Extinction and The Loast World

["Michael D. Miller" <millerm@thunder.indstate.edu>]

I've read a lot of the responses about what I said about extinction.  It 
just goes to prove that sometimes I don't say what I mean.  What I meant 
was, as long as Earth remains a relatively safe (in terms of retaining
the ability to provide for life) and hospitable place, where life 
continues beyond even a substantial event like Chicxalub, organisms must 
adapt or be faced with possible extinction.  Nature works in mysterious 
ways and I don't believe that any organism is beyond extinction given the 
right conditions no matter how hard the species fights or adapts to the 
changes, some will perish regardless.
I hope I'm not blabbing.  But, I do agree on some points that organisms 
(maybe the dinos being THE prime example) simply CANNOT adapt maybe 
because of one reason or another.  It becomes extinct.  It has failed a 
test (as you can call it whatever) that has no possible solution.  Kind 
of like the Academy ttest you hear about all the time on the Star Trek 
movies that Kirk cheated on where there is no positive outcome possible.

On to The Lost World.  Jurassic Park has a LOT of scientific flaws, but 
it is the movie industry and the artists that inspire people to look 
seriously into paleo.  It is the same people who work their magic to make 
everyone think, "Hey, a T-Rex may have looked like that."  Movies aren't 
meant to advance science, but to entertain the public (however, nowadays 
the public is demanding more scientifically real movies than before.  
This demand is putting a little demand on producers and directors to both 
be creative and be factually based at the same time).  Either way, 
realism or make-believe, expect to find a lot of stuff you might find 
wrong with The Lost World.  I'm sure I will as I did with Dante's Peak 
and the NBC movie Asteroid (my god, it was full of REEAALLY off-the-wall 
ideas).  But who am I to say;  I'm just an undergrad.

Michael D. Miller