Yeah--how does he explain the K-T boundary?
jm
On 12 May 2001, at 10:35, Technotranscendence wrote:
> 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/
>
John Marlow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:05 MDT