4 ms·

The article kind of contradicts itself. First saying that the asteroid impact theory is pretty outdated and then not really coming up with anything other than m

by SeanDav 14y ago

The article kind of contradicts itself. First saying that the asteroid impact theory is pretty outdated and then not really coming up with anything other than maybe it was asteroid impact and/or volcanic activity and/or changing sea levels.

Scriptor 14y ago
The impact theory is outdated in that people used to think it was by far the largest cause of the extinction. What the article is saying is that scientists now agree it was far more balanced between impacts, volcanoes, and sea levels. Exactly how much each of those contributed is still debated.
- Retric 14y ago
  It's still generally considered the root cause. Consider, it's hard to see how sea level changes could be a cause of such a wide spread extinction event. (~75% or more of all species were wiped out) However, it's possible that an asteroid impact could lead to both volcanic activity AND sea level change. That's not to say sea level change was not a contributing factor, just it's most likely part of the overall cascade caused by the impact. PS: People have caused a significant die-off in what is almost a geologic instant. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinctions_since_1500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinctions_since_1500) However, while habitat destruction is often blamed for man of those extinctions that's just another name for human intervention.
  - Scriptor 14y ago
    > it's possible that an asteroid impact could lead to both volcanic activity It could lead to local seismic activity, sure, but I don't think it'd be enough to cause enough volcanic activity. I may be wrong, though.
mturmon 14y ago
I noticed the same problem. Sympathy for contrarian stories is a known tic of Slate magazine. Maybe most concisely illustrated by their "you're doing it wrong" series on cooking standard dishes like pancakes, but see also http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/10/contrarianisms_end_1 I think it came from their founding editor, Michael Kinsley, who has a taste for this kind of thinking.

by SeanDav 14y ago

Scriptor 14y ago

The impact theory is outdated in that people used to think it was by far the largest cause of the extinction. What the article is saying is that scientists now agree it was far more balanced between impacts, volcanoes, and sea levels. Exactly how much each of those contributed is still debated.

Retric 14y ago
It's still generally considered the root cause. Consider, it's hard to see how sea level changes could be a cause of such a wide spread extinction event. (~75% or more of all species were wiped out) However, it's possible that an asteroid impact could lead to both volcanic activity AND sea level change. That's not to say sea level change was not a contributing factor, just it's most likely part of the overall cascade caused by the impact. PS: People have caused a significant die-off in what is almost a geologic instant. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinctions_since_1500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinctions_since_1500) However, while habitat destruction is often blamed for man of those extinctions that's just another name for human intervention.
- Scriptor 14y ago
  > it's possible that an asteroid impact could lead to both volcanic activity It could lead to local seismic activity, sure, but I don't think it'd be enough to cause enough volcanic activity. I may be wrong, though.

mturmon 14y ago

I noticed the same problem. Sympathy for contrarian stories is a known tic of Slate magazine. Maybe most concisely illustrated by their "you're doing it wrong" series on cooking standard dishes like pancakes, but see also http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/10/contrarianisms_end_1 I think it came from their founding editor, Michael Kinsley, who has a taste for this kind of thinking.