If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Phys Org2)   Dinosaurs may have been too successful, and run afoul of the "shoe event horizon" long before the Chicxulub asteroid   ( phys.org) divider line
    More: Interesting, Dinosaur, Evolution, dinosaurs, South America, asteroid strike, new species, Triassic, Earth  
•       •       •

2990 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Feb 2018 at 9:20 PM (23 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



35 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-02-06 03:35:58 PM  
And, then hunams did all that in a thousandth of the time.
 
2018-02-06 09:27:04 PM  
dtlon6z3v1kfl.cloudfront.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-06 09:28:10 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-06 09:30:26 PM  
I'm confused by the statement that dinosaurs spread too quickly then they couldn't produce new species, after which they produced new species for 180 million years.
 
2018-02-06 09:33:45 PM  
The research shows that the speed of this expansion meant that the dinosaurs quickly became cosmopolitan and subsequently ran out of land.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-06 09:37:03 PM  

DoctorWhat: I'm confused by the statement that dinosaurs spread too quickly then they couldn't produce new species, after which they produced new species for 180 million years.


Also confusing:  "They spread at a rapid rate of 1000 km per million years..."
That, is very, very slow.
 
2018-02-06 09:50:11 PM  
And the aquatic and aerial dinosaurs...?
 
2018-02-06 10:00:49 PM  

aerojockey: [dtlon6z3v1kfl.cloudfront.net image 600x450]


That's what I was thinking.  Bundy singularity.
 
2018-02-06 10:11:03 PM  

DoctorWhat: I'm confused by the statement that dinosaurs spread too quickly then they couldn't produce new species,


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-06 10:25:55 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-06 10:31:01 PM  
pbfcomics.comView Full Size
 
2018-02-06 10:34:47 PM  

DoctorWhat: I'm confused by the statement that dinosaurs spread too quickly then they couldn't produce new species, after which they produced new species for 180 million years.


I read it as "dinosaurs species diversified and specialized quickly because they hit on a successful formula but the downside is that they were so specialized that each group became locked into their specialization and couldn't change or adapt". That's a guess though. The article is worse than useless.
 
2018-02-06 10:37:50 PM  
Rather than some malarky about the dinosaurs becoming over specialized and unable to evolve further, how about saying

- for all their diversity dinosaurs were active terrestrial meat and plant eaters
- the only dinosaurs to survive Chicxulub were the birds, but not those with teeth - only those with beaks that could survive on seed caches.
- other macro animals that survived include frogs, Crocodilians, and turtles - all of which can hibernate in burrows
 
2018-02-06 10:49:13 PM  

Julius Pleaseher: And the aquatic and aerial dinosaurs...?


Those aren't dinosaurs!
 
2018-02-06 11:00:38 PM  

qorkfiend: Julius Pleaseher: And the aquatic and aerial dinosaurs...?

Those aren't dinosaurs!


So at work my office has a bunch of dinosaur and reptile models.  When someone points to a pterosaur and asks 'what kind of dinosaur is that', I pretend to nerd-rage about it not being a dinosaur.  Only I'm not pretending to nerd-rage.  I'm pretending to pretend nerd-rage.  It's real nerd-rage.  IT'S NOT A DINOSAUR YOU DOLT!!!!11!
 
2018-02-06 11:03:24 PM  

pehvbot: qorkfiend: Julius Pleaseher: And the aquatic and aerial dinosaurs...?

Those aren't dinosaurs!

So at work my office has a bunch of dinosaur and reptile models.  When someone points to a pterosaur and asks 'what kind of dinosaur is that', I pretend to nerd-rage about it not being a dinosaur.  Only I'm not pretending to nerd-rage.  I'm pretending to pretend nerd-rage.  It's real nerd-rage.  IT'S NOT A DINOSAUR YOU DOLT!!!!11!


That's Not A Dinosaur Rap
Youtube XccnxTkw81c
 
2018-02-06 11:17:07 PM  
Birds are related to dinosaurs.

Ducks have a spring loaded, prehensile, corkscrew penis that's covered in barbs and is longer than the length of their whole body.

T-Rex might be the duck's ancestor.

Think about it.
 
2018-02-06 11:22:03 PM  

ihateallofyou: [img.fark.net image 425x141]


It's getting cold, Momma...
 
2018-02-06 11:26:27 PM  
"the dinosaurs spread unchecked across the huge available space, at a rate of 1,000km/million years"

Oh for fook's sake, this is stupid.  Please revoke the degrees of these clowns.
 
2018-02-06 11:44:47 PM  

LouisZepher: ihateallofyou: [img.fark.net image 425x141]

It's getting cold, Momma...


Ouch. That hurt. :(
 
2018-02-06 11:55:59 PM  
The decline was 50 million years. I think if it takes 50 million years to kill you off, you were pretty damn successful.
 
2018-02-07 12:08:23 AM  

bemused outsider: DoctorWhat: I'm confused by the statement that dinosaurs spread too quickly then they couldn't produce new species, after which they produced new species for 180 million years.

Also confusing:  "They spread at a rapid rate of 1000 km per million years..."
That, is very, very slow.


Yeah. Rate aside, 1000 km?? Is Earth's surface one-dimensional now?

An expansion rate of 1000 km^2 per 1M years is excruciatingly slow, so I assume they mean something like "extend the average perimeter of their range by ~1000 km in all directions every 1 M years."

This would imply an instantaneous expansion rate that depends linearly on the point-in-time mean radius of the area currently occupied (if A~k*r^2, then dA/dt~2*k*r*dr/dt, where dr/dt is specified as constant in the article). That still seems a bit low, since essentially every unchecked population growth model ever is exponential in time. Perhaps the underlying expansion rate is slow enough when compared to the increase in species diversity that the missing population growth accounted for as new species in new niches.
 
2018-02-07 12:16:32 AM  
Yes, the shoe event horizon is well known:

3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


...given the size of a large dinosaur, if they fell down, such as from tripping over their shoelaces, it would kill them.
 
2018-02-07 12:18:03 AM  

LoneWolf343: The decline was 50 million years. I think if it takes 50 million years to kill you off, you were pretty damn successful.


Like Rome. Practically all we hear about Rome now is about their decline and fall, but it took hundreds of years for that to happen.
 
2018-02-07 12:56:15 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: Yes, the shoe event horizon is well known:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 506x592]

...given the size of a large dinosaur, if they fell down, such as from tripping over their shoelaces, it would kill them.


Nothing a 10' long prehensile peener can't fix
 
2018-02-07 01:17:26 AM  

olrasputin: bemused outsider: DoctorWhat: I'm confused by the statement that dinosaurs spread too quickly then they couldn't produce new species, after which they produced new species for 180 million years.

Also confusing:  "They spread at a rapid rate of 1000 km per million years..."
That, is very, very slow.

Yeah. Rate aside, 1000 km?? Is Earth's surface one-dimensional now?

An expansion rate of 1000 km^2 per 1M years is excruciatingly slow, so I assume they mean something like "extend the average perimeter of their range by ~1000 km in all directions every 1 M years."

This would imply an instantaneous expansion rate that depends linearly on the point-in-time mean radius of the area currently occupied (if A~k*r^2, then dA/dt~2*k*r*dr/dt, where dr/dt is specified as constant in the article). That still seems a bit low, since essentially every unchecked population growth model ever is exponential in time. Perhaps the underlying expansion rate is slow enough when compared to the increase in species diversity that the missing population growth accounted for as new species in new niches.


I think your final sentence makes more sense than what was gleaned from the article. It does seem ridiculously slow to assign 1,000km without pointing it toward species adaptation and / or evolution processes.
 
2018-02-07 02:57:27 AM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: "the dinosaurs spread unchecked across the huge available space, at a rate of 1,000km/million years"

Oh for fook's sake, this is stupid.  Please revoke the degrees of these clowns.


And yet they want us to trust them on weather change
 
2018-02-07 02:58:15 AM  
 
2018-02-07 03:36:01 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: LoneWolf343: The decline was 50 million years. I think if it takes 50 million years to kill you off, you were pretty damn successful.

Like Rome. Practically all we hear about Rome now is about their decline and fall, but it took hundreds of years for that to happen.


Yeah it was nearly as long as the first

LewDux: Snow falls in Florida as 12 die in harsh winter weather across US | US news | The Guardian


Well looks like they got all our show this year since we haven't had any stay on the ground for more than a day or 2 this season.

//Utah BTW
//Tempted to tell my dad that this proves global warming
//third slashy for some reason
 
2018-02-07 05:10:05 AM  

baxterdog: olrasputin: bemused outsider: DoctorWhat: I'm confused by the statement that dinosaurs spread too quickly then they couldn't produce new species, after which they produced new species for 180 million years.

Also confusing:  "They spread at a rapid rate of 1000 km per million years..."
That, is very, very slow.

Yeah. Rate aside, 1000 km?? Is Earth's surface one-dimensional now?

An expansion rate of 1000 km^2 per 1M years is excruciatingly slow, so I assume they mean something like "extend the average perimeter of their range by ~1000 km in all directions every 1 M years."

This would imply an instantaneous expansion rate that depends linearly on the point-in-time mean radius of the area currently occupied (if A~k*r^2, then dA/dt~2*k*r*dr/dt, where dr/dt is specified as constant in the article). That still seems a bit low, since essentially every unchecked population growth model ever is exponential in time. Perhaps the underlying expansion rate is slow enough when compared to the increase in species diversity that the missing population growth accounted for as new species in new niches.

I think your final sentence makes more sense than what was gleaned from the article. It does seem ridiculously slow to assign 1,000km without pointing it toward species adaptation and / or evolution processes.


God dammit, I have just enough beer in me that this song sprang to mind, and it wouldn't take them 1 million years.

The Proclaimers - I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)
Youtube tbNlMtqrYS0
 
2018-02-07 05:19:13 AM  

haknudsen: itcamefromschenectady: LoneWolf343: The decline was 50 million years. I think if it takes 50 million years to kill you off, you were pretty damn successful.

Like Rome. Practically all we hear about Rome now is about their decline and fall, but it took hundreds of years for that to happen.


Yeah it was nearly as long as the first


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-07 05:30:51 AM  

southernmanblog: [pbfcomics.com image 850x283]


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-07 06:15:41 AM  

Mr_Vimes: southernmanblog: [pbfcomics.com image 850x283] [img.fark.net image 850x1141]



Don't click unless you wanna see T-Rex dong
 
2018-02-07 11:53:30 AM  

LewDux: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: "the dinosaurs spread unchecked across the huge available space, at a rate of 1,000km/million years"

Oh for fook's sake, this is stupid.  Please revoke the degrees of these clowns.

And yet they want us to trust them on weather change


Well, science doesn't really work that way.

We're all sitting here biatching about a really bad second-hand interpretation of a Nature (a very reputable science journal) publication, where the actual paper in question sits behind a paywall that no one is willing to pay. And I'm too lazy to log into my university's publication library to snag the PDF for myself.

I suspect the people who actually wrote the paper can talk much more coherently about its contents. But it is, ultimately, just one new hypothesis to test in the investigation of the ongoing mystery that is the decline and demise of the dinosaurs.

Regarding climate change, when 98% of scientists in a given field are all coming to a similar conclusion, it's probably time to pay attention to said conclusion.
 
2018-02-07 12:34:36 PM  

doglover: Mr_Vimes: southernmanblog: [pbfcomics.com image 850x283] [img.fark.net image 850x1141]


Don't click unless you wanna see T-Rex dong


Trying to fill in for Gorgor?
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report