Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Some Large Dinosaurs Survived the K-T Extinction

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the hid-under-a-rock dept.

Science 269

mmmscience sends along coverage from the Examiner on evidence that some dinosaurs survived the extinction event(s) at the end of the Cretaceous period. Here is the original journal article. "A US paleontologist is challenging one of the field's greatest theories: the mass extinction of dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period. Jim Fassett, a paleontologist who holds an emeritus position at the US Geological Survey, recently published a paper in Palaeontologia Electronica with evidence that points to a pocket of dinosaurs that somehow survived in remote parts New Mexico and Colorado for up to half a million years past the end of the Cretaceous period. If this theory holds up, these dinosaurs would be the only ones that made it to the Paleocene Age."

cancel ×

269 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cavemen? (5, Funny)

SultanCemil (722533) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756775)

So does that mean skimpily clad cavewomen really *did* ride around on dinosaurs? mmmm...

Re:Cavemen? (5, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756905)

"So does that mean skimpily clad cavewomen really *did* ride around on dinosaurs? mmmm..."

No, but the good news is modern technology has brought the internet into our caves and in the time it takes to post this comment another 2 "Cave chicks go Rex riding" websites will have been created.

As for TFA, interesting but only just outside the uranium dating error bars and no mention of the error margin in the strike date ~65mya. No mention of a KT boundry at the site that is clearly below the fossils. There is very strong evidence that insects were wiped out across the Americas for over a million years, so I think a bit more extrodinary evidence is required to belive a band of dinosours somehow survived in a "lost valley".

Re:Cavemen? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757107)

not a lost valley, but the Great Valley, noob.

xoxoxo,
Littlefoot

Re:Cavemen? (4, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757529)

Yup! Yup! Yup!

Re:Cavemen? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757177)

There is very strong evidence that insects were wiped out across the Americas for over a million years, so I think a bit more extrodinary evidence is required to belive a band of dinosours somehow survived in a "lost valley".

More evidence is always good, but once you actually start to think about it, "a small population of some dinosaurs survived in remote areas until it eventually petered out" is actually more plausible than "every single last dinosaur died at once in a gigantic catastrophe that nevertheless was not large enough to affect other animals such as mammals to the same extent".

Many kinds of animals survived, after all. Why shouldn't dinosaurs have, too? I'm certainly not saying they must have, but just on the face of things, it seems more likely that their extinction was gradual and drawn-out over a long period of time. (And yes, I know the K-T extinction is not thought to have happened in the blink of an eye, anyway, but you know what I mean.)

Re:Cavemen? (5, Funny)

meyekul (1204876) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757507)

The irony is as soon as they step out of the valley, they drop their eye glasses and shatter them on the rocks.

Re:Cavemen? (5, Insightful)

AlecC (512609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757517)

Many kinds of animals survived, after all. Why shouldn't dinosaurs have, too?

Basically, size. The dinosaurs were all largeish - turkey-sized or bigger - with the exception of thos who seem to have evolved into birds, and may have been much smaller because of the nifty invention of feathers. The only mammals at the time were small, shrew-like animals. It is not unreasonable to think that small beasts could survive, scavenging of the dead big beasts, where big beasts could not.

I think you meme... err, mean... (4, Funny)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757469)

in the time it takes to post this comment another 2 "Cave chicks go Rex riding" websites will have been created.

I think you mean "2 Girls 1 Rex"

Re:Cavemen? (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756931)

If it existed there must have been a porn of it.

Re:Cavemen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757351)

This is proof of the reptilian conspiracy!

yes, yes..that's what it is.

Re:Cavemen? (4, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757537)

The amphibians were going to gain control, but when the reptilians attacked, all the frogs surrendered.

Maybe. (2, Informative)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756985)

Jesus sure did. [flickr.com]

Re:Cavemen? (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757047)

Odds are against it - have you seen how lizards behave? One wrong shift of weight and you'd be a snack. Then again, we domesticated lots of other animals... Still, the idea (did not RTFA) is compelling. There ARE cave paintings that appear to depict humans and dinos together. They have been used (by idiots) to support the Noah's Ark theory, which is of course a logical hiccough of biblical proportions... but seriously, the idea of men and dinos coexisting has never been well-debunked.

Re:Cavemen? (4, Informative)

nephridium (928664) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757589)

So does that mean skimpily clad cavewomen really *did* ride around on dinosaurs? mmmm...

Not really. It says they made it to the "Paleocene", i.e. the epoch adjacent to the Cretaceous. To have meet any cavemen they'd have had to survive through the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene all the way to the Pleistocene era. That would still be around 60 million years.

I also highly doubt cavemen (or cavewomen for that matter) had the skill or technology to time travel back to the Paleocene. Afaik only genetically enhanced laboratory mice can do that.

I keep dinosaurs in my garden (5, Insightful)

GordonCopestake (941689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756789)

only I call them "chickens".

Re:I keep dinosaurs in my garden (5, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757473)

Does it make them angry?

Yes....of course... (3, Funny)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756797)

They're called "birds".... Duh! ;-)

Finally ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27756799)

Now, I've got the explanation for that one online date.
I really thought that whales can walk now...

Still with us (4, Funny)

Smivs (1197859) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756803)

They are still with us, working for some IT departments. Have you never seen an IEsixosaurus?

Re:Still with us (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27756815)

no, but I've seen a one-eyed dinosaur-- doyathinkhesaurus

Re:Still with us (0)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756915)

Pun?....PUN!?....PUUUUNNNN!!!!

NooooOOOOO!!!

(The rest of this post is a string of lowercase letters to get rid of the shout filter.)

Re:Still with us (5, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756963)

MOZIRRAAA!!!

Re:Still with us (5, Funny)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757191)

No, but there's a machine in the sever room capable of Tri-teraflops.

Re:Still with us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757251)

I've personally worked with a COBOLsaurus. He was labelled C-Rex :)

Even more in middle management (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757419)

Lots of dinosaurs hiding out in Corporate America's middle management layers. A few make it to upper management or to the executive suites.

Q: What do you call a company with too many dinosaurs in the executive suites?
A: Bankrupt. *cue rim-shot*

Other findings. (4, Interesting)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756825)

Just a day ago, I read another article claiming that the impact predates the extinction event by 300000 years [spacedaily.com] . The last thing hasn't been said about the dinosaurs, that's for sure. I really like the way David Polly puts it in the article (the one linked to by /.): "Finding conclusive evidence, however, is a difficult matter when the crime scene is 65 million years old".

Re:Other findings. (4, Interesting)

Burnhard (1031106) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756893)

I wrote a paper on this many years ago, concluding that the KT event caused extinctions in species already in decline. For example, the Ammonoidea were becoming less numerous for ten million years before the impact. But previous posters are quite correct, the Dinosaurs are survived by Birds!

Re:Other findings. (1)

flewp (458359) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757219)

This is something I was thinking about yesterday when watching something on TV about the extinction of some of the huge mammals. Is it possible that quite a few of the dinosaurs survived the asteroid impact for quite awhile, but were slowly led to extinction by the more adaptive animals such as birds* and mammals out competing them? A lot of the stuff I've read always makes it seems like happened in a blink of the eye, but I've wondered if it could have been much more gradual than is often implied.

* In this context I'm making a distinction between dinosaurs and what we commonly think of as birds.

Re:Other findings. (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757343)

No, all the evidence suggests it was in a blink of an eye. Also, there's no reason to think that mammals were "more adaptive" than dinosaurs (if anything, it was the other way around!).

Re:Other findings. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757525)

I can think of one reason to believe it.

Re:Other findings. (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757639)

Well, we are obviously talking about a context outside of a large bolide impact.

Re:Other findings. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757713)

I can think of one reason to believe it.

But only that one. And that's only because you're defining "more adaptive" as "survived in unpredictable circumstances". That's utterly meaningless. It's nothing more than the "survival of the fittest" tautology.

And it's debatable anyway. Every time I look outside, I see more dinosaurs (birds!) than I do mammals. The KT event merely allowed mammals to take over some "large animal" ecological niches from dinosaurs.

Given that "large animals" have been lot more prone to extinction and replacement, I could say owning the "large animal" niches is just being lucky and having a turn wearing the target and is not indicative of any inherent adaptive advantage.

And if occupying that type of niche is indicative of superiority, you've got to explain why dinosaurs owned those niches for 150+ million years if the mammals were superior.

I'd say mammals have another 100 million years to go before they can lay claim to superiority over dinosaurs.

Re:Other findings. (5, Interesting)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757315)

The problem with the "already in decline" arguments is that there are statistical effects [wikipedia.org] that make sudden extinctions look gradual. This has pretty much been demonstrated to be the case for Late Cretaceous dinosaurs (I don't know about ammonites).

People want to cling to the K/T extinction being a mystery for some reason. It just isn't anymore. If you want a good mystery, the Permian-Triassic extinction event [wikipedia.org] is bigger, and still (relatively) unexplained.

Re:Other findings. (2, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757319)

Unfortunatly a lot of people don't like that idea. Not because of the science but because it puts us an other chip down. So most people are willing to accept evolution, but they take comfort their ancestors who resembled mice were in some way so much more superior then those giant monsters, and could survive a mass extinction while those huge monsters couldn't. We are just getting to the point where we can grasp that some dinosaurs evolved into birds, however we kinda are wishing they were more birdlike before the mass extinction.

Re:Other findings. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757421)

But previous posters are quite correct, the Dinosaurs are survived by Birds!

So you're saying that the Dinosaurs gave us the bird?

Obvious solution... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756997)

"Finding conclusive evidence, however, is a difficult matter when the crime scene is 65 million years old".

Two words - Horatio Caine.

Re:Obvious solution... (5, Funny)

BabyDave (575083) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757027)

"Tyranno-saur-us, but did anyone ... [puts on shades] ... see them?"

[The Who] Bwaaaaaaaaoooo ba ba! (etc)

Re:Obvious solution... (2, Funny)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757089)

You know when he takes his glasses off, and looks to the side? He's reading cue cards. Watch for it.

It's obvious once you're aware of it.

Re:Other findings. (0)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757267)

That paper has been sharply criticised by other palaeontologists working in the area.

Please, treat all, "the meteorite didn't kill the dinosaurs!" articles and papers (even if they're in peer-reviewed journals) with extreme scepticism. They are almost always embarrassingly myopic or out of date. There is an imperial fuckload of evidence that the bolide impact did it.

Re:Other findings. (5, Funny)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757305)

I'm confused. Is that larger or smaller than a metric fuckload of evidence?

Re:Other findings. (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757327)

2.45729 times bigger.

Re:Other findings. (1)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757359)

Metric fuckloads of evidence are measured.
Imperial fuckloads of evidence are imposed by edict.

It's an altogether different concept, but once an edict is proclaimed, the imperial fuckloads of evidence could be measured in metric units.

Re:Other findings. (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757587)

But, expressed in LOC's that would be?

But of course (4, Insightful)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756831)

"some dinosaurs survived the extinction event(s)"

If some dinosaurs hadn't survived it/them, we wouldn't have birds.

Re:But of course (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27756853)

Some LARGE dinosaurs survived.
Where are the 50 ton birds?

Re:But of course (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27756899)

Well, yo moma comes to mind

Re:But of course (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757603)

Our early ancestors ate them.

Re:But of course (1)

StuckInSyrup (745480) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756883)

That is the result when someone learns evolution by watching Jurassic park.
Birds and dinosaurs coexisted pretty long. After the extinction, more birds than dinosaurs survived. The whole notion of "dinosaurs evolved into birds" only means that late dinosaurs and birds share a common ancestor. It's not like some dinosaurs observed the post-apocalyptic mayhem around them and decided to evolve into birds.

Re:But of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27756939)

What next, you are going to tell me that this [collegeslackers.com] isn't accurate?

Re:But of course (2, Informative)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756991)

That's what gets taught in schools unfortunately.. especially the 'decided to evolve' bit, like a dinosaur woke up one day and thought it would grow some feathers for a change. Many people retain this view through adulthood.

Ever heard the whole silly 'a cow fell into the sea and became a whale' idea? Straight out of school textbooks.. I can remember being taught it myself.

The problem education makes is it dumbs things down for children then ignores the issue when they grow up - then some nutjob comes along, points out how silly the version they understand is therefore 'evolution' must be wrong, and we get the whole debate starting again. Maybe teaching 8 year olds about random genetic mutation might be a bit much, but by the time they are 15 they should be able to handle it.

Re:But of course (5, Insightful)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757109)

Yeah, evolution should be taught like evolution.

Simple concepts first, when they are young.
More complex concepts later, when they are older.

But definitely, teach them simple concepts.

You don't start sex-ed by teaching them about the Stork bringing children. You tell them that when a mammy and daddy love each other very much, and want to have a baby, they hug in a very special way...

Re:But of course (2, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757283)

You tell them that when a mammy and daddy love each other very much, and want to have a baby, they hug in a very special way...

That's good, start lying to them young. That's really worked out well for us so far.

Re:But of course (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757689)

Awww crap.

What am I going to do with these 35 Anal bead sets and ball gags? I was supposed to teach 3rd grade Sex ed this week...

Dammit! Let me guess, you're going to tell me that scat and explaining the dirty sanchez is out as well..

Damn you Conservatives!

Re:But of course (1)

SalaSSin (1414849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757381)

I don't know where you went to school, but we always learned basic genetics in biology class, starting from 2nd year secondary school (14 years old).

Re:But of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757667)

I don't think it is that dangerous to hear about things you don't understand, it's just out of comprehension for those that run schools...

Re:But of course (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757075)

The subject of the summary says "some large dinosaurs..." (emphasis obviously mine) which makes your objection (and all the other ones just like it) fucking stupid. Don't quote (or make up quotes) out of context to serve your ego.

Re:But of course (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757159)

And what about the crocodiles?

Pleoscene Age (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756845)

Alas, some small dinosaurs that made it to the Pleoscene Age that has now ended, are also now extinct.

Surprising? (4, Interesting)

TFer_Atvar (857303) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756855)

After reading the abstract, it sounds very interesting. I do have one big question: Do the remains show any difference from similar specimens prior to the K-T boundary? When you have small, isolated populations, you tend to get rapid evolution to suit the species to that specific area. If this small group of animals survived in an isolated fashion, I'd expect some sort of physiological drift from the mainline in order to compensate for their unique area.

If they don't show much difference, I have to wonder what, if anything, this says about the K-T event itself; whether it created a long-term climatological change in addition to a catastrophic change evidenced by the K-T geologic boundary. I'm also intrigued by the fact that these specimens were found in Colorado/New Mexico, which is pretty darn close to the best impact site candidate. I'd expect any animals that survived to be much further away.

Re:Surprising? (2, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756981)

I'm also intrigued by the fact that these specimens were found in Colorado/New Mexico, which is pretty darn close to the best impact site candidate. I'd expect any animals that survived to be much further away.

I suppose its possible that they migrated there from further away. I wonder if the impact created opportunities for animals further away to move towards the impact site, similar to the way floods can improve the fertility of soil.

Re:Surprising? (3, Informative)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757437)

The K-T boundary is not a simple line defining before and after. It is a phenomenon that took place over time - the estimated occurrence of the event was 65.5 (+||- 0.3)Ma. That is a 600,000 year margin, and when you consider that the earliest human species (read as - only just not monkeys) were at the most 2 million years old, it is not unreasonable to theorise that the causative event did not represent a definite cut off point for any species. Things can change a lot in 600K years. And it is also a dangerous habit to take estimated figures and then apply them to suit your own hypothesis too rigorously. Chinese whispers and all that. As somebody else posted further up, it would be more of a surprise to NOT find specimens outside of the accepted period.

You don't have to be so insulting!! (2, Funny)

rts008 (812749) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756885)

Yes, some of us did survive the "alleged 'K-T' Extinction"! And your suppositions bring us *much* hilarity.

Our day has come!
Oh, yes...try and laugh, humans; But in bitterness you shall weep!

We have usurped your world's economy with 'Flintstone's Vitamins'!
Be prepared to bow down to your new Tasty Dinosaur Overlords!

signed, Dino.
*sees Fat Freddie, and runs for driveway* "Yaap!1 Yip! Yappy-kiyay, motherfscker!"-fires AT-4 against Fred-n-Barney*

Re:You don't have to be so insulting!! (4, Funny)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756923)

Everyone who reads Dilbert already knows this. They're hiding behind the couch.

Re:You don't have to be so insulting!! (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757297)

The couch, while being shaped/passed off as a cake, is....a lie!!
So, none of you have had the 'couch cover' working as you had assumed.
Start running, the timer has started.
*note: if you wait for the couch to explode...you are sadly, way too late*

BTW, don't fsck with a Real Engineer(tm)! (not talking about software/electrical-pseudo/wannabe engineers...how lame!)

Oh, careful where you jump to avoid the booby-trapped couch that is rigged***....;-)....[don't bother wasting inadequate brain-power on what's beyond the couch!-you were already fscked before you were aware of the couch!]

***My personal best is a self-induced 100% kill of 23 enemy 'jumping/fleeing' from one 'safe' spot to another after setting off the original ambush...eight frikken times!...w00t!
(set off original ambush, then 'survivors'(Hah!Hah!) in order as planned, fell 1, 2, 3,...) Not very sporting, but I am not foolish enough to gamble with other lives(my team) solely for sport.

'Eager Lt.' set off the first Willy Peter grenade via a tripwire, then, the survivors were consumed by our chaos...the unfortunate fsckers set off eight more of my 'surprises' trying to escape the first one...no survivors! An effective mix of C-4, Claymores, and a .45 ACP Gov't. Model 1911 semi-auto pistol @10-12 meters!-had 6 out of 7 rounds left in the magazine when the smoke cleared!-)
It only lasted 46 seconds, from start to finish. 'Wham, BAM, Fsck You, man!'
That particular 'Hang out with the STASI, and keep them entertained' while we exited-stage left...the operation enabled 'us' to rescue nine East German scientists from E. Berlin that had requested asylum, but were denied(for political reasons between USA and W.Germ. at that time), and were in danger for having made the request. We had the Op Order, and debarked before we knew the request was denied. You can only decide based on what info you have at the time. :-)

Hide behind your couch, Dino!...Heh! Heh! Oh, yeah, you are perfectly safe! Heh! Heh!
Circa:1979-1980 in E. Berlin...Good Riddance, you STASI bastards!

'Master Craftsmen' are such a delight to watch in action, no matter their trade!!

Re:You don't have to be so insulting!! (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757411)

The stuff you are smoking... Can I have some?

cautionary notes from a paleo geek (5, Interesting)

Dr_Snugglebunny (1543523) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756927)

2 points to be aware of: 1. The journal this is published in is not held in high esteem by most paleontologists. This may be telling; I imagine the paper was rejected by several other journals before ending up here. Peer review seems a little light at PE. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but calls for caution. 2. Everything hangs on the authors' interpretation of the age of the sediments; the bones don't seem reworked (i.e. moved around from older sediments), which is one source of error, but he could be wrong with the radiometric age estimation, which even in the best cases has a moderate margin of error. BUT it remains an interesting question of any dinosaurs survived long past the extinction; most of our picture of the K-T event comes from central/western North America, so who knows what happened elsewhere.

Re:cautionary notes from a paleo geek (0, Troll)

Burnhard (1031106) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756937)

Peer review seems a little light at PE. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but calls for caution.

It seems a pity that more people don't recognise this when other kinds of paper are published elsewhere (for example, concerning the `Science' of Climate Change). Please mod me troll ;).

Re:cautionary notes from a paleo geek (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757451)

Far from troll. One of the biggest sources of misinformation is popular science journalism which copy content without noting these vital elements.

Re:cautionary notes from a paleo geek (2, Insightful)

laughing_badger (628416) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757719)

Equally, it is a pity that some poorly written papers and a huge amount of media hype has lead to people putting Science in quotation marks when talking about climate change.

Anonymous human (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27756945)

I am not laughing mr Dino! Please don't kill me.

They survived because of God... (4, Funny)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 5 years ago | (#27756951)

I mean geez people haven't you been keeping up with the latest issues of Creationism Quarterly!
This stuff is "Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists" it says so right on the website!
It has "Scholarly articles representing the major scientific disciplines" scientific disciplines like: biology, chemistry, theology, creationism! Duh!
"Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: intelligent design, a recent creation, and a catastrophic worldwide flood"!

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html [creationresearch.org] /sarcasmbrainmelting

Re:They survived because of God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757273)

Of course, Science requires a Statement of Belief, http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html. Nothing like good ol' fashioned science where you have to "Believe" the main axioms of your discipline.

Some things are just untouchable by parody... (5, Insightful)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757615)

Holy shit, batman. I thought you were joking. It turns out it was reality tickling my funny-bone.

I especially "like" the quote "Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: [...]". They're saying up-front "we're here to give you a skewed and biased impression of how the real world works, independent of whether the real world supports our biases".

I can rephrase their bulleted list, too:

"For 45 years(1), we've been spamming the whole world(3), sullying the name of all major sciences(4) and cheating quality control systems(2) in order to convert you to our preconceived notions(6)."

("(n)" refers to the nth bullet)

Re:They survived because of God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757631)

no no...they were in the great valley!
I bed my tail one of them was called "littlefoot"!

That explains this dinosaur sighting! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27756987)

http://www.bkfk.com/Modules/Teachers/inventors/mothers_images/leach.jpg

Not quite (1)

EdibleEchidna (468353) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757001)

"If this theory holds up, these dinosaurs would be the only ones that made it to the Paleocene Age."

Nope, these are the only ones we have found evidence of surviving to the Paleocene Age so far. There may be others we don't know about yet.

You FAIL it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757015)

architecture. My OF AMERICA irc o7 FrreBSD Usenet

Creationists like this piece of news... (1)

masterfpt (1435165) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757073)

I read once about a "museum" from some fanatic creationist that put human beings and dinosaurs together in the same period. I hope they don't get their hopes up with this piece of news ;)

Re:Creationists like this piece of news... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757207)

Please don't lump the idea of dinosaurs and humans coexisting in with creationism. While many creationists erroneously point to evidence of coexistence of humans and dinos as supporting creationism, this is pure nonsense. By the same token, the fact that creationists believe that humans and dinos coexisted doesn't have anything to do with whether it's true or not.

Re:Creationists like this piece of news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757281)

I get you point, but are there any serious, non-creationist, theories about dinosaur and human coexistence?

The way I understand it, even if TFA is true, we still have a more than 60 million year gap in the fossil records.

Re:Creationists like this piece of news... (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757295)

Crikey! Just imagine what would happen if six metre long carnivorous reptiles co-existed with humans!
Creationism is just Christianity Lite anyway. If they actually read the entire book they wouldn't get so obsessed with timescales.

Re:Creationists like this piece of news... (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757355)

If they actually read the entire book they wouldn't get so obsessed with timescales.

You're assuming that they are mentally equipped to deal with the inherent contradictions, some of which are deliberate and in fact whole books of the christian bible consist of apologia/revision of older books. You can't treat the Bible like a manual, and that's the mistake that too many make. No amount of reading or rereading will help if they can't get over this one simple issue.

Re:Creationists like this piece of news... (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757317)

If a one backward idea is conflated with another in a forest and nobody hears it, does anybody give a crap?

I mean seriously, human/dinosaur coexistence and creationism both fly in the face of scientific evidence, and because creationists cling to the former so desperately to find some way to wrap their tiny heads around the fossil record, they have effectively made it a subset of their own claptrap. Who cares? Why would anybody want such an unsound 'theory' to stand by itself anyway? Nobody's rushing to pick up that one alone at baggage claim.

So was anyone else... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757145)

...trying to read the noahsark tag as something shark-related?
noashark indeed.

Abybody who knows CowboyNeal... (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757149)

Some Large Dinosaurs Survived the K-T Extinction

Abybody who knows CowboyNeal would see this as old news

metastable climate (3, Informative)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757233)

It continues to dismay me how many really don't get it. The impact, or impact+major vulcanism (BTW, what order were those in, and could the impact have pinged the earth hard enough to initiate a major volcanic event at whatever the interval?), didn't kill the dinosaurs by direct effect. They didn't all die in a week or a month, or, even a few decades, centuries, or millennia, most likely.

What happened was a significant enough change in climate in nearly all habitats, over a short enough period of time, that the vast majority of major fauna, particularly dinosaurs, and a lot of the flora simply could not adapt to the new conditions, nor migrate to a location that suited them (nor build bubble cities in which to weather the change). If the birth/death ratio slips below 1 long enough the species is extinct. If it is only slightly less than 1 because the available nutrition is not quite good enough, or there's enough hard dust around to reduce lung efficiency, or the temperatures don't allow eggs to brood quite as well, or some such, then it can take a VERY long time to kill off populations in the tens of millions. Small regions of "better", if not quite "good enough", might easily sustain a very slowly declining ecosystem for hundreds of millennia.

Bottom line, though, is that there are a LOT of dinosaur fossils below the iridium-enriched layer and VERY few, and those not for very long, above it.

Re:metastable climate (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757377)

Where are you getting your information? I expect what you say is true of small animals, but nearly all non-avian dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous were large (large=bigger than a cat, in this context). They almost certainly would have died out in the weeks and months following the impact. I'm not aware of any confirmed non-avian dinosaurs alive after the iridium layer.

KILLER DINOSAURS WANT YOUR CHILDREN! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757263)

http://carbags.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/vertheroshot_whitebkg.jpg

Sure, they may have survived the K-T Extinction, (0)

ancient_kings (1000970) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757265)

but what about the K-Y Fornification?

Fossil records cannot be show extinction dates (1)

Manic Miner (81246) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757269)

I would have thought this was obvious. The lack of fossils after a certain point in time only shows that there are no fossils. You cannot logically infer anything else from this, other than the fact that you haven't found any newer ones. I'm not saying they didn't die out when they claim, but trying to "prove" a concrete date is going to be neigh on impossible. The reason we haven't find any newer fossils could be for several reasons, they could have all died out, or it could be no more of them were fossilised, or we simply haven't found the newer fossils yet.

Re:Fossil records cannot be show extinction dates (2, Interesting)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757385)

That would be true if the sample is small (which to a certain extent it is). We will never "prove" (proof is for mathematicians) that a bunch of things went extinct on a certain date, but we can built a compelling statistical likelihood.

Shift in the Earth's rotation? (2, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757339)

A few days back, the [god-damned-mother-frikken] History Channel did several hours on predictions of the future and more specifically, December 12, 2012 and I got sucked right into it. By the time their series finished for the night, I was wrecked inside with this horrible feeling of doom. (They put together these very compelling presentations with pictures and music...really sets a dramatic mood! and when you are staying up too late... well even the most resistant people can fall victim I think.)

In any case, the most interesting theory surrounding the projected end of the world day is that the rotational axis of the earth will change resulting in massive geologic events. What's more, they suggested that the earth had gone through this kind of change before and was a potential cause of the mass extinction events in the past.

I don't claim to know much about all that, but I have to remind myself that this was the FIRST time I had heard about rotational axis shifting (but not the first time I had heard of magnetic polar shifting) and definitely the first time I had heard of rotational axis shifting being cited as the cause of mass extinction events.

Who knows more about this than I do? Got anything to debunk or verify what I recall from late-night TV watching?

Re:Shift in the Earth's rotation? (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757711)

12th Dec 2012 ... end of the long cycle count in the Mayan calendar - A time of celebration and considered to be a time of change (like most cycle ends in the calendar) but also considered lucky to witness, research indicated the Mayans considered that nothing significant would happen on this date, except the next cycle would begin, and history would start to repeat from 11 August 3114 BC so expect people to be building some large buildings in stone (Stonehenge, Newgrange, ĦaÄar Qim etc ...) and the reinvention of writing in the not too distant future ...

Heck, we still have dinasaurs in Colorado (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757365)

Owens and Tancredo are still running around here lead by Big Dick Wadhams. Plenty of Dinosaurs.

Isn't .... (1)

rodney dill (631059) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757367)

.... Congress evidence enough of this?

Quantum Mechanics... (2, Funny)

Shivinski (1053538) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757425)

As with most articles lately, it'll probably emerge that quantum mechanics is behind the survival of these select few dinosaurs.

Re:Quantum Mechanics... (5, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757513)

it'll probably emerge that quantum mechanics is behind the survival of these select few dinosaurs.

Quantum Mechanics can't save the dinosaurs. For a job this big, we need String Theory.

This has been documented already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27757557)

Um... Everyone knows about the dinosaurs that lived in Great Valley. They must've died out when they ran out of tree stars.

Wait a second... (2, Insightful)

DrWho520 (655973) | more than 5 years ago | (#27757685)

If they eventually died out because the K-T event drastically changed the environment or the K-T event reduced a species genetic diversity below the point necessary to sustain its population, did that species really survive the K-T event?

If you live through a bomb blast but die 3 days later because of shrapnel in you liver, did you really survive the bomb blast?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?