Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Extinction of Dinosaurs: Consensus Reached . . . mostly
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 1 of 53 (549281)
03-05-2010 2:30 PM


Scientist is as Scientist does. Ever the tentative bunch, scientists have reached a "final" consensus on the cause for the extinction of the dinosaurs. The final verdict?
"Combining all available data from different science disciplines led us to conclude that a large asteroid impact 65 million years ago in modern day Mexico was the major cause of the mass extinctions."--Peter Schulte of the University of Erlangen in Germany, in this MSN article.
So the debate ending, everlasting conclusion is that the Chicxulub impact was a "major cause".
First of all, no shit. I don't think anyone has really debated that it was a factor, or even a major factor. However, this doesn't end the debate on how much other factors played in to it including supervolcanism in modern day India (the Deccan traps) or the already dwindling numbers of dinosaurs species that led up to the Chicxulub impact. So this leaves the debate right where it was before, with the Chicxulub impact being a player but also other players without a defined role.
To be fair, I have only read MSN article and not the Science article. Still, I find it funny that scientists can't stop being scientists even when trying to portray certainty in a layman fashion. The big consensus? The Chicxulub impact made the dinosaurs go extinct . . . mostly.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 03-05-2010 7:30 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2010 8:33 AM Taq has replied
 Message 10 by caffeine, posted 03-09-2010 12:47 PM Taq has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 53 (549294)
03-05-2010 4:40 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Extinction of Dinosaurs: Consensus Reached . . . mostly thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 3 of 53 (549322)
03-05-2010 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
03-05-2010 2:30 PM


The Science article sums up:
The correlation between impact-derived ejecta and
paleontologically defined extinctions at multiple
locations around the globe leads us to conclude that
the Chicxulub impact triggered the mass extinction
that marks the boundary between the Mesozoic
and Cenozoic eras ~65.5 million years ago.
So maybe the reporter was the waffly one here. The article itself also discusses some of the alternate scenarios.
Warning: it's now the K-Pg boundary, not K-T. Palaeogene seems to have supplanted Tertiary........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 03-05-2010 2:30 PM Taq has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 4 of 53 (549355)
03-06-2010 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
03-05-2010 2:30 PM


I think the paper does link the K-T (aka K-Pg in the paper) conclusively with the Chicxulub impact and provide good reason to think volcanism and multiple impact scenarios fail to explain the spread of evidence.
But there's still no explaination as to why the Chicxulub impact wiped out the non-avian dinosaurs, specifically, whilst leaving the crocodilians, birds and mammals. Similarly for the various other groups that survived or went extinct.
The paper also, bizarely, claims that "[t]he scale of biological turnover between the Cretaceous and Paleogene is nearly unprecedented in Earth history". And supports it with a reference neatly detailing the other mass extinctions... umm? And that's the real problem I have with impact explainations for the extinction of the dinosaurs - there is no evidence of impacts that co-incide with prior mass extinctions. It seems to me that the search for abiotic explainations of mass extinctions is missing the big picture: extinction seems to be a property of evolutionary systems.
Chicxulub happened, it explains the geological features of the K-T boundary. But it cannot be considered an answer to dinosaur extinction question until it can explain the distribution of survivors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 03-05-2010 2:30 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Blue Jay, posted 03-06-2010 11:54 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 7 by Taq, posted 03-09-2010 10:49 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 12 by Larni, posted 03-09-2010 1:07 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 14 by kbertsche, posted 03-09-2010 4:28 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 5 of 53 (549367)
03-06-2010 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Jack
03-06-2010 8:33 AM


Hi, Mr Jack.
Mr Jack writes:
The paper also, bizarely, claims that "[t]he scale of biological turnover between the Cretaceous and Paleogene is nearly unprecedented in Earth history". And supports it with a reference neatly detailing the other mass extinctions... umm?
It’s a poor choice of words, but, since that scale of turnover only happen four other times in half a billion years (and only two of those were at equal or greater intensity), I think it counts as nearly unprecedented.
I certainly wouldn’t have phrased it that way, though.
-----
Mr Jack writes:
Chicxulub happened, it explains the geological features of the K-T boundary. But it cannot be considered an answer to dinosaur extinction question until it can explain the distribution of survivors.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.
First, I don’t think science can really answer questions of the form, Why didn’t _____ happen?
Second , I think there are very good hypotheses about how each of those types of organisms survived: omnivory, small body size, low metabolism, and/or ability to find shelter are all considered likely explanations for why various groups survived.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2010 8:33 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2010 12:03 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 6 of 53 (549368)
03-06-2010 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Blue Jay
03-06-2010 11:54 AM


First, I don’t think science can really answer questions of the form, Why didn’t _____ happen?
Maybe, but it certainly should be able to explain what it's trying to explain - in this case why the dinosaurs died out. The impact isn't an answer to that question because it doesn't explain why other groups didn't die out and thus leaves the question unanswered.
Second , I think there are very good hypotheses about how each of those types of organisms survived: omnivory, small body size, low metabolism, and/or ability to find shelter are all considered likely explanations for why various groups survived.
It is simply not possible to find clear dividing lines like that between groups which survived and groups which didn't. While the popular face of dinosaurs might be the big beasts, there was a whole diversity of different dinosaurs out there, from tiny omnivores to massive sauropods. A fact that becomes increasingly pertinent as it becomes increasingly clear how similar the smaller theropods were to birds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Blue Jay, posted 03-06-2010 11:54 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 03-11-2010 11:00 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 7 of 53 (549626)
03-09-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Jack
03-06-2010 8:33 AM


The paper also, bizarely, claims that "[t]he scale of biological turnover between the Cretaceous and Paleogene is nearly unprecedented in Earth history". And supports it with a reference neatly detailing the other mass extinctions... umm? And that's the real problem I have with impact explainations for the extinction of the dinosaurs - there is no evidence of impacts that co-incide with prior mass extinctions.
That has always been the issue, from my limited reading on the subject. I would hazard a guess that most experts would have the Permian extinction as the #1 extinction event and there is no known impact event that correlates with the Permian die off. However, the Siberian traps do correlate. In fact, I watched a Discovery channel show (don't worry, I don't consider the Disc Channel as gospel truth) that directly correlated the Siberian traps with the Permian die off. So what do we have with the K-Pg die off? The Deccan traps.
On the other hand, we are lucky to have the Chixulub crater. If it occurred in the Pacific, for example, the crater could very well have subducted and all traces gone. The K-Pg iridium layer would have still been seen world wide where the interface was preserved, but there is no guarantee that every impact will produce such a layer (e.g. icy comet).
So it is very understandable why scientists are hedging their bet on this one. That's the way it should be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2010 8:33 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 03-09-2010 11:21 AM Taq has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 8 of 53 (549632)
03-09-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taq
03-09-2010 10:49 AM


Taq writes:
In fact, I watched a Discovery channel show (don't worry, I don't consider the Disc Channel as gospel truth) that directly correlated the Siberian traps with the Permian die off.
There was a History channel episode of How the Earth was Made that highlighted the same theory.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taq, posted 03-09-2010 10:49 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Taq, posted 03-09-2010 12:30 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 9 of 53 (549642)
03-09-2010 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
03-09-2010 11:21 AM


There was a History channel episode of How the Earth was Made that highlighted the same theory.
That is the show I was thinking of. Thanks. Discovery, History, NGC, etc. all blend into one in my memory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 03-09-2010 11:21 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 10 of 53 (549645)
03-09-2010 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
03-05-2010 2:30 PM


First of all, no shit. I don't think anyone has really debated that it was a factor, or even a major factor. However, this doesn't end the debate on how much other factors played in to it including supervolcanism in modern day India (the Deccan traps) or the already dwindling numbers of dinosaurs species that led up to the Chicxulub impact. So this leaves the debate right where it was before, with the Chicxulub impact being a player but also other players without a defined role.
I don't know if she's a one-off, but wikipedia cites Gerta Keller as arguing that the Chicxulub impact may have had little to do with the extinction event, as it looks like there's another 300,000 years of material deposited in between the iridiuum layer marking the impact and the end-Cretaceous. To quote her from this article on the Geological Society's webpage:
Conventional wisdom holds that any such large impact leaving a 175km-diameter crater would cause major mass extinctions. But this hypothesis is based solely upon the assumption that Chicxulub was the K-T killer. None of the other major mass extinctions in Earth history is associated with major impacts. This hypothesis has no empirical support and must be considered false — at least with respect to Chicxulub.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 03-05-2010 2:30 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Taq, posted 03-09-2010 1:01 PM caffeine has not replied
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 03-09-2010 1:25 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 11 of 53 (549647)
03-09-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by caffeine
03-09-2010 12:47 PM


I don't know if she's a one-off, but wikipedia cites Gerta Keller as arguing that the Chicxulub impact may have had little to do with the extinction event, as it looks like there's another 300,000 years of material deposited in between the iridiuum layer marking the impact and the end-Cretaceous. To quote her from this article on the Geological Society's webpage:
Conventional wisdom holds that any such large impact leaving a 175km-diameter crater would cause major mass extinctions. But this hypothesis is based solely upon the assumption that Chicxulub was the K-T killer. None of the other major mass extinctions in Earth history is associated with major impacts. This hypothesis has no empirical support and must be considered false — at least with respect to Chicxulub.
I have a strong suspicion that conclusions such as this is exactly what they were addressing with this "final consensus". From the abstract of the Nature paper:
"The temporal match between the ejecta layer and the onset of the extinctions and the agreement of ecological patterns in the fossil record with modeled environmental perturbations (for example, darkness and cooling) lead us to conclude that the Chicxulub impact triggered the mass extinction."
The important bit is "the temporal match". Reading between the lines they are arguing that there is not a gap between the impact and the ecological extinction signal. So they don't seem to be arguing against other causes so much as they are against a gap between the impact and the extinction event. Reading between the lines again, the phrasing "lead us to conclude that the Chicxulub impact triggered the mass extinction" in the abstract allows a lot of leg room for other causes (e.g. supervolcanism) being a factor.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by caffeine, posted 03-09-2010 12:47 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 12 of 53 (549648)
03-09-2010 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Jack
03-06-2010 8:33 AM


whilst leaving the crocodilians, birds and mammals. Similarly for the various other groups that survived or went extinct.
I've always wondered that. I assumed that crocs could go donkey's years with out eating and live on carrion.
Mammals could burrow and eat the eggs of anything that did survive.
Birds could....I dunno, I don't suppose they could do much but they must have done something right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2010 8:33 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 03-11-2010 11:05 AM Larni has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 13 of 53 (549652)
03-09-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by caffeine
03-09-2010 12:47 PM


Hi Caffeine,
If above the K-T layer there are really 300,000 years of layers containing dinosaur fossils then she's right and there could be little argument, but are there? She's basing her conclusions on a stratigraphic sequence from a single region around a thousand miles from the Chicxulub Crater. The layers she examined above the K-T layer were marine, and she claims no species went extinct, i.e., that no species below the K-T layers were absent above, but dinosaurs were not marine animals.
In other words, you have to read between the lines in that Geological Society article, but she isn't talking about dinosaur fossils, nor even the giant marine reptiles of the period. The dinosaur extinction was not like the Permian where 90% of marine species were wiped out (including the trilobyte). If Keller is claiming that marine species were not much affected for 300,000 years after the impact in the region she studied then I believe her, but it doesn't say much about whether the Chicxulub impact was primarily responsible for the dinosaur's demise.
Like any scientific hypothesis the current consensus is tentative, but it can only be overturned in the same way it become accepted. It's the best explanation fitting the available evidence, and it will remain so until some other hypothesis fits the evidence better.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by caffeine, posted 03-09-2010 12:47 PM caffeine has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 14 of 53 (549663)
03-09-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Jack
03-06-2010 8:33 AM


quote:
The paper also, bizarely, claims that "[t]he scale of biological turnover between the Cretaceous and Paleogene is nearly unprecedented in Earth history". And supports it with a reference neatly detailing the other mass extinctions... umm? And that's the real problem I have with impact explainations for the extinction of the dinosaurs - there is no evidence of impacts that co-incide with prior mass extinctions. It seems to me that the search for abiotic explainations of mass extinctions is missing the big picture: extinction seems to be a property of evolutionary systems.
??? What about the iridium anomaly near the Eocene-Oligocene boundary? Or the one at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary? Or shocked quartz at the same boundary? Or chondritic meteorite fragments and shocked quartz at the Permian-Triassic boundary? All of these are evidence of impacts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2010 8:33 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Matt P, posted 03-10-2010 12:10 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 4774 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 15 of 53 (549752)
03-10-2010 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by kbertsche
03-09-2010 4:28 PM


Lack of other impact-induced evidence
Hi kbertsche,
I've been getting into the impact field a fair bit as of late and of the P-T, T-J, and Eocene-Oligocene extinction events, only the Eocene-Oligocene event seems to have any really good evidence. The Eocene-Oligocene event has a crater (2 actually, Chesapeake Bay, Popigai), with distributed impact glasses (the bediasites). That said, the Eocene-Oligocene extinction was much smaller in scale compared to the K-T/Pg extinction, and may be due to other things instead of an impact.
The T-J impact has some evidence of impact, but it's not found throughout the T-J boundary. There are about 3 craters that correspond roughly to the T-J boundary in terms of age, but none of them really match the T-J boundary date. The shocked quartz associated with this layer has also been dismissed as tectonic in origin. The iridium enrichment is about 1/10th-1/20th the enrichment of the K-T/Pg layer, which can be attributed to a slow-down in sedimentation rates. So the good evidence, like that found at the K-T/Pg layer, isn't there for the T-J layer.
The P-T impact evidence is really poor. Bedout "crater", which is claimed to be impact-derived, is more likely volcanic in origin. The various impact evidences linked to that crater are also very dubious. While the presence of chondritic impactors in Antarctic rocks associated with the P-T boundary have been claimed (Basu et al., Science 2003), the claim is based on a small amount of metal in these rocks. Metal is rare in geologic samples, but is known to form during lightning strikes (see for instance: Lightning-induced reduction of phosphorus oxidation state | Nature Geoscience ), some of these can have a fair bit of nickel in them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by kbertsche, posted 03-09-2010 4:28 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by kbertsche, posted 03-11-2010 10:36 AM Matt P has not replied
 Message 30 by barbara, posted 09-17-2010 8:51 PM Matt P has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024