*What* killed dinosaurs?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by curioucity, Apr 28, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. curioucity Unbelievable and odd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,429
    Hello

    Do dinosaurs extinct instantly because of an asteroid (or whatever space matter) that fell to earth? Or do they suffer first in the aftermath of the 'space attack' before they really die? Or did the space matter didn't successfully wipe out the dinos, and there is other thing that killed them?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    I favour the idea that there were many factors.
    I think sudden drastic changes in the weather and epidemics would have been the 2 main factors.

    I personally doubt the asteroid theory.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    But the "asteroid" could very well have brought about sudden and drastic changes in global weather and climate.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    I suppose
    But it wouldn't be required
     
  8. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    No, it wouldn't be required, but there is evidence of that magnitude of a meteor striking the earth at the approximate time of the fall of the dinos.

    I don;t know enough of the subject to say one way or another.

    Why do you think that it wasn't an asteroid?
     
  9. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    Good question.... a little too good

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The evidence I've seen doesn't seem entirely convincing, in that I don't think the asteroid could have been as devestating as speculated.
    But there is a good chance I am ignorant to the facts and I should try harder to refrain from ruling things out so hap-hazardly.
    There is also evidence of fossilized diseases believe it or not.
    An increasingly larger percentage of dinosaurs were infected as the timeline goes by, indicating that the epidemic was gradually but surely circulating.
    Now this by no means rules out the asteroid, in fact it would make the asteroid more effective I suppose.
    Perhaps numbers were low anyway and the asteroid couldn't have come at a worse time.
    Perhaps there was just a big armageddon of asteroids, diseases and el-nino.(Armageddon or apocolypse? The distinction always confused me)
    I honestly don't know and to tell you the truth I am not a dino-expert. I have spent a limited amount of time learning about them because they don't interest me quite as much as some of earth's current species, I fear that if I get too interested I might start crying over spilt milk

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I feel more confident with the theory that T-rex was exclusively a scavenger, anybody want to debate on that?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    I heard something about that recently.

    *tries to remember*
    Something to do with their unusable "arms" and the type of teeth they had, right?
     
  11. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    One of these days I will take the time out to post my brother's wild hypothesis on dinos and the history of the world.

    He is one of those people that state outlandish theories that make you laugh at first calling it a hare brained idea, then relaize it is hard to refute, then start to say, "hmmmm, that DOES sorta make sense, doesn't it?"
     
  12. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    I look forward to it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    On T-rex being a scavenger(thread hi-jacking time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    );
    The most incriminating evidence is the similar braincase to that of a vulture. So similar it is basically a larger replica.
    This indicates that t-rex's sense of smell was phenomenal.
    Now canines and sharks have good senses of smell also and they are only optimistic scavengers but what makes t-rex seem more specialised is the fact his vision must have been very poor.
    A predators eyesight needs to be great at judging distances(unless they have sonar) and this would not have been something t-rex's were good at.
    We know he had tiny eyes placed in such a way that weren't on "the front of a face" and therefore not indicative of a chasing hunter.
    Also his running speeds seem to have been greatly overestimated. Although his tail could have acted as a balancing rudder his heavy skull means his tail could not have compensated adequately for a bi-pedal animal.
    It would have been hazardous for him to run at any speed.
    A slip would mean death because an animal of that weight crashing directly on its face with no arms to break the fall would have meant a broken jaw. The heavy skull would have made slips common if he were to run.
    ALL indications point to him being a scavenger.
    It seems he would have walked at a steady pace following his nose to carrion.
    His large fearsome appearance would have assisted him in scaring the killer of its prey.

    I see no reason why it is still accepted he was a hunter other than the admiration it inspires in the human brain.
    Not a good way to come to conclusions if you ask me.
     
  13. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    we have the classic 'is he or is he not' question here.

    usually in science the answer lies in the middle. He was probably a scavenger and a hunter. And according to our personal preference we may imagine him leaning towards either of these options.


    Of course being a scavenger is nothing to be ashamed of. Some people think humans also started their hunting career as scavengers. T-Rex is in good company.
     
  14. Revolution Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    164
    Ok well here is another theory:

    Back in the Dino day the gravitational pull on the planet was a lot less, thus possibly why there were huge creatures. And SOMETHING happened possibly the asteriod or a solar storm whatever, that changed the gravitational pull on the planet. And these huge beasts died out from the pressure. The survivors were the smaller creatures that could adapt or survive the new change in gravity.

    What do you think of THAT one? Oh and I want to hear your crazy brother's story too so dont tell us about it and not post it.

    Also I believe its a little known not talked about fact(I cannot back this up though) that the Dino's skeletal structure would not support the beasts weight and body in today's gravity? So there ya go!
     
  15. TrueCreation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    94
    --That the extinction of the Dinosaurs <i>et al.</i> flora and fauna was the cause of an impact is very well substantiated.

    --More particularly concerning your question:
    --The extinction event was probably a bit slow by human standards, though by geologic time this took place in a "geologic blink" <i>per se</i>.

    Cheers,
    -Chris Grose
    Geoscience Editor
    Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
    http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
     
  16. curioucity Unbelievable and odd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,429
    regarding to what Revolution said

    Hi...
    I'm interested in what you said about 'altered pre-historic gravity'; About that, does anyone know how massive the asteroid was?
    I'm quite agree that the 'pre-historic gravity' may be less that nowadays'. One note here, we need to define gravity here as 'downward pull' (or should we say the other way round?). The effect of low downward pull is the existence of gigantic creatures; think of the whales (except the orca s; the killer whlaes are pretty small compared to their 'relatives'). They live underwater, right? Possibly a little deep underwater (they're mammal afterall, they can't live too deep underwater). And to those in the water, the effect of earth's gravity is reduced by the fluid's upward pressure (sorry, lack of better term); less downward pull, and you know how big whales are...
    But wait a minute... why was the biggest dino not aquatic?
     
  17. Soulcry Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    162
    I read the book Night comes to the Carcha.. (something, i forgot now)

    In that book the authors convinced me that a meteor caused this. The collision of the meteor led to all the other factors like sudden changes in the weather. Just read that book and you ll also get convinced.
     
  18. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    I didn't say MY BROTHER was crazy.
    Just his theories.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Here it is
     
  19. jloden1 Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    I have a professor who works ats nasa for a discussion class, well the guy won't do problems from our quizes, test or homework so he gets these odd ball problems. Anyways we had a problem were a really big comet hits the earth tangentially how much energy would be realeased. And it was some ungodly amount enough to make a nuke look like a firecracker. Anyways all the energy being realeased would throw alot of particles into the atmosphere resulting in something like a nuclear winter where the sun would be blocked from the earth for a peroid of time and the surface of the earth would cool down. This could would have a devastating effect that would kill a huge amount of life. Thats if a comet hit. Its all conjecture anyways we don't know, evolution, disease, there are probably hundreds of theories. A few rocks left lying around can't tell you anything, its only archeologist and the discovery cannel that think they can.
     
  20. Frencheneesz Amazing Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    739
    Revolution:
    "What do you think of THAT one? "

    Well, I don't think a simple lack of gravity would bring about so much gigantifiaction (which is what they call the enlarging of species in that period). Mostly, everything got bigger because then it was harder to kill. Think about trying to kill a dinosour. Youd have to get out the Ground to Air rockets.

    Its simple survival of the fittest that did it, no need for radioactivity or lack of gravity.
     
  21. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    hahahahhahah...ha...ha

    The lower gravititational pull theory concerning the largess of the megabeasts was HILARIOUS.

    On another point, I DO find it striking how similar the head of the T-Rex resembles that of scavengers, for example, the Arizona brand or those found in the Gobi and especially the brown variety found in Northern Mexico around Monte Rey...if you were to chop the head off, blew it up a hundredfold and placed it on the body of a T-Rex you'd be none the wiser.
    Its interesting to note also that even though the poor beast had been cursed with small limbs there are plenty a predatory animal alive today that does its killing exceptionally without much use of it's limbs- snakes, sharks, carniverous spiders and insects, lizards...a plenty.

    But my god was that gravitational theory hilarious, so much so my undies have skid marks.

    If the future has that I'm to be a famous author known the world round, would you mind Revolution if I put this theory of yours somwhere in one of my books?
     
  22. TrueCreation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    94
    Re: hahahahhahah...ha...ha

    --Oh goodness, don't embarrass yourself.

    Cheers,
    -Chris Grose
    Geoscience Editor
    Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
    http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
     
  23. ProCop Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,258
    Gaya

    There is this Gaya (Gaja) theory which says that there is a living eco-sytem on the earth which regulates earth's biology: Eg. if the earth is getting warmer Gaya lets lots of white flowers grow to repel the light/warmth of the sun, if it is too cold Gaya lets black flowers dominate etc. Gaya is specially active on microbiological levels. It is believed to be the creator of viruses and can liquidate all species if the system desires it. Some blame Gaya with the exstinction of dinos. They may have been overeating some plants wich Gaya wanted to preserve. This is what I remember (vaguely) from an article in FT some months ago.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page