Slashdot Mirror
Dinosaurs Died Within Hours of Asteroid Impact, says New Study
colonist writes "SPACE.com reports that most dinosaurs were incinerated within hours by the 'heat pulse' of an asteroid impact 65 million years ago. The study 'Survival in the first hours of the Cenozoic' presents a scenario where the only survivors were underground or were underwater in swamps or oceans. All unprotected creatures were 'baked by the equivalent of a global oven set on broil.'"
An appropriate post for the Memorial Day weekend. Imagine the world's largest barbeque.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
For us ignorant Brits, wthat's that in Gas Mark?
Stick Men
I'd like to RTFA, I really would !
it's too bad their all-star oil drilling team didn't quite make it in time...
At least the dinosaurs went out baked!
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
The real reason dinosaurs became extinct!
Actually it's well accepted as by far the most likely candidate for what happened. By the way, other theories include the theory of gravity, relativity theory etc... all pretty much proven, ask Hiroshima about E=mc^2 if you don't believe that one :P
"Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
Alright, so what do I need to survive the next major asteroid impact of this magnatude? It sounds like most buildings won't be sufficient protection.
Do I need a cave to hide in? Should I go to a large body of water?
The Emeril Lagassaurus Rex would have added some prehistoric garlic when he saw the meteor coming...then BAM!!!! Another notch!
"Hey, Lou, what the F is " *SPLAT*
Everything in science is a theory. The "asteroid impact" idea has a lot to back it up however since there are some realy big craters on this ball of mud we call home. Check out the 170 km one at the Yucatan Peninsula.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Not having read the article, it's hard to see how one meteorite could bake animals on the other side of the world. After all, this impact wasn't during the Pangea time, when all of the land mass of the earth was joined in one great continent.
If this is true wouldn't there be a large carbon layer evenly distributed over the earth's surface from that time?
I have to stop wasting so much time reading Slashdot. It's interfering with my crystal meth addiction.
Dinosaurs Fried Within Hours of Cosmic Collision, Study Concludes
:)
According to the article, the dinos were cooked by super-heated air. That would mean they were broiled, not fried
"There's no question over whether an asteroid hit. The roughly 6-mile-wide (10-kilometer) space rock carved out the Chicxulub crater off Mexico's Yucatan Penninsula."
But fairly recently there was another article posted on slashdot, about the alleged impact having occurred in (what is now) Australia. (check, e.g., here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4969840/ for a similar story.)
so what is the consensus *really*, in the scientific community? or is there just none?
Now we can go looking for X and if we find it and the prediction was somewhat unexpected before the theory was proposed it is a strong indication of its validity.
Case in points Einsteins prediction of light being bend by high gravity object that was indeed confirmed.
Same here if we do find a a lot of different Dinosaurs in the same narrow strada around the world it make the theory more likely.
Help fight continental drift.
Gas Mark is a Fahrenheit scale.
From this chart it is possible to infer that Gas Mark 0 is 250 Fahrenheit, and each increment of 1 Gas Mark is equal to 25 Fahrenheit degrees.
So at what Gas Mark setting did they bake/flambe the dinosaurs?
As an exercise for the interested reader, using spectroscopic data, estimate the surface temperature of Zubenelgenubi in Gas Mark.
Stick Men
Taken from: Wikipedia article on theory:
So, proven for 99.9999% theory of gravity is still a theory.
When in doubt, go to the library. - Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Isn't the whole "asteroid impact" scenario a theory? Doesn't that make this new theory a theory based on a theory?
It is widely accepted that an asteroid fell down around 65 million years ago and that this approximately coincided with the end of the dinosaurs (except for birds). You will not find a single serious scientist who disagrees with this.
What is more controversial is how quickly they died off and if it was only because of the asteroid or if other factors were involved as well. This latest claim is that it was quick; we will see how well it will be received in the scientific community.
Tor
Of course I didn't read the article, as I don't subscribe and am lazy, but wouldn't the heat kill all the plants too? And I thought there were "many" survivors. Mostly small animals, besides plants and lower life forms. And how could 1 impact effect the entire planet with such a high amount of heat? Wouldn't that metemorph rocks as well? Or even react the atmosphere?
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
The majority of the dinosaurs were instantly fried, like in a nuke blast that wrapped around the globe. I haven't seen a movie lately, that had those kind of cool FX. How about you?
Think about to all the meteor's crashing into earth movies there are, now think about all the FX. Nothing as impressive as ALL THE DINOSAURS getting fried as a heat wave travelled around the globe.
Why can't Hollywood just pay attention to history and science. It's way cooler than the drek they come up with.
But seriously folks, just think of all the Brontoburgers. I bet Fred and Barney boiled off the surface still salivating at the endless plains of dino ribs.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
So many things survived from that time other than the Dinosaurs. Large trees, many forms of reptiles and mammals that are virtually the same (based on fossil records) to this day.
Not too mention that the fossil records for Dinosaurs don't stop on 1 day.
It seems that the Doomsday theory gets more headlines than other theories suggesting, disease and climate change (a much slower, more boring process) were the cause. Even though the damage of a meteor strike would have been far more devastating and left the planet set back near square one as far as life.
If the earth was baked and then the sun was blocked by smoke and ash, how come so much survived?
*Note IANAS (I Am Not A Scientist), just wondering.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
"Alvarez Hypothesis" is the term used to describe the idea that dinosaurs died as a result of a catastrophic asteroid impact. I do not believe that the hypothesis has attained the status of theory, however. The main evidence for such a hypothesis seems to come from the observation of geologist Walter Alvarez of a significant layer of Iridium on the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (KT boundary), due to the fact that Iridium is a very rare element on Earth but found in abundance in asteroids and meteorites. This link has some more information along with Wikipedia.
Is how they ever managed to live in the first place. The strength of muscles is a function of the area of their cross-section. It increases only roughly at a rate of the square of its size. Weight goes up as a cube of its size. Things get heavier much faster than they get stronger.
And just how much stronger could dino muscles have been than modern mammalian muscle? 140% stronger, 170%? That's really stretching it, and it still isn't nearly enough.
Land animals probably can't be much bigger than an elephant.
And no, I'm not a christian scientist. I don't think it's a conspiract, the bones are there, and they show how big the things must have been. I'd just like answers (prefereably those that don't have anything to do with superstitious bible crap).
1. Do the Americans really have enough nukes to destroy the world ten times over?
This one I hear a lot. First of all, despite what you may have heard, really the majority of the energy of a nuclear explosion turns into heat and blast immediately, NOT radiation. The only exception to this is the so-called Neutron bomb, designed specifically with radiation (more specifically fast neutrons and gamma rays) in mind. But realistically, although the Americans have built approximately 70,000 warheads of almost 70 different types, they now possess a stockpile of around 9600 warheads. Surprising as it may sound, this is NOT enough to 'destroy' the world. Even hitting every city in the world with everything in every country's arsenal would not be able to 'destroy' the world. The world is still a
BIG place. Keep in mind the Russians have around the same numbers of warheads.
Funny, no. But sometimes that kind of dramatic analogy is necessary to get the point across to people who don't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.
I tend to personalize it a bit: "If you believe that ___* is 'just a theory,' be aware that gravity is 'just a theory' as well. I invite you to try jumping off a skyscraper because, surely, nothing that is 'just a theory' can hurt you."
*___ is almost always evolution, of course, though sometimes it's relativity.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Someone post the article so we can make intelligent comments on it.
To be honest, I have no idea why an article like this is not considered spam, if we have to pay to read it.
The fact that man has the power to potentially do something shouldn't make you sad. It should actually make you proud. Now, if man would actually do it, that would be sad.
Man can kill man, but until they do, there is nothing to be sad about.
Too bad the vastly hyper-intelligent dinosaur civilization's NASA counterpart didn't have a Near-Earth Object Program.
What good would it of done, if they couldn't do anything about it? If we found a dinosaur-killer heading our way, could we stop it?
I think we can now all breathe a huge sigh of relief as we know the dinosaurs did not, I repeat, did NOT suffer. We will all gain a few hours of sleep a night, I'm sure.
Think about it. The rest are not carbon, if there is complete incineration, then only some non carbonic element are left (Ca, OS, etc...). If the frying is not complete, the bacteria in the body then start their work and eat up the corpse. As for baking on the other side of the world, it really depend on the energy of the impact. It heat up the atmosphere which then in a heat wave travel around the globe. Whether the heat wave is enough is another question which the article seems to answer : yes.
But as the article point out, this theory does not explain the water extinction of the animals.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
All unprotected creatures were 'baked by the equivalent of a global oven set on broil.'"
Thanks for the metaphor. This "heated air" concept is difficult to get across to the layperson.
Personally, I'd like for these theories to go through a bit more critical review before they're broadcast to the public. This smacks as sensationalism more than science.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Zubenelgenubi is a double star. Which one do you mean? Assuming you're talking about the hotter one, Alpha-2, that'd be about 583.
So now we have prior art for animal crackers.
Everyone knows that dinosaurs died during the Great Flood.
Read the Bible!
Actually, the fact that you fall if you jump off a skyscraper is the fact of gravity.
The theory of gravity would be something like F ~ m_1*m_2/R^2.
Before and after Chicxulub Earth was experiencing a lot of volcanic activity. So much in fact, that the compositiom of the atmosphere was changing. As I recall the oxygen content was reducing from 30% down to 24% (I'm sure these are not the exact numbers, but they are close). Less oxygen meant that animals had to work harder in take in the same amount of oxygen. The dinos may have have suffocated.
Of course, a large impact would not have helped them out...
I am not sure I could find one - your comment, you back it up.
ymmv
Nope, the fact that you fall if you jump off a skyscraper is that fact that you fall if you jump off a skyscraper. Gravity is the theory that says you fall because the Earth, being rather large, exerts a powerful attractive force on your soon-to-be corpse. You could just as easily explain the falling by using the Aristotelian (IIRC) "things fall because it is their nature to fall" -- but that theory proved to be incompatible with the evidence, and thus was discarded; modern gravitational theory is the best we've got, so far.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Actually, the fact that you fall if you jump off a skyscraper is the fact of gravity.
You are assuming that you know what will happen in some unobserved (hypothetical) event. Either you are Psychic, or you are using some theory that seems to have been useful in the past to predict what will happen in the situation you propose.
Whaddayaknow? You were using the theory of gravity. (the fact of gravity that you speak of is strictly for chumps)
Well accepted doesn't make it correct. It's still a theory, and one (I might add) that cannot be proven, unlike a few others you've quoted.
Unlike in some circles, well accepted means no has yet found evidence against it in science. Not, we all beleive it to be true. When someone has evidence against it, it becoem a disproved theory is the evidence is strong enough. However the theory of evolution has had no credible evidence against it, neither has gravity, or thermodynamics. Only small addendums.
I have faith in Christ. I need not refute scientific evidence to support my faith. God is wonderfull, sometime msyterious, and I needn't beleive in fairies ot beleive in God. Why should I beleive in creationist theories when the evolution theory fits my faith just fine.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Insects are much older than any vertebrate.
g i?artid=281984
Look at this link http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fc
and this one created by honey bee farmers
http://www.angus.co.uk/bibba/bibborig.html
Bees are almost as old as flowering trees which are much older than dinosaurs.
http://nyamenation.org/
The thing is, I think, their usual environment was drastically changed over a very short amount of time. This can be very unsettling for animals (stress=no mating), and fatal for plants (can't move, highly specialized). The big carnivores prey on omnivores and herbivores, and the total amount of food to go around in the system decreases. This, coupled with the (maybe) stressed out dinos, could be part of the explanation. However, I am not a biologist.
I read the article
Another wild hypothesis without a shred of verifyable evidence.
I couldn't read it THIS time (because the server is slashdotted). But I did read it - or another describing the same theory - when it first became newsworthy some years ago.
There's plenty of evidence for it.
First off, the prediction comes straight out of physical modeling of what happens when a big asteroid hits:
- A bunch of rocks are kicked every which way.
- If the asteroid is big enough a LOT of them go into space.
- A fraction of them have enough energy to get above the atmosphere but not achieve escape velocity.
Once you realize those three things, it's straightforward for a physicist to calculate, for various size impacts on various sites (land, shallow ocean, deep ocean), how MUCH mass goes up, how MUCH of it comes back down, WHERE it comes down, HOW FAST it comes down, and what the results are.
So they calculated that. And came to the conclusion that for impacts of a certain range of sizes the result would be several hours of a rain of sand, all over the Earth, at speeds of up to several miles per second (plus rains of rocks of varying density at different distances from the crater and its antipode). The sky becomes essentially solid meteor trails for hours.
And those are HOT! Hot enough to dry out most of the plants and set them afire. Hot enough to kill any animal life on the surface that can't get underground or under water right away and then stay there for hours.
So if the sky turned into a broiler oven over the whole Earth for several hours all at once, what does this predict? One hemisphere is day and the burrowing nocturnals survive, the other is night and the burrowing diurnals survive. (And in particular regions it got REALLY hot, or REALLY shocked by the primary impact or the secondary rain of rocks, and NOTHING survived).
So they looked at the fossil record and that's what they found. Prediction confirmed - very good evidence for the model. Further, they could now tell WHAT TIME OF DAY the impact occurred and roughly where.
Then they looked in the area where this model predicted the impact should have been and FOUND A CRATER of the correct size (along with plenty of other evidence that this PARTICULAR crater's impact coincided with the extinction event).
Looks solid to me. Unless something new comes up I consider the puzzle of the extinction events solved.
The only question I have is: Why is this news NOW?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The really large asteroids can kick up up billions of tons of sulfur and other materials into the atmosphere. This can cause prolonged darkness for about half a year after the collision. The resulting darkness cause global temperatures to plunge near freezing. The COLD not the HEAT could result in large scale extinctions, including the dinosaurs
They're alive I tell you! ^_^
This article proves it!!!
Remote New Zealand Volcano Sees Dinosaur Alert?
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
PETA boycotts all asteroids in protest of the senseless murder of the dinosaurs.
They are throwing red paint on meteorites, and showing up nude at natural history museums everywhere.
Unfortunately the linked article is available in the Online Journal which you can either subscribe to or go to you neareast Uni Library and check it out.
A Thermal heat pulse and the ejecta from the impact could travel around the world because of gravity dragging the ejecta back towards the earth. Upon reentry, the ejecta emitted IR radiation, brightening the sky globally. This means no night and no shadows (as the heat sources were distributed across the sky compared with the single-source solar IR radiation). This means there was nowhere to hide unless you were underground. Even rock crevices were no shelter. Subsequent fires igniting simultaenously [the suggest that there are isotopically uniform charcoal deposits at the boundary] would have added to the carnage. These fires were not significant compared to the intensity of the IR radiation. Normal solar flux ~1.4kW.m^-2, this event was calucated by Melosh in a previous paoer in 1990 to product ~10kW.m^-2. Note that ambient air temerature would have only rise ~10 K.
As for survivors, those burrowers > 10cm below the soil surface would survive. Sheltering and semi-aquatic birds are posited to be survivors.
The important thing is that this paper presents no specific fossil evidence. It does offer some phylogenetic evidence to support the bird survival hypothesis. It presents one model that can be further refined and/or refuted with evidence. It is not necessarily true or false but it can be falsified. They suggest checking Gondwanan sites for evidence of spherules (proof of ejecta reentering) and their distribution. That is the nature of science which the majority of posters thus far need to grasp. Think of science in terms of mathematical functions that approach a limit/converge as evidence and models accumulate.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
If, 5 milliseconds after I die, I believe anything at all, then I will be surprised and change my opinions based on the new evidence. If a vengeful God chooses to damn me for not feeling the same way throughout my life despite lack of evidence, then screw Him.
"Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here. It didn't [re]quire any discipline to attain it. You read what others have done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourself so therefore you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew it you had it.
So you only "earn" the "right" to make a product if you personally developed every single scientific theory and technological breakthrough necessary to construct it, working from first principles you personally developed?
Reminds me of how "The New Math" created a generation of ilnumerates by (instead of teaching counting and arithmetic skills) requiring them to invent for themselves the entirety of several millenia of number theory behind arithmetic and mathematics - while being distracted by "helpful" information about multiple bases and the like.
You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew it you had it.
It was a GIANT who characterized his own scientific breakthroughs as being able to see farther than others because he stood on the shoulders of (previous) giants.
Following the Ian Malcom character's advice leads to abandoning, not just genetic engineering, but all of science, history, engineering, industrial society, archetecture, farming, hut-building, and even stone knife making. Humanity would be reduced, not just to the level of hunter-gatherers, but to the level of purely instinct-driven animals (below primates, cats, birds, and even some reptiles).
= = = =
None of which in any way detracts from your point, which was dead on. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Just practice your "Duck and Cover" drill like Bert the Turtle
Or get one of the 1950's vintage A-Bomb-proof school desks.
Chip H.
You will believe two (sic), 5 milliseconds after you die.
No offence, but my wife was declaired dead for almost two minutes about 5 years ago. What did she see? Nothin'. She thought she had simply fallen asleep. The one thing she does remember is that her chest hurt like hell from the electrodes though.
Granted, she's only one data point, and I'm sure you will discount her experience. But I thought I'd share it anyway.
> Before and after Chicxulub Earth was experiencing a lot of volcanic activity. So much in fact, that the compositiom of the atmosphere was changing. As I recall the oxygen content was reducing from 30% down to 24% (I'm sure these are not the exact numbers, but they are close).
Wow, how old ARE you?
Before you design for reuse, make sure to design it for use.
But it doesn't. Just in case you missed it: Evolution does not fit your faith, if that faith is God and Christ. If one of the foundations (creationism) of your hypothesis (God and Christ are real) is wrong, then the whole thing is simply WRONG. You can't throw one away and replace it with another.
Cool. An anonymous coward knows more than the Pope about religion. Arrogant, aren't we?
The Pope stated sometime in the 1980s that christianity and evolution don't contradict, and that one can easily believe in both.
Or you can read the very well written commentary here, and get a clue. Using the same stubborn-headed aspect that you bedevil in others makes you just as bad.
What about that crater that people thought was an extinct volcano off the coast of Australia? I can't find the source to back it up, but I heard it a while ago on NPR (National Public Radio). Those in the US who listen to that program might have some sources. All I could find after a very quick Google run is Australian Impact Craters.
Wired News is covering this topic too: A Fiery Death for Dinosaurs?
Don't laugh. You know what a wood louse or sow bug is?
Well, they have larger underwater cousins, which are sometimes called "sea roaches".
You can see them live at the New England Aquarium.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
The new study reviewed existing geologic evidence for the known impact and considered interesting patterns in species survival. How did some birds, mammals, crocodiles, snakes and other animals endure the calamity that wiped out larger species?
That's a good question. But it's got a bug in it - the phrase "wiped out larger spieces". Better to say - selectively wiped out one branch of animals that came in all shapes and sizes, and lived in all kinds of environments right alongside animals that *didn't* die out.
That asteroid sure was amazing!
The survivors burrowed underground or were protected from the firestorm by swamps or oceans, says study leader Doug Robertson of the University of Colorado at Boulder. The details were published in the May-June issue of the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America.
That's so plainly idiotic that it beggars belief. Dinosaurs came in a wide variety of sizes, some smaller than chickens. And there were many aquatic animals that also became extinct, that supposedly would have been safe according to this "study leader".
Another win for the hypothesis that makes for a good special effect, then. And published by the Geological Society - well colour me not suprised.
Scientific studies have proven that if there was a nuclear holocaust, or a giant asteroid like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs, that the RIAA would continue to survive.
Open Standards Portal
Check out the Hydroplate Theory -- a great SciFi movie, just waiting to be made! Or, at least, one better than "The Core."
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
According to the abstract fires would have begun wherever there was available fuel. Wouldn't there be a world-wide charcoal layer to go along with the Iridium layer if that were true?
There's plenty of evidence of evolution out there. I'll go ahead and choose the easiest to see: bacteria. There's a reason that penicillin (and other antibiotics) don't work much any more. The bacteria they used to kill have developed an immunity to their effects. One might even go so far as to say they evolved into a new form of species that is immune/resistant to the effects of antibiotics. There's some evidence for you right there.
Oh, and just so you know, the theory of gravity hasn't been proven, either. It's just got lots of evidence for it, as does evolution. Theories can only really be disproven, not proven.
http://sushi-x.com/gallery/4d/chicxulub.zip
This is easy to visualize if you imagine a strike at the North Pole and the debris traveling along the lines of longitude to the South Pole.
Lasers Controlled Games!
The idea that a theory should be accepted as true until it's credibly proven false is ridiculous. Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who stand behind a theory?
Because the burden of proof was on them to prove that it fits the observed Universe. If it's a theory, it's already done that.
I mean, if we're going to play that game, then I have a theory that you're an idiot.
That's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. The next step would be to devise experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis. If the experiments all prove valid, then the hypothesis becomes a theory. It's not a theory until it already has backing.
Once it's a theory, then it becomes a valid explanation for the way the world works. After this, of course people will still attempt to confirm it, but they can also use it to attempt to explain new things, because all the evidence that backs the original theory backs any new ones.
A "hypothesis" is an unvalidated assertion - a conjecture. A "theory" is a validated assertion - a conjecture that has a body of data behind it which would need to be explained equally well by any hypothesis competing with it.
I don't know when "theory" became synonymous with "hypothesis" in everyday speak. It isn't. A theory is disprovable, but with far more effort than a hypothesis. In order to disprove a theory, you need to either show the evidence was bad, or the theory was incomplete.
Taking the case of evolution, there's well more than enough evidence that the first suggestion isn't possible - the evidence is good. At this point, the only solution for evolution being wrong is if it's incomplete, akin to, for instance, Newton's Theory of Gravity.
The AC says:
The AC, is in fact, quite mistaken. What he quoted here is not the core tenet of Christianity; this is just a nice way to live with God thrown in for good measure. What Christianity is is this:
God and mankind had a good releationship, but this relationship was broken because people choose to live without acknowledging God. People are incapable of reconciling this relationship, so God, because He loves people, sent His son Jesus Christ to die on the cross and suffer horribly as a reconciliation so we can have a restored relationship with God. The restored relationship with God is what allows people to actually succeed in loving others and God...
That is the core of Christianity; not the Pope, not communion, not hymns, not going to church every week, not even the Bible. You can verify this for yourself, it's not some "theory" about Christianity - you should be quite able to go pick up a Bible and read it and you should see this is the case, and if you are so inclined, I'd recommend it.
As a man who has decided to commit himself to Christ, I kind of am distressed and saddened by the fact that people do not really understand my faith and lump it in with "you narrow-minded American Christian!". Especially since I am a scientist, love physics, and don't see a conflict between evolution and a universe created by God (if God is all powerful, why can't He use evolution?)
Anyway, at least I hope that you have an understanding now that the common perceptions of "Christianity" might not be universally accurate. Another instance of "don't believe everything you see on TV! (or read on /.!)"
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
You mean to tell me that Brits don't use the word "broil"? Ok, so who's the American culinary marketing genius who came up with the term "London Broil"?
Of course it shouldn't be accepted just because there is no disproof, there has to be evidence of the theory for it to be accepted. No theory can ever be proven. This is acutaly a central tennant of Science. You can have tons and tons of supporting evidence but you NEVER prove your theory. Also a single counter instance disproves a theory. The thing about evolution is that there is considerable evidence supporting the theory. From the finches on the galapgos islands, to the fossil record, to the way that selective breeding has worked for millions of years. Now, if you can provide me with counder evidence to these phenomonon, I'll be more than happy to say Darwin was wrong, after all, he's just a British stiff, what does he know.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
Evolution can never be proven by science. And that goes for the entire array of evolutionary theories.
Domestication is a form of evolution. By man learning and practicing husbandry of animals and selecting desirable traits he (he in the generic sense) exerted specific pressures on large based familial lines. Thus was eventually born our concept of breeds. The blue heeler was bred for herding ability, the greyhound for running, the poodle as a dare (?). nearly every trait that a modern dog has is genetically coded in his ancestor the wolf it is only the frequency of expression which sets them apart. That information is part of the reason that the smithsonian (who is responsible for taxonomy) reclassified the dog from C. familiaris to C. lupus familiaris.
I'm a Christian and I'm fully ready to believe in evolution--and I don't entirely discard it. But something just doesn't make sense there, and it's not the religious angle that causes me grief.
Obviously, the dinosaurs were ignorant of the "Duck And Cover" method for surviving an incinerating holocaust. Or is that only for nukes?
Now true, tuataras are burrowing animals, but they have to leave their burrows to feed on the insects they love so much.
Don't even get me started on birds. This theory has so many holes in it. If the Earth was grilled as the report suggest, then where's the geological evidence? A thin layer of carbon circa 65 million years ago representing all the burnt land flora?
Even the author admits it doesn't account for the mass extiniction that also took place in the ocean.
So what do we have? A theory that has no direct evidence to support it, has huge holes, does not fit with the observed evidence we've been collecting for the past two hundred years, and is incomplete according to the author. Nice one.
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
because of earth's magnetic field. Every once in a great while it switches polarity and as it does it crosses over zero which leaves the earth vulnerable to solar radiation i.e. thats why everything on land died and animals tend to be nocturnal becaues their ancestors were on the other side of the planet when a solar flare struck. Its just another theory but it seems more likely than not.
the reason Dino turned up on a Volcano was because some sicko wanted to cook him !!
The extinction event killed off all species larger than about 20kg. That wouldn't have included any mammals. Mammals 65 million years ago were tiny (mice sized) and most likely nocturnal.
Where in the Bible does it say, for a fact, that evolution cannot coexsist with creationism?
Hell, the timeline for the Book of Genesis and the big bang theory more or less coinside, just the scales are different.
Oh, and I'm sure I'll end up believing in something after I die. It's just what that's the problem. Most of my Hindu friends think this talk of heaven and hell is quite funny... "if at first you don't succede..."
I wish I could write clever and witty sigs.
Certainly this theory would go a long way to explain the increase in obesity which is apparently fast becoming the world's biggest health problem. Personally I've always found the answer to avoid getting obesit to eat less but heck what do I know I'm just a lanky techi with a beer gut ;)
This instant death thing is one possible change. Another more widely expected modification is that the extinction occur over a long time and involved a number of rocks. In addition, the exact changes that occurred are under continuos investigation. Many lay people focus on the sound bites, while missing the details that really are the most interesting aspect of any science.
One of the most interesting theory to me is that of electricity running through wire. Now the theory states that a potential difference causes the electrons to move and thus create a current. The current can be used to power things. This seems to be pretty much established. I know few people that would postulate electricity is caused by an aether that man can never characterize. But when I was in school the professors talked a lot about whether the current moves through the wires, as would be normally assumed, or travel in a cloud around the wire. It is an interesting point. Either solution may imply other details in the theory, but no one is going to think that current is anything other than electrons.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Bacteria exchange genetic material.
Viruses mediate the exchange of genetic material.
The development pathway that unites all animals includes a stage in which a viable (usually fertilised) egg cell (zygote) divides a number of times to form a ball of cells (morula, blastula) gradually differentiating because of (dorsal/ventral etc.) gradients in (HOX) gene expression.
Sponges (porifera) are a likely candidate for the oldest surviving animal lineage, potentially dating from the recently annointed Ediacaran Epoch through the Cambrian explosion, so called because the basic developmental forms of animals diversified wildly in a (geologically) short time.
Hermaphroditic sponges produce sperm and eggs at different times, obviating themselves, and thus the last common ancestor of all sexually reproducing animals, from any requirement for different male and female phenotypes.
Sexual dimorphism came later and very differently in different taxa.
Such "all or nothing" questions are a standard intellectual trap for people who cannot see the overwhelming evidence for the fact of evolution, a fact that various theories strive to account for without ever needing to overturn the core Darwinian insight that everything alive today is the product of a very long history of variation and selection from multitudinous common ancestors.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
Domestication is by artificial selection. That theory some people disagree with isn't really called evolution the way Darwin wrote it, it's much more properly called natural selection. This is to distinguish it from at least one major theory of evolution that has been very largely disproved only in the last century(Lamark's Theory of eveolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics, see also Lysinkoism), and may be necessary to distinguish it from some other variants still floating around in the zeitgest.
One of the problems some people have with the Darwinian theory, is it is too often presented as "All selection is natural selection" or "Natural selection is sufficient to account for all observed variation", which is precisely what you yourself just offered a fine counter-example to. Proof of natural selection would be better based on those wolves you bring up towards the end, but the evidence there is in the line that extends backwards in time from the modern wolf to the varois proto wolves, rather than the branches off that line that make up domestic dogs.
Who is John Cabal?
dinosaurs=birds?
Tastes just like chicken!
Completely ignorant question, as I can't be bothered to RTFA at this hour, but isn't the latest theory about the evolution birds is that THEY are in fact, the closest living descendants of dinosaurs? If modern bird descended from archaeopteryx, then how did these survive if only buried/underwater creatures made it through the inferno? Or for that matter, how did any modern reptile make it that did not descend from an amphibious ancestor?
The British Word is "Grill". It can be a verb "To grill a lamb chop", or a noun "Puty that chop under the grill".
Regarding London Broil, I've seen tins of stuff called "London Grill" which appears to be beans and bacon bits and sausages and black pudding and bits of kidney all mixed together in tomato sauce. Which sounds pretty grim, but grim in a particularly English way.
evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation!
Indricotheres were considerably bigger than elephants -- around twice the mass. They're mammals, the closest living relations being rhinos. Dinosaur-sized mammals, easily. Think giraffe height with the mass of a rhino.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The Greys had a big Chicxulub-Combo take-out order. And then they super-sized it, bastards!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Um, sorry, but no; and neither of those articles support your hypothesis of antipodal debris concentrations, either (as a matter of fact the first one notes that the majority of the high-energy debris would fall within a couple thousands km in a pattern distributed to the *west* of the impact, due to the Earth's rotation)
:)
Debris concentrations would have a circular modified to oval distribution around and to the west of the impact crater that would somewhat resemble an interference pattern. There would be no antipodal concentration because most of the really high energy debris is thrown almost straight up, not to the much more acute angle to the Earth's surface that would result in the concentrations you describe. Actually it's likely that little debris would reach the antipode, as debris that was that energetic would either go into a highly elliptical orbit (randomizing the fall distribution) or escape Earth entirely (as the first article notes)
However, the shockwaves that would travel along the Earth's surface would experience peak(s) at or near the antipode; not anywhere near as much of one as would happen on, say, Mercury (which is more near a perfect sphere and doesn't have anywhere the variations in surface/mantle density that the Earth does). This phenomena has been theorized to have resulted in some formations on Mercury -and to a lesser extent, the Moon - but those formations have nothing to do with debris distribution, rather shockwave intensity peaks). To what extent shockwave concentration at the antipode would occur on Earth is yet unknown - it's bloody difficult to model.
I could probably find all kinds of links to support what I'm saying here, but it would take a lot more time than I have right now. I'd suggest doing some further reading; there are some really good books/articles/papers out there on the subject - if you can handle the math, which is tortuous.
In any case what I posted is still pretty much a simplification...
I'm not posting this to flame you, but you are visualizing it wrong. Trust me - I've studied this stuff both in school and as a hobby for nearly a quarter century. Guess I just hate seeing an obviously smart and imaginative person misreading something
Cheers,
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Sorry for the late response, it's been a long weekend...
:)
:).
:)
Yes, I saw those quotes. But those are statements by third parties, not support per se. There are better links, like this one for support purposes (and see below )
That said, I have some problems with Melosh (and Kring/Durda)'s models. For one thing (as can be clearly seen in the gif on the link I provided) they postulated wildfires from impact debris in an area that at the time included very little land; and we have no way of verifying the computer model that they used for impact debris distribution from geological data.
Hence, my reaction to it; and sorry, I didn't mean to berate the messenger.
In any case, I've read about Melosh's work before, and I find the mathematical models he used somewhat suspect - but I'll withhold further judgement on that until I can obtain a copy of his paper (which a friend of mine is mailing me this week, got interested enough to request it rather than reading the thirdparty-etc abstracts.) Like I said, the math is tortuous; and a lot of the effects of those impact energies are not as well understood as we'd like.
I am not saying that it won't All I am saying is that debris will fall at the antipode in a grearter concentration than other distant locales. Are you saying that none of it will reach the anitpode? Are you also saying that none will reach orbit?
Um, no to either question. As to whether debris in an earth impact would have a concentration at the antipode is still pretty much conjecture backed by a couple of computer models. Personally, I disagree with it; at least I don't think (not having seen his paper yet I can't make a stronger case than that) that he's modeled all the factors correctly, such as impact obliquity, high-altitude wind factors, gravitational variations effecting debris suborbit trajectory, suborbital atmospheric variations, etc, blah blah blah
Of *course* some of it will reach the antipode. Whether there is a relevant concentration there is what I debate; it's not proven to my satisfaction, not yet, anyway. Orbital mechanics postulates that a portion of the debris may land there, but I think I've already dealt with that.
As to whether it will reach orbit, it's pretty easy to show that a fair amount (10% or so according to the models) will not only reach orbit but be ejected from the Earth-Moon system entirely (and that 10% figure of course depends a great deal on the impact obliquity and whether or not it impacts deep water or land, and also on the impact energies - a 10-20 km body is borderline in that respect, additionally, impact velocity is a lot more important; KE=mv^2, and we don't have *any* even semisolid figures as to either.)
I guess what got me about your post was that you linked to a couple of sites that merely mentioned the antipodal debris effect, and not to one that was from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
The reason I talked about the shockwave effect a lot is because extremely good evidence for it has been found on other planets (and possibly even here, the Permian event and the Deccan trap eruptions are a good example), and I feel that shockwave concentration in the K-T event probably accounts for a lot more geophysical effects than debris concentration - and yes, I'm aware that some circumstantial evidence has been found for debris concentration effects on the moon (fascinating reading in itself, scroll about halfway down), but impact debris distribution on the earth is going to be entirely different than it will be on a smaller body with no atmosphere.
It was also late, and I was tired, and probably not thinking clearly
Anyway, having googled it a bit, I'd sugges
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.