Re: K-T strike

[Chris Campbell <sankarah@ou.edu>]

Hellcreek@aol.com wrote:
> To me, this is represents one of the best (and most interesting) cases I have
> read concerning chemical evidence in support of impact since the first
> published studies of K-T iridium in 1980.  Hopefully the authors will apply
> this approach to other extinction boundaries as well.  And while this new
> information does not settle the argument as to whether dinosaurs became
> extinct in consequence of the impact, I  favor the impact-caused extinction
> scenario(s).

Something I've begun studying since taking up the study of the history
of science deals with the extent to which participants in a scientific
discipline take up popular theories.  In this case I'm curious as to how
large a part of the paleontology community accepts an impact as the sole
cause of the K-T extinctions, how many view it as having an impetus
effect (i.e., caused climatic change which in turn caused the
extinctions, or something similar), how many think it was significant
but not paramount (pointing to vulcanism, tectonic drift, intraspecific
factors due to population mixing, normal background extinctions, and
climatic change independent of the bolide) and how many think the whole
meteor thing was just trivial.  

I'm not really taking an opinion poll here (at least not on the impact
itself), but I would like to ask those in the paleontology community
(both pro and non, including scientists, fossil hunters, illustrators,
and anyone who interacts with dino folks on a regular basis) about their
experiences dealing with this issue.  In your experience, where on the
continuum do opinions most tend to fall?  Which version of the K-T
scenario is most popular among scientists, artists, and dedicated
amateurs?

Chris