|
Post by 1dave on Jan 14, 2018 20:33:19 GMT -5
Life is so fragile that 4.5 billion years of a very hostile universe has failed to stop it.
It is impossible that earth is the only place where it exists.
"Stupid is as stupid does."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2018 20:37:00 GMT -5
The comet extinction event was ~66 million years ago. It didn't reset evolution by sterilising the planet. It killed all land herbivores over a certain size. The flora remaining could not produce enough browse/graze to support the large herbivores. Large predators soon followed.
Plants did still have some light and like indoor plants now, did continue to grow and reproduce. Smaller herbivores and smaller carnivores could still exist, albeit with thinner population densities. The more mobile species (BIRDS) flourished. It's pretty well accepted now that the large Dino's were primitive birds. The extinction event allowed bird fauna to become what it is today. (Silver lining?)
As for crocs, super long lived, they eat smaller animals and fish. Longevity allowed them to suffice and survive without reproducing for the time it took for full sunlight to return and reset the ecosystems. No problem.
Tuatara (Sphenedon) are still here too. They eat insects. Ceolocanth? Deep sea dwellers definitely not tied to sunlight. While they benefit from surface dwelling species sinking deep, this isn't required for this large deep sea predator to survive and reproduce.
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Jan 14, 2018 20:59:33 GMT -5
The comet extinction event was ~66 million years ago. It didn't reset evolution by sterilising the planet. It killed all land herbivores over a certain size. The flora remaining could not produce enough browse/graze to support the large herbivores. Large predators soon followed. Plants did still have some light and like indoor plants now, did continue to grow and reproduce. Smaller herbivores and smaller carnivores could still exist, albeit with thinner population densities. The more mobile species (BIRDS) flourished. It's pretty well accepted now that the large Dino's were primitive birds. The extinction event allowed bird fauna to become what it is today. (Silver lining?) As for crocs, super long lived, they eat smaller animals and fish. Longevity allowed them to suffice and survive without reproducing for the time it took for full sunlight to return and reset the ecosystems. No problem. Tuatara (Sphenedon) are still here too. They eat insects. Ceolocanth? Deep sea dwellers definitely not tied to sunlight. While they benefit from surface dwelling species sinking deep, this isn't required for this large deep sea predator to survive and reproduce. The hypotheses I read about the event is that all light was blocked for months from dust and fires. Life, except microbes, would have ceased to exist if that were true. And while the deep sea dwellers are not tied directly to sunlight they are tied indirectly through the food chain. And again if the hypothesis was correct then the food chain would have collapsed. And yet there are even more hypotheses: www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dino_prog_summary.shtmlwww.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/22/503013290/scientists-say-dinosaur-killing-asteroid-made-earths-surface-act-like-liquidThat is the problem with hypotheses. There are a lot flying around and they are not really proof.
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Jan 14, 2018 21:06:01 GMT -5
Should also add that between the fires and the respiration by the plants during the light blockage oxygen levels would have plummeted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2018 1:39:25 GMT -5
Should also add that between the fires and the respiration by the plants during the light blockage oxygen levels would have plummeted. CO2 would skyrocket as well. No human was there. So all, hypothesis are pure speculation. And the one that says fires and whatever blocked the sun for entirely for years? Dead on its face. Life did not completely reset and evolution didn't restart so, clearly that dude was wrong!
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Jan 15, 2018 6:58:19 GMT -5
Should also add that between the fires and the respiration by the plants during the light blockage oxygen levels would have plummeted. CO2 would skyrocket as well. No human was there. So all, hypothesis are pure speculation. And the one that says fires and whatever blocked the sun for entirely for years? Dead on its face. Life did not completely reset and evolution didn't restart so, clearly that dude was wrong! I wrote months, not years. And as you also pointed out it is all speculation, which is what a hypothesis consists of in the first place. So no telling for how long the light was blocked. As I stated earlier though I disagree with the whole meteorite hypothesis in the first place for that exact reason. If the hypothesis were true then all life except for some microbes would have come to an end. As far as CO2 skyrocketing a well, yes that is true, which would also mean more lifeforms being destroyed due to the acidity that would form.
|
|
|
Post by 1dave on Jan 15, 2018 8:04:24 GMT -5
Layers of rocks ARE our early history books and they don't lie.
They are often misinterpreted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2018 10:07:54 GMT -5
CO2 would skyrocket as well. No human was there. So all, hypothesis are pure speculation. And the one that says fires and whatever blocked the sun for entirely for years? Dead on its face. Life did not completely reset and evolution didn't restart so, clearly that dude was wrong! I wrote months, not years. And as you also pointed out it is all speculation, which is what a hypothesis consists of in the first place. So no telling for how long the light was blocked. As I stated earlier though I disagree with the whole meteorite hypothesis in the first place for that exact reason. If the hypothesis were true then all life except for some microbes would have come to an end. As far as CO2 skyrocketing a well, yes that is true, which would also mean more lifeforms being destroyed due to the acidity that would form. And plants would flourish, given sunlight. You can't outright dismiss a theory because one explanation of it was clearly wrong. Days of darkness A) doesn't starve any herbivore. B) doesn't kill plants C) if the sun came back in days, then the increased CO2 helps plants as it did help them come into existence in the first place. D) months of darkness kills most plant matter, but not the seeds. E) the year of no browse and graze that followed months of dark skies starves out large herbivores and their predators. F) as soon as rains and sunlight returned seeds started to sprout. This enabled insects and their predators to continue on. And so one. Months of darkness doesn't sterilise the lakes or ocean. High CO2 doesn't sterilise any water body, they have been thru high CO2 events for epochs. Of course it's still conjectore, but to dismiss this possibility out of hand, is just plain unscientific. It is possible an explanation fits that supports comet strike mass extinction.
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Jan 15, 2018 18:46:16 GMT -5
I wrote months, not years. And as you also pointed out it is all speculation, which is what a hypothesis consists of in the first place. So no telling for how long the light was blocked. As I stated earlier though I disagree with the whole meteorite hypothesis in the first place for that exact reason. If the hypothesis were true then all life except for some microbes would have come to an end. As far as CO2 skyrocketing a well, yes that is true, which would also mean more lifeforms being destroyed due to the acidity that would form. And plants would flourish, given sunlight. You can't outright dismiss a theory because one explanation of it was clearly wrong. Days of darkness A) doesn't starve any herbivore. B) doesn't kill plants C) if the sun came back in days, then the increased CO2 helps plants as it did help them come into existence in the first place. D) months of darkness kills most plant matter, but not the seeds. E) the year of no browse and graze that followed months of dark skies starves out large herbivores and their predators. F) as soon as rains and sunlight returned seeds started to sprout. This enabled insects and their predators to continue on. And so one. Months of darkness doesn't sterilise the lakes or ocean. High CO2 doesn't sterilise any water body, they have been thru high CO2 events for epochs. Of course it's still conjectore, but to dismiss this possibility out of hand, is just plain unscientific. It is possible an explanation fits that supports comet strike mass extinction. Yes, given sunlight, which is what was claimed by some scientists was blocked. It is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. There is a major difference. A) Never said the darkness starves the herbivores. Herbivores DO NOT feed on sunlight, they feed on plants. B) Depends on the length of the darkness. You need to read up on plant biology. In sunlight plants use oxygenic photosynthesis to take in carbon dioxide and produce sugar, which is partially stored as a food source. Remember from high school 6CO2+12H2O---> light energy=C6H1206+6O2+6H2O. Or if anoxygenic photosynthesis CO2+2H2A+light energy=[CH2O]+2A+H2O. CH2O being a carbohydrate and H2A being an electron donor. Either way a sugar compound is formed, which again serves as a fuel source for the plants. If starved of that fuel source sufficiently long the plant can die. C) "If", yet another hypothesis. And again as you pointed out the CO2 levels would have spiked and in the presence of moisture this would lead to high levels of carbonic acid that could kill a lot of plant life and other forms of life. The fact is we do not know if the light was completely blocked and if so for how long. That is another reason this is all hypothetical, not theoretical. And you are also overlooking the fact that plants in the dark respirate, the OPPOSITE of photosynthesis. Thus they could rapidly use up their sugar/carbohydrate stores. D) True, but again according the the HYPOTHESIS the meteorite kicked up a lot of dust and led to many fires. Some seeds can be harmed by fire. And I don't know if you ever gardened but when you plant seeds they are generally only buried about 1/4 for a very simple reason. Again the seeds only have a limited amount of sugars to fuel the plant growth. If buried too deep the seeds use up their fuel sources before they can break the surface and start photosynthesizing IF light is present so they can produce more energy stores. The fallout from the meteorite impact and falling ash buried seeds how deep? This is why hypotheses are pretty much worthless. Anyone can argue anything if no real facts can confirm anything. E) Unless you were there again there is no way to really know what really happened. You may be older than me but I doubt you are that old. Again, this is why a hypotheses such as "the year of no browse and graze that followed months of dark skies starves out large herbivores and their predators" is worthless since there is no way to know what really happened. And you are now arguing against your own previous hypothesis. If the herbivores and all their predators starved to death then that would mean most life would have disappeared as I said earlier. And this would go against your earlier claim that " Life did not completely reset and evolution didn't restart". If all the herbivores and their predators died out from starvation then most life would have disappeared as I stated and thus evolution would have to reset. F)As soon as the rains return? Who said they would ever stop? In fact they would have been more likely for several reasons including the fact that the suspected meteorite hit the ocean, which would have meant tsunamis and massive amounts of moisture being expelled in to the atmosphere. And again this would have meant tremendous amounts of carbonic acid formation, which can in fact sterilize water bodies. We have seen this over and over with acid rain making lakes acidic around the world and killing all animal life in these water bodies. It could also be argued that all the saltwater that would have flooded inland would have also killed a lot of plant life. Sodium chloride salt can choke out the roots of many plants. Again the whole issue is a lot more complicated that you are trying to make it and again this is all based on hypotheses, not theories. And hypotheses are not proof of anything. NOBODY knows for sure what happened back then, which is why there are so many hypotheses on the topic. And of course it is all conjecture. That is why I keep pointing out this is all based on hypothesis, not theory. A hypothesis is an educated guess, thus conjecture. It does not become a theory until sufficient evidence is presented to back the hypothesis, which has not been done. Again there is a lot of guessing going on but no solid evidence because nobody alive was there as a witness and there is no evidence to prove exactly what happened. Thus we have all sorts of scientists with multiple hypotheses flying around. Finally, I don't understand why you are trying to debate me on something I CLEARLY said a couple of times already that I did not agree with. I feel like I am being challenged to defend a hypothesis that I made perfectly clear that I do not agree with and cannot be proven to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jan 21, 2018 22:29:06 GMT -5
Today’s word, Benjamin . . . palynology. Not long after splitting up, I climb to the top of a tall butte, where I run into Antoine again. Antoine lives in Paris. He carries a shovel to dig trenches from which he takes careful samples—he then dissolves the rock layers in acid and studies the organic remnants under a microscope. The ancient spores and pollen help date and describe the environment. At breakfast this morning someone called Antoine ‘‘an extinction guy,’’ meaning he studies the K/T boundary, when the dinosaurs died off.
Today he has been searching for the boundary layer, but, alas, no luck. He scrapes at the cliff, frowns, and says, ‘‘The story here is complicated.’’ . . . I ask Antoine about his work. He tells me a lot of scientists study the late Cretaceous right up until the extinction. It’s popular: there are dinosaurs, drama, and death. But he’s curious how life clawed its way back from the devastation. He takes a bite of his sandwich and tells me, ‘‘I think that is where the interesting story lies.’’
[Tyler] points to a lighter stripe of red-tinged rock beneath a band of coal and says, ‘‘This is the actual boundary, right here.’’ Antoine talks us through the layers: the spherules, which landed first, because they were heavier; then the ‘‘shocked quartz,’’ followed by the iridium anomaly. I run my finger along the boundary, rich with cosmic dust and melted chunks of Mexico that rained down on North Dakota. A line not many fossils cross, those few centimeters marking the end of an era. Tyler reaches in. ‘‘Age of dinosaurs,’’ he says, then raises his finger a fraction: ‘‘Age of mammals.’’
lithub.com/contemplating-human-extinction-deep-in-the-badlands/
|
|
|
Post by MsAli on Jan 22, 2018 18:45:18 GMT -5
|
|
goatgrinder
spending too much on rocks
Make mine a man cave
Member since January 2017
Posts: 368
|
Post by goatgrinder on Jan 22, 2018 18:52:10 GMT -5
Really? Am I going to be the first person to ask the question: what kind of rock is in the bottom of the pool?
|
|