Hi, Mario! I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me and are still reading s.b.p.
I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months of 2021, and then
I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close to a week since I was there last,
and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.

On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
> > On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
> >>> years?) ago.
> >>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
> >>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few people).

Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of mathematics not to
be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere. For instance, I thought
I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution that produces new orders,
classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.

That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution, which some take to
mean "speciation".

Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue moon (for him)
on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord Simpson had coined
the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born. But I didn't mind.
In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class evolutionary theorist
had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for another post.

> >>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
> >>>
> >> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly backwards.

Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
said nothing in your OP that could be construed as backwards
from the following.

> >> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur extinction, and
> >> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in the
> >> character of Amazon forests.

It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength of the two directions.
Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the opposite direction that you had, Mario.

Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:

> > Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of flora and
> > fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were no large
> > herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by extension, the
> > world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover after a mass
> > extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of the same
> > character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.

Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring scientific
issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.

As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the extinction less
than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never showed
interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP of hers.
Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.

> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this already
> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to evolve out
> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to acquire that
> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive. Why would
> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that, dinos were
> already adapted?

There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T extinction,
among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct branches of
mammalia.

But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe the first really
large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10 million years to get to that point.

> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that prevented
> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is what,
> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets of them
> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs (or, I
> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.

You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived" doesn't hit the spot.
"Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you had in mind, Mario.

There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding sentence, but I need to get
back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so I'll tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>
> --
> https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> human-e...@googlegroups.com

How is that group coming along?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, Mario! I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me and are still reading s.b.p.
> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months of 2021, and then
> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close to a week since I was there last,
> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>
> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few people).
>
> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of mathematics not to
> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere. For instance, I thought
> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution that produces new orders,
> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>
> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution, which some take to
> mean "speciation".
>
> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue moon (for him)
> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord Simpson had coined
> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born. But I didn't mind.
> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class evolutionary theorist
> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for another post.
>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>
>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly backwards.
>
> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
> said nothing in your OP that could be construed as backwards
> from the following.
>
>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur extinction, and
>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in the
>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>
> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength of the two directions.
> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the opposite direction that you had, Mario.
>
>
> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>
>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of flora and
>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were no large
>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by extension, the
>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover after a mass
>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of the same
>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>
> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring scientific
> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>
> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the extinction less
> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never showed
> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP of hers.
> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>
>
>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this already
>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to evolve out
>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to acquire that
>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive. Why would
>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that, dinos were
>> already adapted?
>
> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T extinction,
> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct branches of
> mammalia.
>
> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe the first really
> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10 million years to get to that point.
>
>
>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that prevented
>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is what,
>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets of them
>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs (or, I
>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>
> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived" doesn't hit the spot.
> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you had in mind, Mario.
>
> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding sentence, but I need to get
> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so I'll tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.

Thanks, Peter.
Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did survive, and they
did evolve, everybody who survives evolves. The point is, they didn't go
extinct. You don't go extinct without a reason. Herbivores of mammalian
type didn't go extinct (as you mentioned), large herbivores of mammalian
type didn't exist (as far as I can grasp), or, at least, didn't exist in
areas where they emerged 10 my later. The fact is that all fern eaters
of a dino type (and their predators) went extinct, while not all dinos
went extinct. So, the problem was in eating ferns.
The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that. The question was,
did ecology change because of dinos went extinct? There is no reason for
just a specific type of dinos to go extinct, or, at least, nobody
mentioned it anywhere, nobody knows for the reason, there is no theory
about that reason, there is no idea about the reason, there is no
just-so story about the reason, absolutely nothing, there is only a
"possibility" that this could have happened (but no reason for that). I
mean, there is a possibility that life on Earth was started by aliens,
but, hey, are we at that level of reasoning? Or, is science on that
level of reasoning? If it shouldn't be, then why it behaves like they
are on that level?
On the other hand, there could be some reason for ecology to change.
My *idea* is that plants that crave for sunlight already evolved at
poles (definitely there is some logic in it). The impact created the
lack of sunlight (there were already some theories about that), so the
plants that are able to collect more sunlight prevailed over ferns. This
is one simple and logical explanation for this mechanism. For the
mechanism that only some types of dinosaurs went extinct there is no
explanation of mechanism.
I believe that I am clear enough.

> How is that group coming along?

Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more members, Daud Deden and
Marc Verhaegen, but there is no discussion going on at all. So far I am
happy, this is a good start, :) .

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me and are
>> still reading s.b.p.
>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months of
>> 2021, and then
>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close to a
>> week since I was there last,
>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>
>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few people).
>>
>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of mathematics
>> not to
>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere. For
>> instance, I thought
>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution that
>> produces new orders,
>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>
>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution, which some
>> take to
>> mean "speciation".
>>
>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue moon
>> (for him)
>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord Simpson
>> had coined
>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I didn't mind.
>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>> evolutionary theorist
>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for another post.
>>
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>
>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly backwards.
>>
>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>> from the following.
>>
>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur extinction,
>>>>> and
>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in the
>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>
>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's
>> direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength of the
>> two directions.
>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the opposite
>> direction that you had, Mario.
>>
>>
>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>
>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of flora and
>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were no large
>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by extension, the
>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover after a mass
>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of the same
>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>>
>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring scientific
>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>
>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the extinction less
>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never showed
>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP of hers.
>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>
>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this already
>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to evolve out
>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to acquire that
>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive. Why would
>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that, dinos were
>>> already adapted?
>>
>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T
>> extinction,
>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct branches of
>> mammalia.
>>
>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe the
>> first really
>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10 million
>> years to get to that point.
>>
>>
>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that prevented
>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is what,
>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets of them
>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs (or, I
>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>
>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived" doesn't hit
>> the spot.
>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you had in
>> mind, Mario.
>>
>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding
>> sentence, but I need to get
>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so I'll
>> tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>
>         Thanks, Peter.
>         Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did survive, and
> they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves. The point is, they
> didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct without a reason. Herbivores of
> mammalian type didn't go extinct (as you mentioned), large herbivores of
> mammalian type didn't exist (as far as I can grasp), or, at least,
> didn't exist in areas where they emerged 10 my later. The fact is that
> all fern eaters of a dino type (and their predators) went extinct, while
> not all dinos went extinct. So, the problem was in eating ferns.
>         The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that. The
> question was, did ecology change because of dinos went extinct? There is
> no reason for just a specific type of dinos to go extinct, or, at least,
> nobody mentioned it anywhere, nobody knows for the reason, there is no
> theory about that reason, there is no idea about the reason, there is no
> just-so story about the reason, absolutely nothing, there is only a
> "possibility" that this could have happened (but no reason for that). I
> mean, there is a possibility that life on Earth was started by aliens,
> but, hey, are we at that level of reasoning? Or, is science on that
> level of reasoning? If it shouldn't be, then why it behaves like they
> are on that level?
>         On the other hand, there could be some reason for ecology to
> change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for sunlight already evolved
> at poles (definitely there is some logic in it). The impact created the
> lack of sunlight (there were already some theories about that), so the
> plants that are able to collect more sunlight prevailed over ferns. This
> is one simple and logical explanation for this mechanism. For the
> mechanism that only some types of dinosaurs went extinct there is no
> explanation of mechanism.
>         I believe that I am clear enough.
>
>> How is that group coming along?
>
>         Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more members, Daud
> Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no discussion going on at all. So
> far I am happy, this is a good start, :) .
>
One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern spike". For a
short time after the impact ferns dominated the terrestrial vegetation.
Another problem is that the poles get much less sunlight than the
tropics, so plants that "crave for" sunlight would be less likely to be
located there than elsewhere. And third, the post-K-T lack of sunlight
could have lasted a couple of years at most. Finally, you have no
evidence that herbivorous dinosaurs were dependent on ferns, which seems
very unlikely on its face.

There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds or mammals
went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly thought, extinctions
mostly happened as a result of radiant heat from the sky resulting from
the re-entry of small ejecta, big animals would be less able to hide
under rocks and in burrows than small ones. And there you have the
filter to explain the extinction.

On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me and are
>>> still reading s.b.p.
>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months of
>>> 2021, and then
>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close to a
>>> week since I was there last,
>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few people).
>>>
>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>> mathematics not to
>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere. For
>>> instance, I thought
>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution that
>>> produces new orders,
>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>
>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution, which some
>>> take to
>>> mean "speciation".
>>>
>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue moon
>>> (for him)
>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord Simpson
>>> had coined
>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I didn't mind.
>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>> evolutionary theorist
>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for another
>>> post.
>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly backwards.
>>>
>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>> from the following.
>>>
>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in the
>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>
>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's
>>> direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength of the
>>> two directions.
>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the opposite
>>> direction that you had, Mario.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>
>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of flora and
>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were no large
>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by extension, the
>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover after a
>>>>> mass
>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of the same
>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>>>
>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring scientific
>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>
>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the extinction less
>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never showed
>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP of hers.
>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>
>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this already
>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to evolve
>>>> out
>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to acquire that
>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive. Why would
>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that, dinos
>>>> were
>>>> already adapted?
>>>
>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T
>>> extinction,
>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct branches of
>>> mammalia.
>>>
>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe the
>>> first really
>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10 million
>>> years to get to that point.
>>>
>>>
>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that prevented
>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is what,
>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets of them
>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs (or, I
>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>
>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived" doesn't hit
>>> the spot.
>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you had in
>>> mind, Mario.
>>>
>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding
>>> sentence, but I need to get
>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so I'll
>>> tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>
>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did survive,
>> and they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves. The point is,
>> they didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct without a reason.
>> Herbivores of mammalian type didn't go extinct (as you mentioned),
>> large herbivores of mammalian type didn't exist (as far as I can
>> grasp), or, at least, didn't exist in areas where they emerged 10 my
>> later. The fact is that all fern eaters of a dino type (and their
>> predators) went extinct, while not all dinos went extinct. So, the
>> problem was in eating ferns.
>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that. The
>> question was, did ecology change because of dinos went extinct? There
>> is no reason for just a specific type of dinos to go extinct, or, at
>> least, nobody mentioned it anywhere, nobody knows for the reason,
>> there is no theory about that reason, there is no idea about the
>> reason, there is no just-so story about the reason, absolutely
>> nothing, there is only a "possibility" that this could have happened
>> (but no reason for that). I mean, there is a possibility that life on
>> Earth was started by aliens, but, hey, are we at that level of
>> reasoning? Or, is science on that level of reasoning? If it shouldn't
>> be, then why it behaves like they are on that level?
>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for ecology to
>> change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for sunlight already
>> evolved at poles (definitely there is some logic in it). The impact
>> created the lack of sunlight (there were already some theories about
>> that), so the plants that are able to collect more sunlight prevailed
>> over ferns. This is one simple and logical explanation for this
>> mechanism. For the mechanism that only some types of dinosaurs went
>> extinct there is no explanation of mechanism.
>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>
>>> How is that group coming along?
>>
>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more members, Daud
>> Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no discussion going on at all.
>> So far I am happy, this is a good start, :) .
>>
> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern spike". For a
> short time after the impact ferns dominated the terrestrial vegetation.
> Another problem is that the poles get much less sunlight than the
> tropics, so plants that "crave for" sunlight would be less likely to be
> located there than elsewhere. And third, the post-K-T lack of sunlight
> could have lasted a couple of years at most. Finally, you have no
> evidence that herbivorous dinosaurs were dependent on ferns, which seems
> very unlikely on its face.
>
> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds or mammals
> went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly thought, extinctions
> mostly happened as a result of radiant heat from the sky resulting from
> the re-entry of small ejecta, big animals would be less able to hide
> under rocks and in burrows than small ones. And there you have the
> filter to explain the extinction.

On 28.4.2021. 16:47, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me and are
>>>> still reading s.b.p.
>>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months of
>>>> 2021, and then
>>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close to a
>>>> week since I was there last,
>>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few people).
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>>> mathematics not to
>>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere. For
>>>> instance, I thought
>>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution that
>>>> produces new orders,
>>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>>
>>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution, which
>>>> some take to
>>>> mean "speciation".
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue moon
>>>> (for him)
>>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord
>>>> Simpson had coined
>>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I didn't
>>>> mind.
>>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>>> evolutionary theorist
>>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for another
>>>> post.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly backwards.
>>>>
>>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>>> from the following.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in the
>>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>>
>>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's
>>>> direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength of the
>>>> two directions.
>>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the opposite
>>>> direction that you had, Mario.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of flora and
>>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were no large
>>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by extension, the
>>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover after a
>>>>>> mass
>>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of the same
>>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>>>>
>>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring
>>>> scientific
>>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>>
>>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the extinction less
>>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never showed
>>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP of hers.
>>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>>
>>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this already
>>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to
>>>>> evolve out
>>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to acquire that
>>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive. Why
>>>>> would
>>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that, dinos
>>>>> were
>>>>> already adapted?
>>>>
>>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T
>>>> extinction,
>>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct
>>>> branches of
>>>> mammalia.
>>>>
>>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe the
>>>> first really
>>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10 million
>>>> years to get to that point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that prevented
>>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is what,
>>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets of them
>>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs (or, I
>>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>>
>>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived" doesn't hit
>>>> the spot.
>>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you had
>>>> in mind, Mario.
>>>>
>>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding
>>>> sentence, but I need to get
>>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so I'll
>>>> tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>
>>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did survive,
>>> and they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves. The point is,
>>> they didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct without a reason.
>>> Herbivores of mammalian type didn't go extinct (as you mentioned),
>>> large herbivores of mammalian type didn't exist (as far as I can
>>> grasp), or, at least, didn't exist in areas where they emerged 10 my
>>> later. The fact is that all fern eaters of a dino type (and their
>>> predators) went extinct, while not all dinos went extinct. So, the
>>> problem was in eating ferns.
>>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that. The
>>> question was, did ecology change because of dinos went extinct? There
>>> is no reason for just a specific type of dinos to go extinct, or, at
>>> least, nobody mentioned it anywhere, nobody knows for the reason,
>>> there is no theory about that reason, there is no idea about the
>>> reason, there is no just-so story about the reason, absolutely
>>> nothing, there is only a "possibility" that this could have happened
>>> (but no reason for that). I mean, there is a possibility that life on
>>> Earth was started by aliens, but, hey, are we at that level of
>>> reasoning? Or, is science on that level of reasoning? If it shouldn't
>>> be, then why it behaves like they are on that level?
>>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for ecology to
>>> change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for sunlight already
>>> evolved at poles (definitely there is some logic in it). The impact
>>> created the lack of sunlight (there were already some theories about
>>> that), so the plants that are able to collect more sunlight prevailed
>>> over ferns. This is one simple and logical explanation for this
>>> mechanism. For the mechanism that only some types of dinosaurs went
>>> extinct there is no explanation of mechanism.
>>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>>
>>>> How is that group coming along?
>>>
>>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more members, Daud
>>> Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no discussion going on at all.
>>> So far I am happy, this is a good start, :) .
>>>
>> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern spike". For
>> a short time after the impact ferns dominated the terrestrial
>> vegetation. Another problem is that the poles get much less sunlight
>> than the tropics, so plants that "crave for" sunlight would be less
>> likely to be located there than elsewhere. And third, the post-K-T
>> lack of sunlight could have lasted a couple of years at most. Finally,
>> you have no evidence that herbivorous dinosaurs were dependent on
>> ferns, which seems very unlikely on its face.
>>
>> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds or
>> mammals went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly thought,
>> extinctions mostly happened as a result of radiant heat from the sky
>> resulting from the re-entry of small ejecta, big animals would be less
>> able to hide under rocks and in burrows than small ones. And there you
>> have the filter to explain the extinction.
>
>         Thanks John.
>         "Fern spike", I'll have to examine this.
>         Not necessarily "crave" for sunlight, but definitely being
> better in scooping the sunlight. Like hemoglobin in blood, which
> extracts oxygen. If oxygen levels fall, obviously the animals adapted to
> low levels will thrive.
>         A couple of years could be enough.
>         I believe the teeth of dinosaurs were adapted just to strip
> ferns (but I am not sure about it).

On 4/28/21 7:47 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me and are
>>>> still reading s.b.p.
>>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months of
>>>> 2021, and then
>>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close to a
>>>> week since I was there last,
>>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few people).
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>>> mathematics not to
>>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere. For
>>>> instance, I thought
>>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution that
>>>> produces new orders,
>>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>>
>>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution, which
>>>> some take to
>>>> mean "speciation".
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue moon
>>>> (for him)
>>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord
>>>> Simpson had coined
>>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I didn't
>>>> mind.
>>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>>> evolutionary theorist
>>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for another
>>>> post.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly backwards.
>>>>
>>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>>> from the following.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in the
>>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>>
>>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's
>>>> direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength of the
>>>> two directions.
>>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the opposite
>>>> direction that you had, Mario.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of flora and
>>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were no large
>>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by extension, the
>>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover after a
>>>>>> mass
>>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of the same
>>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>>>>
>>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring
>>>> scientific
>>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>>
>>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the extinction less
>>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never showed
>>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP of hers.
>>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>>
>>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this already
>>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to
>>>>> evolve out
>>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to acquire that
>>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive. Why
>>>>> would
>>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that, dinos
>>>>> were
>>>>> already adapted?
>>>>
>>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T
>>>> extinction,
>>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct
>>>> branches of
>>>> mammalia.
>>>>
>>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe the
>>>> first really
>>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10 million
>>>> years to get to that point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that prevented
>>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is what,
>>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets of them
>>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs (or, I
>>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>>
>>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived" doesn't hit
>>>> the spot.
>>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you had
>>>> in mind, Mario.
>>>>
>>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding
>>>> sentence, but I need to get
>>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so I'll
>>>> tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>
>>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did survive,
>>> and they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves. The point is,
>>> they didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct without a reason.
>>> Herbivores of mammalian type didn't go extinct (as you mentioned),
>>> large herbivores of mammalian type didn't exist (as far as I can
>>> grasp), or, at least, didn't exist in areas where they emerged 10 my
>>> later. The fact is that all fern eaters of a dino type (and their
>>> predators) went extinct, while not all dinos went extinct. So, the
>>> problem was in eating ferns.
>>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that. The
>>> question was, did ecology change because of dinos went extinct? There
>>> is no reason for just a specific type of dinos to go extinct, or, at
>>> least, nobody mentioned it anywhere, nobody knows for the reason,
>>> there is no theory about that reason, there is no idea about the
>>> reason, there is no just-so story about the reason, absolutely
>>> nothing, there is only a "possibility" that this could have happened
>>> (but no reason for that). I mean, there is a possibility that life on
>>> Earth was started by aliens, but, hey, are we at that level of
>>> reasoning? Or, is science on that level of reasoning? If it shouldn't
>>> be, then why it behaves like they are on that level?
>>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for ecology to
>>> change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for sunlight already
>>> evolved at poles (definitely there is some logic in it). The impact
>>> created the lack of sunlight (there were already some theories about
>>> that), so the plants that are able to collect more sunlight prevailed
>>> over ferns. This is one simple and logical explanation for this
>>> mechanism. For the mechanism that only some types of dinosaurs went
>>> extinct there is no explanation of mechanism.
>>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>>
>>>> How is that group coming along?
>>>
>>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more members, Daud
>>> Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no discussion going on at all.
>>> So far I am happy, this is a good start, :) .
>>>
>> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern spike". For
>> a short time after the impact ferns dominated the terrestrial
>> vegetation. Another problem is that the poles get much less sunlight
>> than the tropics, so plants that "crave for" sunlight would be less
>> likely to be located there than elsewhere. And third, the post-K-T
>> lack of sunlight could have lasted a couple of years at most. Finally,
>> you have no evidence that herbivorous dinosaurs were dependent on
>> ferns, which seems very unlikely on its face.
>>
>> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds or
>> mammals went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly thought,
>> extinctions mostly happened as a result of radiant heat from the sky
>> resulting from the re-entry of small ejecta, big animals would be less
>> able to hide under rocks and in burrows than small ones. And there you
>> have the filter to explain the extinction.
>
>         Thanks John.
>         "Fern spike", I'll have to examine this.
>         Not necessarily "crave" for sunlight, but definitely being
> better in scooping the sunlight. Like hemoglobin in blood, which
> extracts oxygen. If oxygen levels fall, obviously the animals adapted to
> low levels will thrive.
>         A couple of years could be enough.
>         I believe the teeth of dinosaurs were adapted just to strip
> ferns (but I am not sure about it).
>
Yeah, you should check out the fern spike. Do you have any evidence that
arctic plants are better at scooping up sunlight than tropical ones? You
should probably check out the difference between C3 and C4 plants. And
no, a couple of years isn't enough at all; you should probably check out
the term "seed bank". In general, you should learn something about
botany. And what you believe about the teeth of dinosaurs is not
supported by anything that I know of and, I strongly suspect, not
anything that you know of.

On 4/28/21 7:53 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 28.4.2021. 16:47, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me and are
>>>>> still reading s.b.p.
>>>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months of
>>>>> 2021, and then
>>>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close to a
>>>>> week since I was there last,
>>>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few
>>>>>>>>> people).
>>>>>
>>>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>>>> mathematics not to
>>>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere. For
>>>>> instance, I thought
>>>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution that
>>>>> produces new orders,
>>>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution, which
>>>>> some take to
>>>>> mean "speciation".
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue moon
>>>>> (for him)
>>>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord
>>>>> Simpson had coined
>>>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I didn't
>>>>> mind.
>>>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>>>> evolutionary theorist
>>>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for another
>>>>> post.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly backwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>>>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>>>> from the following.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in the
>>>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's
>>>>> direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength of
>>>>> the two directions.
>>>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the
>>>>> opposite direction that you had, Mario.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of flora and
>>>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were no
>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by extension, the
>>>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover after
>>>>>>> a mass
>>>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of the same
>>>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring
>>>>> scientific
>>>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the extinction less
>>>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never showed
>>>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP of
>>>>> hers.
>>>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this already
>>>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to
>>>>>> evolve out
>>>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to acquire that
>>>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive. Why
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that,
>>>>>> dinos were
>>>>>> already adapted?
>>>>>
>>>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T
>>>>> extinction,
>>>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct
>>>>> branches of
>>>>> mammalia.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe the
>>>>> first really
>>>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10 million
>>>>> years to get to that point.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that
>>>>>> prevented
>>>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is what,
>>>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets of them
>>>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs (or, I
>>>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>>>
>>>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived" doesn't hit
>>>>> the spot.
>>>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you had
>>>>> in mind, Mario.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding
>>>>> sentence, but I need to get
>>>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so I'll
>>>>> tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did survive,
>>>> and they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves. The point is,
>>>> they didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct without a reason.
>>>> Herbivores of mammalian type didn't go extinct (as you mentioned),
>>>> large herbivores of mammalian type didn't exist (as far as I can
>>>> grasp), or, at least, didn't exist in areas where they emerged 10 my
>>>> later. The fact is that all fern eaters of a dino type (and their
>>>> predators) went extinct, while not all dinos went extinct. So, the
>>>> problem was in eating ferns.
>>>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that. The
>>>> question was, did ecology change because of dinos went extinct?
>>>> There is no reason for just a specific type of dinos to go extinct,
>>>> or, at least, nobody mentioned it anywhere, nobody knows for the
>>>> reason, there is no theory about that reason, there is no idea about
>>>> the reason, there is no just-so story about the reason, absolutely
>>>> nothing, there is only a "possibility" that this could have happened
>>>> (but no reason for that). I mean, there is a possibility that life
>>>> on Earth was started by aliens, but, hey, are we at that level of
>>>> reasoning? Or, is science on that level of reasoning? If it
>>>> shouldn't be, then why it behaves like they are on that level?
>>>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for ecology
>>>> to change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for sunlight already
>>>> evolved at poles (definitely there is some logic in it). The impact
>>>> created the lack of sunlight (there were already some theories about
>>>> that), so the plants that are able to collect more sunlight
>>>> prevailed over ferns. This is one simple and logical explanation for
>>>> this mechanism. For the mechanism that only some types of dinosaurs
>>>> went extinct there is no explanation of mechanism.
>>>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>>>
>>>>> How is that group coming along?
>>>>
>>>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more members, Daud
>>>> Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no discussion going on at
>>>> all. So far I am happy, this is a good start, :) .
>>>>
>>> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern spike". For
>>> a short time after the impact ferns dominated the terrestrial
>>> vegetation. Another problem is that the poles get much less sunlight
>>> than the tropics, so plants that "crave for" sunlight would be less
>>> likely to be located there than elsewhere. And third, the post-K-T
>>> lack of sunlight could have lasted a couple of years at most.
>>> Finally, you have no evidence that herbivorous dinosaurs were
>>> dependent on ferns, which seems very unlikely on its face.
>>>
>>> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds or
>>> mammals went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly thought,
>>> extinctions mostly happened as a result of radiant heat from the sky
>>> resulting from the re-entry of small ejecta, big animals would be
>>> less able to hide under rocks and in burrows than small ones. And
>>> there you have the filter to explain the extinction.
>>
>>          Thanks John.
>>          "Fern spike", I'll have to examine this.
>>          Not necessarily "crave" for sunlight, but definitely being
>> better in scooping the sunlight. Like hemoglobin in blood, which
>> extracts oxygen. If oxygen levels fall, obviously the animals adapted
>> to low levels will thrive.
>>          A couple of years could be enough.
>>          I believe the teeth of dinosaurs were adapted just to strip
>> ferns (but I am not sure about it).
>
>         Yes, "Fern spike" actually isn't a problem. It isn't a problem
> in ferns, but actually, in trees above ferns. So, after the land cleared
> up, because of the event, ferns started to cover the land rapidly. This
> is a "Fern spike". But, what follows is the growth of different types of
> trees above those ferns, which killed the ferns, fern eaters, and their
> predators.
>
The problem there is that the fern spike comes *after* the K/T
extinction, not before it. The supposed fern eaters (which weren't
actually fern eaters) and their predators were extinct before the fern
spike, so nothing after the fern spike can be the cause of their extinction.

On 28.4.2021. 17:11, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/28/21 7:47 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me and are
>>>>> still reading s.b.p.
>>>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months of
>>>>> 2021, and then
>>>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close to a
>>>>> week since I was there last,
>>>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few
>>>>>>>>> people).
>>>>>
>>>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>>>> mathematics not to
>>>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere. For
>>>>> instance, I thought
>>>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution that
>>>>> produces new orders,
>>>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution, which
>>>>> some take to
>>>>> mean "speciation".
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue moon
>>>>> (for him)
>>>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord
>>>>> Simpson had coined
>>>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I didn't
>>>>> mind.
>>>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>>>> evolutionary theorist
>>>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for another
>>>>> post.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly backwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>>>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>>>> from the following.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in the
>>>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's
>>>>> direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength of
>>>>> the two directions.
>>>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the
>>>>> opposite direction that you had, Mario.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of flora and
>>>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were no
>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by extension, the
>>>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover after
>>>>>>> a mass
>>>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of the same
>>>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring
>>>>> scientific
>>>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the extinction less
>>>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never showed
>>>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP of
>>>>> hers.
>>>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this already
>>>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to
>>>>>> evolve out
>>>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to acquire that
>>>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive. Why
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that,
>>>>>> dinos were
>>>>>> already adapted?
>>>>>
>>>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T
>>>>> extinction,
>>>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct
>>>>> branches of
>>>>> mammalia.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe the
>>>>> first really
>>>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10 million
>>>>> years to get to that point.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that
>>>>>> prevented
>>>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is what,
>>>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets of them
>>>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs (or, I
>>>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>>>
>>>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived" doesn't hit
>>>>> the spot.
>>>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you had
>>>>> in mind, Mario.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding
>>>>> sentence, but I need to get
>>>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so I'll
>>>>> tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did survive,
>>>> and they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves. The point is,
>>>> they didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct without a reason.
>>>> Herbivores of mammalian type didn't go extinct (as you mentioned),
>>>> large herbivores of mammalian type didn't exist (as far as I can
>>>> grasp), or, at least, didn't exist in areas where they emerged 10 my
>>>> later. The fact is that all fern eaters of a dino type (and their
>>>> predators) went extinct, while not all dinos went extinct. So, the
>>>> problem was in eating ferns.
>>>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that. The
>>>> question was, did ecology change because of dinos went extinct?
>>>> There is no reason for just a specific type of dinos to go extinct,
>>>> or, at least, nobody mentioned it anywhere, nobody knows for the
>>>> reason, there is no theory about that reason, there is no idea about
>>>> the reason, there is no just-so story about the reason, absolutely
>>>> nothing, there is only a "possibility" that this could have happened
>>>> (but no reason for that). I mean, there is a possibility that life
>>>> on Earth was started by aliens, but, hey, are we at that level of
>>>> reasoning? Or, is science on that level of reasoning? If it
>>>> shouldn't be, then why it behaves like they are on that level?
>>>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for ecology
>>>> to change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for sunlight already
>>>> evolved at poles (definitely there is some logic in it). The impact
>>>> created the lack of sunlight (there were already some theories about
>>>> that), so the plants that are able to collect more sunlight
>>>> prevailed over ferns. This is one simple and logical explanation for
>>>> this mechanism. For the mechanism that only some types of dinosaurs
>>>> went extinct there is no explanation of mechanism.
>>>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>>>
>>>>> How is that group coming along?
>>>>
>>>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more members, Daud
>>>> Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no discussion going on at
>>>> all. So far I am happy, this is a good start, :) .
>>>>
>>> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern spike". For
>>> a short time after the impact ferns dominated the terrestrial
>>> vegetation. Another problem is that the poles get much less sunlight
>>> than the tropics, so plants that "crave for" sunlight would be less
>>> likely to be located there than elsewhere. And third, the post-K-T
>>> lack of sunlight could have lasted a couple of years at most.
>>> Finally, you have no evidence that herbivorous dinosaurs were
>>> dependent on ferns, which seems very unlikely on its face.
>>>
>>> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds or
>>> mammals went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly thought,
>>> extinctions mostly happened as a result of radiant heat from the sky
>>> resulting from the re-entry of small ejecta, big animals would be
>>> less able to hide under rocks and in burrows than small ones. And
>>> there you have the filter to explain the extinction.
>>
>>          Thanks John.
>>          "Fern spike", I'll have to examine this.
>>          Not necessarily "crave" for sunlight, but definitely being
>> better in scooping the sunlight. Like hemoglobin in blood, which
>> extracts oxygen. If oxygen levels fall, obviously the animals adapted
>> to low levels will thrive.
>>          A couple of years could be enough.
>>          I believe the teeth of dinosaurs were adapted just to strip
>> ferns (but I am not sure about it).
>>
> Yeah, you should check out the fern spike. Do you have any evidence that
> arctic plants are better at scooping up sunlight than tropical ones? You
> should probably check out the difference between C3 and C4 plants. And
> no, a couple of years isn't enough at all; you should probably check out
> the term "seed bank". In general, you should learn something about
> botany. And what you believe about the teeth of dinosaurs is not
> supported by anything that I know of and, I strongly suspect, not
> anything that you know of.

On 4/28/21 8:44 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 28.4.2021. 17:11, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/28/21 7:47 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me and
>>>>>> are still reading s.b.p.
>>>>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months of
>>>>>> 2021, and then
>>>>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close to a
>>>>>> week since I was there last,
>>>>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few
>>>>>>>>>> people).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>>>>> mathematics not to
>>>>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere. For
>>>>>> instance, I thought
>>>>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution that
>>>>>> produces new orders,
>>>>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution, which
>>>>>> some take to
>>>>>> mean "speciation".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue moon
>>>>>> (for him)
>>>>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord
>>>>>> Simpson had coined
>>>>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I didn't
>>>>>> mind.
>>>>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>>>>> evolutionary theorist
>>>>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for
>>>>>> another post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly backwards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>>>>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>>>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>>>>> from the following.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in the
>>>>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's
>>>>>> direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>>>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength of
>>>>>> the two directions.
>>>>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the
>>>>>> opposite direction that you had, Mario.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of flora
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were no
>>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by extension, the
>>>>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover after
>>>>>>>> a mass
>>>>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of the same
>>>>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring
>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the extinction less
>>>>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never showed
>>>>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP of
>>>>>> hers.
>>>>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this
>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to
>>>>>>> evolve out
>>>>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to acquire that
>>>>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive. Why
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that,
>>>>>>> dinos were
>>>>>>> already adapted?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T
>>>>>> extinction,
>>>>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct
>>>>>> branches of
>>>>>> mammalia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe the
>>>>>> first really
>>>>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10 million
>>>>>> years to get to that point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that
>>>>>>> prevented
>>>>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is what,
>>>>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets of
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs (or, I
>>>>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived" doesn't
>>>>>> hit the spot.
>>>>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you had
>>>>>> in mind, Mario.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding
>>>>>> sentence, but I need to get
>>>>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so I'll
>>>>>> tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>>>
>>>>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>>>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did survive,
>>>>> and they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves. The point is,
>>>>> they didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct without a reason.
>>>>> Herbivores of mammalian type didn't go extinct (as you mentioned),
>>>>> large herbivores of mammalian type didn't exist (as far as I can
>>>>> grasp), or, at least, didn't exist in areas where they emerged 10
>>>>> my later. The fact is that all fern eaters of a dino type (and
>>>>> their predators) went extinct, while not all dinos went extinct.
>>>>> So, the problem was in eating ferns.
>>>>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that. The
>>>>> question was, did ecology change because of dinos went extinct?
>>>>> There is no reason for just a specific type of dinos to go extinct,
>>>>> or, at least, nobody mentioned it anywhere, nobody knows for the
>>>>> reason, there is no theory about that reason, there is no idea
>>>>> about the reason, there is no just-so story about the reason,
>>>>> absolutely nothing, there is only a "possibility" that this could
>>>>> have happened (but no reason for that). I mean, there is a
>>>>> possibility that life on Earth was started by aliens, but, hey, are
>>>>> we at that level of reasoning? Or, is science on that level of
>>>>> reasoning? If it shouldn't be, then why it behaves like they are on
>>>>> that level?
>>>>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for ecology
>>>>> to change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for sunlight already
>>>>> evolved at poles (definitely there is some logic in it). The impact
>>>>> created the lack of sunlight (there were already some theories
>>>>> about that), so the plants that are able to collect more sunlight
>>>>> prevailed over ferns. This is one simple and logical explanation
>>>>> for this mechanism. For the mechanism that only some types of
>>>>> dinosaurs went extinct there is no explanation of mechanism.
>>>>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How is that group coming along?
>>>>>
>>>>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more members,
>>>>> Daud Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no discussion going on
>>>>> at all. So far I am happy, this is a good start, :) .
>>>>>
>>>> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern spike".
>>>> For a short time after the impact ferns dominated the terrestrial
>>>> vegetation. Another problem is that the poles get much less sunlight
>>>> than the tropics, so plants that "crave for" sunlight would be less
>>>> likely to be located there than elsewhere. And third, the post-K-T
>>>> lack of sunlight could have lasted a couple of years at most.
>>>> Finally, you have no evidence that herbivorous dinosaurs were
>>>> dependent on ferns, which seems very unlikely on its face.
>>>>
>>>> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds or
>>>> mammals went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly thought,
>>>> extinctions mostly happened as a result of radiant heat from the sky
>>>> resulting from the re-entry of small ejecta, big animals would be
>>>> less able to hide under rocks and in burrows than small ones. And
>>>> there you have the filter to explain the extinction.
>>>
>>>          Thanks John.
>>>          "Fern spike", I'll have to examine this.
>>>          Not necessarily "crave" for sunlight, but definitely being
>>> better in scooping the sunlight. Like hemoglobin in blood, which
>>> extracts oxygen. If oxygen levels fall, obviously the animals adapted
>>> to low levels will thrive.
>>>          A couple of years could be enough.
>>>          I believe the teeth of dinosaurs were adapted just to strip
>>> ferns (but I am not sure about it).
>>>
>> Yeah, you should check out the fern spike. Do you have any evidence
>> that arctic plants are better at scooping up sunlight than tropical
>> ones? You should probably check out the difference between C3 and C4
>> plants. And no, a couple of years isn't enough at all; you should
>> probably check out the term "seed bank". In general, you should learn
>> something about botany. And what you believe about the teeth of
>> dinosaurs is not supported by anything that I know of and, I strongly
>> suspect, not anything that you know of.
>
>         I don't need evidence that at poles you would have, both,
> plants and animals adapted to better scoop sunlight.
>         I know the difference between C3 and C4 pathways, but I don't
> see your point.
>         About the teeth I heard, in one documentary, a long time ago.
> And, it looks logical. Those teeth look like they are for stripping
> ferns, those dinosaurs ate ferns, so, I would presume that they are
> adapted to eat it. I see no problem in this, whichever way you put it.
>         Regarding "a couple of years", here it is a scenario for "many
> years", and it involves what you just said. Yes, dinosaurs were pretty
> damaged by the event. All the dinosaurs, all the birds, all other
> animals, all plants, everybody. The question is why some dinosaurs
> actually went extinct.
>         The answer is in trees. Narrow canopy trees didn't grow
> anymore? Why? Well, ferns deprived them from sunlight. In normal
> conditions those ferns were eaten by dinosaurs. But now, dinosaurs were
> very damaged, not a lot of dinosaurs left. So, not a lot of narrow
> canopy trees grew among all those uneaten ferns. But, some other types
> of trees were better adapted to the conditions, so those types of trees
> started to grow. And those types overwhelmed ferns.
>         I'll take a look at what happens after fern spike in real
> world, what kind of plants grow in such a situation, and why.
>
C4 plants are the ones adapted to high temperature, high insolation
environments, and they're the plants that are most efficient at
photosynthesis in such environments. Needless to say, they aren't found
at the poles.

On 28.4.2021. 19:36, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/28/21 8:44 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 28.4.2021. 17:11, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 4/28/21 7:47 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me and
>>>>>>> are still reading s.b.p.
>>>>>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months of
>>>>>>> 2021, and then
>>>>>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close to
>>>>>>> a week since I was there last,
>>>>>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few
>>>>>>>>>>> people).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>>>>>> mathematics not to
>>>>>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere.
>>>>>>> For instance, I thought
>>>>>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution that
>>>>>>> produces new orders,
>>>>>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution, which
>>>>>>> some take to
>>>>>>> mean "speciation".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue
>>>>>>> moon (for him)
>>>>>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord
>>>>>>> Simpson had coined
>>>>>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I
>>>>>>> didn't mind.
>>>>>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>>>>>> evolutionary theorist
>>>>>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for
>>>>>>> another post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly
>>>>>>>>>> backwards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>>>>>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>>>>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>>>>>> from the following.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in the
>>>>>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's
>>>>>>> direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>>>>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength of
>>>>>>> the two directions.
>>>>>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the
>>>>>>> opposite direction that you had, Mario.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of
>>>>>>>>> flora and
>>>>>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were no
>>>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by extension,
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover
>>>>>>>>> after a mass
>>>>>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of the same
>>>>>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring
>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the extinction
>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never showed
>>>>>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP of
>>>>>>> hers.
>>>>>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this
>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to
>>>>>>>> evolve out
>>>>>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to acquire
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive.
>>>>>>>> Why would
>>>>>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that,
>>>>>>>> dinos were
>>>>>>>> already adapted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T
>>>>>>> extinction,
>>>>>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct
>>>>>>> branches of
>>>>>>> mammalia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe the
>>>>>>> first really
>>>>>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10 million
>>>>>>> years to get to that point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that
>>>>>>>> prevented
>>>>>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is what,
>>>>>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets of
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs (or, I
>>>>>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived" doesn't
>>>>>>> hit the spot.
>>>>>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you
>>>>>>> had in mind, Mario.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding
>>>>>>> sentence, but I need to get
>>>>>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so I'll
>>>>>>> tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>>>>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did
>>>>>> survive, and they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves. The
>>>>>> point is, they didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct without a
>>>>>> reason. Herbivores of mammalian type didn't go extinct (as you
>>>>>> mentioned), large herbivores of mammalian type didn't exist (as
>>>>>> far as I can grasp), or, at least, didn't exist in areas where
>>>>>> they emerged 10 my later. The fact is that all fern eaters of a
>>>>>> dino type (and their predators) went extinct, while not all dinos
>>>>>> went extinct. So, the problem was in eating ferns.
>>>>>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that. The
>>>>>> question was, did ecology change because of dinos went extinct?
>>>>>> There is no reason for just a specific type of dinos to go
>>>>>> extinct, or, at least, nobody mentioned it anywhere, nobody knows
>>>>>> for the reason, there is no theory about that reason, there is no
>>>>>> idea about the reason, there is no just-so story about the reason,
>>>>>> absolutely nothing, there is only a "possibility" that this could
>>>>>> have happened (but no reason for that). I mean, there is a
>>>>>> possibility that life on Earth was started by aliens, but, hey,
>>>>>> are we at that level of reasoning? Or, is science on that level of
>>>>>> reasoning? If it shouldn't be, then why it behaves like they are
>>>>>> on that level?
>>>>>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for ecology
>>>>>> to change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for sunlight
>>>>>> already evolved at poles (definitely there is some logic in it).
>>>>>> The impact created the lack of sunlight (there were already some
>>>>>> theories about that), so the plants that are able to collect more
>>>>>> sunlight prevailed over ferns. This is one simple and logical
>>>>>> explanation for this mechanism. For the mechanism that only some
>>>>>> types of dinosaurs went extinct there is no explanation of mechanism.
>>>>>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How is that group coming along?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more members,
>>>>>> Daud Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no discussion going on
>>>>>> at all. So far I am happy, this is a good start, :) .
>>>>>>
>>>>> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern spike".
>>>>> For a short time after the impact ferns dominated the terrestrial
>>>>> vegetation. Another problem is that the poles get much less
>>>>> sunlight than the tropics, so plants that "crave for" sunlight
>>>>> would be less likely to be located there than elsewhere. And third,
>>>>> the post-K-T lack of sunlight could have lasted a couple of years
>>>>> at most. Finally, you have no evidence that herbivorous dinosaurs
>>>>> were dependent on ferns, which seems very unlikely on its face.
>>>>>
>>>>> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds or
>>>>> mammals went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly thought,
>>>>> extinctions mostly happened as a result of radiant heat from the
>>>>> sky resulting from the re-entry of small ejecta, big animals would
>>>>> be less able to hide under rocks and in burrows than small ones.
>>>>> And there you have the filter to explain the extinction.
>>>>
>>>>          Thanks John.
>>>>          "Fern spike", I'll have to examine this.
>>>>          Not necessarily "crave" for sunlight, but definitely being
>>>> better in scooping the sunlight. Like hemoglobin in blood, which
>>>> extracts oxygen. If oxygen levels fall, obviously the animals
>>>> adapted to low levels will thrive.
>>>>          A couple of years could be enough.
>>>>          I believe the teeth of dinosaurs were adapted just to strip
>>>> ferns (but I am not sure about it).
>>>>
>>> Yeah, you should check out the fern spike. Do you have any evidence
>>> that arctic plants are better at scooping up sunlight than tropical
>>> ones? You should probably check out the difference between C3 and C4
>>> plants. And no, a couple of years isn't enough at all; you should
>>> probably check out the term "seed bank". In general, you should learn
>>> something about botany. And what you believe about the teeth of
>>> dinosaurs is not supported by anything that I know of and, I strongly
>>> suspect, not anything that you know of.
>>
>>          I don't need evidence that at poles you would have, both,
>> plants and animals adapted to better scoop sunlight.
>>          I know the difference between C3 and C4 pathways, but I don't
>> see your point.
>>          About the teeth I heard, in one documentary, a long time ago.
>> And, it looks logical. Those teeth look like they are for stripping
>> ferns, those dinosaurs ate ferns, so, I would presume that they are
>> adapted to eat it. I see no problem in this, whichever way you put it.
>>          Regarding "a couple of years", here it is a scenario for
>> "many years", and it involves what you just said. Yes, dinosaurs were
>> pretty damaged by the event. All the dinosaurs, all the birds, all
>> other animals, all plants, everybody. The question is why some
>> dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>>          The answer is in trees. Narrow canopy trees didn't grow
>> anymore? Why? Well, ferns deprived them from sunlight. In normal
>> conditions those ferns were eaten by dinosaurs. But now, dinosaurs
>> were very damaged, not a lot of dinosaurs left. So, not a lot of
>> narrow canopy trees grew among all those uneaten ferns. But, some
>> other types of trees were better adapted to the conditions, so those
>> types of trees started to grow. And those types overwhelmed ferns.
>>          I'll take a look at what happens after fern spike in real
>> world, what kind of plants grow in such a situation, and why.
>>
> C4 plants are the ones adapted to high temperature, high insolation
> environments, and they're the plants that are most efficient at
> photosynthesis in such environments. Needless to say, they aren't found
> at the poles.
>
> I will have to agree that if you heard something in a documentary some
> time long ago it must be true and is decisive confirmation for your theory.
>
> Then again, your theory is hopelessly confused. The dinosaurs kept the
> ferns down? The ferns kept the angiosperms from growing? The angiosperms
> killed ferns and that killed the dinosaurs? What?

On 4/28/21 11:18 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 28.4.2021. 19:36, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/28/21 8:44 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 28.4.2021. 17:11, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/21 7:47 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me and
>>>>>>>> are still reading s.b.p.
>>>>>>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months
>>>>>>>> of 2021, and then
>>>>>>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close to
>>>>>>>> a week since I was there last,
>>>>>>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few
>>>>>>>>>>>> people).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>>>>>>> mathematics not to
>>>>>>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere.
>>>>>>>> For instance, I thought
>>>>>>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution that
>>>>>>>> produces new orders,
>>>>>>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution, which
>>>>>>>> some take to
>>>>>>>> mean "speciation".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue
>>>>>>>> moon (for him)
>>>>>>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord
>>>>>>>> Simpson had coined
>>>>>>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I
>>>>>>>> didn't mind.
>>>>>>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>>>>>>> evolutionary theorist
>>>>>>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for
>>>>>>>> another post.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly
>>>>>>>>>>> backwards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>>>>>>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>>>>>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>>>>>>> from the following.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in the
>>>>>>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's
>>>>>>>> direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>>>>>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength of
>>>>>>>> the two directions.
>>>>>>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the
>>>>>>>> opposite direction that you had, Mario.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of
>>>>>>>>>> flora and
>>>>>>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were
>>>>>>>>>> no large
>>>>>>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by
>>>>>>>>>> extension, the
>>>>>>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover
>>>>>>>>>> after a mass
>>>>>>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of the
>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring
>>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the extinction
>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never showed
>>>>>>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP
>>>>>>>> of hers.
>>>>>>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this
>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to
>>>>>>>>> evolve out
>>>>>>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to acquire
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive.
>>>>>>>>> Why would
>>>>>>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that,
>>>>>>>>> dinos were
>>>>>>>>> already adapted?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T
>>>>>>>> extinction,
>>>>>>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct
>>>>>>>> branches of
>>>>>>>> mammalia.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe
>>>>>>>> the first really
>>>>>>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10
>>>>>>>> million years to get to that point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that
>>>>>>>>> prevented
>>>>>>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is
>>>>>>>>> what,
>>>>>>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets
>>>>>>>>> of them
>>>>>>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs
>>>>>>>>> (or, I
>>>>>>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived" doesn't
>>>>>>>> hit the spot.
>>>>>>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you
>>>>>>>> had in mind, Mario.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding
>>>>>>>> sentence, but I need to get
>>>>>>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so
>>>>>>>> I'll tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>>>>>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did
>>>>>>> survive, and they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves. The
>>>>>>> point is, they didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct without a
>>>>>>> reason. Herbivores of mammalian type didn't go extinct (as you
>>>>>>> mentioned), large herbivores of mammalian type didn't exist (as
>>>>>>> far as I can grasp), or, at least, didn't exist in areas where
>>>>>>> they emerged 10 my later. The fact is that all fern eaters of a
>>>>>>> dino type (and their predators) went extinct, while not all dinos
>>>>>>> went extinct. So, the problem was in eating ferns.
>>>>>>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that. The
>>>>>>> question was, did ecology change because of dinos went extinct?
>>>>>>> There is no reason for just a specific type of dinos to go
>>>>>>> extinct, or, at least, nobody mentioned it anywhere, nobody knows
>>>>>>> for the reason, there is no theory about that reason, there is no
>>>>>>> idea about the reason, there is no just-so story about the
>>>>>>> reason, absolutely nothing, there is only a "possibility" that
>>>>>>> this could have happened (but no reason for that). I mean, there
>>>>>>> is a possibility that life on Earth was started by aliens, but,
>>>>>>> hey, are we at that level of reasoning? Or, is science on that
>>>>>>> level of reasoning? If it shouldn't be, then why it behaves like
>>>>>>> they are on that level?
>>>>>>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for
>>>>>>> ecology to change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for
>>>>>>> sunlight already evolved at poles (definitely there is some logic
>>>>>>> in it). The impact created the lack of sunlight (there were
>>>>>>> already some theories about that), so the plants that are able to
>>>>>>> collect more sunlight prevailed over ferns. This is one simple
>>>>>>> and logical explanation for this mechanism. For the mechanism
>>>>>>> that only some types of dinosaurs went extinct there is no
>>>>>>> explanation of mechanism.
>>>>>>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How is that group coming along?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more members,
>>>>>>> Daud Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no discussion going
>>>>>>> on at all. So far I am happy, this is a good start, :) .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern spike".
>>>>>> For a short time after the impact ferns dominated the terrestrial
>>>>>> vegetation. Another problem is that the poles get much less
>>>>>> sunlight than the tropics, so plants that "crave for" sunlight
>>>>>> would be less likely to be located there than elsewhere. And
>>>>>> third, the post-K-T lack of sunlight could have lasted a couple of
>>>>>> years at most. Finally, you have no evidence that herbivorous
>>>>>> dinosaurs were dependent on ferns, which seems very unlikely on
>>>>>> its face.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds or
>>>>>> mammals went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly thought,
>>>>>> extinctions mostly happened as a result of radiant heat from the
>>>>>> sky resulting from the re-entry of small ejecta, big animals would
>>>>>> be less able to hide under rocks and in burrows than small ones.
>>>>>> And there you have the filter to explain the extinction.
>>>>>
>>>>>          Thanks John.
>>>>>          "Fern spike", I'll have to examine this.
>>>>>          Not necessarily "crave" for sunlight, but definitely being
>>>>> better in scooping the sunlight. Like hemoglobin in blood, which
>>>>> extracts oxygen. If oxygen levels fall, obviously the animals
>>>>> adapted to low levels will thrive.
>>>>>          A couple of years could be enough.
>>>>>          I believe the teeth of dinosaurs were adapted just to
>>>>> strip ferns (but I am not sure about it).
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, you should check out the fern spike. Do you have any evidence
>>>> that arctic plants are better at scooping up sunlight than tropical
>>>> ones? You should probably check out the difference between C3 and C4
>>>> plants. And no, a couple of years isn't enough at all; you should
>>>> probably check out the term "seed bank". In general, you should
>>>> learn something about botany. And what you believe about the teeth
>>>> of dinosaurs is not supported by anything that I know of and, I
>>>> strongly suspect, not anything that you know of.
>>>
>>>          I don't need evidence that at poles you would have, both,
>>> plants and animals adapted to better scoop sunlight.
>>>          I know the difference between C3 and C4 pathways, but I
>>> don't see your point.
>>>          About the teeth I heard, in one documentary, a long time
>>> ago. And, it looks logical. Those teeth look like they are for
>>> stripping ferns, those dinosaurs ate ferns, so, I would presume that
>>> they are adapted to eat it. I see no problem in this, whichever way
>>> you put it.
>>>          Regarding "a couple of years", here it is a scenario for
>>> "many years", and it involves what you just said. Yes, dinosaurs were
>>> pretty damaged by the event. All the dinosaurs, all the birds, all
>>> other animals, all plants, everybody. The question is why some
>>> dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>>>          The answer is in trees. Narrow canopy trees didn't grow
>>> anymore? Why? Well, ferns deprived them from sunlight. In normal
>>> conditions those ferns were eaten by dinosaurs. But now, dinosaurs
>>> were very damaged, not a lot of dinosaurs left. So, not a lot of
>>> narrow canopy trees grew among all those uneaten ferns. But, some
>>> other types of trees were better adapted to the conditions, so those
>>> types of trees started to grow. And those types overwhelmed ferns.
>>>          I'll take a look at what happens after fern spike in real
>>> world, what kind of plants grow in such a situation, and why.
>>>
>> C4 plants are the ones adapted to high temperature, high insolation
>> environments, and they're the plants that are most efficient at
>> photosynthesis in such environments. Needless to say, they aren't
>> found at the poles.
>>
>> I will have to agree that if you heard something in a documentary some
>> time long ago it must be true and is decisive confirmation for your
>> theory.
>>
>> Then again, your theory is hopelessly confused. The dinosaurs kept the
>> ferns down? The ferns kept the angiosperms from growing? The
>> angiosperms killed ferns and that killed the dinosaurs? What?
>
>         Well, it may be complicated, but, of course, this is why it
> isn't obvious, and this is why this is still a question that needs the
> answer.
>         I know that this story is much simpler, asteroid came, and
> killed just the right animals. Nice and simple, just like 'God said: Let
> there be light.", and it was light.'. Everybody likes simple
> explanations. Sheer beauty.
>         So, simple is nice, complicated is complicated. The only
> problem is, simple has no logic, and the complicated way has much more
> sense, and it is a better theory.
>
Please provide a coherent and complete explanation of your theory, which
you have never managed to do so far. Try to use complete sentences with
grammatical English, as best you can. Try to provide a clear
cause-and-effect scenario.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 28.4.2021. 19:36, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 4/28/21 8:44 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> >> About the teeth I heard, in one documentary, a long time ago.
> >> And, it looks logical. Those teeth look like they are for stripping
> >> ferns, those dinosaurs ate ferns,

Which dinosaurs? This is the first I've ever heard of dinosaurs eating ferns.
The main thing the herbivorous dinosaurs ate in all popularizations I've read are
gymnosperms: cycads and conifer needles. The teeth of one of the biggest ones,
Diplodocus, were deemed ideal for stripping needles off pine branches.

As to the effect on vegetation: there was a very popular theory a while back
that the reason conifers are so tall is that they needed to grow their needles
beyond the reach of even the longest dinosaurs. And I've never read anything
to cast doubt on the theory.

> > > so, I would presume that they are
> >> adapted to eat it. I see no problem in this, whichever way you put it.
> >> Regarding "a couple of years", here it is a scenario for
> >> "many years", and it involves what you just said. Yes, dinosaurs were
> >> pretty damaged by the event. All the dinosaurs, all the birds, all
> >> other animals, all plants, everybody. The question is why some
> >> dinosaurs actually went extinct.

Plain and simple datum: all fauna over 50kg went extinct, on land and sea.
Vertebrate (all reptiles, but no dinos) sea animals included, and invertebrates
like the ammonites and other big mollusks.

Most birds went extinct too. The seed eaters were the best situated to survive,
and the insect eaters. John can probably give you a lowdown on which
branches of the bird tree survived and which didn't. He's still an impressive
storehouse of facts about ornithology.

> >> The answer is in trees. Narrow canopy trees didn't grow
> >> anymore? Why? Well, ferns deprived them from sunlight. In normal
> >> conditions those ferns were eaten by dinosaurs. But now, dinosaurs
> >> were very damaged, not a lot of dinosaurs left. So, not a lot of
> >> narrow canopy trees grew among all those uneaten ferns. But, some
> >> other types of trees were better adapted to the conditions, so those
> >> types of trees started to grow. And those types overwhelmed ferns.
> >> I'll take a look at what happens after fern spike in real
> >> world, what kind of plants grow in such a situation, and why.
> >>
> > C4 plants are the ones adapted to high temperature, high insolation
> > environments, and they're the plants that are most efficient at
> > photosynthesis in such environments. Needless to say, they aren't found
> > at the poles.
> >
> > I will have to agree that if you heard something in a documentary some
> > time long ago it must be true and is decisive confirmation for your theory.
> >
> > Then again, your theory is hopelessly confused. The dinosaurs kept the
> > ferns down? The ferns kept the angiosperms from growing? The angiosperms
> > killed ferns and that killed the dinosaurs? What?

> Well, it may be complicated, but, of course, this is why it isn't
> obvious, and this is why this is still a question that needs the answer.
> I know that this story is much simpler, asteroid came, and killed just
> the right animals.

"Right animals" is a very complicated issue, once you get below 50kg.
I don't think ferns play a big role in it.

> Nice and simple, just like 'God said: Let there be
> light.", and it was light.'. Everybody likes simple explanations. Sheer
> beauty.
> So, simple is nice, complicated is complicated. The only problem is,
> simple has no logic, and the complicated way has much more sense, and it
> is a better theory.

Complicated vs simple is not a good measure of how likely or unlikely a theory is.
Your initial theory, with ferns occupying center stage, was pretty simple. It had
logic of a sort, but lacked data. Now your ideas are more complicated, but
you really need to organize them.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

On 28.4.2021. 22:35, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/28/21 11:18 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 28.4.2021. 19:36, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 4/28/21 8:44 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 28.4.2021. 17:11, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/21 7:47 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me and
>>>>>>>>> are still reading s.b.p.
>>>>>>>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months
>>>>>>>>> of 2021, and then
>>>>>>>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close
>>>>>>>>> to a week since I was there last,
>>>>>>>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario
>>>>>>>>> Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>>>>>>>> mathematics not to
>>>>>>>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere.
>>>>>>>>> For instance, I thought
>>>>>>>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution that
>>>>>>>>> produces new orders,
>>>>>>>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution,
>>>>>>>>> which some take to
>>>>>>>>> mean "speciation".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue
>>>>>>>>> moon (for him)
>>>>>>>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord
>>>>>>>>> Simpson had coined
>>>>>>>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I
>>>>>>>>> didn't mind.
>>>>>>>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>>>>>>>> evolutionary theorist
>>>>>>>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for
>>>>>>>>> another post.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>> backwards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>>>>>>>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>>>>>>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>>>>>>>> from the following.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's
>>>>>>>>> direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>>>>>>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength
>>>>>>>>> of the two directions.
>>>>>>>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the
>>>>>>>>> opposite direction that you had, Mario.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of
>>>>>>>>>>> flora and
>>>>>>>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were
>>>>>>>>>>> no large
>>>>>>>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by
>>>>>>>>>>> extension, the
>>>>>>>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover
>>>>>>>>>>> after a mass
>>>>>>>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of the
>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring
>>>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>>>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the
>>>>>>>>> extinction less
>>>>>>>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never
>>>>>>>>> showed
>>>>>>>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP
>>>>>>>>> of hers.
>>>>>>>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this
>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to
>>>>>>>>>> evolve out
>>>>>>>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to
>>>>>>>>>> acquire that
>>>>>>>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive.
>>>>>>>>>> Why would
>>>>>>>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that,
>>>>>>>>>> dinos were
>>>>>>>>>> already adapted?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T
>>>>>>>>> extinction,
>>>>>>>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct
>>>>>>>>> branches of
>>>>>>>>> mammalia.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe
>>>>>>>>> the first really
>>>>>>>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10
>>>>>>>>> million years to get to that point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that
>>>>>>>>>> prevented
>>>>>>>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is
>>>>>>>>>> what,
>>>>>>>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets
>>>>>>>>>> of them
>>>>>>>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs
>>>>>>>>>> (or, I
>>>>>>>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived" doesn't
>>>>>>>>> hit the spot.
>>>>>>>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you
>>>>>>>>> had in mind, Mario.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding
>>>>>>>>> sentence, but I need to get
>>>>>>>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so
>>>>>>>>> I'll tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>>>>>>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did
>>>>>>>> survive, and they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves.
>>>>>>>> The point is, they didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct
>>>>>>>> without a reason. Herbivores of mammalian type didn't go extinct
>>>>>>>> (as you mentioned), large herbivores of mammalian type didn't
>>>>>>>> exist (as far as I can grasp), or, at least, didn't exist in
>>>>>>>> areas where they emerged 10 my later. The fact is that all fern
>>>>>>>> eaters of a dino type (and their predators) went extinct, while
>>>>>>>> not all dinos went extinct. So, the problem was in eating ferns.
>>>>>>>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that. The
>>>>>>>> question was, did ecology change because of dinos went extinct?
>>>>>>>> There is no reason for just a specific type of dinos to go
>>>>>>>> extinct, or, at least, nobody mentioned it anywhere, nobody
>>>>>>>> knows for the reason, there is no theory about that reason,
>>>>>>>> there is no idea about the reason, there is no just-so story
>>>>>>>> about the reason, absolutely nothing, there is only a
>>>>>>>> "possibility" that this could have happened (but no reason for
>>>>>>>> that). I mean, there is a possibility that life on Earth was
>>>>>>>> started by aliens, but, hey, are we at that level of reasoning?
>>>>>>>> Or, is science on that level of reasoning? If it shouldn't be,
>>>>>>>> then why it behaves like they are on that level?
>>>>>>>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for
>>>>>>>> ecology to change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for
>>>>>>>> sunlight already evolved at poles (definitely there is some
>>>>>>>> logic in it). The impact created the lack of sunlight (there
>>>>>>>> were already some theories about that), so the plants that are
>>>>>>>> able to collect more sunlight prevailed over ferns. This is one
>>>>>>>> simple and logical explanation for this mechanism. For the
>>>>>>>> mechanism that only some types of dinosaurs went extinct there
>>>>>>>> is no explanation of mechanism.
>>>>>>>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How is that group coming along?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more members,
>>>>>>>> Daud Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no discussion going
>>>>>>>> on at all. So far I am happy, this is a good start, :) .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern spike".
>>>>>>> For a short time after the impact ferns dominated the terrestrial
>>>>>>> vegetation. Another problem is that the poles get much less
>>>>>>> sunlight than the tropics, so plants that "crave for" sunlight
>>>>>>> would be less likely to be located there than elsewhere. And
>>>>>>> third, the post-K-T lack of sunlight could have lasted a couple
>>>>>>> of years at most. Finally, you have no evidence that herbivorous
>>>>>>> dinosaurs were dependent on ferns, which seems very unlikely on
>>>>>>> its face.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds or
>>>>>>> mammals went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly
>>>>>>> thought, extinctions mostly happened as a result of radiant heat
>>>>>>> from the sky resulting from the re-entry of small ejecta, big
>>>>>>> animals would be less able to hide under rocks and in burrows
>>>>>>> than small ones. And there you have the filter to explain the
>>>>>>> extinction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Thanks John.
>>>>>>          "Fern spike", I'll have to examine this.
>>>>>>          Not necessarily "crave" for sunlight, but definitely
>>>>>> being better in scooping the sunlight. Like hemoglobin in blood,
>>>>>> which extracts oxygen. If oxygen levels fall, obviously the
>>>>>> animals adapted to low levels will thrive.
>>>>>>          A couple of years could be enough.
>>>>>>          I believe the teeth of dinosaurs were adapted just to
>>>>>> strip ferns (but I am not sure about it).
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, you should check out the fern spike. Do you have any evidence
>>>>> that arctic plants are better at scooping up sunlight than tropical
>>>>> ones? You should probably check out the difference between C3 and
>>>>> C4 plants. And no, a couple of years isn't enough at all; you
>>>>> should probably check out the term "seed bank". In general, you
>>>>> should learn something about botany. And what you believe about the
>>>>> teeth of dinosaurs is not supported by anything that I know of and,
>>>>> I strongly suspect, not anything that you know of.
>>>>
>>>>          I don't need evidence that at poles you would have, both,
>>>> plants and animals adapted to better scoop sunlight.
>>>>          I know the difference between C3 and C4 pathways, but I
>>>> don't see your point.
>>>>          About the teeth I heard, in one documentary, a long time
>>>> ago. And, it looks logical. Those teeth look like they are for
>>>> stripping ferns, those dinosaurs ate ferns, so, I would presume that
>>>> they are adapted to eat it. I see no problem in this, whichever way
>>>> you put it.
>>>>          Regarding "a couple of years", here it is a scenario for
>>>> "many years", and it involves what you just said. Yes, dinosaurs
>>>> were pretty damaged by the event. All the dinosaurs, all the birds,
>>>> all other animals, all plants, everybody. The question is why some
>>>> dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>>>>          The answer is in trees. Narrow canopy trees didn't grow
>>>> anymore? Why? Well, ferns deprived them from sunlight. In normal
>>>> conditions those ferns were eaten by dinosaurs. But now, dinosaurs
>>>> were very damaged, not a lot of dinosaurs left. So, not a lot of
>>>> narrow canopy trees grew among all those uneaten ferns. But, some
>>>> other types of trees were better adapted to the conditions, so those
>>>> types of trees started to grow. And those types overwhelmed ferns.
>>>>          I'll take a look at what happens after fern spike in real
>>>> world, what kind of plants grow in such a situation, and why.
>>>>
>>> C4 plants are the ones adapted to high temperature, high insolation
>>> environments, and they're the plants that are most efficient at
>>> photosynthesis in such environments. Needless to say, they aren't
>>> found at the poles.
>>>
>>> I will have to agree that if you heard something in a documentary
>>> some time long ago it must be true and is decisive confirmation for
>>> your theory.
>>>
>>> Then again, your theory is hopelessly confused. The dinosaurs kept
>>> the ferns down? The ferns kept the angiosperms from growing? The
>>> angiosperms killed ferns and that killed the dinosaurs? What?
>>
>>          Well, it may be complicated, but, of course, this is why it
>> isn't obvious, and this is why this is still a question that needs the
>> answer.
>>          I know that this story is much simpler, asteroid came, and
>> killed just the right animals. Nice and simple, just like 'God said:
>> Let there be light.", and it was light.'. Everybody likes simple
>> explanations. Sheer beauty.
>>          So, simple is nice, complicated is complicated. The only
>> problem is, simple has no logic, and the complicated way has much more
>> sense, and it is a better theory.
>>
> Please provide a coherent and complete explanation of your theory, which
> you have never managed to do so far. Try to use complete sentences with
> grammatical English, as best you can. Try to provide a clear
> cause-and-effect scenario.

On 28.4.2021. 23:57, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 28.4.2021. 22:35, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/28/21 11:18 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 28.4.2021. 19:36, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/21 8:44 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 17:11, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/21 7:47 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me
>>>>>>>>>> and are still reading s.b.p.
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months
>>>>>>>>>> of 2021, and then
>>>>>>>>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close
>>>>>>>>>> to a week since I was there last,
>>>>>>>>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario
>>>>>>>>>> Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>>>>>>>>> mathematics not to
>>>>>>>>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>> For instance, I thought
>>>>>>>>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution
>>>>>>>>>> that produces new orders,
>>>>>>>>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution,
>>>>>>>>>> which some take to
>>>>>>>>>> mean "speciation".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue
>>>>>>>>>> moon (for him)
>>>>>>>>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord
>>>>>>>>>> Simpson had coined
>>>>>>>>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I
>>>>>>>>>> didn't mind.
>>>>>>>>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary theorist
>>>>>>>>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for
>>>>>>>>>> another post.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> backwards.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>>>>>>>>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>>>>>>>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>>>>>>>>> from the following.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's
>>>>>>>>>> direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>>>>>>>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength
>>>>>>>>>> of the two directions.
>>>>>>>>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the
>>>>>>>>>> opposite direction that you had, Mario.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of
>>>>>>>>>>>> flora and
>>>>>>>>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were
>>>>>>>>>>>> no large
>>>>>>>>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by
>>>>>>>>>>>> extension, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover
>>>>>>>>>>>> after a mass
>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring
>>>>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>>>>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the
>>>>>>>>>> extinction less
>>>>>>>>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never
>>>>>>>>>> showed
>>>>>>>>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP
>>>>>>>>>> of hers.
>>>>>>>>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this
>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to
>>>>>>>>>>> evolve out
>>>>>>>>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to
>>>>>>>>>>> acquire that
>>>>>>>>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why would
>>>>>>>>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that,
>>>>>>>>>>> dinos were
>>>>>>>>>>> already adapted?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T
>>>>>>>>>> extinction,
>>>>>>>>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct
>>>>>>>>>> branches of
>>>>>>>>>> mammalia.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe
>>>>>>>>>> the first really
>>>>>>>>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10
>>>>>>>>>> million years to get to that point.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that
>>>>>>>>>>> prevented
>>>>>>>>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is
>>>>>>>>>>> what,
>>>>>>>>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets
>>>>>>>>>>> of them
>>>>>>>>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs
>>>>>>>>>>> (or, I
>>>>>>>>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived"
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't hit the spot.
>>>>>>>>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you
>>>>>>>>>> had in mind, Mario.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding
>>>>>>>>>> sentence, but I need to get
>>>>>>>>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so
>>>>>>>>>> I'll tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>>>>>>>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did
>>>>>>>>> survive, and they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves.
>>>>>>>>> The point is, they didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct
>>>>>>>>> without a reason. Herbivores of mammalian type didn't go
>>>>>>>>> extinct (as you mentioned), large herbivores of mammalian type
>>>>>>>>> didn't exist (as far as I can grasp), or, at least, didn't
>>>>>>>>> exist in areas where they emerged 10 my later. The fact is that
>>>>>>>>> all fern eaters of a dino type (and their predators) went
>>>>>>>>> extinct, while not all dinos went extinct. So, the problem was
>>>>>>>>> in eating ferns.
>>>>>>>>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that.
>>>>>>>>> The question was, did ecology change because of dinos went
>>>>>>>>> extinct? There is no reason for just a specific type of dinos
>>>>>>>>> to go extinct, or, at least, nobody mentioned it anywhere,
>>>>>>>>> nobody knows for the reason, there is no theory about that
>>>>>>>>> reason, there is no idea about the reason, there is no just-so
>>>>>>>>> story about the reason, absolutely nothing, there is only a
>>>>>>>>> "possibility" that this could have happened (but no reason for
>>>>>>>>> that). I mean, there is a possibility that life on Earth was
>>>>>>>>> started by aliens, but, hey, are we at that level of reasoning?
>>>>>>>>> Or, is science on that level of reasoning? If it shouldn't be,
>>>>>>>>> then why it behaves like they are on that level?
>>>>>>>>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for
>>>>>>>>> ecology to change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for
>>>>>>>>> sunlight already evolved at poles (definitely there is some
>>>>>>>>> logic in it). The impact created the lack of sunlight (there
>>>>>>>>> were already some theories about that), so the plants that are
>>>>>>>>> able to collect more sunlight prevailed over ferns. This is one
>>>>>>>>> simple and logical explanation for this mechanism. For the
>>>>>>>>> mechanism that only some types of dinosaurs went extinct there
>>>>>>>>> is no explanation of mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How is that group coming along?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more members,
>>>>>>>>> Daud Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no discussion going
>>>>>>>>> on at all. So far I am happy, this is a good start, :) .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern
>>>>>>>> spike". For a short time after the impact ferns dominated the
>>>>>>>> terrestrial vegetation. Another problem is that the poles get
>>>>>>>> much less sunlight than the tropics, so plants that "crave for"
>>>>>>>> sunlight would be less likely to be located there than
>>>>>>>> elsewhere. And third, the post-K-T lack of sunlight could have
>>>>>>>> lasted a couple of years at most. Finally, you have no evidence
>>>>>>>> that herbivorous dinosaurs were dependent on ferns, which seems
>>>>>>>> very unlikely on its face.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds or
>>>>>>>> mammals went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly
>>>>>>>> thought, extinctions mostly happened as a result of radiant heat
>>>>>>>> from the sky resulting from the re-entry of small ejecta, big
>>>>>>>> animals would be less able to hide under rocks and in burrows
>>>>>>>> than small ones. And there you have the filter to explain the
>>>>>>>> extinction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          Thanks John.
>>>>>>>          "Fern spike", I'll have to examine this.
>>>>>>>          Not necessarily "crave" for sunlight, but definitely
>>>>>>> being better in scooping the sunlight. Like hemoglobin in blood,
>>>>>>> which extracts oxygen. If oxygen levels fall, obviously the
>>>>>>> animals adapted to low levels will thrive.
>>>>>>>          A couple of years could be enough.
>>>>>>>          I believe the teeth of dinosaurs were adapted just to
>>>>>>> strip ferns (but I am not sure about it).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, you should check out the fern spike. Do you have any
>>>>>> evidence that arctic plants are better at scooping up sunlight
>>>>>> than tropical ones? You should probably check out the difference
>>>>>> between C3 and C4 plants. And no, a couple of years isn't enough
>>>>>> at all; you should probably check out the term "seed bank". In
>>>>>> general, you should learn something about botany. And what you
>>>>>> believe about the teeth of dinosaurs is not supported by anything
>>>>>> that I know of and, I strongly suspect, not anything that you know
>>>>>> of.
>>>>>
>>>>>          I don't need evidence that at poles you would have, both,
>>>>> plants and animals adapted to better scoop sunlight.
>>>>>          I know the difference between C3 and C4 pathways, but I
>>>>> don't see your point.
>>>>>          About the teeth I heard, in one documentary, a long time
>>>>> ago. And, it looks logical. Those teeth look like they are for
>>>>> stripping ferns, those dinosaurs ate ferns, so, I would presume
>>>>> that they are adapted to eat it. I see no problem in this,
>>>>> whichever way you put it.
>>>>>          Regarding "a couple of years", here it is a scenario for
>>>>> "many years", and it involves what you just said. Yes, dinosaurs
>>>>> were pretty damaged by the event. All the dinosaurs, all the birds,
>>>>> all other animals, all plants, everybody. The question is why some
>>>>> dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>>>>>          The answer is in trees. Narrow canopy trees didn't grow
>>>>> anymore? Why? Well, ferns deprived them from sunlight. In normal
>>>>> conditions those ferns were eaten by dinosaurs. But now, dinosaurs
>>>>> were very damaged, not a lot of dinosaurs left. So, not a lot of
>>>>> narrow canopy trees grew among all those uneaten ferns. But, some
>>>>> other types of trees were better adapted to the conditions, so
>>>>> those types of trees started to grow. And those types overwhelmed
>>>>> ferns.
>>>>>          I'll take a look at what happens after fern spike in real
>>>>> world, what kind of plants grow in such a situation, and why.
>>>>>
>>>> C4 plants are the ones adapted to high temperature, high insolation
>>>> environments, and they're the plants that are most efficient at
>>>> photosynthesis in such environments. Needless to say, they aren't
>>>> found at the poles.
>>>>
>>>> I will have to agree that if you heard something in a documentary
>>>> some time long ago it must be true and is decisive confirmation for
>>>> your theory.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, your theory is hopelessly confused. The dinosaurs kept
>>>> the ferns down? The ferns kept the angiosperms from growing? The
>>>> angiosperms killed ferns and that killed the dinosaurs? What?
>>>
>>>          Well, it may be complicated, but, of course, this is why it
>>> isn't obvious, and this is why this is still a question that needs
>>> the answer.
>>>          I know that this story is much simpler, asteroid came, and
>>> killed just the right animals. Nice and simple, just like 'God said:
>>> Let there be light.", and it was light.'. Everybody likes simple
>>> explanations. Sheer beauty.
>>>          So, simple is nice, complicated is complicated. The only
>>> problem is, simple has no logic, and the complicated way has much
>>> more sense, and it is a better theory.
>>>
>> Please provide a coherent and complete explanation of your theory,
>> which you have never managed to do so far. Try to use complete
>> sentences with grammatical English, as best you can. Try to provide a
>> clear cause-and-effect scenario.
>
>         But why? Use what you've got. You should be more than satisfied
> with what I already provided.
>         I thank you for all your help, but I cannot work by providing
> "coherent and complete explanation". This isn't actually my theory, I am
> trying to figure out what actually happened.
>         I cannot concentrate on my work if I am concentrating on how
> this will sound to English speaking people.
>         Clear cause-and-effect scenario I can provide for my launch (I
> cooked it, I ate it), how to provide clear cause-and-effect scenario for
> something I know so little about, and which happened 66 mya? I am doing
> the best I can.

On 28.4.2021. 23:55, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 28.4.2021. 19:36, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 4/28/21 8:44 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
>>>> About the teeth I heard, in one documentary, a long time ago.
>>>> And, it looks logical. Those teeth look like they are for stripping
>>>> ferns, those dinosaurs ate ferns,
>
> Which dinosaurs? This is the first I've ever heard of dinosaurs eating ferns.
> The main thing the herbivorous dinosaurs ate in all popularizations I've read are
> gymnosperms: cycads and conifer needles. The teeth of one of the biggest ones,
> Diplodocus, were deemed ideal for stripping needles off pine branches.
>
> As to the effect on vegetation: there was a very popular theory a while back
> that the reason conifers are so tall is that they needed to grow their needles
> beyond the reach of even the longest dinosaurs. And I've never read anything
> to cast doubt on the theory.

Thanks, Peter.
Well, the mechanism of what I heard about dinosaurs eating ferns is
exactly the same.

>>>> so, I would presume that they are
>>>> adapted to eat it. I see no problem in this, whichever way you put it.
>>>> Regarding "a couple of years", here it is a scenario for
>>>> "many years", and it involves what you just said. Yes, dinosaurs were
>>>> pretty damaged by the event. All the dinosaurs, all the birds, all
>>>> other animals, all plants, everybody. The question is why some
>>>> dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>
> Plain and simple datum: all fauna over 50kg went extinct, on land and sea.
> Vertebrate (all reptiles, but no dinos) sea animals included, and invertebrates
> like the ammonites and other big mollusks.
>
> Most birds went extinct too. The seed eaters were the best situated to survive,
> and the insect eaters. John can probably give you a lowdown on which
> branches of the bird tree survived and which didn't. He's still an impressive
> storehouse of facts about ornithology.

Yes, thanks Peter.
Interesting fact, just we have to be careful not to jump the
conclusion seeing this fact (of course).

>>>> The answer is in trees. Narrow canopy trees didn't grow
>>>> anymore? Why? Well, ferns deprived them from sunlight. In normal
>>>> conditions those ferns were eaten by dinosaurs. But now, dinosaurs
>>>> were very damaged, not a lot of dinosaurs left. So, not a lot of
>>>> narrow canopy trees grew among all those uneaten ferns. But, some
>>>> other types of trees were better adapted to the conditions, so those
>>>> types of trees started to grow. And those types overwhelmed ferns.
>>>> I'll take a look at what happens after fern spike in real
>>>> world, what kind of plants grow in such a situation, and why.
>>>>
>>> C4 plants are the ones adapted to high temperature, high insolation
>>> environments, and they're the plants that are most efficient at
>>> photosynthesis in such environments. Needless to say, they aren't found
>>> at the poles.
>>>
>>> I will have to agree that if you heard something in a documentary some
>>> time long ago it must be true and is decisive confirmation for your theory.
>>>
>>> Then again, your theory is hopelessly confused. The dinosaurs kept the
>>> ferns down? The ferns kept the angiosperms from growing? The angiosperms
>>> killed ferns and that killed the dinosaurs? What?
>
>> Well, it may be complicated, but, of course, this is why it isn't
>> obvious, and this is why this is still a question that needs the answer.
>> I know that this story is much simpler, asteroid came, and killed just
>> the right animals.
>
> "Right animals" is a very complicated issue, once you get below 50kg.
> I don't think ferns play a big role in it.

Fair enough. I am interested in your (and other people's here)
opinion, of course.

>> Nice and simple, just like 'God said: Let there be
>> light.", and it was light.'. Everybody likes simple explanations. Sheer
>> beauty.
>> So, simple is nice, complicated is complicated. The only problem is,
>> simple has no logic, and the complicated way has much more sense, and it
>> is a better theory.
>
> Complicated vs simple is not a good measure of how likely or unlikely a theory is.
> Your initial theory, with ferns occupying center stage, was pretty simple. It had
> logic of a sort, but lacked data. Now your ideas are more complicated, but
> you really need to organize them.

Yes, I know Peter. This is a work in progress, of course. The
discussion with John helped me a lot to go deeper into it. And, from
this discussion, I've seen nothing substantial that would tell me that I
am wasting my time.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 29.4.2021. 0:17, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 28.4.2021. 23:55, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> The question is why some dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>>
>> Plain and simple datum: all fauna over 50kg went extinct, on land and
>> sea.
>> Vertebrate (all reptiles, but no dinos) sea animals included,  and
>> invertebrates like the ammonites and other big mollusks.
>>
>> Most birds went extinct too. The seed eaters were the best situated to
>> survive,
>> and the insect eaters. John can probably give you a lowdown on which
>> branches of the bird tree survived and which didn't. He's still an
>> impressive storehouse of facts about ornithology.
>
>         Yes, thanks Peter.
>         Interesting fact, just we have to be careful not to jump the
> conclusion seeing this fact (of course).

BTW, I see, not only whole families of dinosaurs went extinct, but
even tribes of families of dinosaurs went extinct. For sure those tribes
had species that were smaller.
In extinction, bigger animals always go off first. But, each of those
families should have smaller members, which can easily grow bigger
later, no problemo, a piece of cake, and nothing would actually change.
Yes, the extinction targeted only some animals.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 4/28/21 2:57 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 28.4.2021. 22:35, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/28/21 11:18 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 28.4.2021. 19:36, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/21 8:44 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 17:11, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/21 7:47 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me
>>>>>>>>>> and are still reading s.b.p.
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half months
>>>>>>>>>> of 2021, and then
>>>>>>>>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close
>>>>>>>>>> to a week since I was there last,
>>>>>>>>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario
>>>>>>>>>> Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>>>>>>>>> mathematics not to
>>>>>>>>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas, anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>> For instance, I thought
>>>>>>>>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution
>>>>>>>>>> that produces new orders,
>>>>>>>>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution,
>>>>>>>>>> which some take to
>>>>>>>>>> mean "speciation".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue
>>>>>>>>>> moon (for him)
>>>>>>>>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord
>>>>>>>>>> Simpson had coined
>>>>>>>>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I
>>>>>>>>>> didn't mind.
>>>>>>>>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary theorist
>>>>>>>>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for
>>>>>>>>>> another post.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> backwards.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>>>>>>>>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>>>>>>>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>>>>>>>>> from the following.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's
>>>>>>>>>> direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>>>>>>>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength
>>>>>>>>>> of the two directions.
>>>>>>>>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the
>>>>>>>>>> opposite direction that you had, Mario.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of
>>>>>>>>>>>> flora and
>>>>>>>>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there were
>>>>>>>>>>>> no large
>>>>>>>>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by
>>>>>>>>>>>> extension, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover
>>>>>>>>>>>> after a mass
>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring
>>>>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>>>>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the
>>>>>>>>>> extinction less
>>>>>>>>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never
>>>>>>>>>> showed
>>>>>>>>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that OP
>>>>>>>>>> of hers.
>>>>>>>>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed this
>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores to
>>>>>>>>>>> evolve out
>>>>>>>>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to
>>>>>>>>>>> acquire that
>>>>>>>>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores alive.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why would
>>>>>>>>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for that,
>>>>>>>>>>> dinos were
>>>>>>>>>>> already adapted?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the K-T
>>>>>>>>>> extinction,
>>>>>>>>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct
>>>>>>>>>> branches of
>>>>>>>>>> mammalia.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe
>>>>>>>>>> the first really
>>>>>>>>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10
>>>>>>>>>> million years to get to that point.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that
>>>>>>>>>>> prevented
>>>>>>>>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this is
>>>>>>>>>>> what,
>>>>>>>>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving pockets
>>>>>>>>>>> of them
>>>>>>>>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs
>>>>>>>>>>> (or, I
>>>>>>>>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived"
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't hit the spot.
>>>>>>>>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what you
>>>>>>>>>> had in mind, Mario.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding
>>>>>>>>>> sentence, but I need to get
>>>>>>>>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so
>>>>>>>>>> I'll tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>>>>>>>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did
>>>>>>>>> survive, and they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves.
>>>>>>>>> The point is, they didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct
>>>>>>>>> without a reason. Herbivores of mammalian type didn't go
>>>>>>>>> extinct (as you mentioned), large herbivores of mammalian type
>>>>>>>>> didn't exist (as far as I can grasp), or, at least, didn't
>>>>>>>>> exist in areas where they emerged 10 my later. The fact is that
>>>>>>>>> all fern eaters of a dino type (and their predators) went
>>>>>>>>> extinct, while not all dinos went extinct. So, the problem was
>>>>>>>>> in eating ferns.
>>>>>>>>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that.
>>>>>>>>> The question was, did ecology change because of dinos went
>>>>>>>>> extinct? There is no reason for just a specific type of dinos
>>>>>>>>> to go extinct, or, at least, nobody mentioned it anywhere,
>>>>>>>>> nobody knows for the reason, there is no theory about that
>>>>>>>>> reason, there is no idea about the reason, there is no just-so
>>>>>>>>> story about the reason, absolutely nothing, there is only a
>>>>>>>>> "possibility" that this could have happened (but no reason for
>>>>>>>>> that). I mean, there is a possibility that life on Earth was
>>>>>>>>> started by aliens, but, hey, are we at that level of reasoning?
>>>>>>>>> Or, is science on that level of reasoning? If it shouldn't be,
>>>>>>>>> then why it behaves like they are on that level?
>>>>>>>>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for
>>>>>>>>> ecology to change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for
>>>>>>>>> sunlight already evolved at poles (definitely there is some
>>>>>>>>> logic in it). The impact created the lack of sunlight (there
>>>>>>>>> were already some theories about that), so the plants that are
>>>>>>>>> able to collect more sunlight prevailed over ferns. This is one
>>>>>>>>> simple and logical explanation for this mechanism. For the
>>>>>>>>> mechanism that only some types of dinosaurs went extinct there
>>>>>>>>> is no explanation of mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How is that group coming along?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more members,
>>>>>>>>> Daud Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no discussion going
>>>>>>>>> on at all. So far I am happy, this is a good start, :) .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern
>>>>>>>> spike". For a short time after the impact ferns dominated the
>>>>>>>> terrestrial vegetation. Another problem is that the poles get
>>>>>>>> much less sunlight than the tropics, so plants that "crave for"
>>>>>>>> sunlight would be less likely to be located there than
>>>>>>>> elsewhere. And third, the post-K-T lack of sunlight could have
>>>>>>>> lasted a couple of years at most. Finally, you have no evidence
>>>>>>>> that herbivorous dinosaurs were dependent on ferns, which seems
>>>>>>>> very unlikely on its face.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds or
>>>>>>>> mammals went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly
>>>>>>>> thought, extinctions mostly happened as a result of radiant heat
>>>>>>>> from the sky resulting from the re-entry of small ejecta, big
>>>>>>>> animals would be less able to hide under rocks and in burrows
>>>>>>>> than small ones. And there you have the filter to explain the
>>>>>>>> extinction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          Thanks John.
>>>>>>>          "Fern spike", I'll have to examine this.
>>>>>>>          Not necessarily "crave" for sunlight, but definitely
>>>>>>> being better in scooping the sunlight. Like hemoglobin in blood,
>>>>>>> which extracts oxygen. If oxygen levels fall, obviously the
>>>>>>> animals adapted to low levels will thrive.
>>>>>>>          A couple of years could be enough.
>>>>>>>          I believe the teeth of dinosaurs were adapted just to
>>>>>>> strip ferns (but I am not sure about it).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, you should check out the fern spike. Do you have any
>>>>>> evidence that arctic plants are better at scooping up sunlight
>>>>>> than tropical ones? You should probably check out the difference
>>>>>> between C3 and C4 plants. And no, a couple of years isn't enough
>>>>>> at all; you should probably check out the term "seed bank". In
>>>>>> general, you should learn something about botany. And what you
>>>>>> believe about the teeth of dinosaurs is not supported by anything
>>>>>> that I know of and, I strongly suspect, not anything that you know
>>>>>> of.
>>>>>
>>>>>          I don't need evidence that at poles you would have, both,
>>>>> plants and animals adapted to better scoop sunlight.
>>>>>          I know the difference between C3 and C4 pathways, but I
>>>>> don't see your point.
>>>>>          About the teeth I heard, in one documentary, a long time
>>>>> ago. And, it looks logical. Those teeth look like they are for
>>>>> stripping ferns, those dinosaurs ate ferns, so, I would presume
>>>>> that they are adapted to eat it. I see no problem in this,
>>>>> whichever way you put it.
>>>>>          Regarding "a couple of years", here it is a scenario for
>>>>> "many years", and it involves what you just said. Yes, dinosaurs
>>>>> were pretty damaged by the event. All the dinosaurs, all the birds,
>>>>> all other animals, all plants, everybody. The question is why some
>>>>> dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>>>>>          The answer is in trees. Narrow canopy trees didn't grow
>>>>> anymore? Why? Well, ferns deprived them from sunlight. In normal
>>>>> conditions those ferns were eaten by dinosaurs. But now, dinosaurs
>>>>> were very damaged, not a lot of dinosaurs left. So, not a lot of
>>>>> narrow canopy trees grew among all those uneaten ferns. But, some
>>>>> other types of trees were better adapted to the conditions, so
>>>>> those types of trees started to grow. And those types overwhelmed
>>>>> ferns.
>>>>>          I'll take a look at what happens after fern spike in real
>>>>> world, what kind of plants grow in such a situation, and why.
>>>>>
>>>> C4 plants are the ones adapted to high temperature, high insolation
>>>> environments, and they're the plants that are most efficient at
>>>> photosynthesis in such environments. Needless to say, they aren't
>>>> found at the poles.
>>>>
>>>> I will have to agree that if you heard something in a documentary
>>>> some time long ago it must be true and is decisive confirmation for
>>>> your theory.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, your theory is hopelessly confused. The dinosaurs kept
>>>> the ferns down? The ferns kept the angiosperms from growing? The
>>>> angiosperms killed ferns and that killed the dinosaurs? What?
>>>
>>>          Well, it may be complicated, but, of course, this is why it
>>> isn't obvious, and this is why this is still a question that needs
>>> the answer.
>>>          I know that this story is much simpler, asteroid came, and
>>> killed just the right animals. Nice and simple, just like 'God said:
>>> Let there be light.", and it was light.'. Everybody likes simple
>>> explanations. Sheer beauty.
>>>          So, simple is nice, complicated is complicated. The only
>>> problem is, simple has no logic, and the complicated way has much
>>> more sense, and it is a better theory.
>>>
>> Please provide a coherent and complete explanation of your theory,
>> which you have never managed to do so far. Try to use complete
>> sentences with grammatical English, as best you can. Try to provide a
>> clear cause-and-effect scenario.
>
>         But why? Use what you've got. You should be more than satisfied
> with what I already provided.

On 4/28/21 4:29 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 29.4.2021. 0:17, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 28.4.2021. 23:55, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The question is why some dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>>>
>>> Plain and simple datum: all fauna over 50kg went extinct, on land and
>>> sea.
>>> Vertebrate (all reptiles, but no dinos) sea animals included,  and
>>> invertebrates like the ammonites and other big mollusks.
>>>
>>> Most birds went extinct too. The seed eaters were the best situated
>>> to survive,
>>> and the insect eaters. John can probably give you a lowdown on which
>>> branches of the bird tree survived and which didn't. He's still an
>>> impressive storehouse of facts about ornithology.
>>
>>          Yes, thanks Peter.
>>          Interesting fact, just we have to be careful not to jump the
>> conclusion seeing this fact (of course).
>
>         BTW, I see, not only whole families of dinosaurs went extinct,
> but even tribes of families of dinosaurs went extinct. For sure those
> tribes had species that were smaller.

There are no tribes of families. "Tribe" is a subdivision of "family".
So it isn't clear what you're talking about.

>         In extinction, bigger animals always go off first. But, each of
> those families should have smaller members, which can easily grow bigger
> later, no problemo, a piece of cake, and nothing would actually change.
>         Yes, the extinction targeted only some animals.

How does that fit your scenario? Did these hypothetical small
herbivorous dinosaurs, of which zero are known, eat ferns too?

On 29.4.2021. 1:45, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/28/21 2:57 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 28.4.2021. 22:35, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 4/28/21 11:18 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 28.4.2021. 19:36, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/21 8:44 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 17:11, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/21 7:47 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me
>>>>>>>>>>> and are still reading s.b.p.
>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half
>>>>>>>>>>> months of 2021, and then
>>>>>>>>>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's close
>>>>>>>>>>> to a week since I was there last,
>>>>>>>>>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario
>>>>>>>>>>> Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics not to
>>>>>>>>>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas,
>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere. For instance, I thought
>>>>>>>>>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution
>>>>>>>>>>> that produces new orders,
>>>>>>>>>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution,
>>>>>>>>>>> which some take to
>>>>>>>>>>> mean "speciation".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a once-in-a-blue
>>>>>>>>>>> moon (for him)
>>>>>>>>>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George Gaylord
>>>>>>>>>>> Simpson had coined
>>>>>>>>>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't mind.
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary theorist
>>>>>>>>>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for
>>>>>>>>>>> another post.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>>>>>>>>>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>>>>>>>>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>>>>>>>>>> from the following.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in John's
>>>>>>>>>>> direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>>>>>>>>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative strength
>>>>>>>>>>> of the two directions.
>>>>>>>>>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the
>>>>>>>>>>> opposite direction that you had, Mario.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> flora and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were no large
>>>>>>>>>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extension, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover
>>>>>>>>>>>>> after a mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in exploring
>>>>>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>>>>>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the
>>>>>>>>>>> extinction less
>>>>>>>>>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never
>>>>>>>>>>> showed
>>>>>>>>>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that
>>>>>>>>>>> OP of hers.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>> this already
>>>>>>>>>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores
>>>>>>>>>>>> to evolve out
>>>>>>>>>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to
>>>>>>>>>>>> acquire that
>>>>>>>>>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores
>>>>>>>>>>>> alive. Why would
>>>>>>>>>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for
>>>>>>>>>>>> that, dinos were
>>>>>>>>>>>> already adapted?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the
>>>>>>>>>>> K-T extinction,
>>>>>>>>>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct
>>>>>>>>>>> branches of
>>>>>>>>>>> mammalia.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I believe
>>>>>>>>>>> the first really
>>>>>>>>>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10
>>>>>>>>>>> million years to get to that point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character that
>>>>>>>>>>>> prevented
>>>>>>>>>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this
>>>>>>>>>>>> is what,
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving
>>>>>>>>>>>> pockets of them
>>>>>>>>>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian dinosaurs
>>>>>>>>>>>> (or, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived"
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't hit the spot.
>>>>>>>>>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what
>>>>>>>>>>> you had in mind, Mario.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the preceding
>>>>>>>>>>> sentence, but I need to get
>>>>>>>>>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did
>>>>>>>>>> survive, and they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves.
>>>>>>>>>> The point is, they didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct
>>>>>>>>>> without a reason. Herbivores of mammalian type didn't go
>>>>>>>>>> extinct (as you mentioned), large herbivores of mammalian type
>>>>>>>>>> didn't exist (as far as I can grasp), or, at least, didn't
>>>>>>>>>> exist in areas where they emerged 10 my later. The fact is
>>>>>>>>>> that all fern eaters of a dino type (and their predators) went
>>>>>>>>>> extinct, while not all dinos went extinct. So, the problem was
>>>>>>>>>> in eating ferns.
>>>>>>>>>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that.
>>>>>>>>>> The question was, did ecology change because of dinos went
>>>>>>>>>> extinct? There is no reason for just a specific type of dinos
>>>>>>>>>> to go extinct, or, at least, nobody mentioned it anywhere,
>>>>>>>>>> nobody knows for the reason, there is no theory about that
>>>>>>>>>> reason, there is no idea about the reason, there is no just-so
>>>>>>>>>> story about the reason, absolutely nothing, there is only a
>>>>>>>>>> "possibility" that this could have happened (but no reason for
>>>>>>>>>> that). I mean, there is a possibility that life on Earth was
>>>>>>>>>> started by aliens, but, hey, are we at that level of
>>>>>>>>>> reasoning? Or, is science on that level of reasoning? If it
>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be, then why it behaves like they are on that level?
>>>>>>>>>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for
>>>>>>>>>> ecology to change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for
>>>>>>>>>> sunlight already evolved at poles (definitely there is some
>>>>>>>>>> logic in it). The impact created the lack of sunlight (there
>>>>>>>>>> were already some theories about that), so the plants that are
>>>>>>>>>> able to collect more sunlight prevailed over ferns. This is
>>>>>>>>>> one simple and logical explanation for this mechanism. For the
>>>>>>>>>> mechanism that only some types of dinosaurs went extinct there
>>>>>>>>>> is no explanation of mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How is that group coming along?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more
>>>>>>>>>> members, Daud Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no
>>>>>>>>>> discussion going on at all. So far I am happy, this is a good
>>>>>>>>>> start, :) .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern
>>>>>>>>> spike". For a short time after the impact ferns dominated the
>>>>>>>>> terrestrial vegetation. Another problem is that the poles get
>>>>>>>>> much less sunlight than the tropics, so plants that "crave for"
>>>>>>>>> sunlight would be less likely to be located there than
>>>>>>>>> elsewhere. And third, the post-K-T lack of sunlight could have
>>>>>>>>> lasted a couple of years at most. Finally, you have no evidence
>>>>>>>>> that herbivorous dinosaurs were dependent on ferns, which seems
>>>>>>>>> very unlikely on its face.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds
>>>>>>>>> or mammals went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly
>>>>>>>>> thought, extinctions mostly happened as a result of radiant
>>>>>>>>> heat from the sky resulting from the re-entry of small ejecta,
>>>>>>>>> big animals would be less able to hide under rocks and in
>>>>>>>>> burrows than small ones. And there you have the filter to
>>>>>>>>> explain the extinction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>          Thanks John.
>>>>>>>>          "Fern spike", I'll have to examine this.
>>>>>>>>          Not necessarily "crave" for sunlight, but definitely
>>>>>>>> being better in scooping the sunlight. Like hemoglobin in blood,
>>>>>>>> which extracts oxygen. If oxygen levels fall, obviously the
>>>>>>>> animals adapted to low levels will thrive.
>>>>>>>>          A couple of years could be enough.
>>>>>>>>          I believe the teeth of dinosaurs were adapted just to
>>>>>>>> strip ferns (but I am not sure about it).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, you should check out the fern spike. Do you have any
>>>>>>> evidence that arctic plants are better at scooping up sunlight
>>>>>>> than tropical ones? You should probably check out the difference
>>>>>>> between C3 and C4 plants. And no, a couple of years isn't enough
>>>>>>> at all; you should probably check out the term "seed bank". In
>>>>>>> general, you should learn something about botany. And what you
>>>>>>> believe about the teeth of dinosaurs is not supported by anything
>>>>>>> that I know of and, I strongly suspect, not anything that you
>>>>>>> know of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          I don't need evidence that at poles you would have, both,
>>>>>> plants and animals adapted to better scoop sunlight.
>>>>>>          I know the difference between C3 and C4 pathways, but I
>>>>>> don't see your point.
>>>>>>          About the teeth I heard, in one documentary, a long time
>>>>>> ago. And, it looks logical. Those teeth look like they are for
>>>>>> stripping ferns, those dinosaurs ate ferns, so, I would presume
>>>>>> that they are adapted to eat it. I see no problem in this,
>>>>>> whichever way you put it.
>>>>>>          Regarding "a couple of years", here it is a scenario for
>>>>>> "many years", and it involves what you just said. Yes, dinosaurs
>>>>>> were pretty damaged by the event. All the dinosaurs, all the
>>>>>> birds, all other animals, all plants, everybody. The question is
>>>>>> why some dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>>>>>>          The answer is in trees. Narrow canopy trees didn't grow
>>>>>> anymore? Why? Well, ferns deprived them from sunlight. In normal
>>>>>> conditions those ferns were eaten by dinosaurs. But now, dinosaurs
>>>>>> were very damaged, not a lot of dinosaurs left. So, not a lot of
>>>>>> narrow canopy trees grew among all those uneaten ferns. But, some
>>>>>> other types of trees were better adapted to the conditions, so
>>>>>> those types of trees started to grow. And those types overwhelmed
>>>>>> ferns.
>>>>>>          I'll take a look at what happens after fern spike in real
>>>>>> world, what kind of plants grow in such a situation, and why.
>>>>>>
>>>>> C4 plants are the ones adapted to high temperature, high insolation
>>>>> environments, and they're the plants that are most efficient at
>>>>> photosynthesis in such environments. Needless to say, they aren't
>>>>> found at the poles.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will have to agree that if you heard something in a documentary
>>>>> some time long ago it must be true and is decisive confirmation for
>>>>> your theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then again, your theory is hopelessly confused. The dinosaurs kept
>>>>> the ferns down? The ferns kept the angiosperms from growing? The
>>>>> angiosperms killed ferns and that killed the dinosaurs? What?
>>>>
>>>>          Well, it may be complicated, but, of course, this is why it
>>>> isn't obvious, and this is why this is still a question that needs
>>>> the answer.
>>>>          I know that this story is much simpler, asteroid came, and
>>>> killed just the right animals. Nice and simple, just like 'God said:
>>>> Let there be light.", and it was light.'. Everybody likes simple
>>>> explanations. Sheer beauty.
>>>>          So, simple is nice, complicated is complicated. The only
>>>> problem is, simple has no logic, and the complicated way has much
>>>> more sense, and it is a better theory.
>>>>
>>> Please provide a coherent and complete explanation of your theory,
>>> which you have never managed to do so far. Try to use complete
>>> sentences with grammatical English, as best you can. Try to provide a
>>> clear cause-and-effect scenario.
>>
>>          But why? Use what you've got. You should be more than
>> satisfied with what I already provided.
>
> No, what you've already provided is disjointed and incoherent. If that's
> the best you can do, then there's nowhere to go.
>
>>          I thank you for all your help, but I cannot work by providing
>> "coherent and complete explanation". This isn't actually my theory, I
>> am trying to figure out what actually happened.
>>          I cannot concentrate on my work if I am concentrating on how
>> this will sound to English speaking people.
>>          Clear cause-and-effect scenario I can provide for my launch
>> (I cooked it, I ate it), how to provide clear cause-and-effect
>> scenario for something I know so little about, and which happened 66
>> mya? I am doing the best I can.
>
> If so, that's unfortunate.

On 29.4.2021. 1:49, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/28/21 4:29 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 29.4.2021. 0:17, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 28.4.2021. 23:55, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> The question is why some dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>>>>
>>>> Plain and simple datum: all fauna over 50kg went extinct, on land
>>>> and sea.
>>>> Vertebrate (all reptiles, but no dinos) sea animals included,  and
>>>> invertebrates like the ammonites and other big mollusks.
>>>>
>>>> Most birds went extinct too. The seed eaters were the best situated
>>>> to survive,
>>>> and the insect eaters. John can probably give you a lowdown on which
>>>> branches of the bird tree survived and which didn't. He's still an
>>>> impressive storehouse of facts about ornithology.
>>>
>>>          Yes, thanks Peter.
>>>          Interesting fact, just we have to be careful not to jump the
>>> conclusion seeing this fact (of course).
>>
>>          BTW, I see, not only whole families of dinosaurs went
>> extinct, but even tribes of families of dinosaurs went extinct. For
>> sure those tribes had species that were smaller.
>
> There are no tribes of families. "Tribe" is a subdivision of "family".
> So it isn't clear what you're talking about.

My bad, I don't know those formal, administrative, classifications.
Yes, those are made to make things clear (the above example is an
excellent example of that), but, until I learn those "naturally" (see, I
learnt it now, hopefully I'll remember it, :) ), I will not pollute my
thinking with those.

>>          In extinction, bigger animals always go off first. But, each
>> of those families should have smaller members, which can easily grow
>> bigger later, no problemo, a piece of cake, and nothing would actually
>> change.
>>          Yes, the extinction targeted only some animals.
>
> How does that fit your scenario? Did these hypothetical small
> herbivorous dinosaurs, of which zero are known, eat ferns too?

Somebody ate those ferns. You say that you don't have the evidence for
it. Well, I believe you.
All those families probably had smaller relatives. You say that you
don't have the evidence for those, but you don't know the reason why
this shouldn't be so. Again, I believe you.
You are not including in your scenario species that eat ferns, and
that are smaller than 50 kg. Your scenario has all the preconditions to
be wrong, you are wasting your time, not me.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 29.4.2021. 6:07, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 29.4.2021. 1:49, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/28/21 4:29 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 29.4.2021. 0:17, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 28.4.2021. 23:55, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The question is why some dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plain and simple datum: all fauna over 50kg went extinct, on land
>>>>> and sea.
>>>>> Vertebrate (all reptiles, but no dinos) sea animals included,  and
>>>>> invertebrates like the ammonites and other big mollusks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most birds went extinct too. The seed eaters were the best situated
>>>>> to survive,
>>>>> and the insect eaters. John can probably give you a lowdown on which
>>>>> branches of the bird tree survived and which didn't. He's still an
>>>>> impressive storehouse of facts about ornithology.
>>>>
>>>>          Yes, thanks Peter.
>>>>          Interesting fact, just we have to be careful not to jump
>>>> the conclusion seeing this fact (of course).
>>>
>>>          BTW, I see, not only whole families of dinosaurs went
>>> extinct, but even tribes of families of dinosaurs went extinct. For
>>> sure those tribes had species that were smaller.
>>
>> There are no tribes of families. "Tribe" is a subdivision of "family".
>> So it isn't clear what you're talking about.
>
>         My bad, I don't know those formal, administrative,
> classifications. Yes, those are made to make things clear (the above
> example is an excellent example of that), but, until I learn those
> "naturally" (see, I learnt it now, hopefully I'll remember it, :) ), I
> will not pollute my thinking with those.
>
>>>          In extinction, bigger animals always go off first. But, each
>>> of those families should have smaller members, which can easily grow
>>> bigger later, no problemo, a piece of cake, and nothing would
>>> actually change.
>>>          Yes, the extinction targeted only some animals.
>>
>> How does that fit your scenario? Did these hypothetical small
>> herbivorous dinosaurs, of which zero are known, eat ferns too?
>
>         Somebody ate those ferns. You say that you don't have the
> evidence for it. Well, I believe you.
>         All those families probably had smaller relatives. You say that
> you don't have the evidence for those, but you don't know the reason why
> this shouldn't be so. Again, I believe you.
>         You are not including in your scenario species that eat ferns,
> and that are smaller than 50 kg. Your scenario has all the preconditions
> to be wrong, you are wasting your time, not me.

Oh yes, anybody who shares your view also wastes his time. You will
never have the evidence for everything, you even don't have a scenario,
and you will never have one, or, at least, one that is right. Whoever
introduced this "scientific" thinking (it was Vatican), screwed humanity
big time.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 29.4.2021. 6:32, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 29.4.2021. 6:07, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 29.4.2021. 1:49, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 4/28/21 4:29 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 29.4.2021. 0:17, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 23:55, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 2:18:35 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The question is why some dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plain and simple datum: all fauna over 50kg went extinct, on land
>>>>>> and sea.
>>>>>> Vertebrate (all reptiles, but no dinos) sea animals included,  and
>>>>>> invertebrates like the ammonites and other big mollusks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most birds went extinct too. The seed eaters were the best
>>>>>> situated to survive,
>>>>>> and the insect eaters. John can probably give you a lowdown on which
>>>>>> branches of the bird tree survived and which didn't. He's still an
>>>>>> impressive storehouse of facts about ornithology.
>>>>>
>>>>>          Yes, thanks Peter.
>>>>>          Interesting fact, just we have to be careful not to jump
>>>>> the conclusion seeing this fact (of course).
>>>>
>>>>          BTW, I see, not only whole families of dinosaurs went
>>>> extinct, but even tribes of families of dinosaurs went extinct. For
>>>> sure those tribes had species that were smaller.
>>>
>>> There are no tribes of families. "Tribe" is a subdivision of
>>> "family". So it isn't clear what you're talking about.
>>
>>          My bad, I don't know those formal, administrative,
>> classifications. Yes, those are made to make things clear (the above
>> example is an excellent example of that), but, until I learn those
>> "naturally" (see, I learnt it now, hopefully I'll remember it, :) ), I
>> will not pollute my thinking with those.
>>
>>>>          In extinction, bigger animals always go off first. But,
>>>> each of those families should have smaller members, which can easily
>>>> grow bigger later, no problemo, a piece of cake, and nothing would
>>>> actually change.
>>>>          Yes, the extinction targeted only some animals.
>>>
>>> How does that fit your scenario? Did these hypothetical small
>>> herbivorous dinosaurs, of which zero are known, eat ferns too?
>>
>>          Somebody ate those ferns. You say that you don't have the
>> evidence for it. Well, I believe you.
>>          All those families probably had smaller relatives. You say
>> that you don't have the evidence for those, but you don't know the
>> reason why this shouldn't be so. Again, I believe you.
>>          You are not including in your scenario species that eat
>> ferns, and that are smaller than 50 kg. Your scenario has all the
>> preconditions to be wrong, you are wasting your time, not me.
>
>         Oh yes, anybody who shares your view also wastes his time. You
> will never have the evidence for everything, you even don't have a
> scenario, and you will never have one, or, at least, one that is right.
> Whoever introduced this "scientific" thinking (it was Vatican), screwed
> humanity big time.

And yes, they are juts making fools out of the whole humanity, because
they know that humans are idiots. They, themselves, have no evidence at
all. They sneaked on you this "evidence based" thinking, and made idiots
out of you.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 29.4.2021. 6:07, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 29.4.2021. 1:49, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/28/21 4:29 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>          BTW, I see, not only whole families of dinosaurs went
>>> extinct, but even tribes of families of dinosaurs went extinct. For
>>> sure those tribes had species that were smaller.
>>
>> There are no tribes of families. "Tribe" is a subdivision of "family".
>> So it isn't clear what you're talking about.
>
>         My bad, I don't know those formal, administrative,
> classifications. Yes, those are made to make things clear (the above
> example is an excellent example of that), but, until I learn those
> "naturally" (see, I learnt it now, hopefully I'll remember it, :) ), I
> will not pollute my thinking with those.

Ha, ha, this reminds me on one thing. I am a big Beatle fan. And I
always wandered how come they cannot read music. I mean, they were in
music business for so long, this would immensely help them, for sure it
occurred to them that it would be very useful to learn to read music.
But no.
And just recently I heard about it. When they first came to London
they didn't know to read music. And then they met their producer, George
Martin, who had excellent music knowledge. And it was him who advised
them to not learn to read music. And the rest is history... , lol.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 29.4.2021. 8:49, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 29.4.2021. 6:07, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 29.4.2021. 1:49, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 4/28/21 4:29 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>          BTW, I see, not only whole families of dinosaurs went
>>>> extinct, but even tribes of families of dinosaurs went extinct. For
>>>> sure those tribes had species that were smaller.
>>>
>>> There are no tribes of families. "Tribe" is a subdivision of
>>> "family". So it isn't clear what you're talking about.
>>
>>          My bad, I don't know those formal, administrative,
>> classifications. Yes, those are made to make things clear (the above
>> example is an excellent example of that), but, until I learn those
>> "naturally" (see, I learnt it now, hopefully I'll remember it, :) ), I
>> will not pollute my thinking with those.
>
>         Ha, ha, this reminds me on one thing. I am a big Beatle fan.
> And I always wandered how come they cannot read music. I mean, they were
> in music business for so long, this would immensely help them, for sure
> it occurred to them that it would be very useful to learn to read music.
> But no.
>         And just recently I heard about it. When they first came to
> London they didn't know to read music. And then they met their producer,
> George Martin, who had excellent music knowledge. And it was him who
> advised them to not learn to read music. And the rest is history... , lol.

The Beatles and Martha (the dog). (There was a song written for
Martha, "Martha My Dear".):
https://youtu.be/HtUH9z_Oey8

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 4/28/21 8:54 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 29.4.2021. 1:45, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/28/21 2:57 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 28.4.2021. 22:35, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/21 11:18 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 19:36, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/21 8:44 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 17:11, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/21 7:47 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/21 5:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.4.2021. 2:05, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Mario!  I hope you didn't give up waiting around for me
>>>>>>>>>>>> and are still reading s.b.p.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't emerge anywhere on Usenet for three and a half
>>>>>>>>>>>> months of 2021, and then
>>>>>>>>>>>> I put in a few sporadic posts to talk.origins. But it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> close to a week since I was there last,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and this is my first post of 2021 to sci.bio.paleontology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-4, Mario
>>>>>>>>>>>> Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3.4.2021. 15:42, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2021 11:09 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/21 6:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like I said it here, so many months (or could it be,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years?) ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So many new scientific ideas originated in my head, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody, ever, gives me any credit for this (except for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few people).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, I am well enough known in several branches of
>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics not to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be concerned about getting credit for general ideas,
>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere. For instance, I thought
>>>>>>>>>>>> I had coined the term "mega-evolution" to denote evolution
>>>>>>>>>>>> that produces new orders,
>>>>>>>>>>>> classes, or phyla of animals, plants, or fungi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That makes it the most interesting kind of macroevolution,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which some take to
>>>>>>>>>>>> mean "speciation".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, Hemidactylus surprised me by posting a
>>>>>>>>>>>> once-in-a-blue moon (for him)
>>>>>>>>>>>> on-topic post in talk.origins, telling me that George
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gaylord Simpson had coined
>>>>>>>>>>>> the word long ago -- perhaps even before I was born.  But I
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, I was sort of relieved to learn that a world-class
>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary theorist
>>>>>>>>>>>> had come up with the term, but I'll save the reason why for
>>>>>>>>>>>> another post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56617409
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't what the story says. You have it exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshman often hides behind the claim that he has a bad memory,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but here he shows that he remembers something I didn't. You
>>>>>>>>>>>> said nothing in your OP  that could be construed as backwards
>>>>>>>>>>>> from the following.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The story says that the asteroid impact caused dinosaur
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of dinosaurs could have resulted in a change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character of Amazon forests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's some of both, but the article definitely leans in
>>>>>>>>>>>> John's direction. But, to use a colloquialism,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that has diddly-squat to do with the ACTUAL relative
>>>>>>>>>>>> strength of the two directions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem is, I may be missing out on some fine points of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite direction that you had, Mario.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now Oxyaena puts in her two cents' worth:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I mean, the extinction *did* result in a turnover of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flora and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fauna, and for a not-insignificant period of time there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were no large
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> herbivores to affect the Amazon's plant life, and by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extension, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world's. Just because biodiversity will invariably recover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after a mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction doesn't mean that said biodiversity will be of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character as it was prior to the extinction event in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshman has been showing less and less interest in
>>>>>>>>>>>> exploring scientific
>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, so he hasn't replied to either Oxyaena or to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for Oxyaena, she started her own new thread on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction less
>>>>>>>>>>>> than 15 minutes after posting the above, but Harshman' never
>>>>>>>>>>>> showed
>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in it. In fact, nobody has posted there after that
>>>>>>>>>>>> OP of hers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even her comrade-in-arms, Erik Simpson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It should have been (of the same character). I discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this already
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with Peter, I believe). There is no reason for herbivores
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to evolve out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of mammals, and it took 10 million years for mammals to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> acquire that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> niche, if you already had seeds of dinosaur herbivores
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alive. Why would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> life wait for 10 million years for mammals to adapt for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, dinos were
>>>>>>>>>>>>> already adapted?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There actually were mammalian herbivores that survived the
>>>>>>>>>>>> K-T extinction,
>>>>>>>>>>>> among the Multituberculata and a number of other now-extinct
>>>>>>>>>>>> branches of
>>>>>>>>>>>> mammalia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But if you are thinking of *large* herbivores, yes, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the first really
>>>>>>>>>>>> large ones were among the Pantodonta, and it took them 10
>>>>>>>>>>>> million years to get to that point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, this was a system failure. Failure of the character
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that prevented
>>>>>>>>>>>>> plants which couldn't reach the sunlight to grow, and this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is what,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually, killed *all* the dinosaurs, without leaving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pockets of them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alive, here or there. And that happened when avian
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dinosaurs (or, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would say, dinosaurs which had bills) survived.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You ought to be a little more specific here: "survived"
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't hit the spot.
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Evolved into more fearsome forms" might be closer to what
>>>>>>>>>>>> you had in mind, Mario.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are other problems with what you wrote in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> preceding sentence, but I need to get
>>>>>>>>>>>> back to grading the last test I've given ca. 75 students, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll tackle them another day, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>          Thanks, Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>>          Well, so far I don't see a problem here. They did
>>>>>>>>>>> survive, and they did evolve, everybody who survives evolves.
>>>>>>>>>>> The point is, they didn't go extinct. You don't go extinct
>>>>>>>>>>> without a reason. Herbivores of mammalian type didn't go
>>>>>>>>>>> extinct (as you mentioned), large herbivores of mammalian
>>>>>>>>>>> type didn't exist (as far as I can grasp), or, at least,
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't exist in areas where they emerged 10 my later. The
>>>>>>>>>>> fact is that all fern eaters of a dino type (and their
>>>>>>>>>>> predators) went extinct, while not all dinos went extinct.
>>>>>>>>>>> So, the problem was in eating ferns.
>>>>>>>>>>>          The fact that ecology changed is in tune with that.
>>>>>>>>>>> The question was, did ecology change because of dinos went
>>>>>>>>>>> extinct? There is no reason for just a specific type of dinos
>>>>>>>>>>> to go extinct, or, at least, nobody mentioned it anywhere,
>>>>>>>>>>> nobody knows for the reason, there is no theory about that
>>>>>>>>>>> reason, there is no idea about the reason, there is no
>>>>>>>>>>> just-so story about the reason, absolutely nothing, there is
>>>>>>>>>>> only a "possibility" that this could have happened (but no
>>>>>>>>>>> reason for that). I mean, there is a possibility that life on
>>>>>>>>>>> Earth was started by aliens, but, hey, are we at that level
>>>>>>>>>>> of reasoning? Or, is science on that level of reasoning? If
>>>>>>>>>>> it shouldn't be, then why it behaves like they are on that
>>>>>>>>>>> level?
>>>>>>>>>>>          On the other hand, there could be some reason for
>>>>>>>>>>> ecology to change. My *idea* is that plants that crave for
>>>>>>>>>>> sunlight already evolved at poles (definitely there is some
>>>>>>>>>>> logic in it). The impact created the lack of sunlight (there
>>>>>>>>>>> were already some theories about that), so the plants that
>>>>>>>>>>> are able to collect more sunlight prevailed over ferns. This
>>>>>>>>>>> is one simple and logical explanation for this mechanism. For
>>>>>>>>>>> the mechanism that only some types of dinosaurs went extinct
>>>>>>>>>>> there is no explanation of mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>>>          I believe that I am clear enough.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that group coming along?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>          Ah, thanks, :). Besides me there are two more
>>>>>>>>>>> members, Daud Deden and Marc Verhaegen, but there is no
>>>>>>>>>>> discussion going on at all. So far I am happy, this is a good
>>>>>>>>>>> start, :) .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One problem with your theory is the post-Cretaceous "fern
>>>>>>>>>> spike". For a short time after the impact ferns dominated the
>>>>>>>>>> terrestrial vegetation. Another problem is that the poles get
>>>>>>>>>> much less sunlight than the tropics, so plants that "crave
>>>>>>>>>> for" sunlight would be less likely to be located there than
>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere. And third, the post-K-T lack of sunlight could have
>>>>>>>>>> lasted a couple of years at most. Finally, you have no
>>>>>>>>>> evidence that herbivorous dinosaurs were dependent on ferns,
>>>>>>>>>> which seems very unlikely on its face.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There also are theories about why the dinosaurs and not birds
>>>>>>>>>> or mammals went extinct. They were large. If, as is commonly
>>>>>>>>>> thought, extinctions mostly happened as a result of radiant
>>>>>>>>>> heat from the sky resulting from the re-entry of small ejecta,
>>>>>>>>>> big animals would be less able to hide under rocks and in
>>>>>>>>>> burrows than small ones. And there you have the filter to
>>>>>>>>>> explain the extinction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          Thanks John.
>>>>>>>>>          "Fern spike", I'll have to examine this.
>>>>>>>>>          Not necessarily "crave" for sunlight, but definitely
>>>>>>>>> being better in scooping the sunlight. Like hemoglobin in
>>>>>>>>> blood, which extracts oxygen. If oxygen levels fall, obviously
>>>>>>>>> the animals adapted to low levels will thrive.
>>>>>>>>>          A couple of years could be enough.
>>>>>>>>>          I believe the teeth of dinosaurs were adapted just to
>>>>>>>>> strip ferns (but I am not sure about it).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, you should check out the fern spike. Do you have any
>>>>>>>> evidence that arctic plants are better at scooping up sunlight
>>>>>>>> than tropical ones? You should probably check out the difference
>>>>>>>> between C3 and C4 plants. And no, a couple of years isn't enough
>>>>>>>> at all; you should probably check out the term "seed bank". In
>>>>>>>> general, you should learn something about botany. And what you
>>>>>>>> believe about the teeth of dinosaurs is not supported by
>>>>>>>> anything that I know of and, I strongly suspect, not anything
>>>>>>>> that you know of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          I don't need evidence that at poles you would have,
>>>>>>> both, plants and animals adapted to better scoop sunlight.
>>>>>>>          I know the difference between C3 and C4 pathways, but I
>>>>>>> don't see your point.
>>>>>>>          About the teeth I heard, in one documentary, a long time
>>>>>>> ago. And, it looks logical. Those teeth look like they are for
>>>>>>> stripping ferns, those dinosaurs ate ferns, so, I would presume
>>>>>>> that they are adapted to eat it. I see no problem in this,
>>>>>>> whichever way you put it.
>>>>>>>          Regarding "a couple of years", here it is a scenario for
>>>>>>> "many years", and it involves what you just said. Yes, dinosaurs
>>>>>>> were pretty damaged by the event. All the dinosaurs, all the
>>>>>>> birds, all other animals, all plants, everybody. The question is
>>>>>>> why some dinosaurs actually went extinct.
>>>>>>>          The answer is in trees. Narrow canopy trees didn't grow
>>>>>>> anymore? Why? Well, ferns deprived them from sunlight. In normal
>>>>>>> conditions those ferns were eaten by dinosaurs. But now,
>>>>>>> dinosaurs were very damaged, not a lot of dinosaurs left. So, not
>>>>>>> a lot of narrow canopy trees grew among all those uneaten ferns.
>>>>>>> But, some other types of trees were better adapted to the
>>>>>>> conditions, so those types of trees started to grow. And those
>>>>>>> types overwhelmed ferns.
>>>>>>>          I'll take a look at what happens after fern spike in
>>>>>>> real world, what kind of plants grow in such a situation, and why.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> C4 plants are the ones adapted to high temperature, high
>>>>>> insolation environments, and they're the plants that are most
>>>>>> efficient at photosynthesis in such environments. Needless to say,
>>>>>> they aren't found at the poles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will have to agree that if you heard something in a documentary
>>>>>> some time long ago it must be true and is decisive confirmation
>>>>>> for your theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then again, your theory is hopelessly confused. The dinosaurs kept
>>>>>> the ferns down? The ferns kept the angiosperms from growing? The
>>>>>> angiosperms killed ferns and that killed the dinosaurs? What?
>>>>>
>>>>>          Well, it may be complicated, but, of course, this is why
>>>>> it isn't obvious, and this is why this is still a question that
>>>>> needs the answer.
>>>>>          I know that this story is much simpler, asteroid came, and
>>>>> killed just the right animals. Nice and simple, just like 'God
>>>>> said: Let there be light.", and it was light.'. Everybody likes
>>>>> simple explanations. Sheer beauty.
>>>>>          So, simple is nice, complicated is complicated. The only
>>>>> problem is, simple has no logic, and the complicated way has much
>>>>> more sense, and it is a better theory.
>>>>>
>>>> Please provide a coherent and complete explanation of your theory,
>>>> which you have never managed to do so far. Try to use complete
>>>> sentences with grammatical English, as best you can. Try to provide
>>>> a clear cause-and-effect scenario.
>>>
>>>          But why? Use what you've got. You should be more than
>>> satisfied with what I already provided.
>>
>> No, what you've already provided is disjointed and incoherent. If
>> that's the best you can do, then there's nowhere to go.
>>
>>>          I thank you for all your help, but I cannot work by
>>> providing "coherent and complete explanation". This isn't actually my
>>> theory, I am trying to figure out what actually happened.
>>>          I cannot concentrate on my work if I am concentrating on how
>>> this will sound to English speaking people.
>>>          Clear cause-and-effect scenario I can provide for my launch
>>> (I cooked it, I ate it), how to provide clear cause-and-effect
>>> scenario for something I know so little about, and which happened 66
>>> mya? I am doing the best I can.
>>
>> If so, that's unfortunate.
>
>         Yes, I agree.
>         This is similar to that Nazism/communism discussion that we had
> recently. I am liberal democrat, but if I am discussing Nazism/communism
> I, simply, *have to* say that Nazism is better than communism. Now, I
> knew that 100 % of people will immediately call me a nazist, simply,
> because I said that, but, I didn't have a choice, I had to be right. I
> learnt a long time ago (remember, I am the sole soul that claims that
> the West is the best, in a country full with people who claim that the
> East is the best) that, if seven billion people says one thing, and I
> say the other thing, and if I am the right one, I, alone, am stronger
> than seven billion people. And, if I cannot get along with seven billion
> people, that's really unfortunate,... for them.
>         So, you are asking me to *bias* my ideas towards that they are
> perceived more clearly by the rest, but, if I am biasing my thinking,
> this will steer me away from the truth. I don't want to do that, because
> doing this, I am, actually, wasting my time.
>         And, lastly, notice this, I am doing all this in your language,
> and I am not complaining. You are communicating with me in your
> language, and you are full with complains. Try to complain in Croatian,
> so that I have a little laugh, ;) .
>
I'm sorry, but that was an insane rant.