7 ms·

Finally confirmed: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs

40 points by lispython 14y ago

SparrowOS 14y ago
India-nigger. God says... recognises case ceaseth poise unlimited novice defers Be bring done of David, and by the hand of his servants. 22:1 And David spake unto the LORD the words of this song in the day that the LORD had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul: 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 22:3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence. 22:4 I will call on the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies. 22:5 When the waves of death compassed me, the floods of ungodly men made me afraid; 22:6 The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me; 22:7 In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried to my God: and he did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter into his ears.
bluedevil2k 14y ago
I have a tough time believing the word "confirmed" when the scientists behind the study use the words "likely triggered".
- gejjaxxita 14y ago
  No good scientist will ever say "definitely". In any case, you're right not to "believe" science, it's more a case of "beyond reasonable doubt".
- bodegajed 14y ago
  As a programmer who have to replicate bugs everyday just to tag something as confirmed, I have high respect for the word. Scientists do not, apparently.
  - nollidge 14y ago
    The scientists didn't use that word, the journalist did.
  - incision 14y ago
    >As a programmer who have to replicate bugs everyday just to tag something as confirmed, I have high respect for the word. Scientists do not, apparently. If only scientists had the option to check all their theories by spinning up snapshots of Cretaceous–Paleogene Earth in a test universe. Unfortunately, they have to make due with an fractional set of undocumented logs in form of geology.
tokenadult 14y ago
See a current submission to HN http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5187709 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5187709 for a more nuanced discussion that is not a rehashed press release, but an edited long-form article by an experienced writer on the topic.
peeters 14y ago
I was hoping for some more evidence of causation. The new research is still circumstantial, in that before it was the assumptive cause because the impact was dated to within ~1 million years of the extinction event, and now it's even more assumed to be the cause because it has been dated to within ~11,000 years of the extinction event. Where was the line drawn for it to be "confirmed"? Is circumstantial evidence the best we can do?
- raverbashing 14y ago
  There's also the issue the extinction event is not instantaneous, but took a long time As per wikipedia: "The fossil record shows that the tempo of the K-Pg extinction was extremely rapid, occurring on a scale of thousands of years or less" But it is "confirmed" in the absence of better opposing evidence. Better results probably only with a time machine, or a better explanation
italophil 14y ago
Perhaps science changed in the last decade, but when I worked on my PhD words like "confirmed" and "definitely" were frowned upon.
- qntmfred 14y ago
  we've learned how to science a lot harder these days
xijuan 14y ago
When I read the title, I was also shocked by the word 'confirmed.' Any kind of explanation about dinosaurs explanation should be a theory. We can say 'the new evidence provided support for a theory' but cannot say 'the new evidence confirmed that the theory is the truth.'
- xijuan 14y ago
  I made a spelling mistake for that post but can no longer edit it. It should be 'Any kind of explanation about dinosaurs extinction'
gatlin 14y ago
No, you became more certain that an asteroid hit a certain place to within a 11,000 year range. Title is false. From the actual paper's abstract: > The Chicxulub impact likely triggered a state shift of ecosystems already under near-critical stress. So this confirms that one thing (likely) happened while other things were happening. I can think of other things that were happening that would put the ecosystem into near-critical stress: - For one thing, the Deccan traps were spewing crazy huge volumes of noxious material into the atmosphere for about 30,000 years. - For another, the supercontinent cycle was in a period of orogeny and likely caused an icehouse climate. There would be lower diversity in "bottom rung" niches, which combined with the hazardous effect of global volcanic eruptions for 30,000 years could very likely destabilize the food chain. This bodes poorly for large megafauna which reproduce relatively infrequently and require large amounts of specific foods to meet their nutrition requirements.[1] There was a large confluence of factors and it makes intuitive sense that, just as the abstract says, a large impact could be the proverbial straw on the proverbial camel's back. I have no doubt the asteroid was important. But this Roland Emmerich disaster movie interpretation of geology isn't nearly the whole picture. My best guess as to why we latch onto this hypothesis, aside from how admittedly awesome it sounds, is because it's hard for us to accept that this kind of change is gradual and can sneak up on us. It takes the matter out of our hands and alleviates us from certain responsibilities. Clearly something sudden must happen because otherwise we totally have this under control, right? But that sort of waxing is not terribly useful. [1] (Update). Note how avian dinosaurs survived, but plesiosaurs did not. The air was apparently survivable enough, but the near-shore ecosystem - which would be adversely affected by the reduction in coastlines from a supercontinent aggregation - lost its large lumbering members sitting atop the precarious food chain. None of this constitutes evidence, but I think my wild-ass guess is at least as valid as any other wild-ass guess, consensus or not.
codex 14y ago
Frequent asteroid impacts lend credence to the Doomsday Argument [1], which, simply put, argues that it is unlikely that the human race will be long lived, simply because it is growing so fast. According to the DA, there is a 95% chance of extinction within 9,120 years. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
- rkuykendall-com 14y ago
  While we might all be disappointed that man has not left earth for the last 40 years, I am reasonably confident we will be able to get our act together within the next 9,119. Reasonably.

40 points by lispython 14y ago

India-nigger. God says... recognises case ceaseth poise unlimited novice defers Be bring done of David, and by the hand of his servants. 22:1 And David spake unto the LORD the words of this song in the day that the LORD had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul: 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 22:3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence. 22:4 I will call on the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies. 22:5 When the waves of death compassed me, the floods of ungodly men made me afraid; 22:6 The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me; 22:7 In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried to my God: and he did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter into his ears.

bluedevil2k 14y ago

I have a tough time believing the word "confirmed" when the scientists behind the study use the words "likely triggered".

gejjaxxita 14y ago
No good scientist will ever say "definitely". In any case, you're right not to "believe" science, it's more a case of "beyond reasonable doubt".
bodegajed 14y ago
As a programmer who have to replicate bugs everyday just to tag something as confirmed, I have high respect for the word. Scientists do not, apparently.
- nollidge 14y ago
  The scientists didn't use that word, the journalist did.
- incision 14y ago
  >As a programmer who have to replicate bugs everyday just to tag something as confirmed, I have high respect for the word. Scientists do not, apparently. If only scientists had the option to check all their theories by spinning up snapshots of Cretaceous–Paleogene Earth in a test universe. Unfortunately, they have to make due with an fractional set of undocumented logs in form of geology.

tokenadult 14y ago

See a current submission to HN http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5187709 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5187709 for a more nuanced discussion that is not a rehashed press release, but an edited long-form article by an experienced writer on the topic.

peeters 14y ago

I was hoping for some more evidence of causation. The new research is still circumstantial, in that before it was the assumptive cause because the impact was dated to within ~1 million years of the extinction event, and now it's even more assumed to be the cause because it has been dated to within ~11,000 years of the extinction event. Where was the line drawn for it to be "confirmed"? Is circumstantial evidence the best we can do?

raverbashing 14y ago
There's also the issue the extinction event is not instantaneous, but took a long time As per wikipedia: "The fossil record shows that the tempo of the K-Pg extinction was extremely rapid, occurring on a scale of thousands of years or less" But it is "confirmed" in the absence of better opposing evidence. Better results probably only with a time machine, or a better explanation

italophil 14y ago

Perhaps science changed in the last decade, but when I worked on my PhD words like "confirmed" and "definitely" were frowned upon.

qntmfred 14y ago
we've learned how to science a lot harder these days

xijuan 14y ago

When I read the title, I was also shocked by the word 'confirmed.' Any kind of explanation about dinosaurs explanation should be a theory. We can say 'the new evidence provided support for a theory' but cannot say 'the new evidence confirmed that the theory is the truth.'

xijuan 14y ago
I made a spelling mistake for that post but can no longer edit it. It should be 'Any kind of explanation about dinosaurs extinction'

gatlin 14y ago

No, you became more certain that an asteroid hit a certain place to within a 11,000 year range. Title is false. From the actual paper's abstract: > The Chicxulub impact likely triggered a state shift of ecosystems already under near-critical stress. So this confirms that one thing (likely) happened while other things were happening. I can think of other things that were happening that would put the ecosystem into near-critical stress: - For one thing, the Deccan traps were spewing crazy huge volumes of noxious material into the atmosphere for about 30,000 years. - For another, the supercontinent cycle was in a period of orogeny and likely caused an icehouse climate. There would be lower diversity in "bottom rung" niches, which combined with the hazardous effect of global volcanic eruptions for 30,000 years could very likely destabilize the food chain. This bodes poorly for large megafauna which reproduce relatively infrequently and require large amounts of specific foods to meet their nutrition requirements.[1] There was a large confluence of factors and it makes intuitive sense that, just as the abstract says, a large impact could be the proverbial straw on the proverbial camel's back. I have no doubt the asteroid was important. But this Roland Emmerich disaster movie interpretation of geology isn't nearly the whole picture. My best guess as to why we latch onto this hypothesis, aside from how admittedly awesome it sounds, is because it's hard for us to accept that this kind of change is gradual and can sneak up on us. It takes the matter out of our hands and alleviates us from certain responsibilities. Clearly something sudden must happen because otherwise we totally have this under control, right? But that sort of waxing is not terribly useful. [1] (Update). Note how avian dinosaurs survived, but plesiosaurs did not. The air was apparently survivable enough, but the near-shore ecosystem - which would be adversely affected by the reduction in coastlines from a supercontinent aggregation - lost its large lumbering members sitting atop the precarious food chain. None of this constitutes evidence, but I think my wild-ass guess is at least as valid as any other wild-ass guess, consensus or not.

codex 14y ago

Frequent asteroid impacts lend credence to the Doomsday Argument [1], which, simply put, argues that it is unlikely that the human race will be long lived, simply because it is growing so fast. According to the DA, there is a 95% chance of extinction within 9,120 years. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument

rkuykendall-com 14y ago
While we might all be disappointed that man has not left earth for the last 40 years, I am reasonably confident we will be able to get our act together within the next 9,119. Reasonably.