[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Extinction
On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Mickey Rowe wrote:
>
> I should probably stay out of this, but... Van Smith, we've generally
> been a very congenial group around here, and I'd like to see it stay
> that way. However, in my opinion, you're making that difficult. In
> your first appearance here you wrote (among other things):
>
> > How can any sane, informed person, believe anything else but that
> > the KT extinction was caused by an impact with an extraterrestrial
> > object?
>
> The obvious implication is that you are an informed, sane person, and
> anyone who disagrees with you is lacking in one or both of those
> categories. There are times when I wish I had that kind of self
> confidence, but right now I'm glad I don't. In any case, let me
> implore you one more time to read the Williams paper you've been
> directed to at least twice. If you really want to know why a "sane,
> informed person" might not be as cocksure as yourself, you'll see
> things there such as the concluding paragraph:
>
> The decline in both numbers and kinds of dinosaurs suggested by
> the combined evidence of the channels and the sparseness of the last
> few meters of the Hell Creek Formation are consistent with a gradual
> decline (however steep) or possibly an accelerating decline, but not
> a catastrophic one. This distribution is not consistent with either
> the predictions of Alvarez's own test or the more discriminating
> predictions based on taphonomic considerations. In failing these
> tests, Alvarez's argument has not been proven wrong, but it has been
> shown to lack credibility. It fails the all important argument of
> the burden of proof--there is simply no evidence _for_ a
> catastrophic mass extinction.
>
> Read the whole paper. Then tell us how you've softened your stance,
> or tell us why you think Michael Williams is either insane or
> uninformed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Mickey Rowe (rowe@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu)
>
The problem is that William's statement about the decline has no evidence
to back it up. Personally, I have seen no evidence presented that there
was a
gradual decline of dinosaurs at any scale in the Hell Creek. In fact,
the only field study of the Hell Creek designed to test the hypothesis
rejected a gradual decline.