Slashdot Mirror


Did Insects Kill the Dinosaurs?

Ponca City, We Love You writes "Asteroid impacts, massive volcanic flows, and now biting, disease-carrying insects have been put forward as an important contributor to the demise of the dinosaurs. In the Late Cretaceous the world was covered with warm-temperate to tropical areas that swarmed with blood-sucking insects. A theory explored by researchers at Oregon State suggests these bugs carried leishmania, malaria, intestinal parasites, arboviruses and other pathogens. Repeated epidemics may have slowly-but-surely worn down dinosaur populations while ticks, mites, lice and biting flies tormented and weakened them. 'After many millions of years of evolution, mammals, birds and reptiles have evolved some resistance to these diseases,' says Researcher George Poinar. 'But back in the Cretaceous, these diseases were new and invasive, and vertebrates had little or no natural or acquired immunity to them.' The confluence of new insect-spread diseases, loss of traditional food sources, and competition for plants by insect pests could all have provided a lingering, debilitating condition that dinosaurs were ultimately unable to overcome."

184 comments

  1. Mosquitos by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dinosaurs couldn't slap mosquitos, so they all caught malaria?

    --
    which is totally what she said
    1. Re:Mosquitos by explosivejared · · Score: 1

      No... the Dinosaurs were just fine at slapping mosquitoes, it's just that jerk Adam liked to play practical jokes and would put mosquitoes on their beds at night.

      --
      I got a catholic block.
    2. Re:Mosquitos by taybay · · Score: 2, Funny

      You must remember that back then, mosquitos were the size of a house. Slapping them would actually involve wrestling them down first.

    3. Re:Mosquitos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insects were able to kill off the dinosaurs?

      OMG...does this mean Kent Brockman was right about "our new ant overlords" after all?

    4. Re:Mosquitos by davidsyes · · Score: 1
      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  2. Insects don't kill dinosaurs... by heauxmeaux · · Score: 0, Funny

    Dinosaurs kill dinosaurs.

    I'm sick of all this anti-insect diatribe.

    --
    Beat 'Em and Eat 'Em
    1. Re:Insects don't kill dinosaurs... by nschubach · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm waiting for the mosquito control bill to pass Congress. We need to get these lethal mosquitoes out of the hands of our young Dinolings. There can be no middle ground on this! The two week waiting period for mosquitoes is simply not enough!

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  3. extremely suspect by moderatorrater · · Score: 1, Redundant

    This seems unlikely to me. As far as I can tell, every single type of dinosaur died out except for those that went on to become birds. This is like future, intelligent insects blaming the plague for the demise of every type of mammal on the planet.

    1. Re:extremely suspect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Exactly. Dinosaurs were pretty widespread globally, including some in areas where I doubt many mosquitos or other insects were prevalent. Weren't there large dinosaur-like creatures living in the seas and oceans also?

    2. Re:extremely suspect by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The sharks, ceolocanths, and 'gaters may beg to differ with ya...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    3. Re:extremely suspect by Serenissima · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It might work! But only if that insects - along with carrying various diseases - also carried giant, planet-killing asteroids with them. If we just call the "Dinosaur Period" the Jurassic through Cretaceous, that lasted from 200 million years before now to 65 million years before now (+/- 5-10 million years). I find it kind of hard to swallow that Dinosaurs couldn't build up an immunity to disease over a period of 135 [i]million[/i] years. Viruses can evolve and change hundreds of times in the course of a human lifetime (which you can't even measure with Geologic time). If Viruses were around for 135 million years when Dinosaurs were around, the Dinosaurs had to have pretty hefty immune systems to be able to cope with all the new viruses evolving. And considering that they actually lasted until a giant rock fell out of the sky, I'd say that getting head colds probably didn't do them in.

      --
      Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    4. Re:extremely suspect by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A disease which kills it's host off too quickly will itself die out in short order before becoming too widespread.
      • Aids (originally from Chimps?) takes years to kill, allowing the host to infect others.
      • Bubonic Plague was a disease for rats. It killed a lot but not to the extent of exterminating entire species. Humans have developed resistance.
      • Ebola? Endemic in some monkey species, outbreaks amongst humans cause so much damage that the disease fails.
      • Malaria: kills a lot, but humans have developed resistance here as well.
      Now if you postulate Intelligent Design . . . Bye Bye Dinos. ;-)
      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    5. Re:extremely suspect by JerryLove · · Score: 5, Informative

      Although "Dinosaur" is used very widely, and often used to refer to extinct reptiles like the Pliseosaur, Pteridon, or Leoplurodon; the groups wiped out were, properly speaking, the Therapods (popularly the T-Rex, Velociraptors, and their kin) and the Sauropods (Brachiasaur, Triceritops, etc). Neither of these groups survived the mass extinction at the end of the Cretatious period.

      Sharks are sharks, Ceolocanths are fish, and Aligators are reptiles. Although all three forms date back very nearly how they look now to the time of the dinosaurs, it would be an equivocation to call them "dinosaurs" when discussing the "extinction of the dinoasurs".

      Apologies for spelling, mine is pretty poor.

    6. Re:extremely suspect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the gators are extremely good at fighting diseases (they're immune to MRSA and AIDS for example). Was it a trait that helped them survive?

    7. Re:extremely suspect by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      "This seems unlikely to me. As far as I can tell, every single type of dinosaur died out except for those that went on to become birds."

      The sharks, ceolocanths, and 'gaters may beg to differ with ya...

      I don't think, strictly speaking, that the above are considered 'dinosaurs'.

      I think all but crocs actually predate dinos -- I'm not sure about the crocs. We're talkiing old critters here -- from an evolutionary perspective, that's some staying power! Over 450 mya and counting!

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:extremely suspect by Weedlekin · · Score: 4, Informative

      "and the Sauropods (Brachiasaur, Triceritops, etc)"

      Triceratops wasn't a sauropod. Like other marginocephalians, it was a member of one of three orithischian (bird hipped) groups (the other two are threophora which includes armoured dinosaurs such as ankylosaurus and stegosaurus, and ornithopods such as the hadrosaurs). Sauropods were saurischian (lizard hipped), and are therefore more closely related to therapods than either are to the ornithischians.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    9. Re:extremely suspect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it seems unlikely for other reasons as well. For one, it completely ignores evolutionary theory (and face it, if you are even considering this theory as possible in the first place, you aren't a creationist, creationists would debunk it before getting this far even)

      The viruses and bacteria didn't just sprout out of nowhere.

      1) They had to evolve and adapt into place just like the dinosaurs. That meanst at the same time, the dinos would be evolving immune systems to deal with them. The bugs could weaken them, but a massive number of species to near extenction? That's tin-foil-hat worthy.
      2) Assuming dinosaurs were as prevelent as suspected, and the other species were as rare, a few crossover stains would be very likely: most other vertibrates would be as screwed as the dinosaurs were, if not more so - the other vertibrates didn't have any real need to fight the bugs prior to this, and thus no real need for a major immune system defense already in place.

    10. Re:extremely suspect by Cally · · Score: 1

      Sharks are sharks, Ceolocanths are fish, and Aligators are reptiles. Of course; if they were dinosaurs, they'd be extinct. Stands to reason.
      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    11. Re:extremely suspect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you know way too much about dinosaurs!

    12. Re:extremely suspect by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The end-Cretaceous mass extinction did not just target the dinosaurs. It resulted in the extinction of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, the vast majority of birds, many mammals and lizards, a few turtles and crocodilians, frewshwater sharks, freshwater clams, large marine reptiles (mosasaurs and plesiosaurs), ammonites (shelled cephalopods similar to the modern chambered nautilus), marine plankton, many species of plants... and ironically enough, some insects. The insect fossil record isn't good enough to look at extinction patterns, but if you look at fossil leaves, a number of distinctive feeding traces disappear 65 million years ago, at the same time as the dinosaurs, indicating that whatever plant-eating insects made them went extinct.

      In short, it is unlikely that biting insects could be responsible for all this chaos. The extinction was simultaneous, worldwide, and (in geological terms) instantaneous, it hit animals and plants, and it hit organisms on land and in the sea. Now, it turns out, probably not coincidentally, that at the same time all of this happens, a huge asteroid or comet impact- one of the biggest in the past half-billion years- takes place in the Yucatan, blasting dust into the stratosphere, sending tidal waves across Texas, and probably igniting much of North America in the process. An asteroid impact is probably capable of causing an extinction like this. Its doubtful that gnats, mites, and mosquitos could.

    13. Re:extremely suspect by Sonicglide · · Score: 1

      "Sharks are sharks, Ceolocanths are fish, and Aligators are reptiles. "

      All of those species got their start in the Paleozoic and had millions of years of evolution. Which is why they are still here today, they fit a nice niche in the world.

    14. Re:extremely suspect by Notquitecajun · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ummm...

      Ow...that post hurt my head. Someone left the door unlocked and a paleontologist got in!!??

    15. Re:extremely suspect by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      # Bubonic Plague was a disease for rats. It killed a lot but not to the extent of exterminating entire species. Humans have developed resistance. Link?

      Or by "resistance" do you mean "habits of cleanliness and antibiotics?"
    16. Re:extremely suspect by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      I should have said 'some resistance', and pointed out that it is localised (to Europe) just as resistance to Malaria is afaik African based.

      No links because I'm about to head off and got this from dead trees anyway, but DNA analysis indicates that human diversity in W Europe dropped dramatically around the time of the plagues and that a mutation arose conferring some resistance. Just like Sickle-Cell Anaemia, only a fraction of people have it.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    17. Re:extremely suspect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thyreophora not "threophora".

    18. Re:extremely suspect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're overlooking an important question here: what is the blame-Bush angle?

    19. Re:extremely suspect by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Funny

      What is he thinking?

      Doesn't he know that Slashdot is only for armchair experts, not actual ones?

    20. Re:extremely suspect by brassman · · Score: 1
      Saying that "sickle-cell protects against malaria" is a bit simplistic.

      The "sickle-cell" malformation of red blood cells occurs when someone gets the trait from both mother and father. If you have the sickle-cell trait on one chromosome, you get resistance to malaria without developing sickle-cell anemia, and that is a much better result for the individual. It sucks when you get two copies of the gene, but having that resistance in the population is worth it, from a purely statistical (and thus evolutionary) point of view.

      There is evidence that a similar situation exists regarding the genetic disease Tay-Sachs and bubonic plague. One copy of the gene is not a problem, but you need to watch that cousin-marrying.

      --
      "Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
    21. Re:extremely suspect by Weedlekin · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are correct. My post contained an unfortunate typo.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    22. Re:extremely suspect by JavaRob · · Score: 1

      You are correct. My post contained an unfortunate typo. I think we'll all be okay.

      Thanks for the post, BTW. I was obsessed with dinosaurs for a few years when I was a kid, but haven't dug into them in any depth since then... this kind of discussion churns up memories of sitting in a dim corner of the library, poring over books that were way over my head. :)
    23. Re:extremely suspect by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "I was obsessed with dinosaurs for a few years when I was a kid, but haven't dug into them in any depth since then... this kind of discussion churns up memories of sitting in a dim corner of the library, poring over books that were way over my head."

      This pretty much describes me, although the interest in extinct life forms rather than dinosaurs in particular has stayed with me (it is not however my profession). It's interesting to note that there have been several mass extinctions throughout the Earth's history, some of which were far more devastating than the so-called "KT event" (e.g. the Permian extinction, knows as P-TR (Permian-Triassic), which palaeontologists call "the Great Dying", and vacated a number of ecological niches that dinosaurs would later fill), yet these don't seem to draw anything like as many crackpot theories as the one at the end of the Cretaceous, which at best ranks only third or fourth among extinction events in terms of severity and the time taken for life to recover. It should also be noted that this is far from the first claim that a disease was responsible for wiping out the dinosaurs, and it will be rejected for the same reasons that the others were, i.e. it fails to explain why so many forms of life that differed significantly from dinosaurs in biology and habitat also became extinct along with them.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    24. Re:extremely suspect by JavaRob · · Score: 1

      I guess from a logical perspective, it's also true that more than one of these factors could have been important -- one triggered in some way by another, or even just coincidentally.

      But as for the fascination with the Cretaceous mass extinction -- I think it comes directly from our fascination with dinosaurs... the enormous and toothy types scare the bejesus out of us, to put it one way, and it's perhaps even more awe-inspiring to think of them all being wiped out than it is to imagine them alive. And from popular interest comes crackpots, I suppose. :)

      Though I'm reading up now on some of the pre-dinosaur beasties... neat stuff.

    25. Re:extremely suspect by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "I guess from a logical perspective, it's also true that more than one of these factors could have been important -- one triggered in some way by another, or even just coincidentally."

      Or it could well have been due to some factor or combination of factors that we don't know about because they don't leave any physical records that we've been able to detect (and we may never be able to detect them without some form of time travel). The way that various new fossil discoveries have caused radical reviews of many scientific viewpoints about dinosaurs shows that we actually know very, very little about the way they lived, so _any_ theories that try to explain their demise are little more than speculation.

      Consider for example that we're currently in the middle of a notable mass extinction event that is also the result of a combination of factors, at least some of which are probably due to human activity. Imagine for a moment that a race of intelligent beings comes along 60 million years in the future, a time so remote from our own that the only human artefacts which survived various ice ages, tectonic plate movements, bouts of vulcanism, oceans and seas rising and falling, and general weathering would be a few stone tools made by our remote ancestors. They'd find a "boundary layer" where a rich and extremely diverse ecosystem declined drastically in a period that's so short when seen in the context of 60 million years that it might as well have happened in a day. Human activity wouldn't be considered as a factor because the few stone tools and rare fossil examples of humans (fossilisation only happens under specific sets of conditions) would indicate that these fragile creatures with a primitive technology wouldn't have been a significant threat to powerful predators like bears, lions, tigers, etc., and their presence wouldn't explain the fact that marine ecosystems all over the planet also began to collapse within a few tens of years. Yet the only evidence they have to go on are a few fossils of skeletons that provide only tenuous clues to how any of their original owners lived, moved, or behaved, and none whatsoever that help explain why so many of them died in such a short period of time.

      It's likely that these future palaeontologists would also come up with all sorts of theories to explain how it happened, most if not all of which would be incorrect because all the evidence that points to the real causes has been erased by the planet itself over a period of time that's far too long for any intelligent creature with less than a near infinite life span to grasp. Consider for example how little we really know about Neanderthals in general, and their extinction in particular, and then consider that they were far more like us than 99.9999999% of all the other life that's existed (and indeed still exists) on this planet, and only died out 30,000 years ago, one 20,000th of the time between now and the K-T extinction event.

      "But as for the fascination with the Cretaceous mass extinction -- I think it comes directly from our fascination with dinosaurs... the enormous and toothy types scare the bejesus out of us, to put it one way, and it's perhaps even more awe-inspiring to think of them all being wiped out than it is to imagine them alive."

      It could also possibly be due to the fact that some palaeontologists (and the popular press) are of the opinion that the K-T extinction vacated various ecological niches which allowed mammals to proliferate and evolve into a wide variety of forms, some of which rivalled even the big sauropod dinosaurs in size and weight, while others would eventually lead to us. I'm not personally convinced that significant mammalian evolution wouldn't have occurred even if the dinosaurs hadn't died out, just as crocodilians, snakes, birds, lizards, turtles, amphibians, and many other forms of life also co-existed with and continued to evolve alongside them. Recent fossil discoveries of cretaceous mammals have overturned the old view of them all being tiny shrew-like nocturn

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  4. Uh... all of the above by orclevegam · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, lets just make them all happy and say all of the above played a part. Giant meteor hits the Earth, causes dust to obscure the sun and weakens or kills a bunch of plant life. Meanwhile that same impact touches off a bunch of giant lava flows. Finally the dinosaurs already weakened by lack of food are subject to malaria and cough to death on dust clouds. There, all major doom scenarios all rolled into one. Please note, I'm not really serious with this... or am I?

    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    1. Re:Uh... all of the above by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really bugs me that you could make jokes about the fate of the dinosaurs.

    2. Re:Uh... all of the above by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      You missed the one about the decrease in the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere making large creatures be unable to acquire enough air.

    3. Re:Uh... all of the above by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There, all major doom scenarios all rolled into one.

      You missed the bit where Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks all the dinosaurs.

  5. Butterflies, specifically by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Funny

    I learned it on MST3K during the movie Future War (which isn't set in the future and doesn't feature a war, natch.)

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mystery_Science_Theater_3000#Future_War

    Thank you for not killing me.

  6. MalaRIAA by owlnation · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dinosaurs? Bloodsucking Insects?

    Is this another Music Industry article?

    1. Re:MalaRIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i thought that was funny....

    2. Re:MalaRIAA by gmby · · Score: 1

      Thank You for the good laugh. I'am under the weather so it was a good needed laugh.

      Thanks again.

      --
      I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
  7. I don't buy it by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

    'But back in the Cretaceous, these diseases were new and invasive, and vertebrates had little or no natural or acquired immunity to them.'
    Back in the Cretaceous, these diseases were 70 million years' evolution behind where they are now. It's really quite a leap to presume they were so virulent that inborn immunity was necessary.
    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:I don't buy it by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      On the other side of that coin, maybe they were too virulent. It is not in a disease's best interest to kill it's host immediately.

  8. Bernard Werber by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A French sci-fi author suggested that ants deliberately waged war on dinosaurs and killed them all (by invading their natural orifices and killing them from the inside) because their large size was detrimental to ant nests.

    But frankly, I don't think new diseases would wipe out an entire order of life, all over the world, in all ecological niches, without wiping out other unrelated orders of life. In their hundreds of millions of years of existence, dinos had to fight off insects and diseases that were there before them, it couldn't just wipe them (and just them) off the face of the Earth in such a short time.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Bernard Werber by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      But frankly, I don't think new diseases would wipe out an entire order of life, all over the world, in all ecological niches, without wiping out other unrelated orders of life. In their hundreds of millions of years of existence, dinos had to fight off insects and diseases that were there before them, it couldn't just wipe them (and just them) off the face of the Earth in such a short time. I agree, it doesn't make sense that they could become as evolved as they already had (from fish, monkeys, what have you) just so a magic virus could appear and kill 'em off.

      If these viruses have been around since the dinosaurs- why not since before the dinosaurs?
      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  9. Insects? by tiny1877 · · Score: 0

    I thought Chuck Norris killed the dinosaurs?

  10. Hold the phone by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

    'After many millions of years of evolution, mammals, birds and reptiles have evolved some resistance to these diseases,' says Researcher George Poinar. 'But back in the Cretaceous, these diseases were new and invasive, and vertebrates had little or no natural or acquired immunity to them.'

    Uh, exactly why would mammals have some natural resistance to these diseases such that they would survive better than the dinosaurs? Especially considering that some mammals (e.g., humans) don't have resistance to Malaria.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:Hold the phone by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not specific blood-bourne pathogens, it's blood-bourne pathogens in general. We have lots of complicated mechanisms that have developed over millions of years of evolution that provide a lot of protection.

      And yes, there are a number of genes that code for malaria resistance in human beings; they exist wherever malaria is common. The most well known (and most common?) is the sickle cell gene. But there are a number of other mechanisms that have evolved independently that protect people from malaria. If your ancestors had a lot of trouble with malaria, you are probably much more resistant to it than someone whose ancestors came from Norway.

    2. Re:Hold the phone by bperkins · · Score: 1

      Uh, exactly why would mammals have some natural resistance to these diseases such that they would survive better than the dinosaurs? Especially considering that some mammals (e.g., humans) don't have resistance to Malaria

      First of all, I'm not a paleontologist.

      But here are a couple ways that seem plausible:
      Lets assume larger animals usually have much longer life cycles. If animals accumulate parasitic infections over it's life cycle at the same rate, then the smaller mammals with their shorter life cycle would have an advantage, since they would have reproduced before they are likely to be overburdened by infection. This might also help explain why smaller dinosaurs seemed to have lived on and were able to eventually evolve into birds.

      It's also possible that mammals biology was different enough than dinosaurs that most parasites preferred to infect dinosaurs. Since dinosaur-like animals had been around much longer in greater numbers it's reasonable to assume that there are more parasites that affect dinosaurs than mammals. This doesn't help explain why some dinosaurs may have lived longer than others, though smaller dinosaurs with a shorter life cycles may have been able to evolve parasitic resistance better than the larger ones.

    3. Re:Hold the phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dinosaurs were too diverse for that to make sense - both genetically and geographically.

      By the end of the Cretaceous, they'd been around 150+ million years. The odds of parasites and/or diseases suddenly arising that could wipe out all dinosaurs (except for birds), flying reptiles, swimming reptiles like mosasaurs (closely related to today's lizards, apparently), and other large land and sea groups all at the same time all over the planet is vanishingly small.

      What could pick out disparate groups like that? I find it difficult to believe that disease and or parasites could have had much to do with the K-T extinction event.

    4. Re:Hold the phone by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Lets assume larger animals usually have much longer life cycles."

      Far from all dinosaurs were large though. Some species were no bigger than turkeys, and probably had a similar generational cycle.

      "This might also help explain why smaller dinosaurs seemed to have lived on and were able to eventually evolve into birds."

      Dinosaurs diverged from birds around a hundred million years before the dinosaurs themselves became extinct.

      "It's also possible that mammals biology was different enough than dinosaurs that most parasites preferred to infect dinosaurs"

      If that was the case, then it couldn't have been any of the diseases mentioned in the article, as all of those seem to have been notably successful at attacking mammals, and some also attack birds and reptiles. It's notable that all of these seem to have survived the prevalence of such pathogens, and the fact that these researchers have found them in cretaceous amber doesn't preclude them from having coexisted with the dinosaurs since their early origins, because bacteria, protozoans, nematodes, and insects to carry them were all around long before johnny-come-latelies such as dinosaurs.

      I shall thus file this under "yet another weak attempt to explain dinosaur extinction by someone trying to make a name for themselves".

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    5. Re:Hold the phone by ardle · · Score: 1

      If your ancestors had a lot of trouble with malaria You mean "If your ancestors' friends had a lot of trouble with malaria" ;-)
      Your ancestors survived, either by chance mutation or chance of fate.
      And shared the code, if the former ;-)
    6. Re:Hold the phone by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      You are under the impression that malaria is an instant death-sentence. That is not so. Some of the malaria resistance mechanisms (g6pd, etc.) work by preventing malaria from getting to a stage where it kills you (at least long enough for you to reproduce).

    7. Re:Hold the phone by ardle · · Score: 1

      I jumped at the chance to make a colourful point :-)
      If we substitute "survived to reproduce" for "survived" in my earlier post, then I suppose we should substitute "chance mutations" for "chance mutation" and "chances of fate" for "chance of fate"?
      Actually, it's "survive to reproduce and raise young, if necessary", isn't it? The "if necessary" being species-dependent, I suppose.
      I'm not a biologist, I'm trying to find interesting ways of looking at the idea of survival. Nothing survives like survival :-)

  11. So . . . by Jerko · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    it's not because I touch myself at night?

  12. poor understanding of evolution and parasites by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    parasites don't suddenly appear out of thin air and reduce their hosts to extinction

    they gradually evolve in tandem with their hosts, and they make sure they always leach off the host's resources, and never kill their host

    a parasite is not interested in killing its host. because then the parasite dies too

    and a parasite is evolved to infect its host very carefully and specifically. dinosaurs did not suddenly get worms that no other creature ever got before. the worms evolved as the dinosaurs evolved

    as for biting insects, this was a major new change. but again, it's not like mosquitoes materialized out of thin air and vampirically drained all the blood in the world. they slowly and gradually evolved to the job they do better and better, but never THAT good a job. never, never, did they kill their hosts. because this would then kill the mosquitoes

    so frankly, this story is braindead on some fundamentals of evolution and parasites

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:poor understanding of evolution and parasites by Sciros · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're mistaken on the principle of parasitism, possibly confusing it on some level with symbiosis. Parasites don't need to keep a host alive. Many parasites kill their hosts (as intended). Parasitic wasps, for instance, lay eggs inside their hosts which then hatch with the larva proceeding to eat the host from the inside out. Such wasps are in fact sometimes used as a "natural" method of pest control.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    2. Re:poor understanding of evolution and parasites by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      Very good point! If these infected insects killed off all their prey, they'd have to find something else to suck on- and eventually they'd kill off ALL living things.

      On a side note- wasn't dinosaur skin very thick? Last time I checked, mosquitoes are very small... could they even get anything from a dinosaur? I think it'd make more sense if the mosquitoes were providing a building tolerance to all mammals to some dreadful disease that wiped off animals that mosquitoes couldn't bite.

      But even here, my logic is flawed, I'm sure there are other mammals with thick skin. So the point that my theory that makes more sense doesn't hold water should really say something about this article.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    3. Re:poor understanding of evolution and parasites by Jerry+Beasters · · Score: 1

      Trust me, mosquitoes, like pretty much all bugs at the time, were absolutely massive compared to their current sizes (one reason possibly due to the atmosphere having more oxygen than it does now). They weren't the size of a person, but these weren't your current suburban little biting annoyances.

    4. Re:poor understanding of evolution and parasites by qeveren · · Score: 1

      "Parasitic" wasps aren't parasites: they're parasitoids. True parasites do not kill their hosts (or at least try not to).

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    5. Re:poor understanding of evolution and parasites by Sciros · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a sub-type of parasite if you want to go that deep into semantics. Terminology here isn't entirely consistent but at least within entomology they are called "parasites" and that is not in error.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    6. Re:poor understanding of evolution and parasites by EgoWumpus · · Score: 1

      Many parasites kill their hosts (as intended).

      I think you're mistaken in ascribing intent to parasites. Parasites have no intent beyond reproducing. In some situations they may exploit their niche (in this case, hypothetically, dinosaurs) to a degree of overburdening it and seriously harming or destroying it. Usually the niche - if it itself is biological - will end up compensating; or, more precisely, those entities that survive have come upon a compensation accidentally. If the parasite is still able to feed off the compensated niche organism, they'll continue to survive. If there is none, then it will die.

      Suffice to say, it's a valid theory. People need to stop thinking of evolution as having intent ascribed to it. It really is a comedy of errors.

      --

      [Ego]out

    7. Re:poor understanding of evolution and parasites by pesho · · Score: 1

      Good point. Mod the parent up
        The argument in the article is that there is evidence that dinosaurs were hosts to parasites (big surprise), therefore the parasites killed them. This is as bogus as it can get. If there is a consistent record for parasites linked to dinosaur species, this can only mean that there were very long term relationships between hosts and parasites. The parent explains very well why this can not cause extinction.

      There are also a bunch of other problems with their theory:

        The article seems also to lack understanding on population dynamics. Any parasite that causes dramatic decrease in the host population will automatically decrease its chances of transmission and survival. This forms a negative feedback loop, which will allow the host population to recover. If the parasite does cause extinction (imagine HIV like virus), it will be limited to local area where it has originated. When the host is gone, the parasite goes with it. Insects have very limited ability to spread parasites across large distances. For this you need a parasite that can have an intermediate migrating host, which is largely unaffected by the parasite. But than this is fairly sophisticated parasite, which is very unlikely to cause host extinction (see parent for explanation).

        What about the marine species? Were they also bitten by malaria carrying mosquitoes?

    8. Re:poor understanding of evolution and parasites by Sciros · · Score: 1

      I wasn't meaning to imply "intent" in the way you understood; I simply meant that it was a natural occurrence as far as the parasite is concerned. That is, the parasitized host dies 100% (or close enough) of the time because what the parasite does, well, kills it.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    9. Re:poor understanding of evolution and parasites by simplerThanPossible · · Score: 1

      Many fatal diseases would disagree with you.

    10. Re:poor understanding of evolution and parasites by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "as for biting insects, this was a major new change."

      We don't actually know that this was the case. Insect fossils are rare, and amber-bearing trees only go back (as far as we know) to the early Cretaceous, and ones as old as that are extremely rare (the majority of "amber fossils" are less than 30 million years old). Note also that Ixodoidea (the group that includes mites and ticks) go back at least as as far as the Devonian period, so it's very possible that parasitic forms evolved almost as soon as there were animals to carry them (many of today's insects and arachnids for example are subject to a variety of parasitic mites, so ectoparasites of this type didn't have to wait for more complex endoskeletal land animals animals to evolve -- indeed, many prey on plants). These creatures are known vectors for diseases that attack nearly a huge variety of life forms today, so it's probable that they also carried a number of them that affected both dinosaurs and the various other types of animal that inhabited their world.

      NB: I agree with the rest of your post. Given the antiquity of most of the organisms that produce (rather than merely act as vectors for) diseases, any claim that a group of animals which survived alongside such pathogens for 130 million years hadn't evolved an extremely sophisticated immune system is absurd. Furthermore, as other posters have noted, the mass extinction that finally put paid to the dinosaurs (which had been declining in diversity and numbers for millions of years) wiped out around 70% of life on the planet, including creatures such as ammonites that lived in water and weren't related to dinosaurs (well, technically they were, but in the same way that we're related to squid if you go back far enough).

      For this theory to hold water, we would therefore have to postulate vast swarms of super mosquitos that could both fly on land and swim to the depths of the oceans carrying a mortal disease that affected some plants, dinosaurs, and other specific sets of land animals, sea-going reptiles, pterosaurs, and ammonites (a cephalopod mollusc), but not crocodilians and most other reptiles, most mammals, birds, fish, or any other forms of cepahlopod mollusc despite the fact that they were closely related to ammonites.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  13. I Dunno by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    The theory seems a little bit of a stretch, but the recent work suggests that the KT meteor event may have been the straw that broke an ailing camel's back.

    Still, lots of stuff did survive, and because "dinosaur" is a rather large and diverse group of animals, the best we can say is that it was, by and large, the megafauna that took the brunt of it, which seems logical, as it would be these species that would be at the top of their prospective ecological niches, and thus the most vulnerable.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  14. id by wwmedia · · Score: 3, Funny

    this theory would fit nicely with the "world is only 6000 years old crowd"

    i mean swarms of insects were mentioned in the bible (old testament, moses exodus part?) somewhere, i dont remember reading about asteroids in that book

    1. Re:id by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      How so?

    2. Re:id by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      The swarms of locust were a plague on Egypt because Pharaoh was not willing to free the slaves. The Flood could possibly be a more likely culprit.

    3. Re:id by log1385 · · Score: 1

      The Bible says that Noah took only one male and one female of each species on the ark. Most species would have reproduced quickly enough to repopulate the earth (assuming that both parents had a good gene pool between them). Some species, like dinosaurs, might not have found enough food to survive and reproduce quickly enough.

      --
      Seek and ye shall find.
    4. Re:id by notorious+ninja · · Score: 1

      Yes - and only the dinosaurs that evolved into birds survived. Clearly, the rest died in the flood because they were too big to get on Noah's Ark ;)

    5. Re:id by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      Actually, he took 7 animals of each of the "clean" species, and 2 of all the rest.

    6. Re:id by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you single out the bible? Read the torah and the koran and you will find they too are part of the "6000 years old crowd" with "swarms of insects".

      Nice of you to reveal your anti-christian bigotry though!

  15. The insects are just the FALL guys by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

    arboviruses So wait, wait, wait. Wait. You're saying that TREES killed the dinosaurs, using the insects as their hit men?
    1. Re:The insects are just the FALL guys by codon+bias · · Score: 1

      Arbovirus is short for "arthropod-borne virus". No relation.

    2. Re:The insects are just the FALL guys by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      I know, I looked it up before posting. It was a joke. ;)

  16. Doesn't sound likely at all by Sciros · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The whole timeline appears a bit fubar here.

    "After many millions of years of evolution, mammals, birds and reptiles have evolved some resistance to these diseases,' says Researcher George Poinar. 'But back in the Cretaceous, these diseases were new and invasive, and vertebrates had little or no natural or acquired immunity to them"

    Um, the Cretaceous period lasted 75 million years. So while it's plausible that insects caused outbreaks of disease in localized populations I really don't see how anything of pandemic proportions can be inferred. As far as evolved resistance goes, well, the dinosaurs dominated the Earth for a LONG time. Much, much longer than mammals. Unless the diseases described all appeared about 65 million years ago, then there's just no logic here.

    Besides that, dinosarus may have died out but many other species did not. This includes reptiles, which would have been affected by the pathogens according by these researchers.

    The more I think about this, the more it smells like bullcrap.

    --
    I like basketball!!1!
    1. Re:Doesn't sound likely at all by argent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's even more unlikely than that: pathogens have absolutely been part of the ecosystem since the days of single-celled life forms. There are organelles in a modern animal or plant cell, including mitochondria and chloroplasts, that are believed to have evolved from symbiotic organisms. These almost certainly started out as pathogens back when the whole multicellular complex organism schtick was just starting up.

  17. I think everybody knows by jasonbrennan · · Score: 1

    I think everybody knows that Jesus buried the Dinosaurs...cmon.

    1. Re:I think everybody knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, just the religious right trying to get the plague in as the real reason for extinction. I knew Dinosaurs had Latin names but I didn't think they were catholic.

    2. Re:I think everybody knows by fr4nk · · Score: 1

      Well, if someone buried them, it would certainly have been Khrushchev!

  18. Sounds plausible, but... by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "We can't say for certain that insects are the smoking gun, but we believe they were an extremely significant force in the decline of the dinosaurs," Poinar said. "Our research with amber shows that there were evolving, disease-carrying vectors in the Cretaceous, and that at least some of the pathogens they carried infected reptiles. This clearly fills in some gaps regarding dinosaur extinctions." I think that in view of the asteroid disaster and limited sustenance material in its aftermath the diseased insects could do damage to already suffering species. In the short term this would be no major issue, but descriptions of the asteroid's damage show that it would have been decades of knock-on effects to climate and biology. If smaller (low on the food chain) animals suffered first, it would lead to shortages and starvation up the chain. Is that enough to cause mass extinction? Who knows, but it seems plausible enough to be worth counting in the list of causes.

    You might ask what happened Mayan empire? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_collapse This insect thing might not be so far fetched as you think?
  19. No, man by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...it was video, warming up for the radio star.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:No, man by ACDChook · · Score: 1

      Oh, if only I had mod points. That's one of the funniest comments I've read on Slashdot EVER. Congrats - you sure gave me a good laugh to start my day. :D

    2. Re:No, man by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Glad not all are as humorless as my mod-buddy.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  20. Which came first? by DarkTitan_X · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Did insect-borne illnesses weaken the dinosaur species that went extinct before the meteor impact that ultimately led to their extinction, or did the geologic changes caused by the meteor impact weaken the dinosaurs to make them more susceptible to illness?

    --
    ~Mike (Titan_X)
    1. Re:Which came first? by epine · · Score: 1
      Cosmic chain reaction led to death of dinosaurs from CBC on 6 September 2007

      ... has been traced to an earlier collision of larger asteroids about 95 million years earlier ...

      Writing in the scientific journal Nature, researcher William Bottke and co-authors laid out a scenario of the origin of the asteroid that landed on Earth in the Cretaceous Era, creating the enormous Chicxulub crater in Mexico's Yucatan peninsula.


      There's one perspective that heavenly hash voted against the dinosaurs early and often.
  21. Wait a second... by sexybomber · · Score: 2, Informative

    Admittedly I didn't RTFA, but are these scientists saying that the dinosaurs WEREN'T killed by the huge Chixulub asteroid? I thought it had been pretty much established that that was what happened (iridium concentrations at the K-T boundary, 65M-year old impact crater, 70% of other species kicking the bucket at the same time, etc.)

    1. Re:Wait a second... by DarkTitan_X · · Score: 1
      The article talks of the theory that disease played a part in the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass-extinction event. It doesn't debate whether the Chixulub asteriod impact took place; there's plenty of evidence backing such an event.

      Wouldn't such a finding be irrelevant? I mean, wouldn't a geologic disaster caused by the asteroid impact be enough evidence for the cause of a mass-extinction event? It's almost like running an autopsy on a person that was shot in the head and saying the cause of death was the flu.

      --
      ~Mike (Titan_X)
    2. Re:Wait a second... by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      Unless they somehow show that the asteroid just happened to slam into a planetful of sick, dying, and/or dead dinosaurs =)

      I mean, just because someone has died of the flu doesn't mean I cant shoot them in the face with my revolver once they're gone.

      Not saying this is likely, just that its somewhat possible, and may apply to a certain degree (IE: perhaps not all species were so harshly impacted by this need, or adapted quickly enough).

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    3. Re:Wait a second... by Eyezen · · Score: 1

      Actually I think that was the premise of the BBC Walking with Dinasours series. Instead of insects I think it was CO build up.

  22. Possible, But Improbable by purduemike · · Score: 2, Informative

    It seems very unlikely that a whole planet of dinosaurs were killed by insects. It is actually very difficult for insects to cover an entire continent, let alone move from continent to continent. In current times, insects stowaway on ships and planes to travel large distances and between continents. Also, if this were true regarding reptiles, what about crocodiles? They've been living much longer than any of the dinosaurs and the lived in conditions where mosquitoes thrive. How do you explain them?

    1. Re:Possible, But Improbable by Farakin · · Score: 0

      The little fairies that sprinkle sunshine on them killed the mosquitoes....wait did I just butcher a "Waterboy" quote?

    2. Re:Possible, But Improbable by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

      >> It seems very unlikely that a whole planet of dinosaurs were killed by insects.

      Just because something seems unlikely doesn't mean it is unlikely. Relativity, quantum mechanics, and in it's day, Copernican orbits all seemed unlikely. It wasn't that long ago that the idea of an asteroid impact killing the dinosaurs was deemed ridiculous.

      >> It is actually very difficult for insects to cover an entire continent

      Current-day insects cover entire continents. They are limited more by climate than geography, and one suspects that any climate good for dinosaurs would be just fine for mosquitoes and ticks.

      >> In current times, insects stowaway on ships and planes to travel large
      >> distances and between continents.

      Yes, but they also stow away on air currents, driftwood, icebergs, birds, marine life, and floating corpses all of which are plausible back then. The continents were somewhat closer together back then too. Even in current times, Europe, Africa, India, and Asia are all connected by land, as are North and South America. The bering straight has a land bridge that appears when the water level is low, connecting Asia and North America. So over the long term every continent but Antarctica has been reachable by ground travel. Insects also have the advantage that their eggs are extremely portable and can piggyback on almost any creature or object that moves.

      >> Also, if this were true regarding reptiles, what about crocodiles?

      I don't think anyone claimed that all reptiles died out. TFA was about dinosaurs in particular. Just because your generalization is false doesn't mean their specific theory is false.

      My personal opinion (not fact) is that there were multiple compounding causes: asteroid impact, ice age, changes in available flora, competition from smaller but possibly faster and smarter mammals. The dinosaurs might have surived one of these, but their population probably shrunk with each new challenge. Who knows there might have been a couple of other major contributing events that have yet to be discovered.

    3. Re:Possible, But Improbable by purduemike · · Score: 1

      If you look at a place like Hawaii, whose plant and animals had been living in perfect harmony for thousands of years. Many of its native plants and animals were killed invasive species brought over by ships and planes. I'm just saying that it's difficult for insects to cover the earth without this assistance. And if they are to be a one of the major contributing factors to the demise of the dinosaurs they would need a more effective way to traverse major bodies of water. Also, I know I said reptiles, but the fact is that crocodiles were around during the time of the dinosaurs. So, why didn't the death by insect happen to them as it did to dinosaurs? After all they do live in prime mosquito reproducing environment. I will give you the argument that all dinosaurs were NOT killed by insects. I admit I didn't read the article until after posting the comment.

    4. Re:Possible, But Improbable by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

      I dunno, if an island is too remote for insects to get there, then it seems unlikely that any dinosaurs (which are far less portable) would be there either. That being said, there have been dinosaur bones found on south pacific islands and antarctica. So things get around.

      Crocodiles may simply have more resistance to various insects. They had more evolutionary time exposed to water-borne bugs (likely precusors to mosquitos), aslo thicker scales, higher protein diet, nearby insect-eating fish, and perhaps just plain luck of the genetic dice.

      Also the presence of birds today implies that some dinosaur-related species survived. It would be difficult to tell whether the physiology to fight insect infection was present before the split from birds or whether it developed in birds later.

  23. Parasites didn't materialize from nowhere by flaming+error · · Score: 1

    Too virulent is bad for the host and parasite, so that is an argument against the parasites flourishing in that setting.

    What nixes this idea for me is that the microbes didn't grow on Mars and suddenly rain on the dinosaurs out of the blue. Microbes and reptiles all had to grow up together.

  24. Genesis 19:24 by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    in the bible (old testament, moses exodus part?) somewhere, i dont remember reading about asteroids in that book Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Genesis 19:24 by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      Was that a joke?

    2. Re:Genesis 19:24 by Gewalt · · Score: 1

      Looked more to me like a reference...

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    3. Re:Genesis 19:24 by gimpeh · · Score: 1

      Was that a joke?

      If God doesn't even play dice it's unlikely he's the kind of guy that would rain down burning sulphur for a fucking giggle is he?

      --
      Script kiddies ate my sig.
    4. Re:Genesis 19:24 by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      I'm a little confused by your apparent offense at my comment (Or poorly worded joke. I can't tell which.), but I'll take the opportunity to explain regardless.

      I found it laughable that "burning sulfur" would be interpreted to be asteroids, and was asking if the reference was intended as a joke. This was neither an attack on the Bible by an athiest nor a defensive comment of a believer, but a simple question.

      I apologize for not making that perfectly clear.

  25. Same old error, again and again. by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    You are absolutely correct. The authors must have made that same old error. It is done again and again. Over and over.

    Why can't people understand, birds are the dinosaurs that survived.

    Birds relate to dinosaurs as bats relate to mammals. Or, birds relate to dinosaurs as butterflies relate to insects. It is as simple as that.

    That, unread, article must be bad.

    1. Re:Same old error, again and again. by ianare · · Score: 1

      A more accurate way of saying it is that birds are to dinosaurs (more specifically Dromaeosauridae) what mammal-like reptiles are to early 'true' mammals. In other terms, birds are descendants and cousins of dinosaurs, but they are not a species of dinosaur. They have some very specific adaptations of their own which set them apart (lack of teeth, many fused bones, hollow/spongy bones, etc), features which were already present in the Cretacious (Archaeopteryx, the first know bird {or bird-like dinosaur}, was from the Jurassic).

    2. Re:Same old error, again and again. by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 2, Informative

      "In other terms, birds are descendants and cousins of dinosaurs, but they are not a species of dinosaur."

      Sorry, but that was an example of the common misconception I was trying to point out. Contrary to your proposal, birds _are_ a group of species of dinosaurs.

      If all mammals, except the bats for example, went extinct, your favorite bat would not seize or stop being a mammal. And the number of very specific adaptations of the bats would NOT set them apart (sonar, leathery wings, wrinkled noses, large ears, etc). The bats would remain inside the mammal group, just as all the bird species remain inside the dinosaurs. Bats are specialized mammals and birds are specialized dinosaurs.

      If a mosquito born disease would kill all mammals, the bats would die out too. Therefore it was probably not a disease that killed all dinosaurs and spared that group we now call birds.
      .

    3. Re:Same old error, again and again. by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1

      If all mammals, except the bats for example, went extinct, your favorite bat would not seize or stop being a mammal. And the number of very specific adaptations of the bats would NOT set them apart (sonar, leathery wings, wrinkled noses, large ears, etc). The bats would remain inside the mammal group, just as all the bird species remain inside the dinosaurs. Bats are specialized mammals and birds are specialized dinosaurs.

      By that argument, humans are specialized fish. At some point, you have to say a line of descent has left the bounds of the definition.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
  26. so are you telling me by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    that parasitic wasps are going to wipe out their hosts?

    of course not

    therefore, you understand my point of the supidity of saying parasites wiped out the dinosaurs

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:so are you telling me by Sciros · · Score: 1

      Of course. Parasites usually do not wipe out entire populations unless there's some imbalance in the ecosystem (though certainly when parasites are "brought in" to control a population this may occur). You are right in that parasites coexist with their hosts in the sense that the host population must persist in order to sustain the parasite population.

      Though I suspect there are cases where a host population spans several species and so an extinction of a species due to a parasite is therefore possible.

      The definition of "parasite" you will often find online is a relationship between organisms where one obtains nourishment from the other and provides no benefit in return. The definition may include "does not kill the host" but in nature I find that's not a consistent definition.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    2. Re:so are you telling me by FrankSchwab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no intelligence involved in the parasite - they cannot make the decision not to wipe out the host species.
      A Parasite that develops and is virulent enough to wipe out its host species will go extinct as a result of doing so. An evolutionary dead end, certainly, but undoubtedly an evolutionary dead-end that has occurred more than once in earthly history. Nothing and no one will step in to prevent this from happening (well, at least in my theology).
      In that sense, a "successful" parasite is relatively weak, and establishes an equilibrium with one or more host species. As a species, it survives for eons. An "unsuccessful" parasite is strong, virulent, and species specific. As a species, it dies when it takes out the last host.
      /frank

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    3. Re:so are you telling me by Stefanwulf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      parasitic wasps are going to wipe out their hosts?
      Well no, current species of parasitic wasps aren't generally going to; however that's just because the ones that survived up until now are the ones that stumbled upon a method that leaves a host population in tact. This doesn't mean that previous parasites didn't get overzealous and bring about their own extinction by killing all their hosts.

      There's nothing about evolution which inherently prevents a species from ending itself...you just don't encounter self-eliminating species often because of survivor bias.
    4. Re:so are you telling me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humanity springs to mind ...
      Overzealous: check
      Exponential growth: check
      Busy killing off their host: check

      Evolution is a *tragic* comedy of errors

  27. Global Warming by tyrantking31 · · Score: 1

    I saw this in a movie called "War of the Worlds". Also, I'm surprised that these "findings" weren't somehow applied to global warming ,i.e. if we make the globe warmer then we'll get more biting insects and more diseases. I thought that's where they were going.

    --
    We willna be fooled again!
  28. necessary by Poorcku · · Score: 2, Funny

    OMG ZERG RUSH! :)

    --
    I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
  29. Somebody needs a degree by simon_k_lee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Com'on. Somebody needs a graduate degree and/or funding gotta come up with some sort of original research, regardless of how far fetched it is. Welcome to the dark side of academia.

  30. Flowering plants originated 70-90 mya too. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There could be something to this theory. Flowering plants originates at about the same time dinosaurs conked out. And to aid pollination by insects, the plants started making high octane fuels (nectar, is almost pure sugar) and the co-evolution of insects and flowering plants raced ahead. There could be something to it, but still we would need more positive evidence. We still have to explain the iridium layer in sediments too.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Flowering plants originated 70-90 mya too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We still have to explain the iridium layer in sediments too.
      Non-dinosaur-killing asteroid impact.
    2. Re:Flowering plants originated 70-90 mya too. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      And then you have the aquatic dinosaurs. My knowledge of dinosaurs is limted to what one would pick up for the Discovery Channel, PBS, and the Big Book of Dinosaurs but I seem to remember some marine dinosaurs. They spent most of their life under water so how did the insects do them in?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Flowering plants originated 70-90 mya too. by mozkill · · Score: 1

      You have a very good point there. Whatever wiped out the dinosaurs was able to do so on land and also in the sea. I think that in the time of dinosaurs the amount of oxygen in the air was higher and enabled super large insects and dinosaurs and sea creatures. A change in temperature due to a asteroid impact could have lowered the amount of oxygen in the air and killed off all the large animals, large insects, and much of the marine life that relied on oxygenated water.

      --

      -- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
    4. Re:Flowering plants originated 70-90 mya too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are saying is that the Dinosaurs died out because swarms of Africanized honey bees stung them all to death?

    5. Re:Flowering plants originated 70-90 mya too. by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      You do realise that you are talking about an event spread out over 20 million years. The average species lasts about a million years, so there must have been plenty of time for resistance to arise. And, how can a pandemic occur? There's no international travel of dinos. And as someone pointed out dinosaurs weren't the only branch / group of animals affected. How come the ocean going lizards, eg pleisiosaur and icthyosaur, also went exinct ... because they were not dinosaurs. I think a proven asteroid impact (or several) plus the Deccan Traps counts more highly as the likely cause(s) than this. However, it has always been my suspicion that after the impact many dinosaurs in some parts would have survived, but the ecosystem would have been so damaged they were overwhelmed by the plagues of insects and new critters radiating into vacant niches. Then insects and disease would play a part.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
  31. The last patch wiped out the dinosaurs by xmousex · · Score: 1

    See previous article...

  32. Combine the two theories... by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 1

    A killer asteroid... made of INSECTS!

    1. Re:Combine the two theories... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its Starship Troopers

      Would you like to know more?

    2. Re:Combine the two theories... by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that actually crossed my mind about 10 seconds after I posted my last message ;)

  33. Two sides of the religous argument by Eevee · · Score: 1

    True believers know it was a giant floating brain, while the heretics believe it was from a virus-laden powerplant worker.

  34. What Possibly Went Wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Possibly Went Wrong?

    I find it hard to believe that none of the dinosaurs had enough resistance to these diseases to survive and help the species evolve resistancy.

  35. Seems odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'But back in the Cretaceous, these diseases were new

    They were new? I am by no means an authority on the subject, but from what I remember learning about evolution, one-celled-organisms came along before cell colonies. Further, small cell colonies (bugs and such) came around before big ones (dinosaurs and such). I even recall learning that the first self-replicating DNA strands were much more virus-like than bacteria-like...since the whole membrane and organelle system didn't come about until a bit later.

    So, by the time the dinosaurs were around, the world should have already been densely populated with viruses, bacteria, and small bugs which could find the guts of a dinosaur to be fertile breeding grounds.

    I really don't see how these things, and the diseases they cause, could have come around after the fact. Maybe some more sinister versions of them, more specifically targeted at the dinosaurs of the day, came around after the fact, but I don't think that alone would account for a mass extinction.

    If you have corrections to offer, don't hold back (not that you would).

    1. Re:Seems odd by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 2, Informative
      Vectors! Insect became disease carrying vectors about the time of the cretaceous.

      They were not claiming that these diseases did not exist until this time. They are saying that the diseases adapted to insects and used the insects as carrying agents at far back as the cretaceous period, maybe longer.

      --
      We have always been at war with Eurasia!
    2. Re:Seems odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the vectors didn't evolve in parallel with the dinosaurs.... No siree! They popped out fully formed and killed all those bastards!

    3. Re:Seems odd by iroll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not so much "funny" as "insightful."

      In fact, since insects had been *The* animal ecosystem on land for millions of years before the first vertebrates skulked out of the ocean, it's pretty plausible that all manner of mites and parasites had existed and passed around proto-diseases--lets not forget that even today, our insects are covered with even tinier insect parasites. Parasites of all sorts also existed in the oceans where the vertebrates were evolving. Parallel evolution makes much, much more sense.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    4. Re:Seems odd by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      That's like saying that mammals have been around for 60 million+ years so Humans must have been too. Bad logic. As single celled organisms adapted to new environments and hosts, they *evolved* into things that were pathogenic to their hosts.

  36. No wonder they're all dead by Luxifer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Between meteor strikes, volcanoes, ice ages, and mosquitoes, they didn't have a chance.
    and all within the past 6000 years...
    the first lawyer was probably the deathknell.

  37. Nope by sheepofblue · · Score: 1

    Nope they all died of starvation waiting in line at the DMV

  38. a dinosaur just flew by my window by peter303 · · Score: 1

    This hypothesis needs to explain who the little feather dinosaurs survived and the others didnt.

  39. Futurama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fry: What really killed all the dinosaurs?

    Giant Brain: ME!

    (pan to screen of Giant Brain using brain laser to kill all dinosaurs)

  40. Simpsons by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that a Simpsons Halloween episode a few years ago?

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  41. Universal Healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they die because they had no universal healthcare for all dinosaurs?

  42. How about by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

    like drown em in lots of water or something, I dunno. Say if lots of water was flowin around and it sorta buried stuff. Wouldn't that sho nuff make lots of fossils?

    --
    They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
    1. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory "Transformers" quote:
      - "English please."

    2. Re:How about by konquererz · · Score: 0

      Like what, Noahs flood? Okay okay, that was it, the dinosaurs were killed in one gigantic flood and spread into different layers keeping all of one species in one layer and all the other species to their own layers as well, in order to make it look like that layer was a time period. The flood was so awesome that it managed to give it the entire look of species when they die and another begins. One would have thought the flood would have just jumbled them all up and they would be everywhere in all layers, but no, it was a really good divine flood that managed to layer them all perfectly as to look like they weren't killed in a flood at all. Genius!!!!

    3. Re:How about by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

      Except that they are jumbled. It's typically explained by saying that plate tectonics are responsible for shuffling the layers.
      Also there are several occurrences of fossilized tree trunks going through several layers.

      --
      They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
    4. Re:How about by konquererz · · Score: 0

      Those anomalies are occassional as opposed to the vast majority of fossils which stay together in time periods. 99.9% of the time, there isn't a great jumble of fossils at all, which means that fossils staying together aren't the exception, they are the rule, which means a giant flood didn't mix them. And of course, there should be vast amount of evidence to support a giant flood, and thats not there. There is enormous amounts of evidence for localized floods in any given time period, they leave copious amounts of evidence in their wake. This isn't the case for the flood of noah.

  43. Similar Theory by coolmoose25 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know of a similar theory to explain why mammals moved back to the sea... (Whales, dolphins, etc) The theory is that the whales were so pissed off at the mosquitos, that they went into the sea just to get a little relief. They stayed there too long, and so their arms and legs turned into fins and flippers. In case anybody is wondering who proposed the theory, well it was me. And no I don't have any scientific evidence to back it up. But it is certainly more plausible than the theory being discussed regarding the dinosaurs...

    --
    Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
    1. Re:Similar Theory by arquonzo · · Score: 0

      That totally makes sense... when I stay in the bath too long, my fingers and toes turn into raisins!

  44. When by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    When you outlaw insects, only insects will have outlaws... ...or something like that...

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  45. No, but... by objekt · · Score: 1
    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  46. Another theory by JKSN17 · · Score: 0

    Dr. Ian Malcolm: God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs... Dr. Ellie Sattler: Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the earth...

  47. For crying out loud? by Cathoderoytube · · Score: 1

    Considering time travel is theoretically possible I propose that the dinosaurs were killed when in the future the governments of the world embraced peace and disposed of all nuclear weapons by sending them back to the dawn of time, where they would naturally decay over the eons. Unfortunately one day a pesky Veloca Raptor stumbled upon the weapons and accidentally detonated them all causing a massive nuclear winter which wiped out the Dinosaurs.

    --
    I have nothing compelling to say
  48. amber! by lokpest · · Score: 1

    Dinosaurs died because they where drowning in amber!

  49. Funny, I always thought it was a giant asteroid... by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 1

    At first blush, the plague model makes me wonder about concurrent evolution. It's not really in the interest of any plague to actually kill its victims -- the virulent strains of bubonic plague, for example, are actually not very successful compared to influenza rhinovirus.

    The giant asteroid model has some good things going for it, in particular the presence of charcoal fragments in and just above the K/T iridium layer in samples taken from many locations around the world. That seems to support the idea (advanced by Durda, Kring, et al. a few years ago) that heat of re-entry from the giant impact caused a worldwide holocaust (in the literal sense). The animal species that survived fit a pattern that they either could survive in deep water or could hide in holes.

    Durda & Kring showed that a Chixculub-sized impact (and, more importantly, re-entry of fragments thrown up into space by the impact) would heat practically the entire outer atmosphere to incandescence for a few days. Under those conditions, the great outdoors would closely approximate the conditions in an electric oven set to "broil".

    That seems more plausible than gradually killing them off over time -- I would think that after a few generations, the dinosaurs would become much more resistant and the bugs less virulent.

  50. Wrong question -- ^kill^hurt by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 1

    It seems pretty well established that the K/T boundary is the sudden result of a giant impact, but TFA makes a good case that insects and disease were already causing the dinosaurs to decline gradually but severely in the period leading up to the K/T impact.

  51. Another theory that ignores the evidence... by Monkey_Genius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Dinosaurs were on their way out by the end of the Cretaceous
    anyway. In N. America they had declined from about 35 genera
    to about 12 genera by the end of this period. The #1 reason
    for their decline was the dropping O2 levels in the atmosphere
    caused by the intense volcanic activity that was occurring
    due to the breakup of Pangea. O2 levels were about 35% at the peak
    of the Cretaceous and are about 21% today. Dinosaurs got big because
    they had lots of O2 to breathe. They also didn't need to be warm-blooded
    because everywhere it was warm, anywhere from 5 to 10 degrees C. higher
    on average than it is today. Big animals take a long time to heat up and
    longer to cool off, so no need to be homeothermic.

    The number two reason was probably cooling due to increased levels of
    aerosols and particulites in the atmosphere from all the volcanism.
    So it's getting harder to be a big animal when you can't breathe,
    it's getting colder (and you can't regulate your body temp),
    and your food supply is changing or disappearing.

    Then along comes this pesky meteor that blasts a few billion cubic
    meters of dust into the atmosphere and turns out the lights for a
    year or two. No heat, no food, no O2, no survival if you need these in
    quantity. That's one situation that our mammalian ancestors could cope with
    though, because their survival demands were lower.

    --
    I've got your sig, right here.
  52. Blood sucking insects?!? by belligerent0001 · · Score: 0

    I am just not buying the fact that "blood sucking insects" killed the dinosaurs. There is no evidence that the dinos had attorneys

    --
    "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
  53. Re:Funny, I always thought it was a giant asteroid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or perhaps that giant asteroid cracked the Earth's crust in enough places that the land basically flattened out or sunk beneath the ocean. And therefore the water covered the entire face of the earth (within about 40 days maybe0. Then over the next 300 something days the plates shifted around and eventually reformed mountains and ravines, giving us this story of Noah and a global flood that seems to pervade just about every culture around the world.


    Besides that, the evaporative cooling from the water run-off as the plates pushed up would likely cause some really nice ice cold temperatures that might help explain our polar ice caps.


    However, even if Noah did save two baby dinosaurs for each available dinosaur species, the harsher post asteroid/flood climates and smaller food quantities could make it difficult to survive long term for the really large animals. And if those hungry dinosaurs decided to start eating humans, then I'm sure the humans would opt to eliminate that particular creature.

  54. Re:Funny, I always thought it was a giant asteroid by jbjones · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hmmm. Somehow I thought I had logged in on that last post.....

    Or perhaps that giant asteroid cracked the Earth's crust in enough places that the land basically flattened out or sunk beneath the ocean. And therefore the water covered the entire face of the earth (within about 40 days maybe0. Then over the next 300 something days the plates shifted around and eventually reformed mountains and ravines, giving us this story of Noah and a global flood that seems to pervade just about every culture around the world.

    Besides that, the evaporative cooling from the water run-off as the plates pushed up would likely cause some really nice ice cold temperatures that might help explain our polar ice caps.

    However, even if Noah did save two baby dinosaurs for each available dinosaur species, the harsher post asteroid/flood climates and smaller food quantities could make it difficult to survive long term for the really large animals. And if those hungry dinosaurs decided to start eating humans, then I'm sure the humans would opt to eliminate that particular creature.

  55. God killed the dinosaurs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    ... so we could have oil. Dammit, don't you people read the Bible?

  56. Silly Scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, the Dinos were wiped out by Man, around 6000 BC

  57. kind of doubt it... by CallsignBaron · · Score: 1

    If your average run of the mill dinosaur evolved in a pristine, disease free environment and then all of a sudden were dropped into a disease ridden, insect infested world I could see the connection. But, as logic dictates, if they all evolved at the same time in order for them to reach that state of evolution they would have had to develop an immunity in order to even progress in such an environment. My non-professional two cents for what it's worth.

    --
    "I reject your reality and substitue my own." ~ Adam Savage, Mythbuster extraordinaire.
  58. Makes no sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Repeated epidemics may have slowly-but-surely worn down dinosaur populations while ticks, mites, lice and biting flies tormented and weakened them. 'After many millions of years of evolution, mammals, birds and reptiles have evolved some resistance to these diseases,' says Researcher George Poinar. 'But back in the Cretaceous, these diseases were new and invasive, and vertebrates had little or no natural or acquired immunity to them.'"

    Uh, "vertebrates"? So the same epidemics should have caused the same problems for all the mammals, birds, and reptiles around at the time, yet they survived. And dinosaurs *flourished* in the Cretaceous Period, particularly the Late Cretaceous. They achieved their maximum species diversity at that time. It's one of the things that makes their extinction that much more dramatic.

    What changed about insects in the final years of the Cretaceous that made them suddenly more serious problems than they were for tens of millions of years prior in the rest of the Cretaceous Period? And what evidence is there for such a dramatic transformation of insect-carried pathogens at the very end? Nothing, as far as I can see.

    I'll pile this hypothesis with all the other obviously bogus extinction hypotheses for dinosaurs, right along with dinosaurs getting drugged on flowering plants and mammals eating their eggs, both of which aren't consistent with the observed pattern either.

  59. New Zealand by Drishmung · · Score: 1
    One problem with the disease theory (as previously proposed by Bob Bakker is New Zealand.

    New Zealand split off from Australia about 65 MYA, and since that time has been isolated except from flying creatures.

    There were dinosaurs in New Zealand after the split, yet they also died out about the same time as their kin elsewhere---despite their isolation.

    --
    Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
  60. "Asteroid impacts, massive volcanic flows, and now by Ardipithecus · · Score: 1
    disease-carrying insects"

    "When it's not one thing, it's another. It's always something"

    Roseanne Roseannadanna, c 1978

    (OMG, it's been thirty years!)

  61. who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does it matter if it was brain dead or not? Someone got paid for this example of mental masturbation and that's what matters most: publish & keep the grant money flowing. Or maybe it was an inside joke where the parasites are the researchers & their grad students and the dinosaurs are the institutions stupid enough to give them money.

  62. yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  63. Poor understanding of parasites, yes by ChocoBean · · Score: 1

    with all due respect, where'd you get the idea that parasites "never, never...kill their hosts"?

    While I agree with your point that a successful parasitic mutation means getting better at leeching, without having the host die, surely you can't then assume that all is well in parasitic (NOT symbiotic) relationships, and that nobody dies from having a parasite?

    Mosquitoes are older than dirt. They know what they are doing, and they are not interested in having us die from blood-sucking, true. But Mosquitoes inadvertently carry malaria, which WILL kill us. Millions upon millions of people die from malaria every year. Plasmodium do not particularly care if we die or not, so long as their young get to leave the dying host and infect a new organism.

    [off-topic]Actually, it's in our best interest not to kill off our host planet, sure, but if we are offered a free and easy way to a new planet full of untapped resources, we would care even less about finishing it off[/off-topic]

  64. it was that bee sting by josepha48 · · Score: 1

    they were all allergic ;-).. ROTFLOL

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!
    Does slashdot hate my posts?

  65. Wait... by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

    How could a bug kill a dinosaur? Have you seen how large a dinosaur is? Capable of ripping a man in half it is! What can a bug do? Eat some smaller bugs? Maybe annoy you with incessant buzzing? I for one do not welcome our weak, tiny and harmless incestoid over-*dies of malaria*

    --
    Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
  66. Dinosaur Allergies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wasn't insects that killed the dinosaurs, it was allergies. They were allergic to huge asteroids. In fact they were allergic to anything that blasted them and burned them for days, then froze them for months, and starved them for years.

    OTOH, any mosquito that could draw blood from a tyrannosaur must have been shaped like a road drill - which would make it awkward to fly. Perhaps they climbed the treeferns and dived on them from a great height...

  67. The WoW notation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Asteroid crits Dinosaurs for 5460 damage
    - Dinosaur yells : OMGWTF!
    - Volcanoes Rain of Fire hits Dinosaurs for 500 damage
    - Mosquitoes Disease dots Dinosaurs for 150 damage per decade
    - Dinosaurs calls out for healing
    - Dinosaurs dies
    - Dinosaurs drops the flag
    - Mammals return the flag to base
    - Mammals wins!

    (the grammar is intentional btw)

  68. How dull. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    I found it laughable that "burning sulfur" would be interpreted to be asteroids Balls of fire falling from the heavens don't remind you of asteroids.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  69. fact by watch2012 · · Score: 1

    "I wish I wish I hadn't squished that fish"

  70. Argh! by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but for years now, my hypothesis was that dinosaurs were wiped out by what is considered as a relatively (at least to their carriers) innocuous bacteria, specifically salmonella. Almost every so called descendant of the dinosaur to date carries salmonella. And even to this day, said bacteria is fatal to pretty much every non reptilian and poultry based form of life. Consider too that most of these critters migrate on a regular basis, and you may even be able to explain a lot of mass die offs over time.

    So even as the plates began to drift, regardless of asteroids or changes in climate, if a gut bacteria such as salmonella kicked in for any species that relied on bacteria for digestion (like 100% of herbivorous dinosaurs), then it could hypothetically override their respective digestive bugs, preventing them from absorbing much needed nutrients. As they in turn died off from the inevitable starvation, then the meat eaters found themselves short on food. In essense, this could explain the mass extinctions occuring overnight on a geological scale.

    Unfortunately, there is little way to make what should be the simplest explanation in turn becomes a dead end. Yet since they found a fossilized raptor with feather anchors on its bones, the link between dinosaurs and fowl isn't as farfetched as it seems.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  71. Animal guts were a new habitat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Animal guts are a fairly acidic and nasty habitat for most bacteria. I can easily imagine that while there were lots of single celled organisms, to begin with none of the single celled animals could live there. When, suddenly, some single celled organisms find mechanisms to survive in there, this would definitely result in a massive readjustment of the ecology. These single celled organisms don't even have much pressure to allow their host to survive since there would be many hosts with no resistance and since they would still be pretty well evolved for surviving outside.

    As far as the viruses go; the key point about a virus is that it isn't self hosting. The earliest creatures had to be self hosting since there wouldn't be anything else to host them. They would be evolved to have mechanisms for survival; for use of nutrients, etc. but nothing for infecting other creatures.

  72. The real answer by whitroth · · Score: 1

    ... is that in the last little bit of time they had, intelligent dinosaurs developed, culturally burned their dead (so we don't have the remains), built a technological civilization, then nuked themselves out.

    That, or after wiping out the other species of dinosaurs, they got better, and finally Ascended.

                mark "no, I'm not Daniel Jackson"

  73. Actually... by Elbowgeek · · Score: 1

    Dick Cheney with a couple of beers inside him and a loaded shotgun could probably account for a huge portion of the extinction.

    --
    Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
  74. Insects killed the Dinosaurs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a David and Goliath story of Biblical proportions...

  75. Insects by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I think the claim is that instigating event was the evolution of flowering plants. That triggered an explosion in the biodiversity of plants, insects, and small fast-evolving animals like wee lizards and mammals. Animal biodiversity leads invariably to pathogen diversity, as there are more combinations of organisms between which pathogens can transfer and which can participate in parasite life-cycles.

    The vast majority of flowers are intended to attract insects. Think about the most notorious disease-spreading insect: mosquitoes -- which are primarily nectar feeders (the males exclusively so). So it's not as if flowering plants only support the existence of cute fuzzy little insect species like butterflies and honeybees. Flowering plants form the base for a sizable percentage of the entire insect population, including many of the ones that spread diseases and parasites.

    Insects aren't much better at eating cellulosic biomass than animals are, and blood alone isn't a particularly practical food-source. In fact, are there ANY insects that can subsist entirely on blood? Some arachnids do, but no insects. It's easy to see how the emergence of nectar-producing plants would give rise to vast array of new types of insects, some of which would then be willing to take a bite out of passing dinosaurs to supplement their diets.

  76. Obligatory Black Adder quote by Rexdude · · Score: 1

    "Well, Baldrick, so that's one of the greatest scientific mysteries solved! The dinosaurs were wiped out by the smell of your underwear!"

    --
    "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
  77. Humans as specialized fish by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Yep! You got that correct! In fact we belong Craniata > Vertebrata > Osteichthyes > Sarcopterygii > Tetrapoda > Mammalia > Primates > Hominidae etc. (Of course this is simplified and open to change) Often, there is some confusion over the term "fish" and in particular "bony fish" as it is applied to two different levels at the same time. One is the Osteichthyes (which translates - bony fish) whereas the other one is the Teleostei which includes what most people would call fish (gars, bowfin, musky, tuna, seahorses etc). The latter group belong to the Osteichthyes too but is an another subgroup separate from ours, Actinopterygii. .

    1. Re:Humans as specialized fish by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1

      Yep! You got that correct!

      In fact we belong Craniata > Vertebrata > Osteichthyes > Sarcopterygii > Tetrapoda > Mammalia > Primates > Hominidae etc. (Of course this is simplified and open to change)

      As long as you're being consistent. I was going to be really annoyed if you resorted to a "humans are special" argument. Now we're just down to a disagreement about whether "is descended from" is the same thing as "is a kind of". And that distinction is just a matter of labeling, which is far less important than getting to the "is descended from" facts in the first place.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
  78. I object by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    I object, it is not I who need to be consistent in these matters... ;)

    Modern classification, however, does it in a consistent manner, except for a few die hard scientists from fifty years ago. They still think birds are "sufficiently different" to warrant a separate category, with a rank higher(!) than dinosaurs. There are even thick books on the subject.

    Some early authors even argued that humans should be placed not among apes or mammals, or even animals, but in a Kingdom on its own - Psyche...

    The similarity with object orientation and inheritance in programming is not far fetched, as you have guessed.

    The principle "is a kind of" is the current paradigm, as is "you cannot change your ancestors" (as easily).

    .

    1. Re:I object by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1

      The labeling system is not fundamentally important. Whether one chooses to encode information about the animal's ancestry into it, describe morphological differences that may have nothing to do with ancestry, or just assign random unique strings of alphanumeric characters, they're just labels, not the facts themselves. But when you start redefining the meanings of existing labels, you degrade the ability to communicate.

      When you say humans are specialized fish, you're stretching the commonly-used word 'fish' so far from its ordinary meaning that it is completely unrecognizable. When communicating with mere mortals, 'fish' does not mean 'descended from the common ancestor of all living vertebrates except the lamprey'. That is unlikely to change, as calling those bony water-breathing swimming things actinopterygii is unlikely to catch on.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    2. Re:I object by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

      Well, "The labeling system is not fundamentally important." in some respects contradicts "When you say humans are specialized fish, you're stretching the commonly-used word 'fish' so far from its ordinary meaning that it is completely unrecognizable." as you are aware. And the issue is, the mortals I guess... ;)

      For example, "trees" or "bushes" has no connotation of ancestry beyond they are all plants. Still, ancestry is the only criterion one is striving for in the classification today, and the "truth" strived for is the unknown, underlying evolutionary tree. "Fish" is almost of the same complexity, being all vertebrates, except the tetrapods.

      And, yes, that mix of laymen terms and non-mortal terms is bewildering to most. Unfortunately, the dinosaurs have entered that domain of layman penumbral sagacity.

      And, on top of that, "redefining the meanings of existing labels" is the daily work of the World's scientists I guess. I think today (in organismal classification at least), the meaning gives the label, whereas two hundred years ago (before Darwin) the label gave the meaning.

      It is a confusing world, with or without labels such as actinopterygii. :)

    3. Re:I object by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1

      Well, "The labeling system is not fundamentally important." in some respects contradicts "When you say humans are specialized fish, you're stretching the commonly-used word 'fish' so far from its ordinary meaning that it is completely unrecognizable." as you are aware.

      Yes, I knew I was providing the rope with that one. Perhaps I should have said, the choice of labels is not important so long as they can be used to communicate. The problem is the communication breakdown, not the change in meaning itself.

      For example, "trees" or "bushes" has no connotation of ancestry beyond they are all plants.

      Indeed, some "trees" and "bushes" are cultivars of the same species.

      And, on top of that, "redefining the meanings of existing labels" is the daily work of the World's scientists I guess. I think today (in organismal classification at least), the meaning gives the label, whereas two hundred years ago (before Darwin) the label gave the meaning.

      I think the evolutionary biologists can muddle through if they keep in mind that laymen are speaking a language that has a lot of familiar words that have somewhat different meanings. Homo sapiens are Osteichthyes, but you don't call your neighbor a bony fish. Not to his face, anyway.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.