Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?

[aharvey]

Ahh!!!

My apologies.... it was on the History Channel. And it was called "Last Days on Earth".

It was a pretty slick show with very good special effects. It wasn't a science show (per se) although it did feature scientists on each segment.

The segment about the comet described how the seas would turn to a "battery acid" type fluid that would kill almost everything on the planet. They even had a slick graphic showing humans turning into bugs symbolizing that only the tiny creatures might be able to survive such an event.

Any way... I am not trying to make some sort of "case" against evolution. It just made me curious if this was a serious consideration.

From what I am hearing in this thread it seems the answer is no.

Ah, that makes more sense. To answer your specific question, no, this hypothesis is not one that's under serious consideration. In general, I'd say relying on the History Channel for your understanding of mainstream scientific ideas is not all that much wiser than relying on the Answers in Genesis website!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ah, that makes more sense. To answer your specific question, no, this hypothesis is not one that's under serious consideration. In general, I'd say relying on the History Channel for your understanding of mainstream scientific ideas is not all that much wiser than relying on the Answers in Genesis website!

aharvey, I don't rely on the History Channel or Discovery Channel but I think this raises a good point don't you?

Can't we agree that it's a bit unlikely that a comet hitting the earth isn't what killed off the dinosaurs? Based on the known facts that such an event would create on earth? I.e., the global effects of a comet that size hitting the earth (dead seas, worldwide molten landscape, etc.).

In other words.... if evolution were true.... and the earth is really millions/billions of years old... I think we can rule out a comet being the cause for the extinction of the dinosaurs because it would force evolution to restart (basically) from a much shorter time frame in the past.

I guess what I am saying is.... I don't think the evolution proponents and the "comet killed the dinosaurs" folks have had time debrief one another of the consequences of their respective theories.

 

[Granite]

I'm familiar with theories of an asteroid impact being largely to blame, but no, I've never heard anyone suggest a comet contributed to the dinosaurs's extinction. In addition paleontologists have described three separate events that contributed to different dinosaurs going extinct at different periods (separated by significant passages of time). It would be inaccurate to say that they all went extinct at once or due to the same calamity.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'm familiar with theories of an asteroid impact being largely to blame, but no, I've never heard anyone suggest a comet contributed to the dinosaurs's extinction. In addition paleontologists have described three separate events that contributed to different dinosaurs going extinct at different periods (separated by significant passages of time). It would be inaccurate to say that they all went extinct at once or due to the same calamity.

Asteroid... comet... Meteor... whatever. Just some large inter-galactic object hitting the earth.

 

[Granite]

Asteroid... comet... Meteor... whatever. Just some large inter-galactic object hitting the earth.

Ummm...this isn't exactly a "whatever" kind of semantic disagreement, Knight. There are some pretty significant differences between a comet and an asteroid.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ummm...this isn't exactly a "whatever" kind of semantic disagreement, Knight. There are some pretty significant differences between a comet and an asteroid.

Wow.

I didn't write the show Granite. I didn't create the theory Granite. I am merely commenting on what was presented. If you want to obfuscate have at it, I will ignore you.

 

[Granite]

Wow.

I didn't write the show Granite. I didn't create the theory Granite. I am merely commenting on what was presented. If you want to obfuscate have at it, I will ignore you.

That wasn't my point. A comet strike's a silly theory, an asteroid impact (like the Yucatan crater) isn't. One makes more sense than the other.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That wasn't my point. A comet strike's a silly theory, an asteroid impact (like the Yucatan crater) isn't. One makes more sense than the other.

Whatever it was (in theory) comet/meteor/asteroid/flardblatoid would have done to the earth all the things that were described in the show (the scientists on the show made that assertion not me). Therefore whatever it was (in theory) would cause the theory of evolution a serious setback. I think they were speaking of an asteroid but I wasn't taking notes so I am not totally sure.

In reality.... it doesn't really matter what it was does it? At least not as far as this discussion is concerned.

Hey, I have an idea :idea: lets spend the rest of the day arguing about the difference between a asteroid and a comet OK?

 

[Granite]

Whatever it was (in theory) comet/meteor/asteroid/flardblatoid would have done to the earth all the things that were described in the show (the scientists on the show made that assertion not me). Therefore whatever it was (in theory) would cause the theory of evolution a serious setback. I think they were speaking of an asteroid but I wasn't taking notes so I am not totally sure.

In reality.... it doesn't really matter what it was does it? At least not as far as this discussion is concerned.

Hey, I have an idea :idea: lets spend the rest of the day arguing about the difference between a asteroid and a comet OK?

I don't see how an extinction event could cause evolutionary theory a significant setback; evolutionists examine and research extinction events with regularity. If anything, large-scale extinction events are necessary to explain certain elements of evolution.

I don't need to argue about the differences...I know what the differences are. I think the History Channel should stick to World II, from the sounds of it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I don't see how an extinction event could cause evolutionary theory a significant setback

Sigh... if you aren't going to think.... then you shouldn't post in a thread like this. It requires thinking.

Let me clearly outline the "setback" once again.

IF.... a flardblatoid hit the earth and caused ALL animals larger than insects or microscopic creatures to become extinct, (as theorized) THEN... evolution would need to essentially restart at some point after that event. Any progress towards the evolution of humans (and all that we see today) that had been made up to that point would have been lost in such a catastrophic event.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Anyway - my challenge is:
How did natural events work together in order to wipe out all the dinosaurs, but not wipe out everything?

The impact itself is not what caused most of the extinctions- the long periods of cold weather and no sunlight caused by the large amountes of debris hurled into the atmosphere did. The breakdown of which species survived and which weren't so fortunate seems to be broken down in two ways- size and how well they could survive in water. No sunlight=little plant growth. Little plant growth=starvation for large herbivores that depend on a lot of food constantly to survive. The death of large herbivores=the death of large predators leaving the land open to the expansion of previously marginalized groups like the small mammals. The ocean is less transient than the land so aquatic species got off a little lighter but they lost some of the larger specimens as well.

 

[Johnny]

IF.... a flardblatoid hit the earth and caused ALL animals larger than insects or microscopic creatures to become extinct, (as theorized) THEN... evolution would need to essentially restart at some point after that event. Any progress towards the evolution of humans (and all that we see today) that had been made up to that point would have been lost in such a catastrophic event.

You're thinking backwards (i.e. now to then, rather than then to now). By definition no progress towards humans or any modern species was lost, because our lineages extend back through organisms which survived the various extinctions on the planet. So it doesn't really make sense to talk about "lost progress" in that respect because our lineages were never lost (or we wouldn't be here).

Also keep in mind that by the time we even get to any mass extinctions, most of the hard work of evolution is done. By the time of the K/T extinction, mammals had already evolved. The branches that the K/T extinction trimmed were already the highest and outermost branches on the evolutionary tree.

The biodiversity had already started to decline at around the time of the K/T. So the idea that an asteroid was completely and totally responsible for the extinction is a bit outdated.

Anyway - my challenge is:
How did natural events work together in order to wipe out all the dinosaurs, but not wipe out everything?

There's a ton of research on the extinction pattern of the K/T event. See here for a brief overview.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Also keep in mind that by the time we even get to any mass extinctions, most of the hard work of evolution is done. By the time of the K/T extinction, mammals had already evolved. The branches that the K/T extinction trimmed were already the highest and outermost branches on the evolutionary tree.

The biodiversity had already started to decline at around the time of the K/T. So the idea that an asteroid was completely and totally responsible for the extinction is a bit outdated.

That's my point!

I realize the show I watched may have overstated their case but they said that such an event would kill off ALL animals larger than a bug (actually they suggested microorganism).

Therefore according to them at that point in history the only thing remaining on earth would have been microorganisms. Which of course would mean that evolution would have to get us from microorganisms to man in the recent past.

 

[DoogieTalons]

That would imply that someone or something somewhere decided that dinosaurs must make way for mammals and that the comet hit was not a random occurrence, but a deliberate action.

Just to clear this point up... No it wouldn't

In which case, there was no reason, then, to extinguish the dinosaurs and we're back to random acts of a natural universe.

I have no idea what you are basing this on

Prosaic, but doesn't make sense in view of what you stated previously.

... to you.

How could the dinosaurs show us anything since they became extinct? I would think our mammalian ancestors would be more likely avoiding comet hits.

it shows us because we have learned about how big dinosaurs were, we learn from the past.

Reptiles had a good free range to develop unhindered from small mammals because they evolved to be bigger first... small mammals then had free range to develop once the big lizzards had gone. Think about it rather than trying to rubbish my post for no reason other than your own personal beliefs about a non existant god among many other non existant gods.

What if I rubbished your daft ideas on God just based on the Prohpet Mohammed... oh yeah the muslims have already done that.

Raises more questions than it answers.

For you that's not a bad thing.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Reptiles had a good free range to develop unhindered from small mammals because they evolved to be bigger first... small mammals then had free range to develop once the big lizzards had gone.

I thought the latest was that dinosaurs were descendants of birds? :idunno:

 

[cattyfan]

I thought the latest was that dinosaurs were descendants of birds? :idunno:

Yeah...

I remember when I was a kid, I had one of those Golden Books with dinosaurs all over the front. It described the T-rex as slow...lumbering...cumbersome...upright, and dragging its tale behind it.

Now, 35 years later, we're supposed to believe they were quick and moving upright, more like a bird.

How did they decide this about a bunch of animals the "experts" have never actually seen? All they have are some bones...but we're supposed to take as fact this new line of "conclusions."

 

[Johnny]

That's my point!

I realize the show I watched may have overstated their case but they said that such an event would kill off ALL animals larger than a bug (actually they suggested microorganism).

Therefore according to them at that point in history the only thing remaining on earth would have been microorganisms. Which of course would mean that evolution would have to get us from microorganisms to man in the recent past.

They must have (far) overstated their case then, as you suggest. I don't think the hypothesized K/T asteroid is purported to be that devastating.

 

[Johnny]

How did they decide this about a bunch of animals the "experts" have never actually seen? All they have are some bones...but we're supposed to take as fact this new line of "conclusions."

It appears you were a kid some 30 years ago. I don't find it too hard to imagine the advances made in the respective fields since that time. They have advanced just like every other science. Advances in our understanding of biomechanics, biophysics, physiology, structural mechanics, fossil imaging techniques, the use computers to help us simulate various models, as well as new evidence coming to light -- all of these likely had something to do with it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

They must have (far) overstated their case then, as you suggest. I don't think the hypothesized K/T asteroid is purported to be that devastating.

But what this show was saying is that their scientific evidence suggests that it would indeed be that devastating.

Yet there is no doubt that one side or the other is overstating their case.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Knight.

er.. I'm not an evolutionist, but .... :noid:

Trying to pin down an atheist on the topic of extinction is near impossible. The problem is that there are so many options open for them to assume. I read a textbook to a couple of kids today that mentioned no less than four different means by which the dinosaurs may have died out:

• Asteroid(s).
• Global cooling.
• Volcanoes
• Evolution into birds and reptiles

The article's conclusion was that nobody really understood exactly why. So I naturally added the real reason to the text and insisted that the kids either believe that or were silly.

I think most atheists tend to support the asteroid idea more than anything else. I don't know if it's worth delving any deeper than your initial challenge, but if it is then the question might be how did a meteorite manage to wipe out every and all dino type, but not manage to wipe out everything else.

Such questions usually lead to atheists adding the factors together and insisting that if all the theories work together they might produce what we see today.

Anyway - my challenge is:
How did natural events work together in order to wipe out all the dinosaurs, but not wipe out everything?

When presented with multiple choice, I answer yes. I personally support the idea that the prehistoric reptiles died/disapeared of multiple causes. I can't really say whether or not a meteor hit the Earth and caused a big dust cloud that changed the climate all over the world thus causing less adaptable species to die out. However, I do believe that climate change, desease, competition, and evolution where all responsible for the end of that era.