1.0   What the theory says

    In 1956, De Laubenfels suggested adding a new extinction theory to the long list of agents and
    mechanisms that the experts had compiled. He proposed that an extraterrestrial impact more powerful
    than the Tunguska event could conceivably cause the extinction of families of species . De Laubenfels
    had no smoking gun. He just brainstormed the possibility without any evidence. It would be Alvarez et
    al. who resuscitated De  Laubenfels's theory by associating it with an unusual layer of iridium. Unlike
    De Laubenfels, however, Alvarez did not suggest that the heat of the explosion calcinated the animals,
    but rather that the debris blotted out of the Sun. An 'impact winter' ensued that prevented terrestrial
    and aquatic plants from carrying out photosynthesis. The impact winter is the leading theory for the
    Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) Extinction Event.


    2.0   The impact winter theory does not explain selectivity

    There are too many conceptual problems with the impact theory to treat it thoroughly here. I will
    simply mention the most obvious: it doesn't match the record at all. Why anyone would spend tax
    dollars investigating this ludicrous proposal is beyond my humble understanding. If a theory fails
    conceptually, there is no reason to find evidence for or against it.

    My main objection is that the theory does not explain selectivity; indeed, not one contemporary
    theory thoroughly addresses this issue. By its very nature, an extrinsic mechanism cannot explain
    why one species is targeted and another spared. The theorist necessarily has to invoke an
    intermediary. A affects B which affects C. The impact causes photosynthesis to wane. Plants die.
    Triceratops dies.        T-Rex dies. Okay. No problem so far! Why did Mosasaur die? Well, perhaps the
    asteroid caused the acidity in the oceans to rise. So why didn't the fish and the shark and the crocs
    die? Well, maybe they waited on land until the marine reptiles were gone. And so on. So the
    proponent ends up inventing more and more ad hoc mechanisms to justify each of the extinctions
    the record reveals for the K-T boundary. It is the pernicious selectivity problem which needs to be
    addressed first by any proposal before being published. It makes no sense for the specialized
    journals to print new versions of old theories over and over again unless the selectivity issue is
    resolved unambiguously.

    In the case of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) Extinction, the problem is not so much explaining why
    the giant dinosaurs died and why the tiny mammals survived. The problem is explaining why the old
    species of plants and animals died and the new ones made it across the time-line.

    In fact, we see this pattern throughout the record. Why did the old amphibians die and the incoming
    pelycosaurs survive when the asteroid or comet struck the Carboniferous? And why did the archaic
    ferns give way to the more advanced gymnosperms after the asteroid struck the Triassic? Why didn't
    the asteroid eliminate the gymnosperm and leave the fern? This is ultimately the only issue that the
    idiots of paleontology who propose ET and impact theories have to answer!

    But assuming a theorist overcomes this hurdle, the next problem is more formidable. It has to do with
    the ridiculous conclusion at which professional paleontologists arrive and which says it all about the
    establishment. The worldly wisdom has developed that if the asteroid had not come, the dinosaurs
    would still be walking the Earth:

    " If the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs had never occurred, perhaps our
      ancestors would not have been able to evolve beyond the small rodents that
      constituted the Mammalian branch 65 million years ago. [1]

    " We wouldn't have the modern animals that we're used to. Giraffes and elephants
      and so on; they just wouldn't have evolved because dinosaurs would still be
      here" [2]

    " Dinosaurs would still be roaming the earth." [3]

    This shows that people have no idea what they're talking about. They haven't done a minimum of
    research on the subject and repeat what someone said without expending any grey matter on the
    subject. You have to be a complete moron to believe that evolution works through comet impacts.
    There is no excuse for such thoroughly debunked arguments in today's extinction discussions. If
    the suggestion emanates from a paleontologist, he should be kicked out of the guild. Such
    statements are a measure of the level of ignorance that surrounds us.

    Don't get me wrong. I am not claiming any super intelligence. I am saying that a person who makes
    a public statement such as that the dinosaurs would still be around if it weren't for an asteroid hasn't
    opened a book on Ecology. It shows that the individual is not only ignorant, but gullible. When more
    than one individual posts a similar statement on the Internet, it now becomes a religion. That's when
    an asshole like me comes in, throws a bucket of cold water, and puts them in their rightful place.


    3.0   The impact winter theory created a niche for relativists

    The biggest damage that the asteroid theory caused was bringing Einstein's followers -- the idiots of
    relativity -- into the discussions. The mathematician was suddenly able to carve a new niche in the
    wobbly field he knew little about and investigated even less. Every moron of Mathematical Physics is
    now looking for evidence to support what to them seems like a done deal without understanding the
    fundamentals of biology, ecology, or paleontology. This is how we end up with people believing that     
    T-Rex would still be around. It is to note that Luis Alvarez himself was not a paleontologist, but a
    mathematical physicist. Just to rub it in on the relevant issue of his credentials, Alvarez was the
    'scientist' who certified the 'jet-recoil' theory of the Kennedy assassination. If Alvarez knew so little
    about fundamental Theoretical Physics, what could he possibly know about dinosaurs?

    We can understand why the asteroid theory became so popular among the mathematicians. They
    didn't have to take a course in Paleontology or Ecology or Biology. They just had to calculate mass,
    size, and speed, and provide an estimate of the amount of damage such a monster could cause. The
    asteroid theory summarily shoved aside the people in the traditional guilds and put the subject
    squarely in the hands of people who pay no attention to qualitative aspects. The asteroid theory
    became so popular among relativists in part because it is a quantitative mechanism they can relate to.

    But there is a darker reason for why the asteroid theory is so popular today. It has to do with Alvarez's
    medals and connections. It turns out that his cronies awarded Alvarez a Nobel Prize in Quantum in
    1968. The Nobel is a prize that peers award each other if they continue to believe either in space-time
    or in particles. Alvarez got his for believing in particles. He then used the authority the prize confers to
    bear down on the issue of extinction. With a Quantum Nobel on one hand and his extensive scientific,
    political, and military contacts on the other, it was not only easy to push his theory through, but also to
    make it the leading theory. Certainly, it got more attention with his name on the paper than it did when
    relatively unknown De Laubenfels proposed it with just as much evidence to back it. (Here are a couple
    of testimonies regarding some of the methods Alvarez used to 'get his point across' to the masses. [4]
    [5] [6]) The reason the idiotic asteroid theory is believed by every layman and at least half of the gullible
    'experts' has ultimately to do with cronyism and politics. The popularity of the asteroid theory is an
    issue of authority and nothing more. It has no merit whatsoever!
L. Alvarez, W. Alvarez, F. Asaro, and H. Michel, Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous-Terciary extinction,
Science 208, 4448 (Jun 1980) 1095 - 1108
I am terribly sorry, Dr. Jones. I didn't have a
chance to see all your medals because you
were turned sideways. How tactless of me!  
I also had no idea that you had so many
friends in such high places in Norway and
Sweden. In fact, now that I had a moment
to rethink what you just said, your asteroid
theory doesn't sound so stupid after all.
Don't worry about it! We're
just a couple of invisible
rodents. Asteroids only kill
the big fellas.
How does an asteroid
justify
selectivity?
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008