Re: New extinction theory

[Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>]

Not only that, but:

1) Dinosaurs are not extinct!
2) Then there is the cladistic vs. Linnaean issue of whether dinosaurs
are "reptiles".  More to the point, what exactly is a "reptile"?  Are
birds "reptiles"?  Did the authors address this issue?
3) The authors tested "13 biological classes" and compared their amino
acids to modern reptiles.  They found that amino acid content in modern
reptiles, "the sibling of dinosaur" [sic], is "strikingly different from
the other biological classes".  Well, DUH.  Shouldn't that be expected? 
Differences in biomolecules between taxa forms the basis for the science
of molecular evolution.  Furthermore, why did they lump all modern
"reptiles" together when they made the comparisons?  They seem to assume
that all modern "reptiles" are quite close to each other and can
therefore be dealt with as one bloc of biochemical data.  Is that a
proper assumption to make?
4) IF both the non-avian dinosaurs and the birds are "reptiles", then why
did only the non-avian dinosaurs go extinct, while some flying dinosaurs,
snakes and lizards survived?  I don't understand how analysis of amino
acids could solve this problem.

If I wasn't massively confused before I read their abstract, I am now.  I
guess I need to read the whole paper.

<pb>
--

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 21:49:09 +0100 "John Hunt" <john.bass@ntlworld.com>
writes:
> There seem to be a lot of papers like this by people that still 
> think
> dinosaurs are just big reptiles.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu] On 
> Behalf Of
> Phil Bigelow
> Sent: 05 June 2005 14:34
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: New extinction theory
> 
> Is it just me, or was anyone else confused after reading the 2nd 
> half of
> their abstract?
> 
> >pb>
> --
> 
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:32:23 -0400 "Andrew A. Farke"
> <afarke@ic.sunysb.edu> writes:
> > I haven't had a chance to read through this yet (or will I in the 
> 
> > near
> > future), but figured it might be of interest to some on the list.
> > 
> > Wang, G.-Z., B.-G. Ma, Y. Yang, and H.-Y. Zhang. Unexpected amino 
> 
> > acid
> > composition of modern Reptilia and its implications in molecular 
> > mechanisms
> > of dinosaur extinction. Biochemical and Biophysical Research 
> > Communications
> > In Press, Corrected Proof.
> > 
> > Dinosaur extinction is a great challenge to evolutionary biology. 
> 
> > Although
> > accumulating evidence suggests that an abrupt change of 
> environment, 
> > such as
> > a long period of low temperature induced by asteroid hit or other 
> 
> > disasters,
> > may be responsible for dinosaur extinction, little is known about 
> 
> > the
> > underlying molecular mechanisms. By analyzing the amino acid 
> > compositions of
> > 13 biological classes, we found that the charged amino acid 
> content 
> > of
> > modern Reptilia, the sibling of dinosaur, is strikingly different 
> 
> > from those
> > of other classes, which inspires us to propose a possible 
> molecular
> > mechanism for dinosaur extinction.
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > Andrew A. Farke, Graduate Student
> > Department of Anatomical Sciences
> > Stony Brook University
> > T8 040 Health Sciences Center
> > Stony Brook, NY  11794-8081
> >  
> > Phone: 631-444-7364
> > Email: afarke@ic.sunysb.edu
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>