Why were so many ancient animals bigger than todays animals?

[Ossric]

if something that big could merge in soft fashion, life would still be wiped out due to gravity distortions, i would think.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Not gravity distortions. Having the earth's mantle torn inside out however...

 

[carlosMM]

well, if it could merge in soft fashion we'd have a biblical flood

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by carlosMM



and that is supposed to fall like a snowflake?????????

Not exactly, it could kill 90 % of life on earth, add mass to it and increase its gravity.

If the slushy impactor hit pacific ocean insteed of land, will it work ?

i knowed i am on thiny ice

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by Tassadar
i knowed i am on thiny ice

Actually no, you have fallen into the lake

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin

Actually no, you have fallen into the lake

And i can see that the pacific floor is very different then the rest of earth crust, right? so what it mean ?

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Tassadar


And i can see that the pacific floor is very different then the rest of earth crust, right? so what it mean ?

u need new glasses

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by Tassadar
And i can see that the pacific floor is very different then the rest of earth crust, right? so what it mean ?

Explain. Sources. Otherwise I will take that as talking out of your a**...

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin

Explain. Sources. Otherwise I will take that as talking out of your a**...

Ok,

Around the Pacific, one continent's range appears to "pick up" where another's left off, forming a dotted circle. Upon deflation of the model, the Ring of Fire systematically contracts into a solid ring around the ocean. The evidence suggests that, at one point in time, these mountains formed a relatively continuous range on a smaller Earth. The formation also indicates that the mountains may be a result of a sudden catastrophe, coming into existence in a moment of time with an impact from a celestial body.
The Pacific Ocean is also evidence of a catastrophe. Its surface has a post-expulsion character. Unlike other ocean floors which are dominated by stretch marks spreading from the crests and the continents, the Pacific's floor appears to be pulled up into tips and then quickly coagulated. Recent revisions to the drift theory leave this post-expulsion quality unexplained. At no place is there evidence of sea floor subduction. As well, if subduction did occur there would be no trenches, curiously formed along the continental perimeters surrounding the Pacific Ocean. These depressions would be filled with the sedimentary debris of the ocean floor (Carey).

Link:http://www.wincom.net/earthexp/n/mountspo.htm

 

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ossric
A stupid question that my mother asked but one i could not answer.

Was it stupid because you could not answer ?

(We need a 'smiling understandingly' smiley) .

 

[Ossric]

something like that. Because it was a simple question that a 5 year old would ask, but one i could not answer.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Tassadar


Ok,

Around the Pacific, one continent's range appears to "pick up" where another's left off, forming a dotted circle. Upon deflation of the model, the Ring of Fire systematically contracts into a solid ring around the ocean. The evidence suggests that, at one point in time, these mountains formed a relatively continuous range on a smaller Earth. The formation also indicates that the mountains may be a result of a sudden catastrophe, coming into existence in a moment of time with an impact from a celestial body.

Nope, these mountains are all very nicely explained by plate tectonics

The Pacific Ocean is also evidence of a catastrophe. Its surface has a post-expulsion character. Unlike other ocean floors which are dominated by stretch marks spreading from the crests and the continents, the Pacific's floor appears to be pulled up into tips and then quickly coagulated. Recent revisions to the drift theory leave this post-expulsion quality unexplained. At no place is there evidence of sea floor subduction.

Bull****. Just bull****. The Pacific Ocean floor looks exactly the same as any other. The apparent differences (whcih always figure so domnantely on huge 'no water' maps result simply from the layout of the spreading riges, which lack the lateral faults of the Atlantic Mid-Ocean Ridge
And there is ample evidence for subduction, have you ever checked out the many deep sea trenches all around the rim of the pacific? These are all subduction zones

As well, if subduction did occur there would be no trenches, curiously formed along the continental perimeters surrounding the Pacific Ocean. These depressions would be filled with the sedimentary debris of the ocean floor (Carey).

believe me, it does. And the trenches get filled with sediment r not depending on the rate of subduction and sediment infill by rivers - whichever is stronger decided if there is a deep trench or a shallow, sediment filled one.

Link:http://www.wincom.net/earthexp/n/mountspo.htm

I'll address that BS in the next post.

 

[carlosMM]

from this link:
http://www.wincom.net/earthexp/n/evidence.htm
supposed evidence:

Expansion begins with a geo-dynamically correct crust -- an equally solidified crust which complies with the laws of physics. The model suggests that, rather than a supercontinent or a concentration of continents, the surface was once the uniform crust of a smaller planet. By deflating the model, each continent returns along its mathematical tangent line to its original position before expansion. The continents fit together in a spherical jig-saw puzzle, their perimeters matching along all sides, excluding the Pacific Basin which is void of continental matter. This methodical fitting can not be coincidental; the union forms a continuous crust of a smaller planet. Expanding the model restores the continents' current-day positions.

Nice model - but sadly, there is ample evidence that there always was more surface than continental crust, and that there always was oceanic crust
also, why can not be coincidental; the union forms a continuous crust of a smaller planet. ? This is plain wrong: it only shows that the fitting parts once contacted, but it does in no way prove that all sutures were closed at the same time. Idiotic assupmtion on their part, which, btw, can easily disproven

Continental drift and its adjunct theories are based on the correlation of the perimeters made only where Pangaea ruptured, and its remaining perimeters are not defined. Yet the shapes of the continents as they appear today are clearly correlated, in a relationship too methodical to have originated from an undefined Pangaea.

Hu? This guy has no idea of continental drift 'Remaining perimeters not defined' - that is simply empty yaddayadda - the shapes of subduced continents cannot be defined - as they are no more, all others are wellknown (to the degree of accuracy possible after being repeatedly folded up and ripped apart).....

And, even if we do not know the exact outline of Pangae (becasue of many places getting smashed up) - where is the problem? Those parts we do not know are those we see as mountains today - there is no 'mystery pangae' that 'can't make continents correlate today'. lack of nowledge doesn#t mean it didn't happen, if his line oh reasoning was true than until the advent of mdoern medicin which explains how genes work no animal could have gotten babies

Of all the Earth's continents, Wegener's theory can account only partially for the perimeters. Any rupture of the supercontinent would have produced a correlation only in the perimeters created along the break. The theory offers no explanation for the shape of the remaining continental perimeters. Yet, on today's globe, the continental perimeters are clearly correlated. Their relationships are such that the continents themselves could not logically have originated from a Pangaea whose perimeters are undetermined.

some more yaddayadda - again, based on his glorious misunderstanding of geological time and processes:

he claims that earth started with a pangaea, that broke apart and that's all - how can the outsides fit?

Well, sorry to say, but continental drift is a tiny bit older.
Pangaea was an intermediate state, as can well be seen here:
http://www.scotese.com/
check these maps:

http://www.scotese.com/precambr.htm
http://www.scotese.com/newpage12.htm
http://www.scotese.com/newpage1.htm
http://www.scotese.com/newpage2.htm
http://www.scotese.com/newpage3.htm
http://www.scotese.com/newpage4.htm
http://www.scotese.com/late.htm - slowly, we are reaching this guy's pangaea state
http://www.scotese.com/newpage5.htm
http://www.scotese.com/newpage8.htm

and so on.




what a nonsense!

 

[Caranamrta]

Originally posted by Ossric

Why were so many ancient animals bigger than todays animals?

I didn't read the entire thread (I was too lazy), but I try to answer to the original question.

It is not necessarily true; The greater the living being, the greater chance for its remnants to resist decay. A dinosaur skeleton greater than a house can better resist than something in a size of a chicken: it is much more difficult to eat up such a great carrion, and the bones are vaster, so it endures the other environmental effects. People also know the greater beings better; even now, most of us could say more names of great mammal species, than of little ones, although there are more little mammals than great ones.

However, there was indeed a tendency toward "greatness" among the chordates (until now, only mollusks, arthropodes and chordates reached greater body masses than 5 kgs, and the greatest animals were all chordates; interestingly, these phyla feature advanced supporting organs and tissues, and chordates have the most efficient type). In the Perm and Triassic ages, the chordates established themselves on dry areas, as reptiles evolved from amphibians. Plants were much earlier on these areas, but such plants were only treatened by (relatively) little arthropods. But now, reptiles also gained access to that gracious source of nutrients. Richness in foods makes greater beings. As herbivorous reptiles began to live in these drier areas, their predators also evolved; and they were also great, to successfully prey on the bigger herbivores.

As for the mammals in the ice age: a larger animal has relatively littler surface than a little animal, so it losts lesser energy, than a little one. Most of today's polar animals are very great (polar bears, phocas) or have very advanced "methods" for heat isolation (penguins).

 

[Tassadar]

1.-

In contemporary renderings, sea floor cartography is particularly improved. The mid-ocean crest system, visible on the ocean floors, creates a pattern systematically centred between the continents, mimicking the neighbouring perimeters (see Map of the World). These detailed maps alone are cause to renew the opposition to Wegener's aged drift theory. However, rather than taking a little distance and a fresh look, as does an artisan or craftsperson to better view and understand the whole picture, oceanographers and geophysicists went by submarine, deep-sea drilling, and made expensive models of the drift and subduction theories.
In the 1960s they formulated an enhanced theory of sea floor spreading and subduction to explain the mid-ocean crests and continental positioning. The theory was based upon some random, localised movements and lava oozing near the centre of a mid-ocean crest. It continued to build on Wegener's hypothesis that, from one indistinct supercontinent which broke apart for an unknown reason, the continents drifted precisely to their current positions. Wegener can be excused; he did not have available the advanced cartography of today.
Factual information of the planet can, and should, contribute to the understanding of its development. If new information can not logically be incorporated with the old, it seems reasonable that a renewal of thought be undertaken. The discovery of the mid-ocean crest system was one such event -- a cause to refresh observations, a chance for deeper understanding.
The discovery of the first large crest, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, was a shock to advocates of continental drift. "Those scientists who had dismissed the jig-saw-puzzle fit of South America and Africa as mere coincidence now found it difficult to explain why the curving ridge lay precisely halfway between, and parallel to, the coasts of the two continents... the discovery called into question traditional theories about the earth, none of which had predicted, or could explain, the ridge's existence" Ref 7. Problems in correlating the mid-ocean crests with old information could have been avoided with a view of global expansion.

2.-A turning, cooling planet is not likely to develop a lopsided crust. This is a basic error of Wegener's theory and no valid reason for the formation has ever been proposed. The more recent hypothesis of looser-fitting continents is subject to the same criticism.

3.-Of all the Earth's continents, Wegener's theory can account only partially for the perimeters. Any rupture of the supercontinent would have produced a correlation only in the perimeters created along the break. The theory offer no explanation for the shape of the remaining continental perimeters.Yet, on today's globe, the continental perimeters are clearly correlated. Their relationships are such that the continents themselves could not logically have originated from a Pangaea whose perimeters are undetermined.

4.-One assumption of the continental drift theory is that, in order to move, the continents must have a propelling force. Magma currents are claimed to be these forces, spreading the tectonic plates by convection in a movement described by some as similar to that of thick, simmering soup. Such movement is incapable of propulsion in a specific direction.
According to continental drift, the movement of the continents to their current positions rests upon a process of intricate causality -- one without a guiding mechanism.
That the random forces of continental drift could produce the precision in the pattern of continents seen today is beyond the probability range. The odds are astronomical. The theory thrives on the observation of isolated points without looking at the whole picture. The precision of continental placement can logically be attributed to global expansion, as a singular event.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Tassadar
1.-

In contemporary renderings, sea floor cartography is particularly improved. The mid-ocean crest system, visible on the ocean floors, creates a pattern systematically centred between the continents, mimicking the neighbouring perimeters (see Map of the World). These detailed maps alone are cause to renew the opposition to Wegener's aged drift theory. However, rather than taking a little distance and a fresh look, as does an artisan or craftsperson to better view and understand the whole picture, oceanographers and geophysicists went by submarine, deep-sea drilling, and made expensive models of the drift and subduction theories.
In the 1960s they formulated an enhanced theory of sea floor spreading and subduction to explain the mid-ocean crests and continental positioning. The theory was based upon some random, localised movements and lava oozing near the centre of a mid-ocean crest. It continued to build on Wegener's hypothesis that, from one indistinct supercontinent which broke apart for an unknown reason, the continents drifted precisely to their current positions. Wegener can be excused; he did not have available the advanced cartography of today.
Factual information of the planet can, and should, contribute to the understanding of its development. If new information can not logically be incorporated with the old, it seems reasonable that a renewal of thought be undertaken. The discovery of the mid-ocean crest system was one such event -- a cause to refresh observations, a chance for deeper understanding.
The discovery of the first large crest, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, was a shock to advocates of continental drift. "Those scientists who had dismissed the jig-saw-puzzle fit of South America and Africa as mere coincidence now found it difficult to explain why the curving ridge lay precisely halfway between, and parallel to, the coasts of the two continents... the discovery called into question traditional theories about the earth, none of which had predicted, or could explain, the ridge's existence" Ref 7. Problems in correlating the mid-ocean crests with old information could have been avoided with a view of global expansion.

ahem, what's your point here????

2.-A turning, cooling planet is not likely to develop a lopsided crust. This is a basic error of Wegener's theory and no valid reason for the formation has ever been proposed. The more recent hypothesis of looser-fitting continents is subject to the same criticism.

wrong. read up on the cooling and crsytalizing patterns in boiling hot and plastic materials study mineralogy for a few years, as I have done and you will see......

3.-Of all the Earth's continents, Wegener's theory can account only partially for the perimeters. Any rupture of the supercontinent would have produced a correlation only in the perimeters created along the break. The theory offer no explanation for the shape of the remaining continental perimeters.Yet, on today's globe, the continental perimeters are clearly correlated. Their relationships are such that the continents themselves could not logically have originated from a Pangaea whose perimeters are undetermined.

did you read my last post at all? Check out the maps I linked to? I think NOT.

4.-One assumption of the continental drift theory is that, in order to move, the continents must have a propelling force. Magma currents are claimed to be these forces, spreading the tectonic plates by convection in a movement described by some as similar to that of thick, simmering soup. Such movement is incapable of propulsion in a specific direction.

Youir information is outdated a bit: nobody knows exactly what propels the continents, whether it is the downdraft of cooling amntle material or if they are sliding off 'mountains' of hot, ascending materials. But mantle plumes as sources of contienntal drift have been found and studies to no end - they wokr just fine

According to continental drift, the movement of the continents to their current positions rests upon a process of intricate causality -- one without a guiding mechanism.

yep.

That the random forces of continental drift could produce the precision in the pattern of continents seen today is beyond the probability range.

[b/]Hu? What? if you ahve icebergs drifting, take a picture, then claim 'the chances of exactly this pattern are almost nill' that is correct - but then, how did you take the pic??????

The odds are astronomical. The theory thrives on the observation of isolated points without looking at the whole picture. The precision of continental placement can logically be attributed to global expansion, as a singular event.

hmmm, interestingly, the theory explains the entire system, not single points. And why is a single event better than a complicated, but natural process? And, why do the Americas still wander away from Europe and Africa? is earth still expanding?



Tassadar, you are no better than the creationists, you refuse to look at evidence but rather hold up a theory that has been disprooven over and over again!

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by carlosMM


Tassadar, you are no better than the creationists, you refuse to look at evidence but rather hold up a theory that has been disprooven over and over again! [/B]

Come on killer, i am just having fun by looking at 2 different theory, i am not a beleiver, i am curious and have and open mind, but if it bring me continuous rooll eye and comment like i am speaking through my a**. I will just stop to explore new theory with you.

Open mind are like parachute.......

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Tassadar


Come on killer, i am just having fun by looking at 2 different theory, i am not a beleiver, i am curious and have and open mind, but if it bring me continuous rooll eye and comment like i am speaking through my a**. I will just stop to explore new theory with you.

Open mind are like parachute.......

sadly, it is not a new theory, it is a very old and often disproven theory, which you can already see by the lack of quotes of scientific papers on that site. A child can see it doesn't work

it is like bringing up the biblical genesis agin and again, or the flood - it doesn't get better and only raises contempt in those few who bother to reply and clarify each time.

my first post should have been enough, everything from then on is stealing my time. You didn't make a new point in your second post, brought forth nothing to explain where I may have erred or so. Nothing new at all.


I'm always happy to discuss theories, but not to rehash and rehash the same things over and over.

 

[Tassadar]

Relation between impactor,extinction and dinosaur size, from National geographic.

All these different pieces of evidence build a picture supporting the idea that a collision occurred."

Bring on the Dinosaurs

"Most of the early mammals came through the extinction—turtles, frogs, salamanders, and of course dinosaurs. The dinosaur's major competitors were wiped out though, and they became the dominant life-form," says Sues.

With many of the earlier life-forms eliminated, the survivors no longer had to compete for food, water, and habitat. In some cases, their status shifted from prey to predator.

The drop in competitive pressure may have triggered both the global spread of dinosaurs and their rapid increase in size. The researchers believe the rapid —a time scale of thousands of years—increase in size was an evolutionary response by the survivors, which may have been quite small prior to the extinction.

The dinosaurs reigned supreme for 135 million years, until another comet colliding with Earth took them out. Once the dinosaurs were gone, mammals had the run of the land, and they flourished.

It may be time to take what we're learning about the Earth's history and apply it to our thinking about evolution and the role of natural selection, says Sues.

"It shows these great mass extinctions are almost a lottery," he said. "The dinosaurs came through and flourished 200 million years ago, but when a similar event happened 65 million years ago they become extinct. It may well be that catastrophic events have a far more profound effect in the shaping of life than people had previously thought."

Link:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/0516_020516_dinocomet.html

And,

Add to that the understanding reached decades ago that the Pacific basin formed less than 70 million years ago and therefore could not possibly have spawned the moon, and the Darwin-Fisher model suddenly comes up short.

From:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins.html


Isnt strange that the dinosaur disapear about the same time the pacific basin was formed ? By a huge slushy impactor.

More on the origin of the moon and previous rocky impactor:http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html

 

[carlosMM]

Tassadar, the Pacific basin did not 'form' 70 million years ago (which would still be 5 million years off)! Please, read up on plate tectonics and check that website I linked to, PLEAAASSE! I am assuming you are either clueless or you want to argue nonsense for arguments sake - I can't educate you, I really lack the time, and I also can't waste time if you just want to waste it.

quit the conspiracy theory about a slush (we kicked that idea out before, right?) ball having anything to do with the dinosaurs demise UNLESS you talk a proper asteroid impact and climate change.

I see a decided parallel here to your anti-American conspiracy theories that you have IIRC floated around and I have no time for this! You are always trying to see connections that aren't there.