Re: K-T impact theory

[Stanley Friesen <sarima@ix.netcom.com>]

At 07:19 AM 6/1/97 -0700, Jonathon Woolf wrote:
>> At most 99.9% of the life in NA was killed.
>
>Isn't that already too high a percentage?  The evidence shows that 
>quite
>a bit more than that survived, does it not?

Not that I have seen.  Remember, I am talking about number of *individuals*
killed, not number of species lost.  There is a big difference.

>  If I recall some material
>I've seen correctly, the mortality was 100% for large land animals, and
>ranged between about 50% and 90% for most other terrestrial animal
>groups.  Except for insects, which suffered hardly at all.

These numbers are for number of *species* lost.  But since a species can
survive having most of its individuals killed, the death rate for
*individuals* may well have been substantially higher.  A 99.9% individual
death rate is about right for a 75-80% species loss rate.

>If so, then why was this reported as in line with current thought, and
>with supporting quotes from people like Paul Sereno?

Because it is more dramatic, and more easily debunked, that way? (In short,
ulterior motives).

Either the quotes from Sereno were taken out of context, or Sereno is out
of step with recent results. (People with an axe to grind often take quotes
out of context - I suspect that is the most likely answer here).

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima@ix.netcom.com
                                          sfriesen@netlock.com