Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Some Large Dinosaurs Survived the K-T Extinction

Posted by kdawson on from the hid-under-a-rock dept.

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."

19 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 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)

  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. Re:But of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, yo moma comes to mind

  4. 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.

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

    MOZIRRAAA!!!

  6. 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)

  7. 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...

  8. 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?
  9. 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!
  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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)