Dinosaur Extinction

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You might be interested to learn that there are plenty of fossils found that have no hard body parts. The conditions for fossilization are rare but not impossible. The Burgess Shale is the most well known of these 'mother lodes'. However, much is coming out of China these days.

I know he did. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about all the posts where you've copied and pasted LOTS of stuff that doesn't always say what you think it says. Charonz' comments to you in that Urey/Miller thread for instance. Frankly, I noticed this about you from the start and was part of what made me interject into your original ressurection spree.

Oh shutup.
You're being a douche bag now because I've hurt your feelings.
"Duh der. You don't know what curriculum is. You're a stupid twit because you don't use proper English. Grammar grammar grammar."
Do you realize just how idiotic that response was?

Now. What did I mean? Perhaps I used curriculum incorrectly. Who gives a shit? The point was plain. I've known a lot of teachers who blew smoke out of their ass on a daily basis.

However, I don't think that I did use the word incorrectly.
"A group of related courses, often in a special field of study: the engineering curriculum."
Therefore, a teacher can teach a series of courses in a particular curriculum. If this teacher is a liar who likes to blow smoke out of his ass to appear more knowledgeable than he is, then he is misrepresenting his curriculum. I.e. he is teaching falsehoods as truths in his curriculum. Thus he is misrepresenting his curriculum.

Douche bag.
You're new to the internet aren't you?
Grammar patrol is a poor defense.

As to me trying to appear more knowledgeable than teachers and textbooks. No. With the teachers, it generally didn't sink until much later just how much they were lying. To the young and impressionable, their act carries itself well. It is only with later maturity and more education that one begins to realize the depths of the lies that certain teachers told.

And as to textbooks. I already showed how the textbook you quoted only referred to the KT event. I'm not talking shit on the textbook, but rather your interpretation of it (or your teachers (that was your out, but you decided to take offense instead... your call.)) The problem wasn't with the textbook but rather with your interpretation that it is a 'fact' or even a 'reasonable assumption' that most of the extinction events were caused by (or even accompanied by) meteoric impacts.

Whatever, douche. I'm just trying to help you to stop appearing so foolish. You've said stupid shit so much that it's getting old. You keep getting called on it and then you just go digging for more copy and pastes. Don't take my advice then. Whatever.

Then how come you're wrong so much?


Edit:
Oh. And before Ophiolite jumps my shit: "The KT event is the only which has been proven to be caused by a meteoric impact."
Proven is a bit strong here. I'll admit. It's still controversial and probably always will be. However, there is lots of evidencet that a catastrophic impact did occur and that it had wide-scale effects, even if it was, as was said earlier, 'the final nail in the coffin'.


The extinction event I'm interested in is the Permian-Triassic where it has been shown that oxygen levels in reached a nadir followed by a peak which coincided with the existence of the largest of the dinosaurs...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you look at all my postings on this forum, only the last two were cut and pasted quotations - as requested! But in any case, you're contradicting yourself. You're criticizing me for possibly misinterpreting what is written in the textbooks, and then you're criticizing me for posting what is written so that the original writtings can be objectively interpreted by everyone.

Iridium deposits were also found in the late Devonian extinction (~350 million years ago). But meteors are not the only causes of the previous mass distinctions, nor are iridium deposits. Scientists look at the sudden stop in fossil evidence for the diversity of so many species, plate tectonics, sudden drops in global temperatures,sea level changes that at times covered the earth, carbon isotope changes that indicate organic productivity, abnormalities in quartz crystal structure that indicate "shock" events like that of a sudden meteor impact, lava flows from volcanic activities, and, as in the case of the late Permian extinction (250 mya - the largest extinction in earth's history) the sudden loss of accumulation of sedimentary carbon deposits that lasted for 6 million years. In other words, for 6 million years their was a sudden absence of organic matter decomposition that is compressed under pressure and temperature in deposits to form carbon. This is a clear indication of a massive extinction. During this extinction their is evidence of a sudden increase in the earth's temperature, probably caused by massive outbursts of lava eruptions through plate tectonic cracks, as is evidence from the huge lava flows around long plate tectonic adjacent areas.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've received a lot of compliments from other members on other forums for providing web links and quotes. And yes I have been participating in forums for about six years now. Most of the other ones were medical forums so they involved folks with a great deal of education.

Resulting to obscenities and name calling has no place on this, nor any other forum, and is a sign of an emotional outbreak and immaturity.

 

These are not mood swings. I treat thoughtful, considerate, sensible posters with politeness even deference. I attack aggressively displays of stupidity, willfull ignorance, intolerance, intrasigence, rudeness and bullying. You may wish to recall that I attacked Invert Nexus for condemning your resurrection of old threads. I stand by that attack and my justification for it.
InvertNexus has already pointed out that your citation of textbooks only addresses the KT event. I ask you again, please cite a textbook that relates the other major extinctions, primarily, to a bolide impact.
My previous request for this was clear, I think. Certainly InvertNexus understood it. Yet your response appears to regurgitate a stream of peripheral facts that have little or no bearing on the simple question. I am beginning to suspect Invert's view, that you are trying to appear erudite, may be correct.
Valich, you clearly have a good brain, you are quite widely read, you know how to use google. We can have some interesting conversations. But please try to be a little more thoughtful in what you post, or you will induce another mood swing!
And while you are thinking about that I'll ask yet again for a textbook that relates the other major extinctions, primarily, to a bolide impact. Pretty please.

 

Insinuating that those that don't 'complimient' you have no education?
Pshaw.

Different forums have different mechanics. Some forums are dry. Some forums are gathering places of people who like to stroke each other and be stroked in return. Some forums are playgrounds for children and trolls.

This forum is... this forum.

All I can say is that from what I've seen, I stand by my viewpoint that you are trying to appear more knowledgeable than you are. I'm not the only one. Ophiolite mentioned that your enthusiasm outstripped your research or something similar.

The point being that I'm not getting on you about posting that textbook quote (although it didn't have anything to do with Ophiolite's objections to your original post about the 5 extinction events, 4 of which you claimed to be caused by meteoric impact. The KT event isn't disputed other than it might not be the sole cause of the extinction.) I'm getting onto you because this forum isn't about dry facts. I'm not saying that you should never post links and/or quotes. Just that we're more interested in what you know than what you are able to find on the net.

You obviously have no clue what this forum is like then... Ha!
Anyway. I only resorted to name-calling because you resorted to grammar patrol. Grammar patrol is the occupation of douche-bags. (What's so obscene about douche bags anyway? Ever consider that the dinosaurs might have succumbed to vaginal infections? For lack of douche bag, the Cretacious was lost.... Muaha!)


Anyway. So. You're saying you're a medical doctor? Or did you just post in medical forums to associate with doctors?

See? You were called on the fact that you posted that bit about meteor impacts causing all the extinction events, and now you post this about how they're not. But, this is an about face from what you've said. You've done this several times too. I can understand you being wrong, but the way you respond when you're called on being incorrect is... evasive.

Did you or did you not claim that all but 1 of the 5 extinction events you posted earlier were caused by meteoric impacts?

(By the way, Iridium didn't cause the extinction, it was merely a means of proving meteoric impact... (vulcanism can also cause iridium deposits...))

 

Warning: Mood swing in progress.

Ahem. Your first sentence above is a clear implication that the folks you are dealing with here do not have a great deal of education. Would you not put that in the category of name calling?

By the way, the mature way to deal with name calling is to ignore it and concentrate on the facts. I hope you will do so.

 

First being exceptionally polite. Then aggresively attackin someone for what you "perceive" as "stupidy, willfull ignorance (whatever that means?)," etc. is a mood swing.

I summarized all five extinctions - not just the KT - and in my last post I just gave you the consensus about the diverse scientific evidence for all of those five extinctions. If you research each one of those previous extinctions individually I'm sure you'll come up with more solid evidence, concrete facts, and the scientific research that has been done to show them.

Again - I guess I have to repeat - I am not trying to appear "erudite." This is a scientific forum and we are after the truth about the subject and use scientific facts. By posting brief cited quotations I am being very objective, giving no one any persuasion of what they want to think about my socalled "appearance," and am leaving the interpretation of that cited quotation up to the reader to decide and then discuss. But by resorting to name calling and swearing is a sign of ignorance too (lack of education) - and definitely a sign of immaturity.

I just gave you the names of two textbook's that do refer to a bolide impact. I do not have any other textbooks with me at home. I do, however, have quite a few geology books that I could look through to see what they say about the subject if you wish?

 

Some of the posts on this forum reveal a great deal of admirable inquisitions about the cause and result of the K-T extinctions, but no reference to the other even more massive ones. I am in no way implying "stupidity," if that's what you're trying to get at. I have a lack of education on the subject too! And an equal desire to learn more. But if I have something to contribute to those others who have a respectable sincere desire to know something, and I have an answer for it through what I have learned, then shouldn't I post it? So that we can then move on - progress - from there?

 

Non sequitur.
And a blatant one at that.

Well. This is a discussion forum that centers around the topic of science... It's been said that we're more of a debate forum than most other forums based on science.

But. Consider your posting of 'cited quotations' and links. You don't see such quotes in scientific papers (not making up the entire paper anyhow.) The citations come after the paper so that the reader can go look them up himself if he cares to.

However, the thing is that I'm not getting on you about posting quotes and citations or whatever. More like that you do it so much and that they are so often not urbane to the conversation. Try injecting some of yourself into your posts.

Meh. Anyway. Post as you will. And so will I. Just trying to help (even if I'm an asshole about it. You'll become an asshole too if you stick around. Even Ophiolite is turning into an asshole... Muaha!!)


Anyway.
On the subject of mass extinctions and meteoric impacts, the general consensus is that only the KT event has strong evidence for such an occurrence. The rest are disputed and disputed widely and with much fervor.

I repeat. If your textbooks are teaching otherwise, then they're wrong. I suspect that they're not saying any such thing however.

 

Valich, in your summary of the five extinctions you made these points(The emphasis is mine.):
1) 65 million years ago: 76% of species disappeared from the meteor impact off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico.
2) about 206 million years ago: a large meteor crashed into Quebec, Canada wiping out 65% of the species on earth at the end of Triassic period.
3) about 250 million years ago: a large meteor crashed into Northwestern Australia, with a massive outflow of lava and the extinction of about 96% of the world's animal species.
4) 355 million years ago: two large meteorites hit Nevada and Western Australia possibly causing the extinction of 75% of the world's species. Scientists are still uncertain about the exact cause.
5) about 443 million years ago: massive glaciers formed causing sea levels to drop 50 meters and ocean temperatures to drop resulting in the extinction of 75% of all animal species.


I then stated “I am certainly very far from convinced that any of the earlier extinction events are related to impacts. You are being rather optimistic in suggesting that we have solid evidence to support these events.”

Your response: “this is what is being written down in many textbooks as fact and I haven't heard of any researchers going out there trying to disprove them.”

My request: “Please cite a single textbook in which the mass extinctions,other than the KT boundary event, you list in yesterday's post are attributed exclusively or primarily to bolide impact.”

Valich, I am still waiting. Do you not see what is wrong here. You provide a list that attributes four of five major extinction events to meteor impact. You say this information is to be found in many textbooks. Yet you have so far failed to name a single textbook which states this that does not relate to the KT event.
In short, I am stating that your list is wrong. I am asking you to cite evidence to support it. I have asked repeatedly. You have failed to do so. What should I make of this?

On a side issue, on at least one or two occasions in this thread you have repeated the evidence for mass extinctions as though we were disputing them. Nobody is debating that mass extinctions have occurred. I am debating whether there is sufficient evidence to tie any of them, apart from the KT event, to a bolide impact. Either you lack the education to understand the distinction or you are being deliberately obtuse. Both are correctable deficiencies. If there is a third explanation I would be happy to hear it.

 

Again, you're resorting to name calling, and in the process, whether you realize it or not, your making a donkey ass out of yourself by calling everybody else the same.

Further, these are not MY textbook, as you refer to them as "yours." These are textbooks used all over the world by millions of people.

And again - I guess I need to repeat myself - all of my first eight postings on this forum, except for the two above today - and these were asked for as references - included no quotations. They were all of MY own words.

We are not writing a book or an article here, so it would be inappropriate to post a quotation at the end, and how would you know when the end is anyways?

 

Sorry. Where? I can't find them. I am sure you have given them, but I can't see them. Would you be good enough to post them again please.

OK. Just found them.
from "Biology," by Raven, Peter H. and George B. Johnson, 6th edition
(International Edition), 2002, page 473.

William K. Purves, et. al.'s book "Life: The Science of Biology," 7th edition, 2006

You quote briefly from the first one a segment that refers to the KT impact event. I have clearly stipulated, repeatedly, that we accept that an impact was very probably implicated in the KT extinction. Would you please quote a segment that clearly states impacts were the cause of the other events.

You tell us the second source has useful charts. Please quote a passage that states impacts caused the earlier extinction events.

 

Eh?
When? When I called myself an asshole? And when I said Ophiolite was becoming an asshole too?
It's called a sense of humor. Acquire one.
Although it's also the truth. I'm an asshole. I'll admit it.
And I've seen Ophiolite be an asshole here and there as well.
Nothing wrong with being an asshole.

(By the way. In case English isn't your primary language and you don't understand the nuance. Asshole refers to bluntness. (That's how I use it, anyway.) Your mention of 'donkey ass' would seem to relate more to foolishness or ignorance. Two completely different concepts.)

More grammar patrol? Should I break out the 'douche bag' again?
They're 'your' text books in that you've read them. They are/were in your possession.
You're the one who is claiming that they exist.

If they claim that meteoric impacts are the cause of previous extinction events as you have claimed then they are wrong.
However. As I've said before, I don't think they say that. I think you're misinterpreting them. I think they mention meteoric impacts as possibilities but that you've taken them to be more factual than they actually are.

Yes. Yes. I know. I'm talking about your posting style in general. You do post in other threads than this one, you know. (They're called threads, not forums, by the way. Not trying to be grammar patrol here. Just clearing it up for you so that you know the right word. English is a second language for you? Perhaps much of this is about cultural differences. NOte also that in all my 'character studies' of you these are only impressions I've gathered from reading your words. I can't claim that they're fact or not. I'm only making comments on how you're coming across to me and (I suspect) to others.)

Exactly. We're not writing a book or a scientific paper. Therefore citations are not absolutely necessary all the time. Sometimes they are asked for and can be posted. Sometimes the links say it better than you can so you post a link so that the interested can follow the link and read more than you're wishing to discuss in thread.

Look. This is complicated. Posting styles and all. All I can say is that your use of quotes seems... excessive. And that many of the quotes dredged up aren't even relevant and are, at times, used out of context by you.

Anyway. Look. I'm being an asshole. I'll admit. But, like I said before, even though you come across a bit as a faker, you're better than the idiots. That's why I'm trying to get the point across to you. However, I'm pretty much done with trying. You either understand or you don't and from now on you're on your own.

I do apologize for bringing this thread to such a personal issue anyway. But, it seemed pertinent when you turned on Ophiolite for having 'mood swings'. It seemed to me that you didn't like it when consistently called you on your errors. You seemed evasive.

Anyway. Enough. Post as you will.

 

Again, I just gave you the names of two textbooks above in my previous post today that states that the K-T event is attributed to the Yucatan meteor impact. There are more. This is exactly what you asked for. Do you want me to go to the Yucatan and bring back the Iridium? It's found in a layer of varying depths all around the entire world and that proves that a layer of ash was in the atmosphere that blocked out the sunlight all over the world, causing the earth to cool, the climate to change, and plants and animals to die. The meteor also caused massive tidal waves at heights, duration, and lengths unimaginable today. It also caused massive forest fires as can be obviouisly determined through the analysis of the heat generated by the size of the meteor, which can be determined by the size of the crater and carbon isotope dating. I also stated that:

"Iridium deposits were also found in the late Devonian extinction (~350 million years ago). But meteors are not the only causes of the previous mass distinctions." And I could search for the scientific articles that relay this factual information. They found iridium at the time of this extinction too: this is a fact. Enough so that the consensus is that it is attributed to a meteor impact. Just do a little research. If I post another quotation from a scientific research article, then I'm going to get condemned by Invert for doing that! For not using my own words like I'm doing right now.

 

Sigh.

 

As I said, unfortunately I only have these two textbooks at home, but I have about twenty geology books that I could also look through as well if you'd like me to? Time permitting, though, as I have work to do too.

This is from the William Purves, et. al. biology book cited above called "Life: The Science of Biology," page 448:

"At least 30 meteorites between the size of baseballs and soccer balls hit Earth each year. Collisions with large meteorites are rare, but large meteorites have been responsible for several mass extinctions. Evidence for these collisions is found in the craters that resulted from the impact, dramatic disfigurations of rocks (microspherules and shocked quartz crystals), and within giant molecules that contain trapped helium and argon with isotopic ratios characteristic of meteorites, which are very different from the ratios found on earth. Also fern fossils are abundant in rocks that formed at the end of the Triassic and Cretaceous periods. Because ferns can more quickly colonize and survive in bare environments than most other plants, their abundance suggests that meteorite impacts scoured vast areas of the Earth's surface."

As for the Devonian extinction (~354 mya), Purves only states, "Continents collide at the end of this period. Asteriod probably collides with Earth....An extinction of about 75 percent of all marine species marked the end of the Devonian. Paleontologists are uncertain about the cause of this mass extinction, but two large meteorites that collided with Earth at that time, one in present day Nevada, and the other in Western Australia, may have been responsible."

Personally, I have no opinion about the cause of the late Devonian mass extinction, but Iridium deposits have been found that support the other two, and I have read this in scientific journal articles. Also, in general, these mass extinctions, as Purves states, are one of the main reasons why we "mark" the end of one geological historic "period" and begin the start of another, based on much more evidence than just meteorite impacts.

 

At last. Thank you. Its like pulling teeth. Those remarks are much more guarded than your statements in your shortlist of extinctions. "their abundance suggest", "may have been responsible". I am contending, as I have from the start, that impacts may be involved in these extinctions, but there is no clear cut evidence, nor any general agreement that this is the case.

You go on to note:
"Also, in general, these mass extinctions, as Purves states, are one of the main reasons why we "mark" the end of one geological historic "period" and begin the start of another, based on much more evidence than just meteorite impacts."
For the last time I know about the mass extinctions. I am not disputing the mass extinctions. I've collected fossils from horizons above and below the strata associated with mass extinctions. I am stating, I hope for the last time, that there is little convincing evidence to demonstrate the role of bolide impact in mass extinction events other than the KT event.

Invert_Nexus:
And I've seen Ophiolite be an asshole here and there as well.

Nonsense. Refer to the words beneath my name.

 

Well I did have to search for it and you guys are getting on my case so much about quoting material, ya know? My geology books aren't much help either as they deal mostly with plate tectonics, rocks, gems, you know - geology. Although one book did make reference to a meteor that exploded 10 km. above Siberia in 1908 that flattened a large forested area and set off massive fires in the surrounding area. Woosh!

 

Valich, but do you see what is at the root of what Invert Nexus and I have been objecting to. You stated, in your list of major extinctions, that bolide impact had a role in four of the five. Not that it might have a role - it did have a role. This was wrong. I pointed this out and instead of saying, right, I see your point. You kept arguing it, and producing irrelevant data. Now that is no problem for Invert and me, since we both know what current theory is saying, but the casual lurker is going to go away with a wholly inaccurate picture of current thinking.
Don't take these corrections negatively: I am seeking to educate you, me and any others who are reading this.
So, while we are at it, it probably wasn't a meteor that exploded over Siberia, but a comet. That is why in my posts I have been continually referring to bolide impact, since that covers both asteroids (large meteors) and comets.
Peace.