Dinosaurs were thriving before asteroid strike

[UM-Bot]

A new study has cast doubt on the idea that the dinosaurs had been in steady decline before the impact.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/326137/dinosaurs-were-thriving-before-asteroid-strike

[acute]

They didn't do much thriving afterwards! 

[zep73]

The only surprise is that vegans and environmentalists don't blame humanity for the asteroid.

[Seti42]

And in the year 2525, another catastrophic impact will end the age of mammals and birds, allowing the octopus to rise up and become sentient. Circle of life, man.

[seaturtlehorsesnake]

6 hours ago, acute said:

They didn't do much thriving afterwards! 

*acute is suddenly savaged by an enraged chicken*

[docyabut2]

Its what I believe, the dinosaurs got wipped out in a big catastrophic impact and did starve to death, while the little small animals  went under  ground to survive.   

[SHaYap]

Depends on where abouts on the Planet this applies, there are enough being dug up in the Arctic to show that  shows the dinos could do very well even in very harsh conditions

~

[Orphalesion]

Well poop, I kinda always liked the sort of "romantic" tale of a slow decline, but. oh well...

 

8 hours ago, Seti42 said:

And in the year 2525, another catastrophic impact will end the age of mammals and birds, allowing the octopus to rise up and become sentient. Circle of life, man.

That's not what the song says and doesn't even rhyme...

[Silver Surfer]

[+susieice]

19 hours ago, third_eye said:

Depends on where abouts on the Planet this applies, there are enough being dug up in the Arctic to show that  shows the dinos could do very well even in very harsh conditions

~

I'm reading a book right now about the history of the expeditions from the American Museum of Natural History in NYC. In the 1920's there were hundreds of fossils found in 5 expeditions into the Gobi Desert and Inner Mongolia. A very, very harsh environment. In fact, it's believed the man who led them is who the character of Indiana Jones was based on. His name was Roy Chapman Andrews. They were looking for the "missing link". He found the first dinosaur fossilized eggs known to have been recovered. Also fossilized mammals. He did not find human remains.

There were many expeditions sent out and the stories are fascinating!

Edited March 9, 2019 by susieice

[SmartAZ]

"Generally accepted" only means that a lot of people have not bothered to consider any other possibility. Those who have done their homework point out that there is no evidence of a meteor: it is an assumption. The crater resembles a fulgurite, which means a lightning strike.

Another problem with the meteor theory is that there were frogs along with the dinosaurs. Your theory has to explain what killed the dinosaurs without killing the frogs.

Another problem is that before that time most plants on Earth were gymnosperms, and afterward most plants were angiosperms. The meteor theory does not address that at all.

[Carnoferox]

23 minutes ago, SmartAZ said:

"Generally accepted" only means that a lot of people have not bothered to consider any other possibility. Those who have done their homework point out that there is no evidence of a meteor: it is an assumption. The crater resembles a fulgurite, which means a lightning strike.

Another problem with the meteor theory is that there were frogs along with the dinosaurs. Your theory has to explain what killed the dinosaurs without killing the frogs.

Another problem is that before that time most plants on Earth were gymnosperms, and afterward most plants were angiosperms. The meteor theory does not address that at all.

"No evidence of a meteor"? Has your head been stuck in the sand for the last 40 years? The Chicxulub crater certainly doesn't resemble a fulgurite, don't know what you're on about there. Your point about plants is also completely false, as the angiosperm radiation occurred over 60 million years before the Chicxulub impact.

[Piney]

18 minutes ago, SmartAZ said:

Another problem is that before that time most plants on Earth were gymnosperms, and afterward most plants were angiosperms. The meteor theory does not address that at all.

No, that evolutionary change happened a lot earlier. The Gnetophyta might be the missing link in between. 

The angiosperm radiation happened in the Cretaceous and they became predominate during the Campanian right before the meteor strike. 

25 minutes ago, SmartAZ said:

Another problem with the meteor theory is that there were frogs along with the dinosaurs. Your theory has to explain what killed the dinosaurs without killing the frogs.

Not all dinosaurs went extinct. Just the large ones. We call the small ones birds now.

Frogs, like mammals were small enough ( i.e. needed less energy/ resources) to survive.

28 minutes ago, SmartAZ said:

"Generally accepted" only means that a lot of people have not bothered to consider any other possibility. Those who have done their homework point out that there is no evidence of a meteor: it is an assumption. The crater resembles a fulgurite, which means a lightning strike.

Your the one that hasn't done your homework. Looks like a crater to me.

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

"No evidence of a meteor"? Has your head been stuck in the sand for the last 40 years? The Chicxulub crater certainly doesn't resemble a fulgurite, don't know what you're on about there. Your point about plants is also completely false, as the angiosperm radiation occurred over 60 million years before the Chicxulub impact.

I was answering at the same time. 

Great minds! 

[Carnoferox]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

I was answering at the same time. 

Great minds! 

First it's people claiming there was a Younger Dryas impact when there wasn't, now it's someone claiming there wasn't a K/Pg impact when there was! 

[Piney]

5 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

First it's people claiming there was a Younger Dryas impact when there wasn't, now it's someone claiming there wasn't a K/Pg impact when there was! 

Go over to "Let's Talk History" and do some scanning. I just answered this genius over there. This is the guy who thinks Saturn ghosted us and caused a worldwide flood and giant lightning strikes, and it was all "God's Plan". 

[SHaYap]

5 hours ago, susieice said:

I'm reading a book right now about the history of the expeditions from the American Museum of Natural History in NYC. In the 1920's there were hundreds of fossils found in 5 expeditions into the Gobi Desert and Inner Mongolia. A very, very harsh environment. In fact, it's believed the man who led them is who the character of Indiana Jones was based on. His name was Roy Chapman Andrews. They were looking for the "missing link". He found the first dinosaur fossilized eggs known to have been recovered. Also fossilized mammals. He did not find human remains.

There were many expeditions sent out and the stories are fascinating!

No arguments there, the Gobi desert region is still so harsh and inaccessible today that many an attempt to film there has failed ... rather miserably too

~

[BuddingPsychic1111]

There are probably still dinosaurs honestly.  People have seen them in certain parts of the jungles of Africa, and I could imagine that likely they were not completely wiped out.  The numbers may have declined, but honestly I'm not convinced that there are not still dinosaurs in certain parts of the world.  Then, there's the Loch Ness monster to consider, which is probably some sort of dinosaur

[Carnoferox]

8 hours ago, BuddingPsychic1111 said:

There are probably still dinosaurs honestly.  People have seen them in certain parts of the jungles of Africa, and I could imagine that likely they were not completely wiped out.  The numbers may have declined, but honestly I'm not convinced that there are not still dinosaurs in certain parts of the world.  Then, there's the Loch Ness monster to consider, which is probably some sort of dinosaur

Yes there are still dinosaurs thriving today, and they are of course birds. I can however say with confidence that there are no non-avialan dinosaurs alive today. None of the supposed sightings are even remotely convincing.

[Essan]

9 hours ago, BuddingPsychic1111 said:

There are probably still dinosaurs honestly.  People have seen them in certain parts of the jungles of Africa, and I could imagine that likely they were not completely wiped out.  The numbers may have declined, but honestly I'm not convinced that there are not still dinosaurs in certain parts of the world.  Then, there's the Loch Ness monster to consider, which is probably some sort of dinosaur

The Loch Ness monster is far more likely to be a Nazi submarine built by the Romans and put there by the Chinese 200,000 years ago in order to escape the Black Death when the Transformers invaded, than a dinosaur.

[Essan]

15 hours ago, SmartAZ said:

"Generally accepted" only means that a lot of people have not bothered to consider any other possibility. Those who have done their homework point out that there is no evidence of a meteor: it is an assumption. The crater resembles a fulgurite, which means a lightning strike.

Another problem with the meteor theory is that there were frogs along with the dinosaurs. Your theory has to explain what killed the dinosaurs without killing the frogs.

Another problem is that before that time most plants on Earth were gymnosperms, and afterward most plants were angiosperms. The meteor theory does not address that at all.

Some thunderstorm!    But the chicxulub crater (it's not a crater - just the geological traces of one)  looks like a fulgurite in the same way a daffodil looks like a 2 mile wide turkey sandwich

And why frogs?  Fish and mammals and beetles and birds also survived ....

Angiosperms have been around for over 200 million years.  Gymnosperms are very common and widespread today.

Try reading up on the subject  

[Galactic Goatman]

18 hours ago, BuddingPsychic1111 said:

There are probably still dinosaurs honestly.  People have seen them in certain parts of the jungles of Africa, and I could imagine that likely they were not completely wiped out.  The numbers may have declined, but honestly I'm not convinced that there are not still dinosaurs in certain parts of the world.  Then, there's the Loch Ness monster to consider, which is probably some sort of dinosaur

There is no large marine reptile in the Loch, and even if there was, no non-avian dinosaur was fully aquatic. The crackpots  think “Nessie” is a surviving plesiosaur, and plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs. 

Also the “dinosaurs are alive and well in the jungles” is the stuff of science-fiction, literally. Look up The Lost World (the novel, not the JP film). No evidence exists of river-living sauropods, in fact sauropods were not the swamp-dwelling behemoths they were thought to be back in the 70’s. Funny how all alleged “living dinosaurs” sightings resemble outdated depictions.