Disposing a hypothesis

[E.P. Grondine]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... source=rss

I have to say that this hypothesis certainly had some appeal - new desease vectors can lead to die offs approaching those of impacts, and I made the mistake of dating the Holocene start impacts at 8,350 BCE, when the Red Paint people introduced European disease vectors to the Americas.

But first off we can pretty well demonstrate from several sites that man was in the Americas way before Clovis, say around 45,000 BCE.

Second, the peoples remembered the impacts:
http://forum.palanth.com/index.php/topic,1093.0.html
and the later introduction of the European disease vectors, as in the tradition of the origin of the false face societies among the Five Nations,

but not an anthrax or rabies outbreak.

[Minimalist]

This is not on topic but....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 010803.htm

The newest research, led by Gerta Keller of Princeton University in New Jersey, and Thierry Adatte of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, uses evidence from Mexico to suggest that the Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary by as much as 300,000 years.

If the dinosaurs survived such a massive impact for 300K years it suggests that impacts may not be all THAT deadly.

Comments?

[kbs2244]

"Humans traversing the land bridge could have scavenged carcasses of bison and other mammals killed by anthrax. "

COULD have scavenged carcasses??

They COULD have sprouted wings and flown over too.

Thiss is just anouther attempt to prop up the land bridge theory of how NA was first populated.

[Minimalist]

"Humans traversing the land bridge could have scavenged carcasses of bison and other mammals killed by anthrax. "

COULD have scavenged carcasses??

They COULD have sprouted wings and flown over too.

Thiss is just anouther attempt to prop up the land bridge theory of how NA was first populated.

Well, kb, you have to admit that they are getting more inventive.



Seriously, wouldn't the short faced bears and sabre-toothed tigers have gotten to those carcasses first?

[Digit]

Classic scenario there Min. I've seen some of the evidence and typically each side of the debate claims that the evidence 'proves' their case!
Heads or tails mate!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Just like lawyers, man.

[E.P. Grondine]

This is not on topic but....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 010803.htm

The newest research, led by Gerta Keller of Princeton University in New Jersey, and Thierry Adatte of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, uses evidence from Mexico to suggest that the Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary by as much as 300,000 years.

If the dinosaurs survived such a massive impact for 300K years it suggests that impacts may not be all THAT deadly.

Comments?

Hi Min -

This is impact politics; here's a five minute elevator briefing. There is a tremendous amount of denial going on about the severity and frequency of impacts, and it is well funded. Keller has come out yearly with this stuff, using NSF fundng, only to have it shot down again and again and again by field geologists working on no money. I suppose the NSF simply wants to make this problem disappear.

You can go back into the Cambridge Conference archives before 2004 and read all about Keller's previous efforts.

When the KT impactor hit, everything within line of sight of the plume, which extended to space, was instantly set on fire by infrared released in the impact. Then came the blast wave, and then a rain of molten rock which set everything on the face of the Earth on fire.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

[Digit]

which set everything on the face of the Earth on fire.

According to a researcher on TV over here there is only charcoal evidence for that claim over a (relatively) small area. Not world wide.
Logic says that if it were world wide everything would have been killed from beneath the soil surface upwards, yet there was survival.

Roy

[Minimalist]

I'm only into chapter 2 of your book, E.P.

I've heard of Keller before, though. I see nothing wrong with a little scholarly give and take. And, Digit's point bears considering.