Whole bunch of hadrosaurs found in Spain

[tyrantqueen]

And my two cents, about human adaptation and superiority...we have had less than a million years to prove anything. Yes, our technical accomplishments would seem quite amazing, provided we survive them. I am not so sure I would give us much credit for creating things like atom bombs to destroy one another, pollution, crime, poverty, and many other things the human race brings to the table that are not so desireable. Our atmostphere is already littered with debris from our various space endeavors and we have even littered the moons surface with our leavings. By our own greed, carelessness and shallow nature we are destroying many of the other species that call this planet home. Not sure I would get up on a soapbox and announce how great we are......because at the rate we are doing it, there might not be anything else left to hear it.
That is the flip side of being so, supposedly superior.

I see what you're trying to say. Yes, we are not perfect. But we are (hopefully) learning through our mistakes and making changes as time goes on.

But I love being human. I would choose being human over a dinosaur in a heartbeat. Most of us have warm homes, clean water, a computer, plastic dinosaur toys to keep us happy, no predators to worry about, endless ways to amuse ourselves, hospitals to take care of us when we're sick, etc...

We are capable of horrible things, but we are capable of wonderful things too. Cars, space shuttles, computers, telephones, music, radio- humans CREATED those.

[Balaur]

If only the asteroid haden't killed off most of the non-avian dinosaurs.

There you go, rant is over. 

Not so certain that even that is a generally accepted and universal theory anymore, there is alot of evidence to suggest otherwise.

No. It is widley accepted in the paleontological community. You have the K-Pg Boundry, the iridium, the crator. And evidence that 75% of all life was wiped out above the K-Pg. What more evidence do you need? Not a lot of evidence for a volcanic eruption that killed the,, except the Deccan Traps,which occured 66 million years ago.

I feel strongly on this issue too, so sorry for a lengthy post. I am very fond of dinosaurs, and in future generations, we can being people back to reality and show how exciting dinosaurs really are. The fact that giant tyrannosaurs had feathers, and dinosaurs are around today, to cannibalism in Majungasaurus. It was probably the best time in Earths 4.6 billion year history to be around in. No other animal was so succesful and kept that success for more than 231.4 million years. They really where more adaptable than humans, ans by far the most dominante group of archosaurs on the planet. If only the asteroid haden't killed off most of the non-avian dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs are more adaptable than humans?
I don't see dinosaurs with aposable thumbs. I don't see dinosaurs travelling into outer space, landing on the moon, writing symphonies, painting the mona lisa, curing diseases, discovering electricity, inventing the internet, writing books, exploring the ocean, manufacturating aeroplanes, building an atomic bomb, building bridges and skyscrapers, and on and on....they had 200 million years to do so, and they never did.

If the dinosaurs were really so adaptable, then why did they die out? Humans are the most adaptable animal to exist, because we have the intelligence to manipulate our surroundings to our needs.
Dinosaurs are just animals, plain and simple. Sure, they're ancient, well evolved, fascinating animals.

I wasn't thinking. However, avian dinosaurs of today make nests and even domes out of twigs. Not a house, but requires a lot of intelligence.

Also, yesterday at school, I was talking about birds, and this kid says something about how "birds are dumb" 

I ask him what he means, and he brings up that "because the dodo went extinct." 

And I talked about how much intelligence it requires to make those calls we hear everyday and to make a nest and even mimic people (like the parrot)

He still states that birds are dumb. 

Probably incountered a stegosaurus brained person that day.   

I want a raptor to show him what intelligence it has. Maybe he'll change his mind when it lands its talons on him. 

[Yutyrannus]

Did you even read what I said fully? I said END OF CONVERSATION.

No, it is not the end of the conversation. You made a statement, and I respectfully disagree with it. If you don't want to have a discussion, then you shouldn't have posted it in the first place. Instead of posting a refutation to my argument, you just scream that it's the end of the conversation :/

*shrug*

Since this is the "end of the conversation", I will take it that you can't think of anything to say to my points, and that I was correct in arguing that humans are more adaptable than dinosaurs. Have a nice day

Ta ta

Anyway, sorry to mods for going off topic.

Yes, I did that because this debate is stupid when the answer is so simple.

[tyrantqueen]

Yes, I did that because this debate is stupid when the answer is so simple.

I am glad you think that Yes, it is a stupid debate, humans are so much more obviously adaptable than dinosaurs

Let's get back on topic about the hadrosaurs.

[Balaur]

Yes, I did that because this debate is stupid when the answer is so simple.

I am glad you think that Yes, it is a stupid debate, humans are so much more obviously adaptable than dinosaurs

Let's get back on topic about the hadrosaurs.

Yes. So, it is really rare to find 200 of the same dinosaurs together in one location. Have we found more than 200 of the same dinosaurs in one location. Or am I forgetting?

[tyrantqueen]

Yes. So, it is really rare to find 200 of the same dinosaurs together in one location. Have we found more than 200 of the same dinosaurs in one location. Or am I forgetting?

I think so, yeah. 200 is incredible, I wonder how long it is going to take scientists to study every single specimen? XD

[Balaur]

Yes. So, it is really rare to find 200 of the same dinosaurs together in one location. Have we found more than 200 of the same dinosaurs in one location. Or am I forgetting?

I think so, yeah. 200 is incredible, I wonder how long it is going to take scientists to study every single specimen? XD

I would geuss years! Imagine, 200 hadrosaurs. For a carnivorous theropod its an all you can eat buffet,with the premium dish for the day, young hadrosaur steak. 

[Gwangi]

Humans are a very special kind of animal but at the end of the day we're still just animals and I think that is why we have the problems in the world that we have. Any other animal that has evolved to our level of intelligence would likely do the exact same things we do. We are adaptable, there is no arguing about that. Being adaptable means being able to adjust your behavior to survive in various environments, we excel at that. Does that make us more successful than other animals? Not really, just successful in a different kind of way. Amarga pointed out the various species of invertebrates who while quite simple intellectually will no doubt remain long after we're gone. Cats, rats, foxes, crows...they're adaptable too. They'll  probably all be here when we're gone.
Dinosaurs as a group were very successful and must have been adaptable too. They dominated the planet for 160 million years and persist today, some of them are among the most intelligent animals on the planet (corvids, parrots) while some are successful simply because we like them (chickens number over 20 billion to our 7 billion, not bad for a small game bird from Asia). Mammals as a group number 5000 or so species, birds number twice that and while dinosaurs may no longer rule the land, they certainly rule the air.
Saying that non-avian dinosaurs are less adaptable than humans because they're dead is silly when you consider that they were killed off by an extraterrestrial event that evolution could not prepare them for. We have yet to experience anything similar so lets wait and see where we are after being faced with such an event before claiming our superiority over them. Also consider that the average lifespan for a species is about 1 million years, about as long as we humans have been around for. There are much older species that have proved their worth, we can only wait and see how our intelligence pays off in the end. Tyrannosaurus rex itself survived as a species for about two million years before the asteroid took it out, twice as long as Homo sapiens. Humans are neat animals with unique qualities but on a global time scale none of that might matter, we might just end up being a blip on the radar, a freak occurrence and another failed evolutionary experiment. Dinosaurs, dinosaurs proved they're success even if most lineages of them are now gone.
This entire conversation is ridiculous anyway, there are various ways to measure the success of a species. The ability to compose a symphony and go to the moon are great achievements but true success is measured in different ways. These pissing matches over which species are better than others are a waste of time.  Ants, humans, dinosaurs...whatever, we're all here and that says something.

[tyrantqueen]

Gwangi, I never said dinosaurs were not adaptable. They were. I just think they were adaptable in a different way. Personally I think humans are more adaptable because of their intelligence, but that's my opinion.

Can we PLEASE let this topic die now and get back to the hadros? Thanks

[Seijun]

I think it's a fun debate, as long as everyone involved keeps an open mind and is willing to listen to opposing arguments Maybe the mods could move this to a separate topic? I would really like to chime in.

First of all, since when is tool use in humans not considered an adaptation?  Tool use is a cognitive adaptation for a lack of certain physical adaptations.  For example, a humans making a fur coat from the skin of another animal in order to survive in a cold environment, rather than evolving fur. Many animals have been known to use tools in order to "beat" the limitations of their own bodies (birds, cetaceans, elephants, other primates, and even octopi). For example, a crow using a stick to get insects out of a tree, rather than evolving a specialized beak for that task.

Second of all, I dont think its fair to compare "dinosaurs" (the entire clade of dinosauria, which includes birds crocodiles and their extinct relatives) to a single species, homo sapiens. I think it would be more fair to compare clade to clade. How about dinosauria vs euarchontoglires (the clade containing rodents and primates)?. If that is too broad, maybe compare only species vs species. Homo sapiens vs Tyrannosaurus Rex. For the sake of playing devils advocate, lets pretend tool use is not considered an adaptation. Without tools, humans could still do pretty well in very warm climates. I think this would include parts of africa, south america, and basically any tropical area near the equator. Its warm enough that we dont need clothing, and even without hunting I bet we could find and store enough plant-based foods to thrive (other primates do). More knowledgeable members can help me out here, but I am pretty sure that Tyrannosaurus Rex has only been found in the western united states. What was the temperature and environment like there while trex was around? (I seem to remember that it was warm and tropical, or semi-tropical--swamps, forests, etc). But essentially, trex was not very widespread. He was found in one part of the world which suggests to me that we has probably not very good at adapting to a wide range of environments, same as tool-less humans. At most you could say it's draw between our two species. Taking into account all the vertebrate animal species in the world, relatively few are any good at adapting to a wide range of environments. Those that live in arctic environment are probably not found in tropical environments, those that are found in forest environments are probably not found in desert environments, etc.

[tyrantqueen]

I think it's a fun debate, as long as everyone involved keeps an open mind and is willing to listen to opposing arguments Maybe the mods could move this to a separate topic? I would really like to chime in.

First of all, since when is tool use in humans not considered an adaptation?  Tool use is a cognitive adaptation for a lack of certain physical adaptations.  For example, a humans making a fur coat from the skin of another animal in order to survive in a cold environment, rather than evolving fur. Many animals have been known to use tools in order to "beat" the limitations of their own bodies (birds, cetaceans, elephants, other primates, and even octopi). For example, a crow using a stick to get insects out of a tree, rather than evolving a specialized beak for that task.

Second of all, I dont think its fair to compare "dinosaurs" (the entire clade of dinosauria, which includes birds, crocodiles, and their extinct relatives) to a single species, homo sapiens. I think it would be more fair to compare clade to clade. How about dinosauria vs euarchontoglires (the clade containing rodents and primates)?. If that is too broad, maybe compare only species vs species. Homo sapiens vs Tyrannosaurus Rex. For the sake of playing devils advocate, lets pretend tool use is not considered an adaptation. Without tools, humans could still do pretty well in very warm climates. I think this would include parts of africa, south america, and basically any tropical area near the equator. Its warm enough that we dont need clothing, and even without hunting I bet we could find and store enough plant-based foods to thrive (other primates do). More knowledgeable members can help me out here, but I am pretty sure that Tyrannosaurus Rex has only been found in the western united states. What was the temperature and environment like there while trex was around? (I seem to remember that it was warm and tropical, or semi-tropical--swamps, forests, etc). But essentially, trex was not very widespread. He was found in one part of the world which suggests to me that we has probably not very good at adapting to a wide range of environments, same as tool-less humans. At most you could say it's draw between our two species. Taking into account all the vertebrate animal species in the world, relatively few are any good at adapting to a wide range of environments. Those that live in arctic environment are probably not found in tropical environments, those that are found in forest environments are probably not found in desert environments, etc.

Your post was interesting
Humans are the best long distance runners in the animal kingdom. Humans don't have claws or teeth they can use for defense, but we have opposable thumbs and our brains which more than make up for it. Why bother with claws when you can just throw a spear instead? Also, humans living in certain environments do show certain adaptations- inuits living in cold climates have thicker set bodies, humans in the tropics develop darker skin because of the UV from the sun. We also have great emotional intelligence, more so than any other animal.

[Seijun]

Oh, one other thing to mention about humans vs trex, is our adaptations for eating different foods. Dietary adaptations play a huge part in the overall adaptability of species. Humans have teeth that are adapted for consuming both plant and meat material, but without tools our consumption of meat would be limited to small animals that could be caught by hand, or to meat scavenged from the fresh carcasses of animals that have already died. Like modern day apes, we would probably have a mostly plant-based diet with meat playing little to no role. Trex could not eat plants, but he could he could hunt for meat. I would not be surprised if he could also scavenge carrion that would make most humans sick (but this is just speculation).  So regarding dietary adaptation in a real world scenario, humans would probably tie with trex again (humans eating mostly plants, possibly meat on occasion, trex eating mostly meat, possibly carrion on occasion).

[Patrx]

I dont think its fair to compare "dinosaurs" (the entire clade of dinosauria, which includes birds, crocodiles, and their extinct relatives) to a single species, homo sapiens.

Wait a tick. Not to derail anything here, but I think I might have missed something. Are crocodilians within dinosauria now?

[Seijun]

I dont think its fair to compare "dinosaurs" (the entire clade of dinosauria, which includes birds, crocodiles, and their extinct relatives) to a single species, homo sapiens.

Wait a tick. Not to derail anything here, but I think I might have missed something. Are crocodilians within dinosauria now?

Woops! No, I'm just remembering things wrong    Crocodilians are not members of dinosauria. I have corrected my post.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I have only a few things to toss in here. First, finding more than 200 of same or monospecific grouping of dinosaurs is far more common than you might realize. Horner wrote about a bone bed of Maisasaurs that contained 10,000 indivuals . The Cleveland Lloyd quarry has produced more then eighty specimens of allosaurus. Phil Currie located a site in the badlands of Canada, containing the remains of thousands of ceratopsian dinosaurs. Ghost ranch, the site of the original quarry for Ceolophysis (spelling) is another massive quarry containing a large group of same dinosaurs. There are many others, documented and where remains have been recovered over the years, so no, a grouping of 200 monospecific dinosaurs is not such a rare thing in general. In regards to this Hadrosaur find, I saw nothing to suggest 200 animals directly, they stated 20 in the title if I read correctly? Within the article they commented to the nature of finding some 200 fossils.........Seems odd the title would state 20 if they found 200 but it does create confusion if they did mean that many
   The entire comet impact, death of dinosaurs thing has been debunked pretty heavily for years. In reading I have done there are many tell-tale signs that indicate the meteor simply was NOT the end all for the dinosaurs, although I am sure it did not make things any easier for them. The comet impact was an exclamation point on an already failing ecosystem which has been proven over and over.
Just a few of the things that require closer examination....just because you have an iridium layer that proves a comet impact does not prove this eliminated the dinosaurs. There are places, for instance in the san juan basin in mexico where dinosaur remains have been recovered ABOVE your much vaunted iridium layer. These remains included Hadrosaur remains that were articulated as well as massive sauropod bones that were not good canidates for being washed out and reburied at a later time. In additon, in MOST places where dinosaur remains are recovered, you do not find them within six feet of the actual impact line, or in other words, they were gone LONG before the impact occurred. If the impact were the crucial factor in such a mass kill off, you would find a layer of iridium choked with ash from volcanic eruptions, burnt biomass, and the remains of thousands of dinosaurs. This is just not the case ...most dinosaur remains are found nowhere close to the iridium layer that supposedly caused their demise. To add further to the complexity of the issue, there is an area in India known as the Deccan plateau or steps, that is formed entirely of basalt flood rock from volcanic eruptions. It is the largest existing volcanic feature on Earth today.At one time the formation covered half of India,  but even today it is 2,000 m thick and covers an area of 500,000 km and a volume of 512,000 km or essentially 123,000 cubic miles of volcanic rock. At the end of the Cretaceous period , or approximately sixty eight million years ago the traps began erupting and likely lasted for ten million years.This massive eruption was directly responsible for placing tons of dust, soot and various chemical poisons into the atmosphere that would tend to reduce sunlight levels, obstruct plant activity and generally lower the oyxgen content. 
  Finally you also need to reconsider your impact scenario in light of more updated evidence. There is adquate evidence to suggest more than a single impact...There are at 3 least other known impact sites that date favorably to this event....including the site in northern Russia, the Boltysh crater. The North sea  has an impact site called Silvertip. Finally there is Shiva, the mother of all craters, named for the goddess of death.This crater lies directly off the coastline of India and would have been from an object roughly 40 km in size or four times the comet site found in Mexico. A few red flags that suggest this was one of the main impacts. The boundary clay in India is well over a foot deep, and thicker than any other location in the entire world.The rebound peak at the center of this feature is taller than Mount Everest. Shocked quartz is found in association with this feature as well. Scientists are not fully in agreement this site represents an impact, but given the iridium signature it has, the mantle shattering in the area, and geological faults that radiate from the area, it would seem a matter of time before this will be accepted as another impact site.
  Another thing to add to the debate, there were at least 77 known bolide impacts worldwide during the reign of the dinosaurs. Many were much larger more substantial impacts than the impact in the Yucataan area. NONE of them caused a worldwide die-off or extinction event during the dinosaurs reign. But, somehow this one impact was supposedly different   pffft......
  So given all of the facts, I really do not accept the single crater impact theory. It simply does not meet the evidence presented so far, and aside from this does nothing to explain the consequences of the deccan traps eruptions.
  If you do no accept my opinion, there is a nearly verbatim quote I can give you from the book "Hunting Dinosaurs"       A few years back Phillip Currie  of the Tyrell Museum at Drumheiler, had a seminar with all the best minds in the paleo-world assembled...a silent vote was taken and of the 36 willing to cast a vote, 32 were in favor of gradual extinction .only two were for a massive comet or disaster killing  the dinosaurs with the remaining vote entirely cast in favor of a slow die off due to natural causes. ....which I think reasonably well states where the scientific mindset lies today

[Balaur]

I have only a few things to toss in here. First, finding more than 200 of same or monospecific grouping of dinosaurs is far more common than you might realize. Horner wrote about a bone bed of Maisasaurs that contained 10,000 indivuals . The Cleveland Lloyd quarry has produced more then eighty specimens of allosaurus. Phil Currie located a site in the badlands of Canada, containing the remains of thousands of ceratopsian dinosaurs. Ghost ranch, the site of the original quarry for Ceolophysis (spelling) is another massive quarry containing a large group of same dinosaurs. There are many others, documented and where remains have been recovered over the years, so no, a grouping of 200 monospecific dinosaurs is not such a rare thing in general. In regards to this Hadrosaur find, I saw nothing to suggest 200 animals directly, they stated 20 in the title if I read correctly? Within the article they commented to the nature of finding some 200 fossils.........Seems odd the title would state 20 if they found 200 but it does create confusion if they did mean that many
   The entire comet impact, death of dinosaurs thing has been debunked pretty heavily for years. In reading I have done there are many tell-tale signs that indicate the meteor simply was NOT the end all for the dinosaurs, although I am sure it did not make things any easier for them. The comet impact was an exclamation point on an already failing ecosystem which has been proven over and over.
Just a few of the things that require closer examination....just because you have an iridium layer that proves a comet impact does not prove this eliminated the dinosaurs. There are places, for instance in the san juan basin in mexico where dinosaur remains have been recovered ABOVE your much vaunted iridium layer. These remains included Hadrosaur remains that were articulated as well as massive sauropod bones that were not good canidates for being washed out and reburied at a later time. In additon, in MOST places where dinosaur remains are recovered, you do not find them within six feet of the actual impact line, or in other words, they were gone LONG before the impact occurred. If the impact were the crucial factor in such a mass kill off, you would find a layer of iridium choked with ash from volcanic eruptions, burnt biomass, and the remains of thousands of dinosaurs. This is just not the case ...most dinosaur remains are found nowhere close to the iridium layer that supposedly caused their demise. To add further to the complexity of the issue, there is an area in India known as the Deccan plateau or steps, that is formed entirely of basalt flood rock from volcanic eruptions. It is the largest existing volcanic feature on Earth today.At one time the formation covered half of India,  but even today it is 2,000 m thick and covers an area of 500,000 km and a volume of 512,000 km or essentially 123,000 cubic miles of volcanic rock. At the end of the Cretaceous period , or approximately sixty eight million years ago the traps began erupting and likely lasted for ten million years.This massive eruption was directly responsible for placing tons of dust, soot and various chemical poisons into the atmosphere that would tend to reduce sunlight levels, obstruct plant activity and generally lower the oyxgen content. 
  Finally you also need to reconsider your impact scenario in light of more updated evidence. There is adquate evidence to suggest more than a single impact...There are at 3 least other known impact sites that date favorably to this event....including the site in northern Russia, the Boltysh crater. The North sea  has an impact site called Silvertip. Finally there is Shiva, the mother of all craters, named for the goddess of death.This crater lies directly off the coastline of India and would have been from an object roughly 40 km in size or four times the comet site found in Mexico. A few red flags that suggest this was one of the main impacts. The boundary clay in India is well over a foot deep, and thicker than any other location in the entire world.The rebound peak at the center of this feature is taller than Mount Everest. Shocked quartz is found in association with this feature as well. Scientists are not fully in agreement this site represents an impact, but given the iridium signature it has, the mantle shattering in the area, and geological faults that radiate from the area, it would seem a matter of time before this will be accepted as another impact site.
  Another thing to add to the debate, there were at least 77 known bolide impacts worldwide during the reign of the dinosaurs. Many were much larger more substantial impacts than the impact in the Yucataan area. NONE of them caused a worldwide die-off or extinction event during the dinosaurs reign. But, somehow this one impact was supposedly different   pffft......
  So given all of the facts, I really do not accept the single crater impact theory. It simply does not meet the evidence presented so far, and aside from this does nothing to explain the consequences of the deccan traps eruptions.
  If you do no accept my opinion, there is a nearly verbatim quote I can give you from the book "Hunting Dinosaurs"       A few years back Phillip Currie  of the Tyrell Museum at Drumheiler, had a seminar with all the best minds in the paleo-world assembled...a silent vote was taken and of the 36 willing to cast a vote, 32 were in favor of gradual extinction .only two were for a massive comet or disaster killing  the dinosaurs with the remaining vote entirely cast in favor of a slow die off due to natural causes. ....which I think reasonably well states where the scientific mindset lies today

I am sure the dinosaurs were having a bad time, the climate was getting out of hand, volcanic eruptions, especially the Deccan Traps would have been a major contributer. I don't think the asteroid was the only thing. It was their environment collapsing as they were still around, and the asteroid was the final pusher, making things a lot worse than they were before, causing a 13 magniuted quake around the world, mega-tsumanis, and a nuclear winter. It would almost certainly cause volcanoes to become active around the world, and they would erupt, and so many would, to the point where they would heat up the whole planet, and screwing up the atmosphere big time.
It would have blocked the sun for months or even years, to the pount where plant life dies off, and the herbivores die off, and then the carnivores have no food to eat and eat each other and you know the whole story. The Deccan Traps are very intresting in my opinion, and would be a good description of hell. So, the effects of the asteroid impact, combined with the Deccan Traps increasing carbon dioxide levels and lowering oxygen levels, and the volcanoes erupting all over also contributing to oxygen levels dropping and carbon dioxide levels increasing, the dinosaurs suffocated to desth basically. The asteroid was the event that really made it impossible for them to recover fully, and, I do agree with you, made things a hell of a lot worse, but was bad enough to make volcanic activity go out of control, which then made it impossible to recover, and wiped them out.

About the three craters, I know the one in Ukraine, and the North Sea. Shiva is just enourmous, but didn't happen during the dinosaur era. In fact, it may have been a volcanic eruption, or super volcanic eruption.

I still don't agree with your premise though, but you have very intresting opinions, and I respect everybodies opinion. I am not mad you believe in this, but it's very intresting and when more evidence comes to light, I'll take a look at it.

To each his own I guess. 

[amargasaurus cazaui]

The crater actually dates more closely to the K-pg, than the Yucatan event. Chatterjee argues that his Shiva crater was created around 65 million years, about the same time as a number of other impact craters and the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary / K-Pg boundary) Although the site has shifted since its formation because of sea floor spreading, the formation is approximately 600 kilometres (370 miles) long by 400 km (250 mi) wide. It is estimated that this proposed crater would have been made by an asteroid or comet approximately 40 km (25 mi) in diameter. The crater also is reported to contain larger than average amounts of alkaline melt rocks, shocked quartz, and iron oxide laced with iridium. These types of rocks and features suggest an impact origin. The age of the crater is inferred from the Deccan traps, which contain relatively high amounts of iridium (an element extremely rare in the Earth's crust but more common in asteroids). Also make note of the shocked quartz that has been returned from the site.
Other theories have argued that since the Chicxulub impact is believed by some researchers to have occurred earlier than the extinction of the dinosaurs, Shiva's impact was enough to cause the mass extinction by itself.
The crater has never been suggested to be volcanic in the normal fashion, for origin, but more likely as a rupture in the crust allowing a massive amount of magma to surface in a very condensed area. Scientists hypothesize the possibility of an impact creating a tear in the crust thus setting off the magma flow is quite possible.All volcanic and magma type suggestions fail to explain the massive central peak in the feature, taller than the Mount Everest.
    In the past ten years, the science has moved from accepting the comet theory to one of actually following the scientific evidence, which generally disputes the theory in almost every method and fashion known. It is far more likely the Traps and various other factors were already lowering the dinosaurs hold on the planet, and the impacts simply were the final straw.

[Patrx]

I dont think its fair to compare "dinosaurs" (the entire clade of dinosauria, which includes birds, crocodiles, and their extinct relatives) to a single species, homo sapiens.

Wait a tick. Not to derail anything here, but I think I might have missed something. Are crocodilians within dinosauria now?

Woops! No, I'm just remembering things wrong    Crocodilians are not members of dinosauria. I have corrected my post.

Ah, okay  Thanks for the clarification. Erm, carry on.

[Himmapaan]

The discussion concerning the K-Pg extinction event which originally followed has been split off to its own thread here.

[Simon]

The discussion concerning the K-Pg extinction event which originally followed has been split off to its own thread here.

*SIGH*

If we are no longer to use "K-T", lets keep it simple (as I have seen in articles recently):

Its now 'officially' the 'K-P' boundary. 

Not a USA movie rating.