Discussion Of Kt Extiction (Fireball Earth Dispute)

[athinker]

Then why don't we see Elephants or rhinos as big as sauropods?

Metabolic rates and available food supplies are limiting factors. Dinosaurs had a lower metabolic rate therefore could build larger bodies on the same amount of food as mammals. Mammals spend a larger amount of their food energy maintaining body heat than dinosaurs did. Speaking only of vegeterian land animals. Due to differances in the type of food and the energy requrements. aquatic animals have gotten bigger than land animals. The largest animal of the "dinosaur age" was an aquatic "reptile". The largest animal of today and of all time is mammal. Both were carnivores, higher energy food than plants.

 

 

 

 

Glacial advances and retreats had nothing to do with the extinction of dinosaurs, they were endothermic and lived as close if not closer to the North and South poles as mammals do.

 

And there were no polar ice cap glaciers during most of the time dinosaur were extant. It was a warmer world with a higher CO2 content and more stable tempreture over area and over time. However, it had been losing its CO2, thermal stability and dinosaurs for tens of millions of years before the KT extiction. Glaciers were advancing and icecaps had formed by then.

 

 

 

 

 

No, birds were already extant at the time of the dinosaurs, they were not dinosaurs that went on to become birds after the K/T extinction.

They were dinosaurs. They were, and some still are, of the raptor family. They were not highly extant and not very varigated in species. Almost immediately after the the KT extinction they varigated into an enormous number of species becoming the most varigated family of vertibrates on land.

 

 

 

 

("dinosaurs" surviving the KT extiction)

 

Which ones?

 

 

Small ones. Here's where we get into the definition of dinosaur. Plenty of reptiles survived. But I'll have to look into that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Regarding "fireball Earth")

 

That is a well accepted idea.

 

No it isn't. It's pop science, unsupported by evidence.

 

 

(Regarding no evidence of burned stuff all over the Earth in the KT boundry layer.)

 

 

Yes there is....

 

 

Where?

 

 

 

 

While debatable i will not say that only animals that lived in burrows survived, but animals that did or could have lived in burrows did indeed survive at higher rates than those that did or could not have.

 

Arthropods, for example, were then and are now the largest species varigated animal phylum on Earth. They were among the first animals on earth too. Most that did not and do not live in burrows survived.

 

 

 

 

 

If the effect is the same I see no reason to debate whether or not the entire surface of the planet burned in it's entirety. The sun was almost certainly cut off from the surface for a long period of time. Both volcanic ash and ash from burning forests no doubt contributed.

Well the contribution of volcanic ash to the KT layer outweighs the contribution of burn ash by a factor of thousands to one. Meteoric contributions are outweighed by millions to one. There was not enough "heating of the atmosphere" by either the meteor or the volcanic caulderas to ignite everything. There was also not enough "meteoric debris splashing out from the impact" to ignite everything. The "fireball Earth" scenario, pulled out of a hat, blasting and burning the Earth makes an exiting pop science scifi movie scenario. More exciting than volcanic ash blocking the sun and animals starving to death. But it's not what is supported by the evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you are saying with this, are you saying the asteroid strike did not contribute the demise of the dinosaurs or that is was just one of the factors that resulted in the K/T extinction?

Note; in this case there is a differance between "causes" and "contributions". You obviously know the differance since you are changing the word from cause, a much more stringent and direct connection to an event, to contribution, a much less stringent or direct connection to an event.

 

The impact "contributed" by triggering the volcanic activity, opening the caulderas. The volcanic ash blocked the sun. That alone killed much of the plant base. The manner of death was starvation. There is no evidence of any other manner of death. The plants died of starvation due to lack of sunlight. there's no evidence of any other widespread cause such as wide spread fossilized burned plants in the KT layer. The animals died of starvation plants. There is no evidence of any other widespread cause such as wide spread fossilized burned animals in the KT layer. Insufficient food to support animals larger than a certain size. Also insufficient to support animals of certain feeding patterns, population patterns, behavior patterns etc. Stavation kills for a lot of reasons not just because the animals are over a certain size. Starvation kills a lot of human beings in Africa today because they won't eat beans. That's behavioral, not because there's not enough beans. There were a lot of animals smaller than dinosaurs that starved in the KT extinction because they wouldn't eat the beans.

 

So remember, boys and girls, eat your beans, they're good for ya.

 

EAT IT!!! :lol:

 

There are a lot of causes of animals being a certain size, shape, color behavior pattern etc.

 

Bringing the topic back to the OP of the "why are dinosaurs so large" thread. Among the causes are visual cues. So I agree with the OP's suggestion.

[Moontanman]

Metabolic rates and available food supplies are limiting factors. Dinosaurs had a lower metabolic rate

 

As I pointed out in another thread.... this is not true, dinosaurs were endothermic, much like mammals.

 

therefore could build larger bodies on the same amount of food as mammals.

 

 

citation needed

 

Mammals spend a larger amount of their food energy maintaining body heat than dinosaurs did.

 

Any back up at all?

 

Speaking only of vegeterian land animals. Due to differances in the type of food and the energy requrements. aquatic animals have gotten bigger than land animals. The largest animal of the "dinosaur age" was an aquatic "reptile". The largest animal of today and of all time is mammal. Both were carnivores, higher energy food than plants.

 

Um no, it's the supportive medium of water that allows them to get larger not being meat eaters, ever hear of sea cows?

 

 

 

 

And there were no polar ice cap glaciers during most of the time dinosaur were extant. It was a warmer world with a higher CO2 content and more stable tempreture over area and over time. However, it had been losing its CO2, thermal stability and dinosaurs for tens of millions of years before the KT extiction. Glaciers were advancing and icecaps had formed by then.

 

Citation please

 

 

 

They were dinosaurs. They were, and some still are, of the raptor family. They were not highly extant and not very varigated in species. Almost immediately after the the KT extinction they varigated into an enormous number of species becoming the most varigated family of vertibrates on land.

 

Explanation needed on this one.

 

 

 

 

 

Small ones. Here's where we get into the definition of dinosaur. Plenty of reptiles survived. But I'll have to look into that.

 

yes I think you should, dinosaurs were a specific type of animal, not just a big reptile any more than a mammal is just a furry reptile.

 

 

 

 

 

No it isn't. It's pop science, unsupported by evidence.

 

Well then lets see some evidence to back up your claim....

 

 

 

Where?

 

See above

 

 

 

Arthropods, for example, were then and are now the largest species varigated animal phylum on Earth. They were among the first animals on earth too. Most that did not and do not live in burrows survived.

 

They were also small enough to easily hide under rocks and often live in holes, no wait you said that wasn't true, care to back it up with evidence?

 

 

 

 

 

Well the contribution of volcanic ash to the KT layer outweighs the contribution of burn ash by a factor of thousands to one. Meteoric contributions are outweighed by millions to one. There was not enough "heating of the atmosphere" by either the meteor or the volcanic caulderas to ignite everything. There was also not enough "meteoric debris splashing out from the impact" to ignite everything. The "fireball Earth" scenario, pulled out of a hat, blasting and burning the Earth makes an exiting pop science scifi movie scenario. More exciting than volcanic ash blocking the sun and animals starving to death. But it's not what is supported by the evidence.

 

No one said the explosion exposed the surface of the earth to a blast furnace but then that is something you are claiming and no one else is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The impact "contributed" by triggering the volcanic activity, opening the caulderas. The volcanic ash blocked the sun. That alone killed much of the plant base. The manner of death was starvation. There is no evidence of any other manner of death. The plants died of starvation due to lack of sunlight. there's no evidence of any other widespread cause such as wide spread fossilized burned plants in the KT layer. The animals died of starvation plants. There is no evidence of any other widespread cause such as wide spread fossilized burned animals in the KT layer. Insufficient food to support animals larger than a certain size. Also insufficient to support animals of certain feeding patterns, population patterns, behavior patterns etc. Stavation kills for a lot of reasons not just because the animals are over a certain size.

 

There are a lot of causes of animals being a certain size, shape, color behavior pattern etc.

 

Bringing the topic back to the OP of the "why are dinosaurs so large" thread. Among the causes are visual cues. So I agree with the OP's suggestion.

 

 

I'd like to see some evidence of what you claim to be true and the OP has been shown to not have been accurate in his ideas on dinosaurs already in the other thread so i don't think I'll go into it yet again.

[athinker]

Moontanman,

 

I see you've developed the bad habit common on many boards.

 

Lets see you do some writing and research to support your claims.

 

 

Evidence and citations that dinosaurs were endothermic and gigantotherms. You should answer this one in the other thread.

 

Evidence to support your claim that there are fossils of burned plants and animals in the KT layer all over the place.

 

By the way, you did claim that "fireball Earth" is widely accepted. Blast furnace or otherwise there is no evidence that the extiction was caused by fire or smoke from fire.

 

The widly accepted conclusion, accepted because it's supported by conclusive evidence, is that volcanic ash blocked the sun and starved the plants and animals.

 

There have been other extictions. One might say "coincident" with large volcanic activity. I'll leave it to you to prove your scientific knowledge by figuring out when and how large the extictions and the volcanic activities were. Just give the names. I already know.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

I see you've developed the bad habit common on many boards.

 

Lets see you do some writing and research to support your claims.

 

 

Evidence and citations that dinosaurs were endothermic and gigantotherms. You should answer this one in the other thread.

 

Evidence to support your claim that there are fossils of burned plants and animals in the KT layer all over the place.

 

By the way, you did claim that "fireball Earth" is widely accepted. Blast furnace or otherwise there is no evidence that the extiction was caused by fire or smoke from fire.

 

The widly accepted conclusion, accepted because it's supported by conclusive evidence, is that volcanic ash blocked the sun and starved the plants and animals.

 

There have been other extictions. One might say "coincident" with large volcanic activity. I'll leave it to you to prove your scientific knowledge by figuring out when and how large the extictions and the volcanic activities were. Just give the names. I already know.

 

 

athinker, read the forum rules, you made the claims, you need to support them with links to someone else, you cannot just make claims, if you provide that evidence then i am compelled to refute or accept your evidence. Now, it would appear my computer is about to go kaput, if is does I am sure someone else will enter the argument. When I get my monitor fixed i will be back and you are the one who made the original clams but so far no back up. To be honest much of what you are saying is just distortions of what is really thought and isn't as different from current lines of thought as you think but we'll have to discuss it at a later date IE when i get a new monitor.

[fahrquad]

The Cretaceous Tertiary event (KT) is well documented by the black iridium rich layer in the soil. Dinosaur fossils exist below that level and none are found above it. This mass extinction occurred about 65 million years ago. This date coincides with the Chicxulub asteroid impact on the Yucatan peninsula and the eruptions of the Deccan Traps in India. Scientists have pointed to one or the other event as the cause of the extinction, although I am of the opinion that the asteroid impact sent a shock wave through the molten core of the earth triggering the eruptions at approximately the opposite side of the earth. As far as first hand proof of the asteroid impact, I would point out that there is no surface water anywhere on the Yucatan peninsula. The asteroid impact shattered the limestone rock making up the peninsula, and fresh water can only be found in deep caverns called cenotes. I have been to the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza, and plan on going back for a front row seat to the "end of the world" on December 21, 2012.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater

http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/studentv.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenote