatau but parallels can be found almost everywhere. Antibiotics are the comet to human diseases. Disease adapts to the new hostile environment and moves back in as few as 100 bacterial generations. 100 generations for arctic wildflowers to survive at the equator.

Luther Burbank created the Shasta daisy, yellow center with white petals, around the turn of the century. I have seen them growing in Alaskan tundra. 100 years to go from Sunny California to becoming a dominant arctic wildflower.

Recovery from the extinction event did not take 1.5 million years

Mount Washington

[Anonymous Coward]

On a ridiculously smaller scale, after Mount St. Helens erupted on March 20, 1980, the surrounding forest was devastated. However, it started regrowing a lot faster than most scientists predicted.

Re:the natural conclusion of evolution is atheism

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how that is the case. It is pretty easy to dismiss established religions by giving it some tought. OTOH existance is a very real (pun intended) problem. As far as rational thinking goes, it might have as well been the case that nothing have ever (whatever that means in the absence of time) existed. Several prime causes of existance can be imagined and any particular one may or may not solve the puzzle depending on what exactly it is. Traditional gods do not help solving the puzzle at all, it remains a mystery how god came into being, but that might not be true for some possible prime causes. It may be that some answer do exist and we (you and me, that is) just don't know about it. If I ever come across a likely candidate for such a cause, I can't see how rational thought would "save" me from "believing in" it. As of now, I have no answer whatsoever and I'm ready to consider any possible (no matter how improbable) alternative to "something exists because somethiing does" answer. I also fail to see how rational thought dismisses that such a probable answer is possible.

BTW, no, I'm not agnostic. Any resemblance to their ideas is a misunderstanding on your part about what agnosticism really is.

Proudly AC

Re:Dating Methods

[j_w_d]

Speaking as an archaeologist, it was NOT an archaeological find. The pertinent fields are paleobotany and paleontology. Archaeology deals with human traces and the remains of human activities. The events discussed in the article relate to a period long before there were any homonids, let alone any humans. I realize many bookstores shelve dinosaur books right there alongside archaeological books, but that is merely a failing in modern education.

The idea that geological dating methods are "unfalsifiable" is a view pushed by "Creation Science" - an "oxymaroon". Besides being the darling idea of Creationists and "young earthers," the idea happens to be based upon assumptions about science and geology that are either wrong or straw-man arguments. Geological dating methods are methodologoically justified estimates based upon empirical observation and generalization. They are not theories. If you do not like the dates and have some reason for challenging them, go out, collect the necessary data and offer your own estimate. Charles Lyell could do it; so can you. Geological dates are not considered absolute by anyone who produces or uses them. That is a practice only encountered in politics and religion.

If you want to know more about the crater, point a search engine - google is good - at "K-T boundary Yucatan" and you will receive many pointers to large numbers of web pages.
The name of the crater, BTW, is "Chicxulub."