Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Theory on extinction of dinosaurs


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1    Ezgon

Ezgon

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2004

Posted 23 November 2004 - 05:48 PM

It seems logical to me that hundreds of thousands of these gigantic stomachs on 4 legs required astronomical amounts of food to survive and ipso facto left behind astronomical mountains of dung.After a few million years of grazing the vast plains and forests where they were found,the food supplies started to become more and more scarce,a 20 tons plant-eater would have easily cleared an area the size of central park during its lifetime if not larger.Multiply this by 1,000 and you can easily see an area the size of New York become cleared of everything they could eat in no time.Now multiply this by 100 and the problem becomes apparent.Add the problems related to the tons of dung produced and accumulating
and releasing tons of gases in the atmosphere and you have the perfect scenario for a relatively rapid progression of conditions leading to their extinction.They simply ran out of food by eating so much and by releasing so much gases in the atmosphere impairing the growth of new plants and killing some plant species indispensable to their survival.
I am no scientist and it is just and theory,but it seems to make sense to me.Ok,I'm ready for the first 1000 readers to throw their stone at me.


#2    dddduck

dddduck

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:03 Nov 2004

Posted 23 November 2004 - 06:26 PM

Simply, your theory is overpopulation led to extinction. But, our experience is that although animal overpopulation leads to die outs significantly reducing populations, it rarely reads to extinction. Populations usually stabilize at environmentally sustainable levels.


#3    Asterix

Asterix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 670 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2004

  • By Belenos and Toutatis!

Posted 23 November 2004 - 08:15 PM

And considering the fact that this would be a...human-free environment, meaning nature would have been allowed to take care of itself, with the proper mechanisms, that means that natural selection would have made so that, simply, the strongest would survive, and the population would return again to "normal" levels

Posted Image
There are two kinds of idiots - those who don't take action because they have received a threat, and those who think they are taking action because they have issued a threat.
Paulo Coelho

#4    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 24 November 2004 - 01:09 AM

Nature (granted, only when free of mankind's intervention) works to balance itself rather well...a population can only exist in an area that can support it.

If, as you propose, a herd of animals were to deplete the food supply available to them, then their population would not be able to grow...young would be unlikely to survive long treks to new food sources without some kind of nourishment, and the numbers of the population would dwindle, until eventually stabalising once more, when there was enough food to support the diminished number...that's how nature works.

This same system also involved predators, disease (with obviously spreads easier in crowded populations), and many other factors that ensure nature keeps a finely tuned balance...whenever a populations number rises to high, it is forced to drop once more (usually because predators will become more numerous with the adundant food around).

Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#5    seeking

seeking

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2003
  • Location:Connecticut

  • Unthinking faith would be a good question to ask the creator of the human mind.

Posted 24 November 2004 - 03:40 AM

your theory also leaves out the carnivours who would kill quite a bit of that 1000 x 100 number, everything balances out, and besides that, isnt manewer(sp?) a good fertilizer?

Posted Image
"Religion has no place in public schools the way facts have no place in organized religion."


#6    Ezgon

Ezgon

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2004

Posted 26 November 2004 - 02:01 AM

QUOTE(dddduck @ Nov 23 2004, 11:26 AM)
Simply, your theory is overpopulation led to extinction. But, our experience is that although animal overpopulation leads to die outs significantly reducing populations, it rarely reads to extinction. Populations usually stabilize at environmentally sustainable levels.

View Post


Ok,no problems with Mother Nature in its infinite wisdom takes care of itself and therefore reestablishes balance and harmony.But we are talking about animals of gigantic proportions who lived extremely long lifes(most likely longer than we do).
They laid eggs,lots of them.The abundance of food was favorable to large herds of these plant eaters and they traveled constantly in their quest for new habitats.
                                                After having exhausted a vast area of its food supply,they would go on to look for another region and start over once again.I can understand that Nature will intervene and regulate a population of rats if food gets scarce and it has time to do so because it is fairly gradual in its progression.But we are talking about creatures that could eat hundreds if not thousands of pounds of food each every day.One day you have a forrest in front of you and it looks as if it will never be depleted completely but a few days later there's almost nothing left.No warnings that these are the only trees or plants left and that behind there is nothing but rocks or water and that once those are gone,sorry but no food unless you travel to the next prehistoric diner.Let's not forget that these dinos were not the brightest things on 4 legs.So repeat that scenario across the continent a thousand times and nature or no nature to regulate and take care of the problem,you have a problem.And let's not forget how long these animals lived.
                                               If faced with dwindling food supplies Nature decided to let the "stop f***ing and no babies for a while " gene kick in,then you still have massive appetites to take care of, and they will need to eat.The weak and the old ones die first, but the strong ones are still getting at it,eating and eating and eating and getting bigger and bigger and bigger and living decades longer,and the food supplies got more and more depleted(trees and plants didn't regenerate fast enough to maintain balance and availability)  and then one day :NADA.I don't think that the usual laws of nature applied to the dinosaurs simply because of the size involved,the numbers and the longevity of these animals.If Nature always intervenes and regulates to maintain harmony and balance,then why did so many species become extinct?Nature did intervene,it saw that it could not allow these creatures to continue destroying everything around them and that it was doomed if they didn't disappear.And so they did.And because of their deaths ,mammals like us lived.They may have been the biggest and the strongest, but they were not the smartest and the fittest for this planet.
Throw the stones.I'm ready.


#7    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,075 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 November 2004 - 03:40 AM

I think you underestimate the size of the prehistoric jungles and forests.  For that matter, I think you overestimate how long the giant saurians lived.  Also, even though they did eventually go extinct, keep in mind that these creatures held sway for over 130 million years.  There was nothing unbalanced about the system they lived in.


#8    seeking

seeking

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2003
  • Location:Connecticut

  • Unthinking faith would be a good question to ask the creator of the human mind.

Posted 26 November 2004 - 10:21 PM

yea, not only where prehistoric jungles a lot larger, they were more dense as well. too agree with aquatas i think your over exaggerating on the life expactancy, yes certain species have been proven to live into the hundreds, but most are around 40 years, and again you have to take into account they are also hunted and that when they do lay thier eggs not all of them survive the initial hatch, and then even if they are lucky enough to actually hatch they may not survive thier first year

Posted Image
"Religion has no place in public schools the way facts have no place in organized religion."


#9    JennRose

JennRose

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,284 posts
  • Joined:05 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • All power rests on hierarchy: An army is nothing but a well-organized lynch mob.
    --Edward Abbey

Posted 27 November 2004 - 02:56 AM

And also, many dinosaurs were not huge.  In fact, many were quite small...some barely the size of chickens.

Posted Image

#10    Burgundy Johnson

Burgundy Johnson

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 522 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 29 November 2004 - 12:27 AM

QUOTE
After having exhausted a vast area of its food supply,they would go on to look for another region and start over once again.I can understand that Nature will intervene and regulate a population of rats if food gets scarce and it has time to do so because it is fairly gradual in its progression.But we are talking about creatures that could eat hundreds if not thousands of pounds of food each every day.One day you have a forrest in front of you and it looks as if it will never be depleted completely but a few days later there's almost nothing left.No warnings that these are the only trees or plants left and that behind there is nothing but rocks or water and that once those are gone,sorry but no food unless you travel to the next prehistoric diner.Let's not forget that these dinos were not the brightest things on 4 legs.So repeat that scenario across the continent a thousand times and nature or no nature to regulate and take care of the problem,you have a problem.And let's not forget how long these animals lived.


and i don't think the dino's would clear the area of roots, etc. in the time they were there...so when they leave, what happens? food grows back! haven't you seen the land before time? they return to the same spots!  tongue.gif

but seriously, ( i may be wrong) but i think all the food would grow back in time


#11    man_in_mudboots

man_in_mudboots

    title?

  • Member
  • 2,425 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2003
  • Location:swamps of south central Louisiana

  • whither goest thou, young rogue?

Posted 29 November 2004 - 12:39 AM

i do think its unprobable, for all the reasons people have said.


#12    panther10758

panther10758

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,215 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2004
  • Location:CA

  • Any man can become a Father it takes a REAL MAN to be a DAD!

Posted 29 November 2004 - 01:18 AM

Not likley I agree but the thread starter has a theory but it fails in all the areas mentioned. One other fact remains also all the evidence supports a sudden extinction NOT a gradual one that starvation would suggest. This is a big reason most have always subscribes to Metor theory or some other sudden disaster

Edited by panther10758, 29 November 2004 - 01:44 AM.


#13    seeking

seeking

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2003
  • Location:Connecticut

  • Unthinking faith would be a good question to ask the creator of the human mind.

Posted 29 November 2004 - 01:41 AM

beutiful point

Posted Image
"Religion has no place in public schools the way facts have no place in organized religion."


#14    4dplane

4dplane

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 493 posts
  • Joined:12 May 2004

  • To study where I stand, teaches me what I have been missing.

Posted 03 December 2004 - 06:25 AM

Most large predators besides the alligator were warmed-blooded. They need lots of energy to hunt and kill their prey. Now the herbivores may have been cold blooded which would mean they would have naturally needed less energy; hence, the dinosaurs you speak of may not have consumed as much food as you think.

http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/dinos/de_4/5c51d90.htm
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/image_g...o/coldwarm.html



Edited by 4dplane, 03 December 2004 - 06:28 AM.

Any belief is a self protecting device through which the mind disconnects itself from truth. Only a mind that is free from any anticipation, hope, and belief can act justly and in alliance with truth and reality.
-Krishnamurti

Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand.
-Mark Twan

#15    Dowdy

Dowdy

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,186 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

  • "The one thing we have learnt from history is that we learn nothing from history." Albert Einstein

Posted 03 December 2004 - 06:48 AM

Nature has a way of adapting to such situations.

Take Australia for example...
We have alot of bush fires here and with all the bush fires we've had you'd think that all the trees would be burnt down by now. Buy nature has adapted. We have trees that have seeds that respond to fires - ie. when one of those trees are buring, it's seeds gets released. So although that tree may of died it released enough seeds for 3-4 more trees to grow.


THE PAOMNNEHAL PWEOR OF THE HMUAN MNID Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. Can you? ;)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users