What Really Killed the Dinosaurs?

[Ms. DNA]

(I wasn't sure if this topic should go here or in the news forum. Feel free to move it if necessary.)

 

According to a paleontologist from Princeton, the asteriod that fell in the Yucatan and is commonly believed to have killed the dinosaurs may not have been the chief cause of their extinction. Studies of rock formations in the area suggest that the asteriod fell about 300,000 years after the dinosaurs became extinct and that the crater is smaller than originally thought. Microfossils also suggest that the many organisms were already endangered before the asteriod fell, and the asteriod may have been the "final straw." Here's the link to the complete article:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/03/02/coolsc.dinosaurs.extinction/index.html

[Atlantic]

I made a very educated (based on facts) hypothesis that humans killed them

 

BTW they dated a live penguin (carbon dating) 40k years old. I wouldn't rely on those dates.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You made a hypothesis that humans killed them, when humans didn't exist them?

Perhaps the food the penguin ate was 40k years old.

[kenel]

Do you know why the dinosaurs died? Because you touch yourself at night.

 

:flame: BURN!

[Sayonara]

Atlantic said in post # :

I made a very educated (based on facts) hypothesis that humans killed them

 

BTW they dated a live penguin (carbon dating) 40k years old. I wouldn't rely on those dates.

Who are "they"?

[Atlantic]

people who proved carbon dating ineffective.

 

btw, how do you know humans weren't around back then? were you there to see no humans?

[Sayonara]

Atlantic said in post # :

people who proved carbon dating ineffective.

Who are these "people"?

[Sayonara]

Actually I could just save you some time, and refer you to these religious folks who'd like to debunk the penguin claim for me:

 

http://www.christianforums.com/t91370

[mooeypoo]

Damnit, Sayonara you stole my post. I was about to post the same

 

By the way, SLIGHTLY off topic but not entirely - I heard there's a better way of dating than carbon dating (not because carbon dating is wrong, but there's just a more accurate way) anyone heard about it maybe?

 

AND Atlantic, how did you REACH that "very educated" hypothesis and which facts exactly did you use? Mind giving us a little info? I'm curious.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Atlantic said in post # :

btw, how do you know humans weren't around back then? were you there to see no humans?

No. Fossil evidence of the earliest human found is later than the newest dinosaur found. So unless that changes, there were no humans there.

You don't seem to trust anything we say.

[-Demosthenes-]

What do you classify as a dinosuar?

[mooeypoo]

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/index.html

and-

http://www.jpinstitute.com/dinopedia/index.jsp

 

I could give more, but the same definition of a dinosaur is relatively accepted by all scientists, so a simple google search would give you much more results.

 

~moo

[JaKiri]

Carbon dating is useless for long time differences anyway.

 

Furthermore, it only works on earth, and has several assumptions.

 

It's that kind of reason that makes me wince in Babylon 5 - Thirdspace, when they find something floating in hyperspace and carbon date it to several million years old.

[mooeypoo]

Ahh, Thanks

 

so wait, is there another dating way science uses today instead?

[Sayonara]

I like it when the only scientist in the film decides to carbon date a brick.

[atinymonkey]

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # :

No. Fossil evidence of the earliest human found is later than the newest dinosaur found. So unless that changes, there were no humans there.

You don't seem to trust anything we say.

 

Well, dinosaurs still existed past the point of the last fossil records. That voids your point somewhat. The term 'extinction of the dinosaurs' is not really true, they did not all just die out. It's a quick and dirty term for the end of the dinosaurs era as the dominant species and the rise of mammals.

 

If that's your only argument, Atlantic is still presenting the most logical point of view.

 

I presume your not a paleontologist, hence the lack of trust.

[Pinch Paxton]

Maybe their gene pool became heriditarally weaker over 16 million years? Humans are some day going to loose their blonde hair because brown hair is more dominant. Maybe this is like a countdown to extinction in a long run of time. First we loose blonde hair, then what? What happens when you are a huge population of similar genes? Could this have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?

 

Pincho.

[Sayonara]

No. Oh god, on so many levels NO.

 

You don't understand what dominance is at all.

[Pinch Paxton]

Pardon? are you disagreeing with the blonde hair thing?

[Sayonara]

If you like, yeah. If that's the bit of reply #17 you want to focus on, it really won't make much difference to me.

[Pinch Paxton]

Ok read this........

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2284783.stm

[Sayonara]

Here's a better idea: why don't you read it?

[Pinch Paxton]

Look I suppose you are saying that my interpretation is wrong, but you are too argumentative to notice that the conclusion is the same whatever meaning you decide to take. Dinosaurs could have had a recessive gene, a dominant gene to extinction, a preference for dark skin, all the same result. Maybe you should try adding to my posts rather that immediately debunking them.

 

Pincho.

[Sayonara]

Yes, your interpretation is wrong.

 

And seeing as the article concludes blonde numbers will fall but blondes will not become "extinct", the conclusions are not the same.

 

And even if the conclusions were the same, the one you are comparing it with is still wrong, because a trend in the prevalence of a single dominant gene isn't going to wipe out hundreds and hundreds of species, all at the same time.

 

Search for related articles, and you'll find how transient the whole blonde thing is. Also try looking at some actual science journals, instead of the pop-sci alarmist interpretations trotted across the media.

[Pinch Paxton]

Last week it was science that said it was a meteor. I actually already had my gene idea. I was ahead of science at that point, because my idea has not yet been totally prooved wrong, only by you, and I would expect that on here anyway.