Re: Extinction

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/24/00 0:34:28 AM EST, philidor11@snet.net writes:

<< '...cannot be the result of a coincidence...'?  Less ...um... parsimonious
 than a single cause, yes, but probability does not preclude coincidence.  If
 you want to rule out coincidence in principle, then first you have to find
 direct evidence of an impact at the time of each major extinction.  The
 argument that simultaneous extinctions prove impacts because impacts produce
 simultaneous extinctions is false without a demonstration that in reality
 ONLY impacts can produce simultaneous extinctions. >>

Not true at all. Each mass extinction has its own cause, which need not be an 
asteroid impact at all. But the cause of the K-T mass extinction >is< an 
asteroid impact, beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is now on those 
who continue to assert that the asteroid impact did >not< cause of the K-T 
mass extinction to present their evidence, which so far has been nothing more 
than hand-waving, implausible alternative hypotheses, a pack of coincidences, 
and/or just-so-story scenarios. As far as other mass extinctions are 
concerned, their causes may or may not be asteroid impacts, and they are 
largely irrelevant to the cause of the K-T mass extinction.