[meteorite-list] Fossils Offer Support for Meteor'sRoleinDinosaur Extinc...

From: MarkF <mafer_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Sep 23 04:46:46 2005
Message-ID: <013401c5c01b$0d7bbbf0$01fea8c0_at_MAF>

Hi Doug and List

Actually, there are chared and carbonized stumps within flows. Simple google
search turn this up:
http://www.internacional.edu.ec/publicaciones/arco_iris/001/english/magazine001b.htm
A piece of burned bone which had been carbonized would leave a distinct
trace fossil as opposed to a mineralized fossil. Besides, nothing ever burns
completely in a fire storm, something is always left. Even in a nuclear
blast, something is left a ways from ground zero. And birds did survive it,
so there had to be breaks in the flashover pattern.
And as for marine lifeform, all the forams show you is that something in the
water hit them. Dinosaurs had made it past weather changes before and so had
forams.
You cannot equate a foram to any land dwelling creature. It will not hold up
when all the cards are placed on the table. All you have is a marine
lifeform and a land lifeform and for all we know, there was a sudden uptake
of a crutial mineral in the water which left the forams in a hurt.
Ever wonder why there are some species of radiolarlia which uses strontium
instead of silica for thier tests?
There are no dinosaur bones within many feet of the K-T boundary and none
have yet to be found in the boundary.
That is the important clue. They had already died out, so something other
than the K-T event did it. I could have been another impactor, but no one
has found another layer with a high iridium content that is earlier and at a
dinosaur fossil level. So, it is most likely something else that caused the
end of the dinosaurs. A reptilian pandemic has been suggested, but not
proved.
Personally, I think it was a major loss of the ozone layer and the beasties
without complete body coverings of hair or feathers got serious sunburns
which became cancerous or they got radiation sickness and died from that
exposure. Either way, it would have eliminated all the megaforms including
the marine and flying reptiles.
But, the fact is, there have been no correlating dinosaur fossils found at
the K-T boundary. This is the significant fact that these people never
mention whenever they publish the "Dinosaur Extinction Event". Has Bakker,
Horner, Currie, Sareno or dozens of other world class experts come forward
and published that the K-T boundary is what caused the end to dinosaurs? No,
they only say that below it you can find bones and above it you don't, but
they also qualify it with how far below.
So, anyone who uses some other lifeform dying off as proof that another
lifeform died doesn't have enough sandwiches for a picnic.
When you have one lifeform dying off side by side with another, then you
have evidence for something which may well lead to the proof.
Now, there is one possibility that really needs looking at, find a marine
reptile that has died in the youngest rock you can find before the K-T
boundary, and look for your forams there and talk to me about what's
different or not between these "associated" forams and those forams at the
K-T boundary. That would be a meaningful study which might lend real clues
to a worldwide reptilian die off. But without the "associated" fossil bones,
you have nothing.
I want to hear about real scientific investigation here, not smoking guns
and some astrophysicist's "expert" opinion (read that as mathmatical models)
or some foram expert's "proof" on the end of the dinosaurs. Let the
dinosaur experts come forward and say they have proof.
This is like saying "Because all the cable channels are carrying reality or
religious shows, everyone, absolutely everyone, must be watching them with
no exceptions".

Now, can we get on with meteorites and reality?

----- Original Message -----
From: <MexicoDoug_at_aol.com>
To: <mafer_at_imagineopals.com>
Cc: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Fossils Offer Support for
Meteor'sRoleinDinosaur Extinc...


> Mark Fe wrote:
>>Lack of a fossil means nothing.
>>A charred bone fossil will.
>
>>Mark Fe "I've only driven through Missouri, but show me anyway"
>
> Hola Mark, List,
>
> 64.8 - 65.3 million years later and you expect to find a charred dinosaur
> bone? Either the bone gets burnt or it fossilizes...and fossilizing is
> very
> infrequent in the big scheme of things or everyone would have a dinosaur
> skeleton buried in their cellar...I think it would be asking to much to
> get an
> animal fossil of something that was burnt - would seem to me that whatever
> was
> burnt would loose its integrity and no longer have the ability to
> fossilize
> very easily at all...Can you show me a fossilized piece of burnt petrified
> wood
> ... ? :) Or was that just a fragment of petrified wood and who knows why
> it
> wasn't twice as big...
>
> With respect to the Forams, the theory is simple. Foramifera are
> plentiful
> in sediments containing even no macro-fossils as is too typical in the KT
> sediments. Changes species of 'Forams' are indicators of climatic change
> in the
> opinion of most paleontologists. Now the fossil record shows that during
> that time period so long ago, many species of land animals simply
> vanished
> geologically abruptly, though how abruptly is still an open question for
> some: Is
> it 500,000 years or 500 years being the basic question. And the key
> assumption for Missourian's palate is if all but proving a big climate
> change (read:
> Foram change) in conjunction with a huge iridium spike wasn't a shock
> enough
> to blow away larger land animals.
>
> Similar changes in microscopic creatures earmark other great dyings. In
> the
> case of KT, for every 20 different species of Forams, only about 6
> remained.
> The black box that ties the dinosaur extinction is, if we are sure the
> climate changed abruptly as:
> 1. this is reflected in a sudden change in Forams...because only the hot
> water species survived...or cold water species survived in a certain area
> of
> study we have an incredibly nice predictor of climate (temperature)
> change. Now
> furthermore, we can correlate that change, ie, dying, with a spike of
> Iridium!
>
> OK, you're from Missouri...No problem, a very nice place (Isn't their
> motto,
> "Missouri is for Virginians?" Or was it "Show me Virginia"?, or
> "Missouri
> is for Lovers?" I get them all mixed up. But I think the
> paleontologists are
> on to something when they turn up those wonderful clues to what happened
> that fateful date of January 1, 64,997,995 B.C. A person who measures
> dinosaur
> bones and is typically a good prehistoric taxonomist to describe new
> species,
> is unlikely to find a bone with a label 64,997,996 BC. I'm all eyes for
> new
> evidence, but I think the Foram folk who are the experts in
> chronoestratigraphy are much more likely to deconvolute as best as any
> dino only
> paleontologist , after all they possibly like forams nbecause the dinos
> didn't give up any
> smoking guns, which is worse than looking for a grain of sand on a beach
> with 65,000,000 more grains... and it is not like these experts are not
> all very
> interest paleontologists at heart and that many of the Foram folk of
> course
> are dino experts as well as can be!
>
> Three cheers for the efforts of the Foram folk ... though not loud enough
> cheer to give them big heads about it...the big head won't happen until
> the next
> Nobel Prize is awarded on the subject...and I haven't seen any work in the
> field yet coming near that yet...but who knows what they might dig
> up...would
> you take an ammonite that looked like a jigsaw puzzle with half of the
> pieces
> gone and a few spherules rolling around in it? Ammonites can look like
> j8igsaw puzzles...btw:-)
> Saludos, Doug
> PS :Lack of a fossil means something, though it proves decisively
> nothing.
> Lucky scientists can waive the "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause of the
> Constitution when they publish and speak of thingsbeing consistent or not
> with
> the record...
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Fri 23 Sep 2005 04:44:46 AM PDT