What Really Killed the Dinosaurs?

[Pinch Paxton]

Also you say hundred, and hundreds of species, but I am relating my idea to a time that genes become too similar to continue a species. This time period would be a mathematical formula that would extinguish many species who had lived for a similar number of generations.

[Sayonara]

IT'S NOT UP TO US TO PROVE YOU WRONG - IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE YOU RIGHT, AND SO FAR YOU ARE NOT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE OR ACTUAL LOGIC.

 

'scuse caps. Been working with capslock on and I'm not typing all that again.

 

You might want to do more reading on this, seeing as the scientists behind the challenge to the asteroid extinction theory said that "one impact is too simple [referring to a specific event]... two or more impacts caused the extinction".

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "ahead of science" - that's something of a contradiction in terms.

[Pinch Paxton]

So science provided the evidence that a meteor killed the dinosaurs? Actually my evidence in this case is quite simple. All you have to do is calculate the number of dinosaurs that reach maturity and breed from a single set of parents. Then you need to calculate how many of these would pass on an heriditary gene that is dormant until it is passed on to a female carrying another heriditary gene that combines with the male's gene. These two genes together causing child defect. Then it would be possible to calculate if there would be a substantial dormant period, allowing both male, and female to breed dormancy to extinction. I don't need to prove any of this, it's all hypothetical. I believe that the thread was meant to be hypothetical in its nature anyway.

 

What really killed the dinosaurs? sounds hypothetical to me. I'm fed up of the bad attitude that is generated on this site from any sort of comment that is not already known about.

 

Pincho.

[mooeypoo]

I actually tend to agree with you, pinch, that the dinosaurs weren't necessarily extinct by meteor, and it might ahve been genetical I just don't agree on the way you present the things.. I admit my knowledge in biology and genes is quite limited but from what I *do* know, it's not that simple to just calculate things like that...

 

I agree though - the theory that dinosaurs were extinct by a meteor is not entirely proven, its an educated assumption and should be treated as such.

 

~moo

[Sayonara]

That's not evidence - that's you misunderstanding genetics.

 

If that's your theory you are going to have to also explain things like the fact that sharks and crocodiles outlasted the dinosaurs by millions of years, and why life persists at all, because your hypothesis has to take related obervable effects into account.

[Sayonara]

mooeypoo said in post # :

I agree though - the theory that dinosaurs were extinct by a meteor is not entirely proven, its an educated assumption and should be treated as such.

While this is true (kind of) it would definitely help Pinch if he were to start of by researching what is already known (IE - not assumed or guessed) before he starts coming up with theories. It would really help.

[mooeypoo]

I completely agree.

 

My point was that it's only a theory, though. But of course - in order to find flaws or find a "better" theory, you need to know what already exists. Of course.

 

that's why I'm reading Hawkings book now finally

Sorting myself before I can start understanding tyhat string theory I heard about ...

 

 

~moo

[Pinch Paxton]

If that's your theory you are going to have to also explain things like the fact that sharks and crocodiles outlasted the dinosaurs by millions of years

 

Hypothetically, I was thinking that the child defects from the parents carrying the bad genes cause a mutation that was allowed to continue the species. The mutation from T-rex could have bread with, and led to crocodiles, and alligators, very quickly compared to normal evolution. I expect this transition from T-rex to crocodile to actuall improve the crocodile gene pool, and continue the species for many more years. But again, I expect someone to use bad manners.

 

Pincho.

[mooeypoo]

Oii Oiii...

Crocodiles (though a bit different in size) were existing in the jurassic era, along with the dinosaurs. So did whales, btw. They weren't "developed from dinos" they WERE in the DINO's era.

 

Check your info. That part actually supports Sayonara's side in the debate...

 

 

~moo

[Sayonara]

Pinch Paxton said in post # :

Hypothetically, I was thinking that the child defects from the parents carrying the bad genes cause a mutation that was allowed to continue the species. The mutation from T-rex could have bread with, and led to crocodiles, and alligators, very quickly compared to normal evolution. I expect this transition from T-rex to crocodile to actuall improve the crocodile gene pool, and continue the specis for many more years. But again, I expect someone to use bad manners.

 

Pincho.

Having studied this sort of thing in great depth, and at great expense, and having put it a damned large amount of effort and time to earn my degree, and having gone out of my way to review the background information that consideration of your theory needs despite my fears that it's a house of cards, and considering your obvious lack of knowledge in the area of basic Mendelian genetics, your unwillingness to apply simple scientific methods, and the fact that you can't even be bothered to glance at an evolutionary chart of the animalia, I find the accusation "I don't have to prove it, you just have a bad attitude" to be really quite offensive.

 

That should give you some perspective on why your theories aren't being terribly well-received.

[Pinch Paxton]

No I meant that they breed with existing crocodiles because T-rex became smaller and more awkward. This then increased the croc gene pool. I knew already that crocs existed then. I beleive that they were a bit larger, but I may be wrong on that. Do I really have to check the sizes of them as well?

[atinymonkey]

Crocs predate dinosaurs, actually. But I think it's just an example.

[Sayonara]

mooeypoo said in post # :

Crocodiles (though a bit different in size) were existing in the jurassic era, along with the dinosaurs. So did whales, btw. They weren't "developed from dinos" they WERE in the DINO's era.

 

Check your info. That part actually supports Sayonara's side in the debate...

This is true. Same for sharks iirc.

 

That's why I chose them you see, to demonstrate that it's easy enough to come up with a new theory as to why X happens, but it also needs to explain Y and Z if it is supposed to supercede theory A which currently explains them all.

 

Fun eh?

[mooeypoo]

Actually, it is

 

And Pinch -- how do you base your assumption of cross breeding between T-Rex and Crocs (even if it was physically possible, and of course - THAT SIMPLE genewise)...

 

~moo

[Pinch Paxton]

Mutations would allow some cross breeding, because a large number of mutations would allow for a large number of possibilities, and results.

[Sayonara]

Just "no", OK?

[Gampin]

too many carbs

[mooeypoo]

Genes and mutations and cross breading doesn't work like that, pinch.

If it did, you could have had Dogmen and Birdcows.

They could be very useful.

 

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Gampin said in post # :

too many carbs

Whatever.

Dogmen? Have you seen Spaceballs? It's "Mog."

Crossbreeding would lead to some very weird things.

[Pinch Paxton]

Mankind isn't at the end of its gene pool though. Imagine two species like T-Rex, and crocodiles both coming to the end of their gene pools. T-rex reduces in size and becomes weaker, his forearms shrink, and if he falls he has a problem getting up again. So T-rex moves into water, where he feels more stable. Crocs are in the water, maybe larger than normal crocs of today. T-rex mates, and the water contains T-rex genes. Crocs mate, and the water contains croc genes. Somehow this swamp of mixed genes contaminates both species, and the two become intertwined after a few years. That's why all of the T-rex that we find have these small forearms, we are finding the more recent mutated T-rex, rather than an older perfect version, which may have looked very different. We might even confuse older T-rex with a different species of dinosaur. This is still theoretical.

 

Pincho.

[atinymonkey]

It's not theoretical. That's not a theory. You see, there has to be something (evidence etc) to substanciate a theory.

[Pinch Paxton]

Like a giant meteor you mean? Or a giant crator? Then I would have a great theory huh?

[mooeypoo]

Also, with our "cracking of the genom" knowledge and our advanced technology we are DESPERATELY (whether its ethical or not is for another interresting debate) trying to CREATE those breedings, and constantly failing.

 

Those things are not working through "breeding" of two species. Even when we tried to crossbreed QUITE similar animals (like mammals from the cats family - lions and tigers, for instance) it didn't really work.

 

Crossbreeding with DIFFERENT SPECIES doesnt work in nature. For this to be a valid theory it needs more than just empty speculations.

 

And yu're right, Cap'n. This is one of my favourite movies, I am ashamed for the mistake. Mogs, and (what was it? DAAAAAMN I need to see that movie again!!!!!!I'm senile!!! aaaa!!) Pizzaman? Mr. Pizza? err.. well you know what I mean. I just embarassed myself even more. I go dwell in my self pity and rent that movie again.

 

 

~moo

[mooeypoo]

Also, Pinch, you don't seem to get the point of valid theories.

 

The "giant meteor" is an accepted theory (although it has many many holes) because it has SUBSTANTIAL evidence, even if they're mostly circumstantial. There's the crater, there's the logic behind "ICE AGE" -- a huge impact on earth would have created a layer of dust in the atmosphere which could have caused such an Ice Age, the depth and size of the crater near Mexico fits the estimations of an impact and so on.

 

The theory doesn't need to be flawless to be accepted (HELL, It's a THEORY) - it needs to be LOGICAL.

 

Support your theory on logic, we might accept it.

 

~moo

[Pinch Paxton]

I've seen Ligers already, they are easy to breed. So are some other cross breeding animals. Zebras and horses are easy. T-rex, and crocs are very similar. Actually I think that lizards are easier than mammals to cross breed.