Actually a pretty good summation of the uncertainties about what has caused any of the mass extinctions is in the Wiki
"Further skepticism
Although there is now general agreement that there was at least one huge impact at the end of the Cretaceous that led to the iridium enrichment of the K-T boundary layer, it is difficult to directly connect this to mass extinction, and in fact there is no clear linkage between an impact and any other incident of mass extinction, although research on other events also implicates impacts.
One interesting note about the K-T event is that most of the larger animals that survived were to some degree aquatic, implying that aquatic habitats may have remained more hospitable than land habitats.
The impact and volcanic theories can be labeled "fast extinction" theories. There are also a number of slow extinction theories. Studies of the diversity and population of species have shown that the dinosaurs were in decline for a period of about 10 million years before the asteroid hit. (A study by Fastovsky & Sheehan (1995) counters that there is no evidence for a slow, 10 Myr decline of dinosaurs.) Slower mechanisms are needed to explain slow extinctions. Climatic change, a change in Earth's magnetic field, and disease have all been suggested as possible slow extinction theories. As mentioned above, extensive volcanism such as the Deccan Traps could have been a long term event lasting millions of years, although it is short in geologic terms.
References: Favstovsky, D.E., and Sheehan, P.M.(2005) The extinction of the dinosaurs in North America. GSA Today, v. 15, no. 3, p. 4-10.
Other mass extinctions
It is worth noting that the Cretaceous extinction is neither the only mass extinction in Earth's history, nor even the worst. Previous extinction events have included the Cambrian-Ordovician extinction, End Ordovician, Triassic-Jurassic, Late Devonian, and the Permian-Triassic, which is the largest extinction event ever recorded. "
<edit>
eliminated the quotation markups to make print more legible
Edited by - Indy11 on 2/25/2006 1:18:28 PM
Important MessageYou are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login. |
What caused the dinosaurs to die?
This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.
Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:05 pm
Stormtropper112 I know it is proven. Just next time type it down. Like I said
[imghttp://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,fleish-spc-guitar123,black,red.png[/img
[imghttp://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,fleish-spc-guitar123,black,red.png[/img
Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:51 am
Jesus Christ. If we had a hall of shame you should be in it for that. 
As to the question itself, yes there is a relationship in that both snakes and most dinosaurs are reptilian. And there were species of snake around during the time of the dinosaurs that are virtually identical to modern day species.
As to the question itself, yes there is a relationship in that both snakes and most dinosaurs are reptilian. And there were species of snake around during the time of the dinosaurs that are virtually identical to modern day species.
Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:28 am
Dinos and snakes related? Nahh.
Lancers reporting from ye olden days. An interview with t-rex coupe who wish to not have their identity revield.
Lancers: Mr. and Mrs. Rex, thank you for giving this interview. Now, What do you think of this rumor of Dino's and snake being related?
Mr. Rex: It's obsolutly popycock. No Dino worth his salt would have anything to do with a snake, I mean, come on, they eat rats for pete's sake.
Lancers: What is your take on this Mrs. Rex.
Mrs. Rex: I will have you know, no selfrespecting dauther of mine will ever be seen with a snake. They spent their day crawling on their bellies all day long, MY daughter is better than that, we have an image to maintain after all.
Lancers: So neither of you belive there is any truth to the rumor then?
Mr. Rex: If one trys to say they are, I'll have HIM for lunch, if you know what I mean.
Lancers: Well thank you both for takeing the time to speak with us to day, This is Lancers reporting, now back to you Alex in the studio.
Lancers reporting from ye olden days. An interview with t-rex coupe who wish to not have their identity revield.
Lancers: Mr. and Mrs. Rex, thank you for giving this interview. Now, What do you think of this rumor of Dino's and snake being related?
Mr. Rex: It's obsolutly popycock. No Dino worth his salt would have anything to do with a snake, I mean, come on, they eat rats for pete's sake.
Lancers: What is your take on this Mrs. Rex.
Mrs. Rex: I will have you know, no selfrespecting dauther of mine will ever be seen with a snake. They spent their day crawling on their bellies all day long, MY daughter is better than that, we have an image to maintain after all.
Lancers: So neither of you belive there is any truth to the rumor then?
Mr. Rex: If one trys to say they are, I'll have HIM for lunch, if you know what I mean.
Lancers: Well thank you both for takeing the time to speak with us to day, This is Lancers reporting, now back to you Alex in the studio.
Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:39 am
snakes aren't descended from dinosaurs, afaik; they evolved separately from lizards through aquatic mosasaurs (possibly) and became sea-snakes then re-adapted to life on land. This theory is supported by physical similarities in skeletons, such as skull structure, unhingeable jaw, reduced or absent limbs, the fused transparent eyelids and lack of external ears (a common feature of an aquatic adaptation) and that the best fossil snake skeletons come from marine Cretaceous sedimentary deposits just prior to the K-T boundary.
another theory is that they evolved from burrowing monitor lizards, which also explains the streamlined shape, fused transparent eyelids and lack of external ears.
whichever is correct, snakes have remained pretty much as they are since their first appearance in the early Cretaceous, and prrof of their success is the exlposion in snake species after the extinction of the dinosaurs as mammals expanded to fill the vacant evolutionary niches in the Pliocene period.
another highly successful animal group which remains almost unchanged has been the sharks. Although difficult to find fossilised because of the cartigilinous structure which doesn't lend itself to preservation, sharks have been around much as they are now from Devonian times, which is an awfully long time ago and long before any dinosaurs were around.
very funny, FD; you posted that whilst I was writing mine btw.
Edited by - Tawakalna on 4/7/2006 3:49:25 AM
another theory is that they evolved from burrowing monitor lizards, which also explains the streamlined shape, fused transparent eyelids and lack of external ears.
whichever is correct, snakes have remained pretty much as they are since their first appearance in the early Cretaceous, and prrof of their success is the exlposion in snake species after the extinction of the dinosaurs as mammals expanded to fill the vacant evolutionary niches in the Pliocene period.
another highly successful animal group which remains almost unchanged has been the sharks. Although difficult to find fossilised because of the cartigilinous structure which doesn't lend itself to preservation, sharks have been around much as they are now from Devonian times, which is an awfully long time ago and long before any dinosaurs were around.
very funny, FD; you posted that whilst I was writing mine btw.
Edited by - Tawakalna on 4/7/2006 3:49:25 AM
Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:47 am
There are legless lizards today that look like snakes but are not snakes.
If they are descended from lizards it would have been a branching away a very long time ago as Mr. T already has stated. Crocodiles have been crocs for about as long as snakes have been snakes.
Also, given that more and more evidence is being collected that indicates that the dinosaur to bird link includes warm bloodedness already being present in the dinosaur, it is beginning to be implied that the fork between cold blooded reptiles as we know them today and their ancient predecessors and dinosaurs as we are beginning to understand them is a very very old one and more or less makes modern reptiles only distant relations to dinos ... possibly far more distant than birds.
<Edited for a 3rd time for typos
>
Edited by - Indy11 on 4/7/2006 12:33:53 PM
If they are descended from lizards it would have been a branching away a very long time ago as Mr. T already has stated. Crocodiles have been crocs for about as long as snakes have been snakes.
Also, given that more and more evidence is being collected that indicates that the dinosaur to bird link includes warm bloodedness already being present in the dinosaur, it is beginning to be implied that the fork between cold blooded reptiles as we know them today and their ancient predecessors and dinosaurs as we are beginning to understand them is a very very old one and more or less makes modern reptiles only distant relations to dinos ... possibly far more distant than birds.
<Edited for a 3rd time for typos
>
Edited by - Indy11 on 4/7/2006 12:33:53 PM