A panel of 41 experts from around the world whose research results were published last week in the journal Science, examined the evidence for this theory and a number of alternative theories and determined unequivocally - an asteroid with a diameter of 10 kilometers that hit Mexico is responsible for the extinction of 70% of plant species and
By: Nancy Atkinson; Translation: Avi Blizovsky
For years, scientists debated the cause of the mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Now, a panel of 41 experts from all over the world has officially determined: a massive asteroid with a diameter of about 15 kilometers that collided with the Earth and hit the Chichlov region of Mexico is the culprit.
After reviewing a wide range of evidence intended to prove competing theories, the panel came to the conclusion that the cumulative evidence was structures preserved inside the crater. Computer models determined how many rocks were vaporized or blown away as a result of the impact. "Our work allowed us to visualize the amazing events that took place a few minutes after the impact" said Dr. Penny Barton from the University of Cambridge in the UK who led the team. "The front of the asteroid hit the ground while the top was still in the upper atmosphere punching a hole through the atmosphere."
The extinction at the boundary between the Cretaceous and Paleogene eras was one of the greatest geological puzzles in the history of the Earth. Evidence of impact has been found in rock layers from this period all over the world. While the idea of an asteroid impact was accepted by most scientists as the cause of the mass extinction, some critics disagreed and argued, for example, that microfossils from the Gulf of Mexico show that the impact occurred long before the impact and could not have been the initial cause.
The massive volcanic eruptions discovered in the Deccan Traps in India dating back to the same time have also been suggested as the main cause of the extinction. However, according to the panel's review, the computer models synthesized the geological evidence supporting the impact theory. The models showed that such damage could have been caused immediately by the huge shock waves, heat pulses and tsunami waves that spread around the world.
Moreover, the release of red volumes of dust, debris and debris led to a sudden cooling of the Earth's surface, low light levels and ocean acidity which reduced the rate of photosynthesis in plants and caused the extinction of them and their dependent species.
It is estimated that the asteroid hit the Earth with a force one billion times that of the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. It caused materials to fly high into the atmosphere, and set off a chain of events that caused a global winter, which in turn wiped out most of the living things on Earth within a few days.
"When the asteroid exploded and vaporized," Burton said, "it created a crater 30 kilometers deep and 100 kilometers in diameter, with wide slopes at the height of the Himalayas. However, within two minutes the slopes collapsed inward and the deeper parts of the crater were covered and rose up, leaving a shallow but wide pit.
"These terrifying events led to darkness and a global winter, the result of which was the extinction of over 70% of known species. The small wasp-like mammals that existed at the time proved to be more suitable for survival than the clumsy dinosaurs. The removal of these dominant animals paved the way for the development and diversification of mammals and ultimately for the appearance of man on Earth."
The study was published in the journal Science.
32 תגובות
I came to the conclusion, that they committed suicide - like the whales... (the whale cuff).
LB, thanks for the compliments.
In the mass extinction, about 70% of all the animals and plants that lived on the planet died, and more than 90% of the species (that is, in such cases, the last of the creatures from entire populations died). Still this does not mean that individual couples could not be saved. Luck also plays a role here. This is especially true for small warm-blooded animals, which are able to endure several cold winters. The birds are here because some of their ancestors survived, just like today's mammals and reptiles. Not all dinosaurs became birds, these are individual species that survived the difficult period, and probably their features - the feathers for example, allowed them to survive and go through the difficult period.
PS The meteor was not the only reason for environmental changes. Since the incident, 65 million years ago, the environment on Earth has changed several times, for example about 35 million years ago, the grass began to spread around the world, opening a niche for herbivorous mammals. There were several ice ages, and now there is a period of overheating - the cause of which is man, but it affects many species of animals and plants.
In each of these cases we see evolution in action.
Hello everyone,
I would love to know how the sudden extinction theory stacks up with the latest Chinese finds. (Let's assume that the dinosaurs actually had feathers, and if so there is a reasonable chance that the birds got them from the dinosaurs). Something doesn't add up (at least to me 🙂 either everyone was destroyed by a meteorite or Darwin intervened and everyone turned into birds? Could both theories exist at the same time?
post Scriptum.
Thanks and congratulations to all those involved in science - a wonderful and well-invested site!!! Well done.
The debate here is completely unnecessary. Even if there is agreement about the maniac asteroid theory, then nothing will happen if someone comes along and presents another, better theory. The skeptic is excited by the statement that this is the best theory so far and is afraid that, heaven forbid, this theory will take root until it cannot be replaced.
This is a theory with wide support. It is still not "the" theory but it gives a better answer than other theories, as of today. I have no problem getting a better theory in the future.
Regarding the Persian, the Austrian and the cockroaches, there are too many injustices in comparison. Any pair of the three placed opposite each other will cause an immediate injustice to one, or more, of the parties.
The likelihood of your hypothesis is low. The evidence from fossils shows that 65 million years ago there was a mass extinction of many species including almost all the dinosaurs. Usually diseases are much more specific and affect individual species. HIV only affects humans, Ebola in primates and so on. It's a bit hard to think of a disease that would wipe out, say, all mammals at once, so your hypothesis doesn't seem plausible. What's more, remains of a meteor that struck at that time (a worldwide iridium layer) were found and even the site of the impact on the Yucatan Peninsula was almost certainly identified. Therefore the title of the article rightly claims that the consensus around the meteor hypothesis is getting stronger.
I generally think that the dinosaurs became extinct because of some epidemic that killed them. Something that spread in their food and only harmed them. Crazy dinosaur disease.
skeptic,
Those who feel the need to explain to everyone that "his is bigger"...
(no need to complete)
Father, what are you arguing with him? One who claims to have scientific training but does not know and despises Science magazine? Really cool.
Science (or Science Magazine) is a scientific journal that belongs to the leading group of scientific journals. It is true that both Science and Nature have a section intended for the general public, but this section only explains in popular language what is written in the heavy articles that make up most of the volume of the magazine.
There are many popular newspapers in which the word science appears such as Scientific American, American Scientist, Popular Science, they are indeed not scientific magazines, but they are also loyal to the scientific consensus. The fact that some of the articles also appear on the science website thanks to collaborations with the Israeli systems of those magazines, indicates that these materials are intended for the general public and this is of great importance. However, I assume that if they had won a headline in one of these magazines, it would not have been presented as scientific news.
to the doubter,
I can read English, but this time - as usual - I preferred to read the news with knowledge. Do you read about a news item that appears in the journal even in its original version before you respond? I'm in Doubt.
Second, you are right and indeed the research was published in Science and not in Nature - but it seems that you preferred to nitpick over trifles instead of referring to the essential claim in my words; Namely, that the very fact that they managed to publish in a scientific newspaper (not scientific-popular but scientific) indicates their competence as scientists to some extent (not to say to a great extent). I did not claim that they are without mistakes or that their article presents absolute facts - I claimed that your presentation of them as amateurs is wrong.
Again, I trust the news knowing that the article was published in Science and not in Science Magazine without checking the original news. I think this is reasonable behavior considering the amount of news I read on this site.
You could have been content with a response like "the scientists are not incompetent amateurs, but that doesn't mean the debate has been decided." Instead, you chose to present one side of the debate as having no scientific authority, and I dispute that.
Next, please try to respond to my words matter-of-factly without questioning my skills (like I could read English). Such insults to people you do not know at all add nothing to your dignity.
For the skeptic, it is good to doubt everything, but you have one advantage over me. You do not manage a site that should reflect the opinion of the scientific community, but can respond under a name that does not reveal who you are and express your private opinion, which in this case is against the scientific consensus. Apparently we don't live in the same world and science for you is not what it is for me, and the discoveries of the last twenty years are less important to you than those that were before. That's not how science works.
I represent the scientific consensus on the site and for that I am recognized by the scientific community (by virtue of the badge of honor I received from the Israeli Association for Science in the Media). If I had chosen pseudo-science, I would have been rightly treated as a charlatan.
Mr. Blizovsky. According to my internet searches, my scientific training is many times more than yours.
You are a journalist with a degree in economics and management, this is not really the training of a scientist at a research level.
Your hasty conclusion based on a few lines I wrote about who I am - indicates your shallowness.
As a journalist you are perfectly fine, far above average. As a scientist you are not authoritative, sorry.
Don't wear a hat you don't deserve.
Regarding "a million years or a few days" in your words. As someone who follows (as a hobby) the theory of evolution (for many years)
It is absolutely clear to me that there is no scientific way to date animal fossils to an accuracy of (say) more than 10
percent, therefore when it comes to the extinction of the dinosaurs (about 66 million years ago) there are errors in estimating times
of about 6.6 million years. There is (perhaps) a fairly high accuracy in estimating the time of a cosmic event
(estimated fall of an asteroid) But this is not exact about the age of the fossils. There is no evidence
The dinosaurs disappeared (it is said) in less than a million years.
In addition. The extinction of the dinosaurs (reptiles among them) was _total_, there will not be any remains of them
and a refugee In contrast, the (terrestrial) mammals survived (at least in part). And the basic claim is that a cosmic event (or a volcanic eruption) destroyed the vegetation and thus interrupted the dinosaurs' ability to survive.
So how did the mammals who were underdogs in obtaining living resources survive while the dinosaurs (the powerful
in obtaining means of subsistence) survived. It is better to say that we do not know clearly what happened than to claim with confidence
That so and so happened (Socrates' words about the reservations to wisdom).
Regarding the question of the monolithicity of opinions between 41 people. I said my words. And I will repeat: every person who knows
Human nature (and even he lacks a scientific education) knows that a monolithic opinion is a suspect matter
Very much when there is no conclusive evidence, what to do there is no evidence for the cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Science Magazine is not a scientific journal, i.e. aimed at scientists only, but is a platform for presenting scientific opinions
which are not unfounded on their face (no more than that). Scientists will be happy to publish their findings in it,
Because it flatters the ego, promotes sales for their merchandise and the like. They will also be happy to publish a popular article
In National Geographic, for the same reasons, without saying that National Geographic is authoritative.
Skeptic, according to your response, you do not understand what scientific work is. Mila Ron, from whom I do not expect to be precise in small matters such as whether the earth is warming or cooling. But from someone who calls himself a skeptic I assume you understand what the accumulation of evidence means. The debate whether it happened in a million years or in a few days was relevant 20 years ago when there was not enough evidence and the articles you read were probably from that time.
41 Scientists are not a monolithic body. Everyone puts in their own insight and they wouldn't reach a consensus if it didn't have scientific value.
And one more thing, Science is a magazine that most scientists want to appear in, it works with the method of real criticism. I guess you might be confused with The Sicnetist, but this magazine also maintains scientific credibility and is not just looking for pictures.
In light of K.
A. The cited article is Science magazine, not Nature
B. I hope you know English, because if you don't, you don't have the basic tool to understand science and it is
The ability to read unfiltered information (by a Hebrew translator). It is the A and B of science
Before even considering the question at hand, it is important that you understand this.
third. Science Magazine is not a weighty scientific publication but simply a newspaper that wants to sell
"A beautiful story" in the field of science. The threshold condition for such a story that will not sound completely far-fetched,
There is no necessity for the story to be true, it is more important that the story be beautiful with beautiful accompanying drawings.
Beautiful stories sell newspapers. In real science there are publications _in real professional magazines_
which are received after in-depth cross-examinations and is exposed to peer review, in the newspaper "Beautiful Stories"
There is no such thing as a science magazine. Popular science journals are equal as an interest generating factor no more
from this.
d. The article here distorts what was written in the article on which it supposedly relies. Below are examples:
D.1.
The translation uses the title of the original article which is naturally concise
And not precise (because it is not possible to summarize dozens of lines in ten words). The content of the article is
A debate between two groups about two competing theories, to say nothing of some scientists
In total, both groups are counted among all the scientists. I bet 100 percent
99 percent of scientists do not believe at all in both theories, while the debate is only between two
minority groups, so one tiny minority group was strengthened in its fight against the minority group
The second little one (Big Deal).
D.2.
In the (original) article itself, it is not written anywhere about the struggle between the above two groups
_The struggle was decided on one side_. This is in contrast to the presentation of things in "Yaden".
The (original) article only says that there is _reinforcement of one side_.
It is true that it is a "small difference" but that is exactly the difference between scientists and "keyboard salesmen".
D.3.
The article here (in science) is presented as if the "scientists" (the vast majority) agree that the girls are missing
The dinosaurs are the result of a catastrophe. So it's not, it's a twist,
Most scientists still do not know the reason for the disappearance of most dinosaurs within a short period of time.
There is absolutely no particular reason to believe that the dinosaurs disappeared in the blink of an eye,
They could disappear in (it is said) a million years and such time allows for evolutionary extinction
by a particularly efficient species (see for example the mass extinction of animals caused by humans
in just ten years).
D.4.
I'm sorry I have to repeat my argument from above, but this is a crucial point.
When you are told that a forum of 41 people decided _unanimously_ on one opinion (when the basis
the factual is not unequivocal) it is absolutely clear that the decision is worthless. You don't have to be a scientist
To understand that in a _diverse_ body of 41 people there will be major differences of opinion (would the mother believe in the elections
for the presidency in which one candidate wins 95 percent of the votes?). The conclusion is that 41
who agreed unanimously, if they agreed, they are a monolithic body without self-criticism, hence their conclusions
On the face of it they are unimportant.
point:
No need to exaggerate.
Even if killing thousands of people in one's own country is not considered to you as "doing something", I suppose that a tireless effort to obtain an atomic bomb, when accompanied by statements about the need to destroy the State of Israel, can quietly be considered something that Ahmadinejad did.
And that Obama destroyed several villages in Afghanistan - how is this different from the fact that we destroyed several neighborhoods in Arab countries and the Palestinian Authority? The problem is not that Goldstone does not speak in Obama's case, but that he speaks in our case! Do you really prefer Ahmadinejad to Obama?
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad did nothing. And Obama the peace-seeker destroyed several villages there in Afghanistan, and Goldstone is silent as if he had been swallowed by the earth.
A. Ben-Ner:
The truth is that from the beginning I thought you would say something that I often say when the discussion is more serious and not about joking about the Ahmadinejads.
I mean the widespread phenomenon in Israel of painting the Germans of Nazi Germany as "non-human beings".
Painting them as "non-human" may create the impression that we - humans - cannot be drawn to the type of behavior they exhibited.
This is not true.
The Nazis behaved as human beings while demonstrating weaknesses that characterize most humans when they find themselves in a similar situation (this was also demonstrated in cruel experiments conducted on humans).
If you want to prevent the recurrence of the phenomenon, you should remember this!
Of course that is not the intention here.
Ahmadinejad, Hitler and other leaders of violence are truly special creatures.
There are psychopaths among humans but this is not the norm. What is dangerous is the thought that the normal person might not be drawn to a psychopath.
From the whole article it can be understood that the rock grew from ten km to fifteen km
To Michael, Shahar and Ariel
Unfortunately Ahmadinejad and his ilk and even Hitler before him are and were human beings, also the products of human evolution.
If they were cockroaches or descendants of dinosaurs then it is possible that they would be a protected animal in danger of extinction today.
Unfortunately they are human. Therefore, it can be concluded that evolution is not yet over. There is more to improve.
Michael:
First of all, as I wrote above, not all dinosaurs became extinct. Also, when you compare Ahmadinejad to cockroaches (or Ariel to dinosaurs) you are doing injustice to these animals and favoring man
Ariel:
I think my explanation is better because it explains why Ahmadinejad's ancestors were not harmed.
After all, if Ahmadinejad had been a dinosaur, it would not have been compatible with the fact that the dinosaurs disappeared from the face of the earth because he would have had to be born into another dinosaur while the fact that he is a cockroach does not suffer from a similar problem.
Shahar Ahmadinejad was born literally years after the dinosaurs went extinct, so it didn't hurt him
Skepnowitz, I actually solved the problem by doubting that the scientists even got together.
For the skeptic: these people published in nature. They are not amateurs.
skeptic:
Beauty!
You took out the frustration!
Happy?
What wild speculation in the guise of pseudo-science.
Shame on the profession.
The argument that a panel of 41 researchers unanimously determined what caused the disappearance of the dinosaurs and thus "proved" the speculation is a very lame scientific argument.
Who are those 41 members of the panel? This is a "meeting of friends" at the speculators club who were hosted at a joint conference of the club.
Who gave them scientific authority over 41 thousand scientists
Others who say "We don't know what caused the dinosaurs to disappear
Because there is no solid evidence for anything"?
Tomorrow a panel of 300 alien enthusiasts will gather and unanimously determine that the inhabitants
Earthlings are aliens from the planet Omega-Minus who have been implanted here.
Well... And because 300 alien enthusiasts came to the conclusion, will you believe them?
There may be evidence that 67 million years ago a large asteroid fell.
What happened as a result of the fall no one knows. Adjacency dates
This is a Damicolo proof, not a scientific proof.
There is evidence of a number of extinction cycles that have passed since 60, in time periods of approximately 6,000 million years or so. It is possible that the causes of the extinctions were different and different from each other. I understand, according to the date, that the article refers to the most recent extinction. Naturally, earlier extinctions are more difficult to study. From what I have read, other estimated causes of extinction are, strong cosmic radiation from a supernova, whose distance from the sun is less than XNUMX light years.
Dawn:
The cockroaches survived.
Amit:
It's a matter of timing. Maybe the eruptions were earlier or a long time later? Do you know exactly when they happened?
Besides - if the impact of the asteroid was enough, then there is no point in seeing the volcanic eruptions it may have caused, as a complementary cause.
I assume that the lack of food also caused some of the dinosaurs to kill others in a war for food or mutual prey. Does this mean that the wars between the dinosaurs themselves are a supplementary cause as well?
The theory of volcanic eruptions is not contradictory, but complementary: a collision on such a scale is a huge trigger for tectonic activities whose pressure has accumulated in the past such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, perhaps even on the scale of a megavolcano like Yellowstone
I don't understand how it didn't hurt Ahmadinejad?
The asteroid killed most of the dinosaurs. The birds are still alive and well