Slashdot Mirror


New "Last Dinosaur" Find Backs Asteroid Extinction

An anonymous reader writes "A new fossil discovery has suggested that dinosaurs were alive right up until the asteroid impact, and did not go extinct gradually due to climate change or changes in sea level, as previous theories have proposed."

157 comments

  1. Nonsense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They were killed by all of the cavemen for food.

    At least that's what my science teacher told me.

    - A Student from Kansas

    1. Re:Nonsense! by ckblackm · · Score: 1, Funny

      Apparently you weren't paying attention. The Flying Spaghetti Monster put the bones out there for people to find, there weren't any dinosaurs as the world is only a few thousand years old!

    2. Re:Nonsense! by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Funny

      You religious wingnut! Everyone knows the Dinosaurs went extinct because climate change caused by the the Bush Tax Cuts and Big Oil!

              - A Student from San Francisco

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    3. Re:Nonsense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you believe in the FSM, let my introduce you to my PHYS .... purple headed yogurt slinger

    4. Re:Nonsense! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I have it on good author-it-ay that Obamacare is responsible.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:Nonsense! by Normal+Dan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I blame our next president.

      --
      A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    6. Re:Nonsense! by dkleinsc · · Score: 1, Funny

      Aye, matey! Thar be the bones of dragons in the deeps. But which fell by His Noodlyness, and which by me blunderbuss?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:Nonsense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember my father once telling me that his high school science teacher frequently told his students that "Dinosaurs never existed. god put [those] bones in the ground as a test of faith."

      Historically, being a christian and trying to teach science objectively seems like kind of a conflict of interest.

    8. Re:Nonsense! by tverbeek · · Score: 0

      That's absurd. They died in The Flood, an "extinction event" that lasted 40 days and 40 nights. How else do you think all those dinosaur bones got buried in the sediment?

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    9. Re:Nonsense! by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      What about the dinosaurs that lived in the water?

    10. Re:Nonsense! by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      It rained 1 day of "heavy water" which killed the water dwellers, followed by 39 days of "light water" which drowned everything else. Then, about 99% of the heavy water miraculously disappeared (or changed into light water) leaving us with the current 3600:1 light/heavy ratio.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    11. Re:Nonsense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also drowned

    12. Re:Nonsense! by qzjul · · Score: 1

      I believe you're mistaken; the world was created Last Thursday, with all the apparent trappings of a world much older!

      Last Thursdayism

    13. Re:Nonsense! by mswhippingboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You religious wingnut! Everyone knows the Middle Class went extinct because of the the Bush Tax Cuts and Big Oil!

      - A Student from San Francisco

      There. FTFY.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    14. Re:Nonsense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dinosaurs died out exactly 65,000,027 years ago. I just checked my notes from high school.

    15. Re:Nonsense! by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Christianity is not in conflict with evolution. Only crackpot fundamentalism is.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    16. Re:Nonsense! by zorca · · Score: 0

      clearly, dinosaurs didn't fit on the ark!

    17. Re:Nonsense! by JustOK · · Score: 1

      They died when it dried up.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    18. Re:Nonsense! by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      I have it on good author-it-ay that Obamacare is responsible.

      I just KNEW those death panels had something to do with something. Dinosaur extinction it is!

    19. Re:Nonsense! by alexo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It rained 1 day of "heavy water" which killed the water dwellers, followed by 39 days of "light water" which drowned everything else. Then, about 99% of the heavy water miraculously disappeared (or changed into light water) leaving us with the current 3600:1 light/heavy ratio.

      Close, but not quite.

      It actually rained super-heavy water (Tritium Oxide) and not "plain" heavy water (Deuterium Oxide), which killed the water-dwelling dinosaurs via internal beta emission. while being largely ineffective against land-dwelling creatures due to its short biological half-life (7-14 days).

      Also, need for miraculous disappearance since, while Deuterium is stable, Tritium has a half-life of about 4,500 days.

      Science. It works, bitches!

    20. Re:Nonsense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are about as good as the earlier posts this morning with Bill Gates vs Steve Jobs using their respective "sent from my [iphone, windows 7 phone]" messages.

      I find these amusing as well. Shall we call this signature based humor?

    21. Re:Nonsense! by DocHoncho · · Score: 2, Funny

      So THAT'S why the instructions for the Ark included two hands of lead shielding!

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    22. Re:Nonsense! by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      That was an awesome explanation. Almost awesome enough to make me want to convert.

    23. Re:Nonsense! by alexo · · Score: 1

      That was an awesome explanation. Almost awesome enough to make me want to convert.

      Note to self: next time add smileys.

    24. Re:Nonsense! by TheABomb · · Score: 1

      That explains things. I never could quite get the hang of Thursdays.

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    25. Re:Nonsense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Karl Marx coined the term "Middle Class".

      There is no classes in America. Classes infer that it's a level to which one must stay.

      Anyone can make it big (and it happens), and anyone who's made it can lose it all (which also happens).

      -If your Presidential candidate is endorsed by the Communist Party, USA-- then chances are you are a Communist.

    26. Re:Nonsense! by laejoh · · Score: 1

      I read that as Middle East!

    27. Re:Nonsense! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      There is no classes in America.

      Certainly not grammar classes.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    28. Re:Nonsense! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Christianity is not in conflict with evolution. Only crackpot fundamentalism is.

      If the Bible's not true, then what is the point of it? Why should it have any more authority than the Iliad or Beowulf?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    29. Re:Nonsense! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That was an awesome explanation. Almost awesome enough to make me want to convert.

      Convert to what? A state of perfect Total Humourlessness?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    30. Re:Nonsense! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That was an awesome explanation. Almost awesome enough to make me want to convert.

      Note to self: next time add smileys.

      I expect that's what Jesus thought too :-)

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    31. Re:Nonsense! by pnewhook · · Score: 2

      Believing in evolution doesn't mean the bible is not true. The Catholic church has officially come out and said that the bible cannot conflict with science, effectively endorsing evolution and rejecting the theory that the earth is only eight thousand years old, a long held belief by the Catholic church. Judaism also used to believe in a young Earth, (their calendar effectively marks the number of years since God created the planet), but Judaism now rejects this belief with only the most fundamental sects still clinging to the non-evolution theory.

      None of these people have rejected religion or the bible. They just realize that he bible was written by man, with the knowledge of the day, and from stories passed down over the centuries. We now realize that some of these beliefs were wrong, but that does not invalidate the entire message found in the religious texts.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    32. Re:Nonsense! by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      I heard it was because they couldn't learn how to ride a fixie or write their musings in a molskine.

      - An actual agnostic Kansan

    33. Re:Nonsense! by eriqk · · Score: 1

      They went swimming right after eating and they drowned! No! They ran around with scissors in their hands! No, no! I ran 'em over with my truck!

    34. Re:Nonsense! by alexo · · Score: 1

      I expect that's what Jesus thought too :-)

      You, sir, should be modded redundant.

    35. Re:Nonsense! by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Gopher wood, the mysterious type of lumber specified by YHWH, is remarkably good shield against beta radiation.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    36. Re:Nonsense! by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      The Bible was written as allegory, with some history mixed in as well. It's only in the last ~1000 years or so that people have believed it as all true. the Iliad was seen as true as far as all myths were back in its day. Beowulf is a fairy tale / monster story that was never meant to be taken as true. So there is a difference there. Or do you mean to say that we shouldn't take any lesson from books like Uncle Tom's Cabin because they aren't true? That said, some lessons can be taken from the Iliad and Beowulf. Those lessons are left to the reader to interpret.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    37. Re:Nonsense! by xkuehn · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Why do people fail to grasp this?

  2. What sort of rock was it found in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What sort of deposit was the horn found in? If there were enough water, isn't it possible that the horn could have been displaced and thus ended up in younger sediments? My university coursebook says that that is oft to occur with dinosaur teeth; could similar happen with a dinosaur's horn?

    1. Re:What sort of rock was it found in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the original paper, there are good reasons to think it was not reworked. .

    2. Re:What sort of rock was it found in? by Paltin · · Score: 2

      Hell Creek formation = fluvial (river) deposits.

      Reworking is always a possibility.

      This specific fossil is claimed to have been found in an overbank deposit, which means that it was out on the flood plain, which if true means it is unlikely to have been reworked. But I'd want to see it for myself.

    3. Re:What sort of rock was it found in? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      I don't have the full paper, but I got the abstract (which clears up many of the journalistic misrepresentations and errors of the cited re-hash) here :

      Modern debate regarding the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs was ignited by the publication of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) asteroid impact theory and has seen 30 years of dispute over the position of the stratigraphically youngest in situ dinosaur. A zone devoid of dinosaur fossils reported from the last 3 m of the Upper Cretaceous, coined the '3 m gap', has helped drive controversy. Here, we report the discovery of the stratigraphically youngest in situ dinosaur specimen: a ceratopsian brow horn found in a poorly rooted, silty, mudstone floodplain deposit located no more than 13 cm below the palynologically defined boundary. The K-T boundary is identified using three criteria: (i) decrease in Cretaceous palynomorphs without subsequent recovery, (ii) the existence of a 'fern spike', and (iii) correlation to a nearby stratigraphic section where primary extraterrestrial impact markers are present (e.g. iridium anomaly, spherules, shocked quartz). The in situ specimen demonstrates that a gap devoid of non-avian dinosaur fossils does not exist and is inconsistent with the hypothesis that non-avian dinosaurs were extinct prior to the K-T boundary impact event.

      For the non-geologists, "floodplain" = "overbank". With currents only strong enough to carry a "silty mudstone"? So, it becomes untenable that the 45cm fossil has moved much from it's original location, either horizontally or vertically (in time, most likely upwards for a depositional environment like this). No doubt excavations have occurred or will occur shortly in search of the rest of the ceratopsian fossil,though it's possible that the fossil has been eroded already.

      What does the paper say about the preservation of the fossil? Any evidence of erosion? Rounding of what should be sharp points, or removal of blood vessel groves on exterior surfaces compared to interior surfaces?

      Bug-watching ("palynology" if you like polysyllabic designations) to establish the section's K-T boundary. Solid.

      Phrasing it as a "the stratigraphically youngest in situ dinosaur" carefully leaves no verbal hostages to fortune : if another fossil is found at 20cm below the K-T boundary in a basin with three times the net deposition rate, then all that would happen is that the holder of the title changes. With a stochastic event like fossilization, eventually there will be a new holder. Of course, finding an un-reworked non-avian fossil from 13cm above the K-T boundary would really be news. Though Professor Challenger does claim such.

      Damn, I'd better go and do this month's expenses claim.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    4. Re:What sort of rock was it found in? by Paltin · · Score: 1

      They only have one picture of the "fossil" in the paper, and to be honest - it doesn't look like one to me. Preservation looks absolutely terrible. They don't really talk about preservation. It doesn't look like there is more of the animal there (which does, of course, highly support transport). If you can't access the paper, let me know and I'll send it.

    5. Re:What sort of rock was it found in? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      PM me for an email address. IIRC they were wanting $30-odd for a one-off purchase. Which isn't going to happen. I'm away to Africa in a couple of days, but should settle in by the end of the week and get caught up again.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    6. Re:What sort of rock was it found in? by Paltin · · Score: 1

      I would PM you if I could. don't even know if slashdot has that functionality. email me, krisrhodes at gmail.

  3. Without proof to the contrary... by JamesonLewis3rd · · Score: 1

    ...I assert that dinosaurs did not growl or make any other scary sounds...they mooed.

    --
    Hebrews 11:8
    Jeremiah 33:3
    1. Re:Without proof to the contrary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on what you watch. A moo can be scary.

    2. Re:Without proof to the contrary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I assert that dinosaurs did not growl or make any other scary sounds...they mooed.

      Nah, they chirped and sang like they do today.

    3. Re:Without proof to the contrary... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. They sang show tunes and were summarily executed by all other animals after one too many renditions of "Oklahoma."

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    4. Re:Without proof to the contrary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they were mimes. Explains how they died too.

    5. Re:Without proof to the contrary... by gstrickler · · Score: 0

      +1, Sorry, no mod points today.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    6. Re:Without proof to the contrary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why nobody cared.

    7. Re:Without proof to the contrary... by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Tyrannosaurus apparently has the bone structure of a big chicken. So I'm thinking it made VERY BIG clucking and crowing noises! :P
      "COCK-A-DOODLE-DO, MF!!"

      (old joke - Where does an 800 lb. canary sit? Any place it wants too!)

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    8. Re:Without proof to the contrary... by cusco · · Score: 1

      At one time the most feared sound in Europe was not 'Grr' or 'Roar', but 'Moo'. Aggressive, foul tempered, prone to stampede towards danger rather than away from it, a quarter-ton of muscle and horn that traveled in herds that could stomp a hunter into a red smear was not a casual choice of prey.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    9. Re:Without proof to the contrary... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Tyrannosaurus apparently has the bone structure of a big chicken.

      Easy to say now they're not around to shred you into dogfood for disrespecting them.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:Without proof to the contrary... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      There is evidence to challenge your assertion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasaurolophus#Sounding_function and references cites within,

      (I use the sound as my phone's ring tone.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  4. Scientific Method, Yay! by bughunter · · Score: 1

    Good news: the Scientific Method is still alive.

    The bad news: This pretty much disproves my hypothesis of Sauroflatulogenic Climate Change.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
    1. Re:Scientific Method, Yay! by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      Why, pshaw! How do you think the atmosphere ignited when the meteors hit?

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    2. Re:Scientific Method, Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using this article as proof that "the scientific method is still alive" is a complete failure of the scientific method itself.

    3. Re:Scientific Method, Yay! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Sauroflatulogenic

      Expialidocious?

      "Caused by the flatulence of sauropods" ... if that isn't real latin, then it's the best faux latin I've seen in a long time. And, if it is latin, bravo for knowing it.

      SauroflatulogenicExpialidocious ... oh, that's just funny.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Scientific Method, Yay! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The "-genic" element is Greek, isn't it?

      Which just makes it better faux Latin.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    5. Re:Scientific Method, Yay! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      The "-genic" element is Greek, isn't it?

      Which just makes it better faux Latin.

      Oh, in order to be good faux Latin, it needs at least some grammar elements of actual Latin.

      Which is why Sauroflatulogenic is so brilliant ... you can actually deduce it's meaning. It could actually be close to valid Latin, but I have no idea.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Scientific Method, Yay! by tmh+-+The+Mad+Hacker · · Score: 1

      Sorry, guess if you want to get modded funny, you have to use smaller words. Regardless of which theory is true, though, I'm sure the event was a real gas....

  5. So it's not Denver? by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 1

    Because that was my favorite totally rad "Last Dinosaur".

    1. Re:So it's not Denver? by wootest · · Score: 1

      He's my friend and a whole lot more.

  6. Last Dinosaur! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1
    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  7. What a Concidence! by psiXaos · · Score: 1

    Creepy concidence hre. I had just finished wathing "National Geographic Explorer: 24 Hours After Asteroid Impact" documentary seconds ago when I loaded slashdot to see this story. I recommend that documentary btw; it really dwarfed all my previous imagination of what might have occured...

    --
    "Beauty is the ultimate defense against complexity" - Machine Beauty
    1. Re:What a Concidence! by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, what are the chances of some random nerd seeing a documentary about something that will turn up as a story on /.
      Given enough nerds, actually close to 100% ...

      (Not to bash on you, but coincidence is often overrated)

    2. Re:What a Concidence! by DrEasy · · Score: 1

      Similar coincidence: yesterday I saw Terrence Mallick's beautiful Tree of Life, which also featured the asteroid impact.

      --
      "In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
  8. You all have it wrong! by Uhhhh+oh+ya! · · Score: 1

    Dinosaurs became extinct because they had laser eyes and they killed each other. No one has yet been able to disprove this theory.

    https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19135208295

    1. Re:You all have it wrong! by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      They got in a fight with the laser mounted sharks, and killed each other off.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  9. Real Killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I recall, all the dinosaurs were killed by a gigantic Brain in an attempt to memorize everything about the universe and then destroy it.

    1. Re:Real Killer by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      In an unrelated story: Beavers mate for life

    2. Re:Real Killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then he left Earth for no raisin at all.

  10. No, it doesn't by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

    The margin of error on when the last dinosaurs were existent and the margin of error on when the K-T boundary was deposited are both hundreds of thousands of years.

    In some places there are at least 300,000 years of sediment between the fossil evidence of the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event and the K-T boundary.

    K-T boundary has is dated to (65.5 ± 0.3) Ma, the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event is dated to 65.5 Ma, so the impact could have been the day the last dinosaurs were alive, it could have been 300,000 years before, 11 years after, or 213,417 years after.

    1. Re:No, it doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're right.

      In fact, the truth is that the dinosaur extinction caused the asteroid impact event. Intelligent dinosaurs had maintained a force shield which protected the Earth, but after they died out (turned out that, unfortunately, the force shield was carcinogenic) and the shield went off-line, Earth was wide-open for a cataclysmic impact.

      --Alastair

    2. Re:No, it doesn't by thoromyr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what I got from reading the article was that the author had a conclusion that wasn't supported by the evidence. Taking the finding at face value, a solitary find that is significantly closer than expected to the estimated time of impact would tend to support a gradual extinction. If the extinction were sudden, due to the asteroid impact, then a wealth of fossil data would be expected all the way up to the estimated time of impact, with very little (quickly going to none) following it. Instead there is (apparently, and this is information provided and agreed on by the article) a significant gap with -- to date -- a single fossil found in the region.

      As far as I can tell it is another data point of no particular significance. To "disprove" gradual extinction before the impact a number of fossils representing normal population levels and distributions needs to be found.

    3. Re:No, it doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that dinosaur fossils do not occur closer than 3 m from the contact has been disprove several times. As to the idea that dinosaurs are not found at the impact horizon--it would be very unlikely. In Wisconsin deer have lost their predators and are over abundant--far more abundant than dinosaurs would have been. Shoot and bullet across the state and the likely hood that any deer would be hit is very small. In outcrop the K-T boundary or any boundary is essentially a line. So the same applies. Large animals are simply very rare. Go in the woods and randomly look in one direction. Even if an animal is present within sight it is very unlikely it will be in your direct line of sight. The dinosaurs died over a broad landscape at the K-T impact. But what we see now is simply a line of outcrop through that landscape--very unlikely you would find a dinosaur.

    4. Re:No, it doesn't by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      Dinosaur remains have been found as close a cm from the K-T layer and out to a meter, the 13cm distance in west Texas is 300,000 years of sediment.

    5. Re:No, it doesn't by Paltin · · Score: 2

      The thing is - if they were in fact concurrent - then we'd expect that as better data becomes available, the dates converge.

      This is exactly what has happened over time. There's actually new work being done by Zircon workers that continues to close the gap.

      And yes, this IS evidence that supports that dinosaurs went extinct at the boundary. It increases the possibility of that, to the exclusion of others possibilities, by at least a little bit.

    6. Re:No, it doesn't by JustOK · · Score: 2

      Dino might!

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    7. Re:No, it doesn't by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 0

      No it really doesn't Even if the gap is closed to 30,000 years, that is thousands of large vertebrate generations apart.

      There are very few continuous beds of fossil-bearing rock which cover a time range from several million years before the K–T extinction to a few million years after it, so extinct large vertebrates could very well have become extinct millions of years before the K-T layer in some places and survived for millions of years after it.

      The K-T boundary and the asteroid hypothesis as the one true theory is junk science for scientists who like to star in flashy TV programs about "Asteroids killed the Dinosaurs!"

    8. Re:No, it doesn't by Paltin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But there isn't a -gap-. There is uncertainty as to the exact timing. A gap is a period when you are sure there isn't anything; uncertainty means you don't know. To the best of our knowledge - and constantly improving as more work is done - the uncertainty periods are getting smaller. This is evidence for concurrence. Concurrence is not disproven, and the evidence that supports it keeps getting better as it is refined.

      There are no terrestrial beds of fossil bearing rock that also contain unequivocal markers of the K-T iridium spike. That's why we have correlation. There are lots of continuous beds of fossil bearing rock that do contain the K-T and show evidence of mass extinction - in the marine realm. Foram extinction and population is well documented and not disputed, as well as other marine creatures. The most likely explanation is that the impact had some role in the extinction.


      |...as the one true theory....

      The article doesn't claim anything about one true theory, and neither did I. Straw man at it's best. Scientists look for evidence and weigh it. I recommend you learn more about Bayes theorem and then reexamine the evidence.

    9. Re:No, it doesn't by egardner4 · · Score: 1

      Well said. That was exactly my first thought too.

    10. Re:No, it doesn't by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      So maybe they didn't die off . They realized Earth would become uninhabitable for them , so they flew away in their spaceships.
      One day they will come back.

    11. Re:No, it doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      what I got from reading the article was that the author had a conclusion that wasn't supported by the evidence. Taking the finding at face value, a solitary find that is significantly closer than expected to the estimated time of impact would tend to support a gradual extinction. If the extinction were sudden, due to the asteroid impact, then a wealth of fossil data would be expected all the way up to the estimated time of impact, with very little (quickly going to none) following it. Instead there is (apparently, and this is information provided and agreed on by the article) a significant gap with -- to date -- a single fossil found in the region.

      As far as I can tell it is another data point of no particular significance. To "disprove" gradual extinction before the impact a number of fossils representing normal population levels and distributions needs to be found.

      There's no such thing as a "wealth of fossil data". Dinosaur fossils are RARE. Dates have uncertainty.

      Given how rare dinosaur fossils are, toss in a bit of date uncertainty and I suspect that the observed fossil record produced by gradual extinction over few hundred thousand years or even longer would be practically indistinguishable from the observed fossil record produced by a sudden extinction.

      Now, add in that there's actually evidence for a massive asteroid strike, compared to the pretty-much-unfounded speculation regarding possible causes for gradual extinction...

    12. Re:No, it doesn't by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      To "disprove" gradual extinction before the impact a number of fossils representing normal population levels and distributions needs to be found.

      Which becomes quite a task when your fossils are 45cm long.

      However this is precisely what they did to establish the location of the K-T boundary at this site. They collected hundreds, if not thousands, of fossils, plotted the mean populations of fossils per centimetre of section examined, and then plotted the changes in those populations.

      Elsewhere in this thread I posted the abstract for the technical paper. (Search for "ckd" normally works.) The word "palynology" in the abstract tells you this. OK, it tells me this, because I work with palynologists at frequent intervals.

      A typical palynomorph (the fossils that palynologists look at) is under a tenth of a millimetre long. So you can get thousands per cubic centimetre. But they're not spectacular. Pretty on occasions, but not spectacular.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    13. Re:No, it doesn't by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      unequivocal markers of the K-T iridium spike.

      The Cretaceous Tertiary boundary is defined on palynological markers, not on the iridium spike (if it's present at a particular location). This is the case for most geological boundaries.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    14. Re:No, it doesn't by eriqk · · Score: 1

      They realized Earth would become uninhabitable for them , so they flew away in their spaceships.

      Indeed they did. Some time ago I saw a documentary that showed they were now a thriving culture in the Delta Quadrant.

    15. Re:No, it doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any true geek would know (ST:VOY 3x23 "Distant Origin") that the dinosaurs realized that the end was near, built starships, and moved halfway across the galaxy to found an interstellar empire.
      Sheesh.

    16. Re:No, it doesn't by Paltin · · Score: 1

      It is my understanding that the "official" K-Pg was defined based on the iridium spike, even though that was not what was used in this study.

    17. Re:No, it doesn't by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Not according to the palynologists that I've worked with. Pretty much anything that is "official" is "officially" defined on bugs, for the good and sufficient reason that any random 10g of sediment will contain a few thousand bugs. "Plink, Plink, fizz ! !" followed by smearing the acid-insoluble sludge on a slide.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    18. Re:No, it doesn't by Paltin · · Score: 1

      The practical boundary is certainly microfossil measured, but those aren't as good a world-wide unique time stamp as the iridium anomaly - which in theory is uniform through the world and specific in time to a one year or so period. So yeah, no real disagreement here, but I'm also not about to start reading papers looking for the consensus K-T boundary either.

    19. Re:No, it doesn't by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The iridium anomaly is a prediction of a hypothesis under test. The faunal change was an observed datum long before the impact hypothesis came along to explain it.

      We all know the difference between theory and practice.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  11. Wait a fricken' second. by blair1q · · Score: 2

    They couldn't find any dinosaur bones within 3 meters of the boundary, then they found one 13 cm below the boundary, and they still claim the asteroid extincted them?

    I want to see a bunch of bones lying on the boundary. Contemporaneous with the event. Show that the effect [extinction of dinosaurs] comes after the cause [asteroid that created the K-T boundary]. Until you can do that, you can't even associate the asteroid with the extinction. Even at 13 cm, they're not at all well-correlated.

    1. Re:Wait a fricken' second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that easy. What if those 13 cm were mud at that time? Or some digging / earth movement happened.

      But I agree, that if that was the case, there should be correlations for it, that can't be associated with anything else. (Aka. what dumb people call "proof"... something that doesn't exist in the scientific method, as it is nonsense.)

    2. Re:Wait a fricken' second. by Paltin · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's not how it works.

      Considering the vast amount of time captured in even 13 cm of strata, there are many more generations of dinosaur corpses created and sorted through the taphonomic filter than would be created by a sudden extinction event. The deposition associated with the Hell Creek is one of rivers - which means there's a lot of energy to destroy things, as well as problems transporting from death location into the river to begin with. Simply put, there is no reason to expect that you'd fine a single bone from the last generation of dinosaurs - and even if you did, you'd have a hell of a time proving it.

      Here's an example paper from the modern that looks at this problem : http://www.cornellcollege.edu/geology/greenstein/personal/Reprints/Diadema.pdf

      Clear record of mass mortality, like you expect, requires exceptional preservation such as that captured in the Burgess Shale. That isn't the case for the Diadema, or for the Hell Creek formation.

      And yes, of course you can associate things at 13cm. The number of vast changes in flora and fauna at the K/T boundary match up as well as could be expected with the Iridium spike and other impact markers. This is strong evidence that there is an association.

    3. Re:Wait a fricken' second. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the earth builds up universally evenly mm by mm.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    4. Re:Wait a fricken' second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might I suggest you actually crack open a science book?

    5. Re:Wait a fricken' second. by DrSlinky · · Score: 1

      Mod this guy up, please

    6. Re:Wait a fricken' second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point, but you can't exactly correlate thickness of a deposit with time. It depends on many things.
      Maybe there was a lot of dust and debris which buried this critter before the iridium layer filtered out of the atmosphere.
      There are some Roman ruins at 4m depth, and those are only 2000 years old. And also Bones can get eroded out and re-deposited elsewhere, ie on top of the iridium layer, making it appear to be younger than the strata it finally rests on.

    7. Re:Wait a fricken' second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An asteroid would melt the surface and remove most biological evidence by lava/fire. Just saying what your scenario implies but you forgot.

    8. Re:Wait a fricken' second. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Why? He clearly knows what he's talking about (and may even be a geologist - sounds like one to me, and I am a geologist). talking sense about a subject you understand requires down-modding on Slashdot, not up-modding.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  12. Ah, but HOW? by overshoot · · Score: 0

    They were killed by all of the cavemen for food.

    Mine taught us that they were ridden to death.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  13. huh? by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We collected rock samples above and below the horn to determine the exact placement of the K/T boundary, and were surprised to see that the horn was no more than 13 cm below it.

    A new fossil discovery has suggested that dinosaurs were alive right up until the asteroid impact

    Speaking as a guy living in a county where the only non-service blue collar jobs left are at the local rock quarry, and having a geologist as a roommate two decades ago, I speak with profound scientific authority that those two quotes only go together if you define "right up until" as being about one zillion years. I suspect most readers define "right up until" on a somewhat shorter scale, like the time difference between the local news and american-idle, not zillions of years. (waves rolled up newspaper) Naughty journalist! Naughty!

    "right up until" 13 cm of rock.

    I am completely unaware of any political or cultural reason for the authors to be blind to this problem. I have no dog in the fight that I'm aware of. Just saying 13 cm of rock is not "right up until"

    It MIGHT be that the real story is on a "bones per cm" basis this raises the curve implying the rate does not "tail off" (get it? dinosaur tail?) until the boundary, but that's not how the journalists are reporting it, as if the tip of the fossil was touching the boundary or chemical analysis of the fossil shows the dinosaur died during the boundary event.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:huh? by Paltin · · Score: 2

      In geologist terms, 13cm is "right up until". Add in the Signor-Lipps effect and it's statistically indistinguishable.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signor%E2%80%93Lipps_effect

    2. Re:huh? by sensei+moreh · · Score: 2
      Two points to consider:
      1. The K-T boundary position is very well-constrained; the uncertainty regarding its exact age is irrelevant..
      2. Sedimentation rates are estimated to have ranged from 52 to 81 meters per million years. Thus 13 cm represents no more than 2500 years.

      Now, is it possible, based on the available evidence, that the last dinosaur died out 2500 years before the big meteorite impact at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary? Certainly. However, is it likely? As a geologist, I'd have say NO!

      --
      Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
    3. Re:huh? by Paltin · · Score: 2

      >Sedimentation rates are estimated to have ranged from 52 to 81 meters per million years. Thus 13 cm represents no more than 2500 years.

      Sedimentation rates are not constant. They tend to come in fits and bursts. I would not draw that conclusion from the evidence.

    4. Re:huh? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      While I realize that as a geologist you may not have much more understanding of the climate and weather considerations involved than I do, but since I know basically nothing about climate, weather, or geology, you might have a better idea of what was going on during the K-T events than I do.

      So this big old rock slams into the Earth and makes enough dust out of itself to create the world-wide iridium enriched sedimentary deposits that are the K-T boundary. And in so doing, creates a very long winter.

      So how long does it take for all that dust to actually settle? How much other sediments brought about by the more rapid erosion of the early part of the Long Winter would bury the remains of the megafauna before most of the asteroid dust was deposited?

      It would seem that some gap between the last dinosaur fossils and the iridium layer should be expected, but would this be only millimeters, or is 300 centimerters actually a reaonable expectation?

      --
      Will
    5. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't looked at any of the models to know how long the last of the dust takes to settle. However, when looking at the results of large volcanic eruptions, we see that most of the ash settles very, very quickly, but the small, lightweight particles that give rise to colorful sunrises and sunsets remain aloft for a few years.

    6. Re:huh? by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      ...

      So this big old rock slams into the Earth and makes enough dust out of itself to create the world-wide iridium enriched sedimentary deposits that are the K-T boundary. And in so doing, creates a very long winter.

      So how long does it take for all that dust to actually settle? How much other sediments brought about by the more rapid erosion of the early part of the Long Winter would bury the remains of the megafauna before most of the asteroid dust was deposited?...

      Bear in mind that an event of this magnitude creates a number of major disruptive effects that manifest themselves for different lengths of time. The rogues gallery includes massive amounts of nitric oxides from the heat of impact causing a worldwide super-acid rain, release of massive amounts of CO2 from the carbonate impact strata, in addition to the dust. So we get an instant super-winter awash with super-acid rain acidifiying waters around the world, replaced a few years later with a millenia long heat wave.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    7. Re:huh? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      I posted the abstract of the paper up-thread.

      That may correct your misapprehensions as to what the actual claims made are, rather than what has been filtered through journalists.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    8. Re:huh? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It would seem that some gap between the last dinosaur fossils and the iridium layer should be expected, but would this be only millimeters, or is 300 centimerters actually a reaonable expectation?

      Given that the asteroid debris would only be a small fraction of the excavated impact crater, and it would not be evenly distributed, even so you can get some back-of-the-envelope estimates.

      The crater is ~200km in diameter, and in the order of 10km deep. That's [calculates] around 300,000 km^3 of debris. Distribute it evenly across the surface of the Earth and that'd be 0.6m of deposit. However, there are real issues with that envelope's worth. The actual material ejected may be a lot less (I've assumed a simple cylinder of a crater ; build your own model). The distribution will be highly uneven - maybe kilometres thick near the crater but nearly zero on the other side of the globe. How the debris gets distributed into pre- and post- impact sediments (by bioturbation for example ; or in cold climates, frost heave) is a question.

      The plain fact of the matter is that the event doesn't seem to have left much sedimentological record beyond the immediate neighbourhood - say a couple of thousand kilometres.

      To put that into context - you know the Manicougain Lac astrobleme? One of my professors (Gordon Walkden) identified what he thinks may be an ejecta deposit from this event (strictly, the base-surge, plus some airfall material) near Bristol in England. That deposit is a few centimetres thick (and Gordon's interpretation has been challenged, partly because it's not seen elsewhere in Britain), and the site was only a couple of thousand kilometres away from Ground Zero at the time of the impact (before the Atlantic opened).

      Centimetres may be reasonable to "expect", but with major caveats.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  14. extinctions by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The thing that I always wondered about with the asteroid impact theory is that we have several species of large reptiles that survived the extinction event. While I'm no scientist, I'm wondering if there might not have been some form of communicable disease that was stressing the dinosaur population beforehand that accounts for the gradual diminishing of fossils in the record and the asteroid impact might have been a coup de grace. I find it hard to imagine that sea turtles and crocadillians would survive while various marine reptiles did not -- moasaurs, plesiosaurs, icthyosaurs, etc. I suppose there will be no easy answers.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:extinctions by Paltin · · Score: 2

      This is one of the bigger problems with the impact hypothesis. Also, amphibians were largely unaffected, and they tend to be very sensitive to environmental problems. Impact having an important contribution to the extinction is still the leading hypothesis, even if there are some things that aren't understood.

    2. Re:extinctions by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      how dare you deny the impact theory. Just because there's valid questions to it doesn't mean it's not true and we should blindly believe everything that is said about it. Raise taxes and fund steps that may or may not do any good.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:extinctions by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      "...some form of communicable disease that was stressing the dinosaur population..."

      Try rewriting that as "...some form of communicable disease that was stressing the mammal population..." - it doesn't really make sense, does it? Dinosaur diversity back then was similar to mammal diversity now* - one disease isn't going to account for all, or even a large fraction, of them.

      However, the dinosaurs may well have been stressed by evolving mammal and bird competitors - some think that this was the primary reason for their extinction, with the asteroid impact being secondary or even uninvolved.

      * Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on dinosaur or mammal diversity.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    4. Re:extinctions by the+biologist · · Score: 1

      Given that dinosaurs rose to prominence after mammals were already scurrying around... I don't think the stress of the mammals is relevant.

    5. Re:extinctions by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      This is one of the bigger problems with the impact hypothesis. Also, amphibians were largely unaffected, and they tend to be very sensitive to environmental problems...

      Since the alternative hypotheses claim that non-impact environmental problems caused the gradual extinction of the non-flying dinosaurs I don't see how the survival of the amphibian lineages is a distinctive problem for the impact hypothesis.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    6. Re:extinctions by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      The thing that I always wondered about with the asteroid impact theory is that we have several species of large reptiles that survived the extinction event.

      Actually you mean "lineages", taxonomic groups that survived. Note that the dinosaurs were in no way reptiles - any more than birds are (quite literally, they are the descendants of flying dinosaurs). The dinosaurs had quite different metabolisms and behavioral patterns, which are postulated to have created unique vulnerabilities to the impact stresses.

      While I'm no scientist, I'm wondering if there might not have been some form of communicable disease that was stressing the dinosaur population beforehand that accounts for the gradual diminishing of fossils in the record and the asteroid impact might have been a coup de grace.

      Theories of this type have been floated. One problem with this approach is that when talking about "the dinosaurs" we are talking about a large group of diverse species, along the same lines as talking about "the mammals" (we currently count about 4600 mammal species). The notion of a disease that is endemic across such a diverse group of distantly related species on several separate continents and also has similar effects on population survival on all of them is hard to swallow. Think about one disease that causes the extinction of the North American bison and the Asian tiger and the African naked mole rat and the Australian kangaroo and the South American primates (I leave bats out of this example because the bird dinosaur lineages did not go extinct).

      I find it hard to imagine that sea turtles and crocadillians would survive while various marine reptiles did not -- moasaurs, plesiosaurs, icthyosaurs, etc. I suppose there will be no easy answers.

      BTW the marine reptiles you mention went extinct 20 million years prior to the end of the Cretaceous. But this type of argument is a problem for every extinction theory - why did some lineages go extinct but not others? The fact is we do see these differential extinction patterns repeatedly so clearly extinction events play favorites over and over.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  15. Mooing ostriches by tepples · · Score: 1

    ...I assert that dinosaurs did not growl or make any other scary sounds...they mooed.

    "Mooing" isn't actually far off the mark, given videos like this and this. One might imagine that this antediluvian bird (pictured: a modern reconstruction of the raptor Deinonychus) might have made similar sounds.

  16. Jumping to conclusions by Translation+Error · · Score: 2

    It sounds like some people are really jumping to conclusions here. While finding a fossil from the time of the asteroid impact does indicate all dinosaurs hadn't died out before then, it doesn't mean they weren't gradually dying out due to environmental changes.

    Someone dying when a rock fell on his head isn't proof he wasn't wasting away from a terminal disease.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    1. Re:Jumping to conclusions by MaxBooger · · Score: 1

      They must have got the mat.

    2. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Paltin · · Score: 1

      Gradual extinction is still a possibility, but that's been covered by other studies and there is little to no evidence that specifically supports it.

      What this paper does way in on is the claims that the extinction happened a long time (3m of rock worth of time) before the impact. If this is an unreworked bone, those claims are dead.

    3. Re:Jumping to conclusions by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Just like a loose correlation between atmospheric carbon and temperature rise doesn't mean SUVs are killing the earth.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gradual extinction is still a possibility, but that's been covered by other studies and there is little to no evidence that specifically supports it.

      What this paper does [weigh] in on is the claims that the extinction happened a long time (3m of rock worth of time) before the impact. If this is an unreworked bone, those claims are dead.

      ftfy

  17. Not dead yet! by tverbeek · · Score: 1

    I have a living alligator here that would like to argue with that "last dinosaur" designation.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:Not dead yet! by Urkki · · Score: 3, Funny

      Alligators are not dinosaurs, they're Crurotarsi, which are well known to deeply hate dinosaurs for playing dirty tricks on 'em back in the Triassic-Jurassic transition. So for your own sake, don't even mention dinosaurs to your pet alligator, and especially don't start an argument about it! Only thing the alligator is going to like about the argument is taste of your ripped-off limbs!

    2. Re:Not dead yet! by jaroslav · · Score: 1

      That's true. You could have at least chosen a bird instead.

    3. Re:Not dead yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a living alligator here that would like to argue with that "last dinosaur" designation.

      Alligators are not dinosaurs, they're Crurotarsi

      That's true. You could have at least chosen a bird instead.

      I had a dead turkey on my lunch plate that would have liked to argue with that "last dinosaur" designation, but I ate it.

    4. Re:Not dead yet! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Dinosaurs != reptiles.
      However, I've seen a lot of birds hereabouts who would like to submit that they're pretty darn closely related to dinosaurs.

      Maybe non-resistant species died off due to the dinosaur equivalent of an avian flu, and the rest adapted/mutated? The impact event likely hastened this process by completely eliminating species who couldn't adapt quickly enough... leaving us with quickly adapting species that continued to adapt to compete with the uprising of mammalian and insectoid species.

      I always wonder at the fact that flying relatives survived, but marine relatives didn't -- and reptiles did.

    5. Re:Not dead yet! by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      You could make a better case for a dinosaur being an alligator than vice versa. Your post would work a lot better if you cited your pet parakeet.

    6. Re:Not dead yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alligators are not dinosaurs. Birds are.

    7. Re:Not dead yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a living alligator here that would like to argue with that "last dinosaur" designation.

      I have a crocodile that'd like to argue about your alligator living.

    8. Re:Not dead yet! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      alligators are not dinosaurs. Birds are.

      Birds are not alligators, dumbass. Jeez, the level of stupidity on slashdot these days...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  18. Fossils of the mass extinction by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

    One would think that the upheavals of the extinction event would have created some mass graveyards that could be found at the layer itself. I realize that in the grand scheme of things, the one wiped out generation is a statistical blip relative to the millions of generations that came and went through the normal lives and deaths, but given the scale of the disruption to normal ecology, it would be nice to find boneyards right on the KT boundary event itself.

    1. Re:Fossils of the mass extinction by the+biologist · · Score: 1

      If every deer in the USA dropped dead right now, would you expect to find mass graveyards? Mass fossil graveyards are very unusual things. There is no expectation of ever finding a boneyard coinciding with the KT boundary event.

  19. Poor theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dinosaurs could not have died from climate change. They didn't have SUVs.

    Stupid heads.

  20. Questionable evidence by Qatz · · Score: 1

    I always take such finds with a grain of salt. Especially when there are a number of theories that are competing with it. First off there is a large margin of error in the K-T boundary. Second it was an asteroid may have *GASP* moved a lot of dirt, and possibly brought things closer to the surface.

  21. No public option! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because mister "We need a public option", Liberman, suddenly changed his mind and made sure there wasn't one.

  22. K-T boundary is well defined by mangu · · Score: 2

    K-T boundary has is dated to (65.5 ± 0.3) Ma, the Cretaceousâ"Tertiary extinction event is dated to 65.5 Ma, so the impact could have been the day the last dinosaurs were alive, it could have been 300,000 years before, 11 years after, or 213,417 years after.

    You are assuming both calculations are independent, but they may not be. The asteroid collision threw up a lot of chemicals which characterize well the asteroid collision, among them an abundance of iridium.

    You don't need to calculate the date exactly, if a fossil is in this iridium rich layer you can assume it died on the asteroid impact, that is both events happened on the same date even if you don't know exactly which date it was.

  23. La la la morons by ronmon · · Score: 1

    Like any catastrophic event, a chain of events leads up to a final point of failure. The straw that broke the camel's back, as it were (at most). Almost never does one factor result in the collapse of an entire system.

  24. Volcanoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another idea to chew on: before or around most large extinction events, there is a period of heavy mountain building. MOUNTAINS KILLED DINOSAURS. AFAIK the main case for the asteroid impact theory is that there are diamonds with a particular structure and lots of iridium found in layers around the extinction, suggesting that there was an extraterrestrial impact (because iridium is rare in the Earth's crust, and diamond particulates of that composition are also rare).

    But both can be found in the lower layers of the Earth. Volcanoes are known for blowing crap from lower layers onto the crust. The Deccan Traps were very active around this time period, spewing heavy elements into the air. A long and protracted period of volcanism and resulting environmental changes is a much more sound explanation for the phenomena.

    Of course, the biggest piece of evidence that dinosaurs weren't killed by asteroids is the fact that not all dinosaurs are extinct.

    1. Re:Volcanoes by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Another idea to chew on: before or around most large extinction events, there is a period of heavy mountain building. MOUNTAINS KILLED DINOSAURS. AFAIK the main case for the asteroid impact theory is that there are diamonds with a particular structure and lots of iridium found in layers around the extinction, suggesting that there was an extraterrestrial impact (because iridium is rare in the Earth's crust, and diamond particulates of that composition are also rare).

      But both can be found in the lower layers of the Earth.

      All of the theories of the type "there was no giant impact because Earth-bound processes caused all of the impact signatures" are dead (and they died quickly in the 1980s). Why? Because the KT boundary contains all of the expected signatures of a major impact - including ones that only occur during asteroid impacts. The smoking gun is not diamonds, but shock-transformed quartz of which about 1 cubic kilometer was deposited in North America strata. This quartz only forms when a multi-megabar (millions of atmospheres) shock wave passes through cold quartz. It never forms in Earth-bound processes since pressures of that range are only found where it is extremely hot. Even the most violent volcanism cannot create the necessary pressures.

      Volcanoes are known for blowing crap from lower layers onto the crust. The Deccan Traps were very active around this time period, spewing heavy elements into the air. A long and protracted period of volcanism and resulting environmental changes is a much more sound explanation for the phenomena.

      And they may well have contributed to the extinction event. This is considered a real possibility. How is this "more sound" for the final extinction though?

      Of course, the biggest piece of evidence that dinosaurs weren't killed by asteroids is the fact that not all dinosaurs are extinct.

      This is a big piece of something, but not evidence. Nobody is claiming that an asteroid impact "killed all the dinosaurs", only the ones that actually went extinct.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  25. The proof for me will be ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The clincher will be when they find the dinosaur fossil with a big lump on its head from where the asteroid hit. Just kidding, I'm actually pretty much convinced of this already.

  26. Re:Oh no by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Typical assholes. You can't be black or gay here. You get mooded down by the hyper elit global warmining believing jerks. I go from great karma to terrible karma in 2 hours for posting a comment questioning global warming. You will probably get the same treatment by the mods for being a gay nigger. Sorry. I feel your pain.

    What a load of bollocks, when the subject comes up, you get at least as many "AGW is an evil conspiracy by liberals to stop us driving our cars and owning assault rifles" posts as ones by "hyper elit global warmining believing jerks".

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  27. It is a conspracy by Pigskin-Referee · · Score: 0

    After having listened to those enlightened "Intelligent Design" proponents, I was informed that dinosaurs are really just part of a conspiracy plot by those pesky "Evolution" theorists whose sole purpose is to steal your soul for Satan.

    --
    Pigskin-Referee
    Linux: Yesterday's technology, tomorrow ...
    1. Re:It is a conspracy by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Your ID proponent people lied to you. Flat out lied.

      If they're friends, dump them ; if they're family, try to get their thinking straightened out. There are deprogramming camps and things for curing religion.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    2. Re:It is a conspracy by Pigskin-Referee · · Score: 1

      Your ID proponent people lied to you. Flat out lied.

      If they're friends, dump them ; if they're family, try to get their thinking straightened out. There are deprogramming camps and things for curing religion.

      You do realize that my post was not to be taken seriously I hope.

      --
      Pigskin-Referee
      Linux: Yesterday's technology, tomorrow ...
  28. Old news? by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

    I've heard and read many times, since years and years ago already, that dinosaurs went instinct due to an asteroid impact.

    And now a news article is saying dinosaurs went instinct due to an asteroid impact?

  29. ItsTheOxygenAndDeadPlants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Large creatures were pushed to extinction when the oxygen dropped sufficating them. Look at the HUGE dragonflies - they could NOT survive at current oxygen levels - physically impossible for them to get enough with the respiration system they had/have - same thing with the large creatures of the day, and the smaller ones adapted to that level of air mix - and when it changed quickly, they could not adapt and died. Smaller creatures survived, and later adapted/grew somewhat larger when the positions in the vacated biosphere were available - but nothing as large as before on massive scales.

    SO the question remains - what was the cause of the oxygen/co2 mix change - lots of plants die with less sunshine causing FURTHER depletion when they start to decay. Now the question is simply what was the cause of the plant deaths NOT the animal deaths - that animal death is simply a tertiary effect.

    1. Re:ItsTheOxygenAndDeadPlants by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      That's about 240 million years further back in time from the case under discussion.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"