Some Large Dinosaurs Survived the K-T Extinction

mmmscience sends along coverage from the Examiner on evidence that some dinosaurs survived the extinction event(s) at the end of the Cretaceous period. Here is the original journal article. "A US paleontologist is challenging one of the field's greatest theories: the mass extinction of dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period. Jim Fassett, a paleontologist who holds an emeritus position at the US Geological Survey, recently published a paper in Palaeontologia Electronica with evidence that points to a pocket of dinosaurs that somehow survived in remote parts New Mexico and Colorado for up to half a million years past the end of the Cretaceous period. If this theory holds up, these dinosaurs would be the only ones that made it to the Paleocene Age."

Comments

Re:cautionary notes from a paleo geek

[Burnhard]

Peer review seems a little light at PE. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but calls for caution.

It seems a pity that more people don't recognise this when other kinds of paper are published elsewhere (for example, concerning the `Science' of Climate Change). Please mod me troll ;).

Re:Quantum Mechanics...

[MadKeithV]

Troll?? Get a sense of humour, mods, and check the parent posts!

Re:Cavemen?

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously some things survived somewhere on the planet

    Perhaps because they were intentionally saved?

the KT-boundry in N America is preserved in the rock as a layer of tiny glass beads (vaporised sand) that covers the entire continent

    And you know what else turns sand into tiny glass beads and deposits them in a single sedimentary layer? large volumes of water in motion... say from a worldwide flooding event.

The only thing in the American fossil record for a couple of million years after the hit is an abundance of plants and some marine animals

    Let's see, an area gets covered in water and kills all the existing wildlife, so it's only understandable that the first things to repopulate will be those that can move in quickly from in the water (marine animals)or on the water (plants).

I think they are just reporting their evidence and asking "how could this be?"

Once again the fossil record presents evidence that is contradictory to the traditional view of history, while another theory explains these things much better. But of course, since this is a scientific community and since we can't confine God to a box in a laboratory, he obviously must not exist and any historical documents which detail his interactions with our world are simply the collective delusional fantasies of generations of human civilization.

Now, before you start all the flames and negative moderation, all I ask is that you honestly answer one simple question: Neither you nor I are paleontologists, thus we only have the evidence which has been presented to us from other people... so why are you afraid to admit that the biblical account of creation and history might be a better way to explain the evidence presented?