Dinosaur Extinction

[Minimalist]

Human & Dinosaur Fossils. Human bones and tools coexist in the same fossil layers as dinosaur bones in Texas and the Dakotas.



http://www.flintstonesbedrockcity.com/gallery.php

Here we have living proof, IN SOUTH DAKOTA, that early man
both lived and walked with the dinosaurs!
It's enough proof for me!

More photos of the Creation Museum, eh Roberto!

[Digit]

Thank you Roberto! I needed to know that!

[Rokcet Scientist]

All of that may well be accurate, but I think 'outside the box' .
Birds are warm blooded, with a few exceptions, and therefore need a constant supply of food. If birds found sufficient to live on for the months/years of nuclear winter why didn't similar sized dinos.

Because they were eaten by big, very hungry predators in their last resort?

Why did some turtles survive?

The Koala/Panda syndrome: no more (specialized) food available. They starved.

If, as is claimed by some, that wild fires covered the Earth, and they need that scenario to explain their claimed CO2 rise to fuel their claimed massive temp increase, where was the the basis of the food chain needed by any animal?

I've got BIIIG problems with that scenario as "nuclear winter" means a drastic cooling off of earth's temperatures. Not a rise!

Those species that survived must have been able to survive on what was left after all the gloom and doom had reached its height, what is the common factor that links all those surviving species? I can find none.

I can: adaptability! Those that could adapt – eat different foods, cover vast distances, burrowing, etc. – to the drastically changed conditions survived. Those that couldn't, didn't!

There is not even any conclusive evidence to link the Iridium layer to the time of the dino's extinction. That may have been the case but dino species had been in decline for years before.
If the strike killed off the dinos, and other large animals rapidly, there should have been many thousands of corpses immediately below the Iridium, because no such number of dinos should have died in such a short time under 'normal' conditions.

1) your dino corpses would be immediately above the irridium layer, Dig.
2) most dino corpses would be scavenged by hungry predators during the 'nuclear winter'. Most of what remained after that simply dissolved like any corpse does.

This does not appear to be the case.
The supporters of the idea claim that earthquakes and volcanic activity would have resulted from the strike. This should have preserved some at least of the millions of corpses that are supposed to have been laying around.
Again this seems not have been the case.

IF corpses were not scavenged and not dissolved, and covered by volcanic ash and/or lava – that would be a very small minority to begin with, imo (animals flee impending volcano eruptions and earthquakes!) – may mean we still have to find 'm!
After all, for a very long time, in fact still today, the official view on the peopling of NA is the Clovis-first theory, which are – in the formal opinion of "the Club" – supposed to have come via the Beringian landbridge, 14,500 yrs BP.
Why did that theory evolve? Because they hadn't found any other, older, signs of human occupation.
But they have now! Our own dearly departed Charlie found hundreds of hand-axes! And then there's the Valsequillo site. So The Club must adapt it's position. But they refuse to acknowledge they were wrong, so they maintain the Clovis-first stance.

When I see answers to these and other points I consider the case not proven. I even used all this in the book I wrote, but I don't have to accept it.

Of course. What we know and understand of all that is in constant flux. Which is why it's so interesting, imo. Set views are boring.

[Digit]

If predators are not to wipe out their prey the prey has to be far more numerous than the predator.
Predators normally go after the aged, the sick, and the young, therefore there has to be, apart from sufficent of those types, but also a much larger breeding stock.
EG, count the numer of Lions in Africa then count the numbers of Gnus for example. No predator could eat that lot before they rotted away, therefore millions of corpses would have been available for fossilisation immediately above the Iridium.
Supporters of the idea who insist the strike killed the dinos do so because there are no fossils above the Iridium. Logic says there should more above than below, even allowing that desperate predators would have eaten the decaying corpses, not even they could have destroyed the leg bones of the really large plant eaters.
The absence of fossils above the Iridium suggests that they were gone before the strike. Not the other way around.
That may be wrong, but it is a damned sight more logical than the strike doing it, here we have a mass murder and not a corpse in sight.

[/i]

[Rokcet Scientist]

If predators are not to wipe out their prey the prey has to be far more numerous than the predator.
Predators normally go after the aged, the sick, and the young, therefore there has to be, apart from sufficent of those types, but also a much larger breeding stock.

Indeed: "normally".
The 65 mio KTA event, however, was a very abnormal event, causing very abnormal conditions. With abnormal 'solutions' and consequences.

EG, count the numer of Lions in Africa then count the numbers of Gnus for example. No predator could eat that lot before they rotted away, therefore millions of corpses would have been available for fossilisation immediately above the Iridium.

"Available" for fossilization yes. But that doesn't mean they were actually fossilized. FYI: 99,9% of organic matter dissolves after death. It does NOT fossilize automatically.

Supporters of the idea who insist the strike killed the dinos do so because there are no fossils above the Iridium. Logic says there should more above than below, even allowing that desperate predators would have eaten the decaying corpses, not even they could have destroyed the leg bones of the really large plant eaters.

No, but time could. And did. Easily.

The absence of fossils above the Iridium suggests that they were gone before the strike. Not the other way around.
That may be wrong, but it is a damned sight more logical than the strike doing it, here we have a mass murder and not a corpse in sight.

"The strike" didn't kill off the dinos, etc. (except in Yucatan and a 1,000 miles around). "The strike" lasted a mere 10 seconds or so. The subsequent debris 'rain' perhaps a few hours. OK, a few weeks, if you insist. But it was the long-term consequences of the strike – nuclear winter – that did 99% of the damage.

[Minimalist]

Again, we see Firestone's theory of a comet strike in NA wiping out the megafauna but not the smaller critters.

Perhaps birth rates ( multiple births as opposed to single-births?) and much shorter generations have something to do with it? A mammoth taking a year to produce a single infant is somewhat different than a rabbit cranking out a whole litter every six days or whatever!

[Digit]

"The strike" didn't kill off the dinos

I stand corrected.
Those who claim to know more about these things than me say that one animal in 100Mill is fossilised. I accept.
That figure is because of the 'normal' conditions at that time, and one of the major factors for such a low figure is the activity of predators breaking up the corpses and carrying off the bones, but like I said, if you wiped out every Gnu in Africa not all the predators could remove the evidence before they rotted away and the predators perished.
But less us assume that the predators did manage to clear all the evidence, where are the predators corpses?
The logical answer, and I stress that I am basing my arguments on the logic, is that no corpse equals no crime.
The same chances of fossiliation must have existed after the gloom and doom bit as before hand.

[Digit]

Perhaps birth rates ( multiple births as opposed to single-births?) and much shorter generations have something to do with it? A mammoth taking a year to produce a single infant is somewhat different than a rabbit cranking out a whole litter every six days or whatever!

Now that does make sense! But the absence of fossils above the Iridium still implies that the majority of Dinos were gone before the Iridium was laid down. The alternate scenario requires the turning of logic upside down.
If you found your vehicle buried under a cliff fall you would have a reasonable idea that your vehicle was there before the fall took place.
The 'normal' scenario offered for the dino extinction required the opposite view to be correct.

[Minimalist]

Geologically, how thick would the iridium layer be? How long would it take to settle out of the atmosphere? If it took a month, most large animals would have starved to death in the meanwhile. One would expect that the predators could feed on carrion for a while but really, how long? A week...two weeks? After that they'd be poisoning themselves.

I have to look into this whole iridium layer issue in a lot more depth. Unfortunatley, right now I'm blasting the living hell out of Arch.

[Digit]

Interesting point there Min, Iridium is considered as non-toxic because so little of it is available to experiment with, but it is a heavy metal and according to my readings, 'appropriate safety precautions should be taken'.
But it depends on the form the Iridium took, some of its salts very definitely are toxic, and relevent to you suggestion, ingesting the metal causes irritation of the digestive tract.
(Time for one of your pics I think!)

[Rokcet Scientist]

Geologically, how thick would the iridium layer be?

From what I've seen of it, it's less than 5 millimeters thick. It's got to be pointed out to you (to me, anyway) or you'll miss it and you have to squint to see it.

I'm not at all sure of that Iridium being an important cause of death. I don't think it was. But it is important as a precise marker for the event.

[Digit]

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/a.buckley/dino.htm

[Minimalist]

I didn't mean to suggest that they'd be eating iridium. More likely that if you start nibbling on a 3 week old carcass you're taking your life in your hands....or teeth.

[Digit]

True Min. This is what I wrote for a book and sums up the pros and cons as I see it.

Sir Anthony looked at me again. I felt very sorry for the old boy. He was probably the only person present who really understood what we were facing. “To return to my earlier question Doctor, what sort of world would the survivors inherit?”
“To be blunt, Sir Anthony, pretty grim. If our computer models are correct, the degree of darkness, and its duration, would be determined by the average size of the dust particles in the higher levels of the atmosphere, and that would be determined by the composition of the comet and where it impacted. That is why we cannot be one hundred per-cent sure of our ground, Mister Kennedy.” Sir Anthony nodded in understanding as I continued. “If the strike was into one of the oceans there would be the additional complication of millions of tonnes of water vapour injected into the higher reaches of the atmosphere as well to contend with.”
“I wouldn't have thought there could be a much worse scenario than the one you have already painted so vividly,” the P.M. suggested.
“If the computer models are correct, then I'm afraid it could be worse, very much worse, Prime Minister.”
“Go on, surprise us,” Kennedy gibed.
“The various chemical interactions within the stratosphere would probably result in the complete destruction of the ozone layer I'm afraid.”
“So once again Doctor, I ask you, what sort of world would be awaiting any survivors?” Sir Anthony insisted.
I took my handkerchief from my pocket and wiped my brow, the sun streaming through the windows was making the room uncomfortably hot, though no one else seemed to notice. “In areas close to ground zero, everything would be destroyed, by impact, by heat, and by blast. Further away, survival would be determined mainly by chance. Well away from any impact the winds should lessen to survivable levels, but as the dust and water vapour spread around the planet, the sun could be blotted out to the equivalent of moonlight at noon we believe. All green things would then die!”
I paused to take another sip from my glass before continuing. “With the loss of the plant life the food chain would be destroyed, all fungi, all insects, all birds, all animals that depended directly on the plants for their food would also die. All carnivores that depended on the plant eaters would also perish as their prey vanished. The food chain in the oceans would be similarly disrupted. Survivors, when they climbed out of their shelters, would be faced with unending darkness with perhaps just enough light for them to move around during the middle of the day. Then there would be the cold,” I added.
“The cold?” Kennedy repeated.
“We estimate perhaps as low as minus fifty degrees Celsius,” I told him, “so anything that could survive the other conditions would probably die of thirst. As the sunlight returned, seeds that had lain dormant should begin once more to grow. Animals that were able to hibernate successfully should also survive if the temperature rises soon enough, but if their food had vanished, they too would then perish. The loss of the ozone layer could result in large numbers of mutations till the layer rebuilds itself.”
My words were greeted with a shocked silence broken only as the Home Secretary noisily cleared his throat.
“Just how much of this are you and your colleagues certain of Doctor?”
“Frankly Sir, not much. I'm sure you followed my reasoning on the destruction of the food chain,” I suggested, then continued as he nodded in agreement, “and yet, if each deduction follows logically from its predecessor, then the scenario I have just presented would seem to condemn every living creature on this planet to certain extinction. But, statistically, the Earth must have suffered a similar fate on a number of occasions in the past. But there was survival!” I stressed.
“The Dinosaurs?” The P.M. suggested.
Again I nodded. “Perhaps. There is still so much that we don't understand.”

[/i]

[Rokcet Scientist]

A mammoth taking a year to produce a single infant is somewhat different than a rabbit cranking out a whole litter every six days or whatever!

Abso-fuckin'-lutely!
Elephant's gestation period is 22 months, the longest of any land animal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant

I bet the mammoth's was the same.

However, often not the gestation period, but the nursing/caring/dependancy period is what's important. Elephant mothers take care exclusively of their calves for a year and do not get pregnant in that period. Orang Utans take care exclusively of their young for seven years! And rarely have another young in that time.