Slashdot Mirror


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."

47 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Cavemen? by SultanCemil · · Score: 5, Funny

    So does that mean skimpily clad cavewomen really *did* ride around on dinosaurs? mmmm...

    --
    Cemil.
    1. Re:Cavemen? by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "So does that mean skimpily clad cavewomen really *did* ride around on dinosaurs? mmmm..."

      No, but the good news is modern technology has brought the internet into our caves and in the time it takes to post this comment another 2 "Cave chicks go Rex riding" websites will have been created.

      As for TFA, interesting but only just outside the uranium dating error bars and no mention of the error margin in the strike date ~65mya. No mention of a KT boundry at the site that is clearly below the fossils. There is very strong evidence that insects were wiped out across the Americas for over a million years, so I think a bit more extrodinary evidence is required to belive a band of dinosours somehow survived in a "lost valley".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Cavemen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      not a lost valley, but the Great Valley, noob.

      xoxoxo,
      Littlefoot

    3. Re:Cavemen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is very strong evidence that insects were wiped out across the Americas for over a million years, so I think a bit more extrodinary evidence is required to belive a band of dinosours somehow survived in a "lost valley".

      More evidence is always good, but once you actually start to think about it, "a small population of some dinosaurs survived in remote areas until it eventually petered out" is actually more plausible than "every single last dinosaur died at once in a gigantic catastrophe that nevertheless was not large enough to affect other animals such as mammals to the same extent".

      Many kinds of animals survived, after all. Why shouldn't dinosaurs have, too? I'm certainly not saying they must have, but just on the face of things, it seems more likely that their extinction was gradual and drawn-out over a long period of time. (And yes, I know the K-T extinction is not thought to have happened in the blink of an eye, anyway, but you know what I mean.)

    4. Re:Cavemen? by meyekul · · Score: 5, Funny

      The irony is as soon as they step out of the valley, they drop their eye glasses and shatter them on the rocks.

    5. Re:Cavemen? by AlecC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many kinds of animals survived, after all. Why shouldn't dinosaurs have, too?

      Basically, size. The dinosaurs were all largeish - turkey-sized or bigger - with the exception of thos who seem to have evolved into birds, and may have been much smaller because of the nifty invention of feathers. The only mammals at the time were small, shrew-like animals. It is not unreasonable to think that small beasts could survive, scavenging of the dead big beasts, where big beasts could not.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    6. Re:Cavemen? by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yup! Yup! Yup!

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    7. Re:Cavemen? by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      The amphibians were going to gain control, but when the reptilians attacked, all the frogs surrendered.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    8. Re:Cavemen? by nephridium · · Score: 4, Informative

      So does that mean skimpily clad cavewomen really *did* ride around on dinosaurs? mmmm...

      Not really. It says they made it to the "Paleocene", i.e. the epoch adjacent to the Cretaceous. To have meet any cavemen they'd have had to survive through the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene all the way to the Pleistocene era. That would still be around 60 million years.

      I also highly doubt cavemen (or cavewomen for that matter) had the skill or technology to time travel back to the Paleocene. Afaik only genetically enhanced laboratory mice can do that.

      --


      And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
    9. Re:Cavemen? by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

      To have meet any cavemen they'd have had to survive through the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene all the way to the Pleistocene era.

      So what you're saying is that they didn't make the 'cene.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    10. Re:Cavemen? by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the place where the bones were found that is remarkable, obviously some things survived somewhere on the planet and evolved into birds, humans, etc. However America was closest to the impact and 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. 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.

      To find a bunch of dinosaurs that survived what the entire insect population could not, is an extrodinary claim. However I don't think the scientists themselves are explicitly making this claim, I think they are just reporting their evidence and asking "how could this be?".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:Cavemen? by gtall · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bingo, just to fix the time line a bit, humans were thought to have split from apes roughly 6-7 million years ago...except for some valued coworkers here.

    12. Re:Cavemen? by BigBlueOx · · Score: 5, Funny

      The dinosaurs were all largeish - turkey-sized or bigger - with the exception of thos who seem to have evolved into birds, and may have been much smaller because of the nifty invention of feathers.

      Well, it seems from the latest I've read on these things that paleontologists are now a-thinkin that a lot of the big dinosaurs had feathers too. In fact one article I read said that it was quite possible that T-Rex himself looked "like a big chick".

      I remember that article because the image of a 60 foot high "chick" with fluffy baby-feathers coated with the rotting blood and entrails of its victims and flesh-caked teeth the size of stalactites is one that haunts my dreams to this day.

      Oh. You want cites? Ah.

      Look! A bunny! Look at the bunny! (runs away)

    13. Re:Cavemen? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you know what 2 week old dead dinosaur smells like? Maybe they could scavenge for awhile but after that I'm sure the mammals would be too disgusted.

      You obviously haven't met my dog.

      I submit as evidence:
      1 dog owned by IndustrialComplex
      1 cat litterbox also owned by IndustrialComplex

      Conclusion:
      IndustrialComplex is disgusted.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    14. Re:Cavemen? by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Informative
      More evidence is always good, but once you actually start to think about it, "a small population of some dinosaurs survived in remote areas until it eventually petered out" is actually more plausible than "every single last dinosaur died at once in a gigantic catastrophe that nevertheless was not large enough to affect other animals such as mammals to the same extent". Many kinds of animals survived, after all. Why shouldn't dinosaurs have, too? I'm certainly not saying they must have, but just on the face of things, it seems more likely that their extinction was gradual and drawn-out over a long period of time. (And yes, I know the K-T extinction is not thought to have happened in the blink of an eye, anyway, but you know what I mean.)

      It's a bit telling that the study is published in an obscure web-only paleontology journal called "Palaeontologica Electronica". I'm not saying that good work can't be published in obscure journals, but I would argue that if you had really strong evidence for post-Cretaceous dinosaurs, you wouldn't publish it in a journal that nobody's ever heard of. You'd be publishing in Nature, Science, or PNAS. That suggests that he published here because he didn't have a lot of options, because the scientific community was pretty unreceptive to evidence presented in this study. Obviously, the conventional wisdom isn't everything. Geologists hated the idea of continental drift, and the asteroid impact hypothesis got a very cold reception before the Chicxulub crater was found. But it's worth asking whether the evidence here is any good or not.

      First off, it's not as if they've suddenly discovered dinosaurs where nobody expected them. Paleontologists have known for decades that these rock beds contain dinosaurs (as well as typical Cretaceous mammals). It's just that everyone else has always interpreted these rocks as being of Cretaceous age, rather than post-Cretaceous. What he's doing is arguing that the rocks are older than we thought.

      Second, what's his evidence for saying these are post-Cretaceous rocks? The best evidence would be a marker bed- if you could show that a skeleton lay above the iridium layer formed by the fallout of the asteroid, then it would be pretty much unrefutable. However, the iridium layer has *not* been recognized in this area. The second best evidence would be a layer of volcanic ash which can be dated using radioactive dating. There are no ashes under the bones which are younger than 65.5 million years old (the date of the impact). In fact all the ashes under the bones are around 75-73 million years old. So his evidence is the pollen grains. He says they look like post-Cretaceous pollen, not Cretaceous pollen. That doesn't seem terribly convincing in my mind. Given that the mammals seen in the same rocks are pretty clearly Cretaceous type mammals, the fossil evidence is contradictory here. His other evidence is something called magnetostratigraphy- the Earth's magnetic poles reverse every few hundred thousand or million years, with series of normal and reversed polarities. If you can match up a series of polarity changes, you can *sometimes* figure out how old the rocks are. But it's not a very precise method, and it's a bit tricky to figure out where a particular sequence going "normal-reversed-normal-reversed" fits into the geological record. It's a bit like trying to figure out the time and date by whether your neighbor has his house lights on or off, or whether the trash has been picked up recently or not.

      In short, it would take a lot more than this one paper to overturn the consensus that has resulted from one hundred years of scientific research. I mean, if someone published an experiment tomorrow saying that Einstein was wrong, what would your reaction be? To reject Einstein? Or to think that the experimenter might have screwed up? Currently, the bulk of the evidence says that the extinction took place 65.5 million years ago, and that (with the exception of birds) the dinosaurs didn't make it.

    15. Re:Cavemen? by jbengt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cats have very inefficient digestive systems, and, ignoring the possibility of parasites, the sad fact is that there's probably more nutrition, protein especially, in cat feces than in many commercial dog foods.
      Still disgusting, though.

    16. Re:Cavemen? by Patch86 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh. You want cites? Ah.

      Look! A bunny! Look at the bunny! (runs away)

      Oh come one, that's not even trying...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Skin_and_feathers

  2. I keep dinosaurs in my garden by GordonCopestake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    only I call them "chickens".

    1. Re:I keep dinosaurs in my garden by maxume · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does it make them angry?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  3. Yes....of course... by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 3, Funny

    They're called "birds".... Duh! ;-)

  4. Still with us by Smivs · · Score: 4, Funny

    They are still with us, working for some IT departments. Have you never seen an IEsixosaurus?

    1. Re:Still with us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      no, but I've seen a one-eyed dinosaur-- doyathinkhesaurus

    2. Re:Still with us by RuBLed · · Score: 5, Funny

      MOZIRRAAA!!!

    3. Re:Still with us by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, but there's a machine in the sever room capable of Tri-teraflops.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
  5. Other findings. by Mr2cents · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just a day ago, I read another article claiming that the impact predates the extinction event by 300000 years. The last thing hasn't been said about the dinosaurs, that's for sure. I really like the way David Polly puts it in the article (the one linked to by /.): "Finding conclusive evidence, however, is a difficult matter when the crime scene is 65 million years old".

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    1. Re:Other findings. by Burnhard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wrote a paper on this many years ago, concluding that the KT event caused extinctions in species already in decline. For example, the Ammonoidea were becoming less numerous for ten million years before the impact. But previous posters are quite correct, the Dinosaurs are survived by Birds!

    2. Re:Other findings. by Shrike82 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm confused. Is that larger or smaller than a metric fuckload of evidence?

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    3. Re:Other findings. by nyctopterus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem with the "already in decline" arguments is that there are statistical effects that make sudden extinctions look gradual. This has pretty much been demonstrated to be the case for Late Cretaceous dinosaurs (I don't know about ammonites).

      People want to cling to the K/T extinction being a mystery for some reason. It just isn't anymore. If you want a good mystery, the Permian-Triassic extinction event is bigger, and still (relatively) unexplained.

    4. Re:Other findings. by Bob-taro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People want to cling to the K/T extinction being a mystery for some reason. It just isn't anymore.

      "There appears to have been some mass extinctions around this time. A huge asteroid impact could cause that. Here's evidence of a huge asteroid impact around that time. Case closed."

      It seems that in some branches of science, we accept "plausible" as "proven". Sure there may be some pretty good evidence that an asteroid impact caused mass extinctions, but are there any other explanations? Here's a case where someone points out some data inconsistent with the prevalent theory, and we say, "it doesn't NECESSARILY disprove the theory, so we can ignore it". In other branches of science, we would strive for, "we can ABSOLUTELY explain this data", or we'd have to change or qualify the theory.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    5. Re:Other findings. by wastedlife · · Score: 3, Funny

      How many cubic handbreadths of dark ale equals one arse-load again? I have 68 furlongs to drive home and I need to know how much Guinness to bring. I know I can drink about a third of an arse-load in 26 furlongs, but the stupid store here sells by the cubic handbreadth and my phone does not have the proper conversion tools. Damn technology does everything in the world as long as it isn't useful.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
  6. But of course by DynaSoar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "some dinosaurs survived the extinction event(s)"

    If some dinosaurs hadn't survived it/them, we wouldn't have birds.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:But of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, yo moma comes to mind

    2. Re:But of course by VShael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, evolution should be taught like evolution.

      Simple concepts first, when they are young.
      More complex concepts later, when they are older.

      But definitely, teach them simple concepts.

      You don't start sex-ed by teaching them about the Stork bringing children. You tell them that when a mammy and daddy love each other very much, and want to have a baby, they hug in a very special way...

    3. Re:But of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Awww crap.

      What am I going to do with these 35 Anal bead sets and ball gags? I was supposed to teach 3rd grade Sex ed this week...

      Dammit! Let me guess, you're going to tell me that scat and explaining the dirty sanchez is out as well..

      Damn you Conservatives!

    4. Re:But of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      well, "hug in a very special way..." sounds much better than "What didn't get shot into mommy's face became you" or "You are what didn't leak out"

      Or in your case, "Your daddy was the one who could afford mommy for the whole night"

  7. Surprising? by TFer_Atvar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After reading the abstract, it sounds very interesting. I do have one big question: Do the remains show any difference from similar specimens prior to the K-T boundary? When you have small, isolated populations, you tend to get rapid evolution to suit the species to that specific area. If this small group of animals survived in an isolated fashion, I'd expect some sort of physiological drift from the mainline in order to compensate for their unique area.

    If they don't show much difference, I have to wonder what, if anything, this says about the K-T event itself; whether it created a long-term climatological change in addition to a catastrophic change evidenced by the K-T geologic boundary. I'm also intrigued by the fact that these specimens were found in Colorado/New Mexico, which is pretty darn close to the best impact site candidate. I'd expect any animals that survived to be much further away.

    1. Re:Surprising? by smoker2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The K-T boundary is not a simple line defining before and after. It is a phenomenon that took place over time - the estimated occurrence of the event was 65.5 (+||- 0.3)Ma. That is a 600,000 year margin, and when you consider that the earliest human species (read as - only just not monkeys) were at the most 2 million years old, it is not unreasonable to theorise that the causative event did not represent a definite cut off point for any species. Things can change a lot in 600K years. And it is also a dangerous habit to take estimated figures and then apply them to suit your own hypothesis too rigorously. Chinese whispers and all that. As somebody else posted further up, it would be more of a surprise to NOT find specimens outside of the accepted period.

  8. Re:You don't have to be so insulting!! by Mr2cents · · Score: 4, Funny

    Everyone who reads Dilbert already knows this. They're hiding behind the couch.

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  9. cautionary notes from a paleo geek by Dr_Snugglebunny · · Score: 5, Interesting

    2 points to be aware of: 1. The journal this is published in is not held in high esteem by most paleontologists. This may be telling; I imagine the paper was rejected by several other journals before ending up here. Peer review seems a little light at PE. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but calls for caution. 2. Everything hangs on the authors' interpretation of the age of the sediments; the bones don't seem reworked (i.e. moved around from older sediments), which is one source of error, but he could be wrong with the radiometric age estimation, which even in the best cases has a moderate margin of error. BUT it remains an interesting question of any dinosaurs survived long past the extinction; most of our picture of the K-T event comes from central/western North America, so who knows what happened elsewhere.

  10. They survived because of God... by VinylRecords · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean geez people haven't you been keeping up with the latest issues of Creationism Quarterly!
    This stuff is "Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists" it says so right on the website!
    It has "Scholarly articles representing the major scientific disciplines" scientific disciplines like: biology, chemistry, theology, creationism! Duh!
    "Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: intelligent design, a recent creation, and a catastrophic worldwide flood"!

    http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html /sarcasmbrainmelting

  11. Re:Obvious solution... by BabyDave · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Tyranno-saur-us, but did anyone ... [puts on shades] ... see them?"

    [The Who] Bwaaaaaaaaoooo ba ba! (etc)

  12. Abybody who knows CowboyNeal... by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Funny

    Some Large Dinosaurs Survived the K-T Extinction

    Abybody who knows CowboyNeal would see this as old news

  13. metastable climate by dltaylor · · Score: 3, Informative

    It continues to dismay me how many really don't get it. The impact, or impact+major vulcanism (BTW, what order were those in, and could the impact have pinged the earth hard enough to initiate a major volcanic event at whatever the interval?), didn't kill the dinosaurs by direct effect. They didn't all die in a week or a month, or, even a few decades, centuries, or millennia, most likely.

    What happened was a significant enough change in climate in nearly all habitats, over a short enough period of time, that the vast majority of major fauna, particularly dinosaurs, and a lot of the flora simply could not adapt to the new conditions, nor migrate to a location that suited them (nor build bubble cities in which to weather the change). If the birth/death ratio slips below 1 long enough the species is extinct. If it is only slightly less than 1 because the available nutrition is not quite good enough, or there's enough hard dust around to reduce lung efficiency, or the temperatures don't allow eggs to brood quite as well, or some such, then it can take a VERY long time to kill off populations in the tens of millions. Small regions of "better", if not quite "good enough", might easily sustain a very slowly declining ecosystem for hundreds of millennia.

    Bottom line, though, is that there are a LOT of dinosaur fossils below the iridium-enriched layer and VERY few, and those not for very long, above it.

  14. I think you meme... err, mean... by jonaskoelker · · Score: 4, Funny

    in the time it takes to post this comment another 2 "Cave chicks go Rex riding" websites will have been created.

    I think you mean "2 Girls 1 Rex"

  15. Re:Quantum Mechanics... by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Funny

    it'll probably emerge that quantum mechanics is behind the survival of these select few dinosaurs.

    Quantum Mechanics can't save the dinosaurs. For a job this big, we need String Theory.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  16. Some things are just untouchable by parody... by jonaskoelker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Holy shit, batman. I thought you were joking. It turns out it was reality tickling my funny-bone.

    I especially "like" the quote "Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: [...]". They're saying up-front "we're here to give you a skewed and biased impression of how the real world works, independent of whether the real world supports our biases".

    I can rephrase their bulleted list, too:

    "For 45 years(1), we've been spamming the whole world(3), sullying the name of all major sciences(4) and cheating quality control systems(2) in order to convert you to our preconceived notions(6)."

    ("(n)" refers to the nth bullet)

  17. Damn Time Travelers, & circular time travel lo by jameskojiro · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here is the theory,

    Scientists in the 1980's Wondered why no Dinosaurs after 65 MYA, so they found the K-T event impact crater and assumed it was the event that killed off all of the Dinosaurs.

    So later in 2040's when we invent Time Travel, people of course want to go back and see the dinosaurs, so they all go back to the day before the K-T impact and watch the dinosaurs and they figure, hey since they will be relatively extinct tomorrow then why not shoot them and take a few trophy's back with them, plus they are good eatin'....

    So by the next day when the Asteroid impacts the Earth most all of the dinosaurs have been hunted to extinction in one day from all of those time travelers going back to the same day before the Asteroid. A few pockets of Dinosaurs Survived the massive hunt because the time travel machines don't work quite right in some areas of on the earth due to magnetite deposits in certain areas. Those few dinos that survived the day before massive hunt and the Asteroid impact didn't have enough genetic diversity to survive and thus died off a little after 65 MYA.

    So we killed off the Dinosaurs to make true the extinction we have always had in our fossil record.

    The good news is that besides hunting they took some live Dinosaurs forward to the 2040's and they are being bred to replace chicken which have gone extinct due to the avian flu.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...