A few days ago, I finished reading _Dinosaur Extinction and the End of an
Era: What the Fossils Say_ by J. David Archibald. (This is part of
Columbia's "Critical Moments in Paleobiology and Earth History Series."
Another title in this series, which I enjoyed reading several years ago, is
_The Emergence of Animals: The Cambrian Breakthrough_ by Mark A. S.
McMenamin and Dianna L. Schulte McMenamin. I plan to read more books in
this series.) In it, Archibald takes on the bolide [asteroid or comet]
impact theory of extinction.
I admit, I have some problems with it. What!?! The usual way the scenario
is put, it's hard to believe anything above bugs and bacteria would survive.
There has to be a reason why crocodiles, mammals, lizards, toads, and birds
made it, but T. rex didn't. A big asteroid hit would seem to be more
egalitarian in its affects, taking out all major groups -- not specifically
targeting nonavian dinosaurs.
He then presents marine regression as a major cause of extinction here.
Marine regression is -- you guessed it! -- the tide going out and not coming
back. Archibald points out the myriads effects of sea level changes and how
this correlates well with the fossil evidence -- much better than an impact
or massive volcanism.
He thinks a mixture killed off the nonavian dinosaurs, including marine
regression, large scale volcanism, and -- you guessed it -- an impact. It's
very well written and he goes through pains not only to explain the ideas,
but to show the shortcomings of his science, paleontology, and the fossil
record.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
See more of my blatantly mistaken ideas at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:04 MDT