Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: KING IYK
Post Volume: Total: 920,562 Year: 884/6,935 Month: 165/719 Week: 157/116 Day: 31/40 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 328 of 614 (734758)
08-01-2014 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by edge
08-01-2014 10:33 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Finding out how the land came to lie that way and how the rocks got into their present relationship is NOT Old Earthism, it's normal science.
And that science is telling us the earth is ancient.
Not from anything that's been said in this discussion.
What you don't need to know to do that work is the origin of the rocks themselves or their actual age, or how it got there so fast or slow or whatever you think. You can find it just by knowing the disposition of the rocks and how oil is normally associated with certain formations, that's all. You do NOT need to know how it got there or how long it took. According to everything that has been said about it so far.
If we are making genetic models, all of these things are necessary. Sure, you could wildcat all over the place, but with basin analysis, you increase your chances of finding oil. That's why companies invest so much in geology and geologists. They tip the odds a little bit more in favor of the company, and that's a lot of dough.
I don't know if you get what I'm saying or not. For one thing you haven't shown that Old Earthism figures in your genetic models, meaning the actual ages of the rocks, and if you were to show that you do use such figures there, you'd still have to explain how the supposed actual ages as determined by Old Earthism make a real difference to the outcome as opposed to the relative ages that could be determined from the same genetic model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by edge, posted 08-01-2014 10:33 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 329 of 614 (734759)
08-01-2014 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by edge
08-01-2014 11:31 PM


Re: interpretive, assumption ad nauseum
The point is you don't NEED a theory about how it was formed in order to do practical geological work in the field, whether the OE theory or the Flood theory, so your complaints about mine are irrelevant. And mine does not defy the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by edge, posted 08-01-2014 11:31 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 330 of 614 (734760)
08-01-2014 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by edge
08-01-2014 10:44 PM


Re: interpretive, assumption ad nauseum
No I do not use those words that way.
Why am I not surprised?
If you had read what I said in context you wouldn't be making such a silly remark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by edge, posted 08-01-2014 10:44 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 331 of 614 (734761)
08-01-2014 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by edge
08-01-2014 11:29 PM


Re: Old Earthism versus Practical Geology
The point is if you aren't going to explain things then you can't object if I ignore your assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by edge, posted 08-01-2014 11:29 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by edge, posted 08-02-2014 1:58 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 332 of 614 (734762)
08-01-2014 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by herebedragons
08-01-2014 11:17 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
I also think it would be helpful to explain to Faith (and myself too) exactly how you use absolute dates. My impression is that correlations and relative relationships can be worked out without an absolute age, but that knowing absolute ages make your job easier and more predictable.
A good clear explanation about how absolute dates are used, if in fact they are, is exactly what is needed here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by herebedragons, posted 08-01-2014 11:17 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by edge, posted 08-02-2014 2:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 333 of 614 (734764)
08-02-2014 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by edge
08-01-2014 11:29 PM


Re: Old Earthism versus Practical Geology
Sorry, have no idea what your point is here.
I'm sure you don't.
Typical edge retort. And you wonder why I stop reading your posts? You clearly have no interest in communicating anything so why waste my time? Yet now you are complaining that I dismiss your explanations. Rarely, yes, you have explained a few things, but rarely. The rest of the time, back to the beginning of your posts to me, nothing new, you have contented yourself with making meaningless put-down remarks, or explanations that are so cryptic nobody could follow them, and I'd guess that half of your posts are simply incomprehensible, and very likely not only to me. And then if I say they are incomprehensible you make your usual retort implying that's my fault. Then you complain that I dismiss your noncommunications. As in this post.
And overall I'm afraid nothing in this post clearly demonstrates a need for Old Earthist time frames for anything having to do with the practicalities of locating oil.
According to whom?
Well, we could take a survey I suppose, how about we go out on the sidewalk and poll the passersby? But just as a matter of observable objective fact there is NOTHING in that post that clearly demonstrates a need for Old Earthist time frames. And since you don't point out where it does I conclude my observation is correct.
Well, if you are just going to assert such things without explanation that's hardly any proof that Old Earthism is useful.
I do not intend to do that. Why would I bother explaining things to you?
Fine, then don't complain when I call it as I see it without your help.
No reason wells should show actual age as opposed to relative age. You love to be as cryptic as possible and all I can do is roll my eyes and shrug it off when you do that.
I have no intent to explain anything to you. I have found that to be fruitless.
Oh this is no discovery you have made, you've treated me like this from the very beginning, it's your M.O. apart from anything I've done.
You've said nothing anywhere to prove that absolute ages have anything to do with the usefulness of the well data, so I conclude that relative ages are really what's important.
No, the point here is that as long as ALL you have is interpretation and no way to test any of it you can just go on building a web of interpretations that is plausible but could be completely false.
As I have said before, my plausible is better than your implausible.
Cute but just the usual cuteness with no substance.
And all you really have to do is prove them false. Why are you unable to do so. As it is, your are just whining.
One cannot prove an untestable interpretation false, haven't I said that enough yet? All one can do is offer alternative interpretations. It's a war of plausibilities. I find yours implausible, you find mine implausible.
Which can't happen in the field where you ARE dealing with testable facts and have to be because you have to be able to find what you are looking for. Old Earthism isn't going to help you there.
How do you know this? Absolute dates helped me to interpret some Archean geology that was relatively impenetrable with out them.
Well, this is an intriguing assertion, but that's all it is until you come off your high horse and explain it in clear English, and don't get all huffy if I come back wondering if relative dates aren't really the important thing rather than the absolute dates. Archaean rocks are just the deepest oldest ones (sorry, except for the Hadean). If you hate me so much then don't explain it for me. HBD would like to know too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by edge, posted 08-01-2014 11:29 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by edge, posted 08-02-2014 2:18 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 338 of 614 (734770)
08-02-2014 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by edge
08-02-2014 1:58 AM


Re: Old Earthism versus Practical Geology
Yes I want to know if absolute ages are necessary for oil exploration, that is what I want to know, if they are always necessary or ever necessary I would like to know. That's what I'm asking. So far I have examples of how they are not necessary at all. You claim you've give others but as usual don't bother to tell me what those are.
If you don't want to take the time to explain something you claim you've already explained you could at least give a hint what you are talking about. So for instance if the proof that you need absolute ages was your example of the well, you could just SAY "the example of the well" without too much exertion.
Thanks for at least mentioning the volcanic rocks. What you may not understand is that I may not answer a post if I don't understand it or need to ponder it or look things up and so on, and then being barraged by others on other subjects can throw me off too. The volcanic rocks need a lot of thought and I don't even remember what all you said or what you think was so telling about what you said. The Cardenas was part of it and I thought that was amply acknowledged.
But now we're onto this issue and I only remember you mentioning one example, the walls of a well, and it wasn't very clear what about it was supposed to be the answer. You DO assert things and expect me to accept them, but I want your reasoning about it, and yes, MAYBE I WON'T ACCEPT IT as you want me to, so instead of berating me about dismissing this or that just ignore me back. I prefer that to your barbed comments.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by edge, posted 08-02-2014 1:58 AM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 339 of 614 (734771)
08-02-2014 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by edge
08-02-2014 2:18 AM


Re: Old Earthism versus Practical Geology
I do not move goal posts. What happens is that you misread what I say or I didn't say it fully enough, and then I have to explain it after you give an answer to the misreading, but you stick to the misreading stubbornly anyway so my explanation gets called moving the goal posts..
I have used absolute ages in oil exploration, mineral exploration and in Archean stratigraphy. I'm not really concerned whether that is a good enough explanation for you.
Well, that's not an explanation, it's an assertion, but it's a good place to start IF you won't get all pushed out of shape if I question anything you have to say about it. I don't doubt that you have used the absolute ages, I'm sure you have, but I'd be looking for whether that's really necessary or if relative ages wouldn't work as well for your purposes. Which may not sit well with you.
And since you do tend to write cryptically, leaving out all kinds of necessary information, I may have to ask you to expand your explanation just in order to get a picture of it. Which also may not sit well with you.
Maybe it would be better if you had this discussion with HBD. But I hope you will be willing to flesh out these assertions, I'd really like to see how you use absolute ages in oil and mineral exploration and stratigraphy.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by edge, posted 08-02-2014 2:18 AM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 341 of 614 (734777)
08-02-2014 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2014 3:12 AM


Re: whatever you call it, some Geology is testable and some isn't.
OK, if the definition is already established I will have to be clearer about what I mean. It's surprising to me of course since the whole point of my argument is that reconstructing the prehistoric past can only be interpretive ...
Well yes, of course. Historical science works by interpreting the evidence in the present by means of events in the past. This is exactly what petrophysics did which you approved of so much.
But why do you leave out the crucial point that everything he said is testable and verifiable by others, which edge agreed is the case? THAT's what makes the difference between the untestable interpretive sciences of the prehistoric past, pure theory, and the observational testable sciences of the present, which are practiced daily in the field.
This is what we do when we interpret (as you agreed we could) the fossil of a stegosaurus as the bones of a once-living animal.
But there is no mystery about the basic anatomic structure of even the most unfamiliar animal since you can make inferences galore from known animal structures that others can verify along with you.
Again this is not the untestable interpretation of the prehistoric past which is about events that nobody witnessed and that may have no referents in the present at all so no way to verify them. EVENTS is probably the operative word here. HOW the strata were laid down and when, the claim that the fossils within a given layer represent life in that time period and so on. Those are the things you can't verify, that you can only hypothesize about. The TIME factor essentially. Not stegosaurus bones which are real physical things.
This is what we do when we ascribe a footprint to a foot or a gunshot wound to a gun. This is all fine by you until historical science tells you stuff you don't want to hear.
That is NOT how I arrived at this understanding of the difference between the different kinds of science. What you can never prove is the timing of ancient events or all those dramas about what life was like in some hypothetical time period. All you can do is guess and interpret and weave imaginative scenarios about them, you CANNOT test them, you CANNOT prove them. You can reconstruct fossils but you can't prove when or how they lived, or that they really did live in that era you claim they lived in, without the company of all those higher in the strata. You CANNOT prove that. All you've got is a slab of rock with the mineralized skeletons of creatures in it. You can reconstruct the creature, you can analyze the sediments in the rock, but you CANNOT prove anything about the time period you claim for it or how it got there or anything of those fanciful scenarios about life during this or that era. NO YOU CANNOT.
You will, therefore, have to come up with some criterion for ignoring the facts other than the word "interpretive", since that also describes the method for discovering facts that you don't wish to ignore.
The operative word is "ONLY" interpretive, that is, UNTESTABLE AND UNVERIFIABLE, leaving you with nothing but your interpretation and no way to prove it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : last few edits typos, punctuation etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2014 3:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2014 6:13 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 345 of 614 (734801)
08-02-2014 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2014 6:13 AM


Re: Try Again
You are right that I need to come up with a principle that will say what I want to say so I'll try to do that Meanwhile I do not make up things to support my beliefs, but certainly if I see something that does support them I'm going to hold on to it, and that's the case with the idea of "historical" or interpretive science. There is a clear distinction but it's hard to articulate.
I don't reject Aeolian sandstone JUST because it conflicts with the Flood scenario but because the only way it resembles dunes is in the crossbedding; otherwise you are cramming a hilly wavy mass of sand into a square flat block of rock with a straight flat cliff front and straight flat bottom and top, not at all a duney sort of thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2014 6:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by edge, posted 08-02-2014 1:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 351 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2014 1:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 346 of 614 (734802)
08-02-2014 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by ringo
08-02-2014 11:42 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
You are arguing a different point. The point I'm arguing is that there is no need to know the origin of the rock in order to do the work of practical Geology, finding oil or ore or whatever else geologists do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by ringo, posted 08-02-2014 11:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by ringo, posted 08-02-2014 12:26 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 348 by edge, posted 08-02-2014 1:19 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 350 by Coragyps, posted 08-02-2014 1:33 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 353 of 614 (734859)
08-02-2014 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Coragyps
08-02-2014 1:33 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
You are mistaken. You really, really need to know if you have a rock that was capable of forming and/or holding oil before you go spending a few hundred million dollars on randomly boring holes in the earth's crust. You really, really need a model of how and where that rock (those rocks, really: source, reservoir, and seal) was deposited and perhaps deformed before you set a platform 150 miles from land in mile-deep water.
So you need to know what sort of rock it is and how it was deformed in relation to other rocks and all that, but I don't see anything about a need to know its age here.
And let me concede something that will shock you, Faith. A petroleum geologist does NOT need to know that the top of the Permian is 251,000,000 years old to find oil. But the ages of that magnitude are still there, largely as a byproduct of us oilys' doings. The Horseshoe Atoll down beneath my house is a humungous reef - grown in place - that grew there before the Permian ended. It's a reef, Faith: 600 feet thick, 120 miles long. It was deeply eroded in places before it was buried by 6500 feet of evaporites, limestones, and sands/clays. That did not happen in 4300 years. It didn't happen in 4.3 million years. It took a Long Time. And the only viable models that find oil RELY on millions of years for it to have arrived where it is now.
I'm sure you USE the OE models, and you know what, I also suppose that they work for your purposes, but what I wonder is if they are really necessary. You really haven't said anything here that proves that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Coragyps, posted 08-02-2014 1:33 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 12:07 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 354 of 614 (734860)
08-02-2014 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by Minnemooseus
08-02-2014 7:57 PM


Re: I think that observation involves interpratation
Interpretation is involved in all science, and any actual work done in the field by a geologist would also involve interpretation. The point I'm trying to keep in mind is that in that sort of science it's testable and verifiable by others, but interpretations of some events in the prehistoric past cannot be tested or verified. I'm trying to find the best way of defining just what category of events this applies to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-02-2014 7:57 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2014 11:54 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 358 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2014 2:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 359 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2014 3:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 357 of 614 (734874)
08-03-2014 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by edge
08-03-2014 12:07 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
I like how you qualify the argument with a 'really necessary'. I suppose that you would be the one deciding what is 'really necessary'.
I'd be deducing it from what I gather from what is said by you all.
It looks from what everybody has said, not from something I'm making up but from what you all have said, that the main way Old Earth concepts are used in practical Geology is through radiometric dating, and what that does is help you determine the relative ages of different rocks, the absolute age really not being relevant. Yes or no?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 12:07 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2014 7:54 AM Faith has replied
 Message 361 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 9:03 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 362 of 614 (734892)
08-03-2014 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by herebedragons
08-03-2014 7:54 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Old Earth concepts are things like the theory that the dinosaurs went extinct due to a meteor hit. Radiometric dating is not an OE concept, it's a methodology/
ABE: Some examples from Wikipedia of what I meant by "historical Geology" or "interpretive Geology" and now call Old Earthism, which are all Scenarios about the past that are based on what has been found in particular rocks, pure fantasy that cannot be verified or proved in any way and utterlyl outlandish. This is what I mean by Time Periods in slabs of rock, and if you read through the following you will indeed find that they connect the time periods to actual rocks. Much of this is written with appropriate scientific inconclusiveness, but I often find presentations that are dogmatic assertions of such things as fact. Maybe I can find some of those. Come to think of it I think I'd probably find that tone in discussions of the evolution of this or that creature. I'll look later.
Precambrian - Wikipedia
It is thought that the Earth itself coalesced from material in orbit around the Sun roughly 4500 Ma, or 4.5 billion years ago (Ga), and may have been struck by a very large (Mars-sized) planetesimal shortly after it formed, splitting off material that formed the Moon (see Giant impact hypothesis). A stable crust was apparently in place by 4400 Ma, since zircon crystals from Western Australia have been dated at 4404 Ma.[3]
Excluding a few contested reports of much older forms from USA and India, the first complex multicellular life forms seem to have appeared roughly 600 Ma. The oldest fossil evidence of complex life comes from the Lantian formation, at least 580 million years ago. A quite diverse collection of soft-bodied forms is known from a variety of locations worldwide between 542 and 600 Ma. These are referred to as Ediacaran or Vendian biota. Hard-shelled creatures appeared toward the end of that time span. By the middle of the later Cambrian period a very diverse fauna is recorded in the Burgess Shale, including some which may represent stem groups of modern taxa. The rapid radiation of lifeforms during the early Cambrian is called the Cambrian explosion of life.[6][7]
While land seems to have been devoid of plants and animals, cyanobacteria and other microbes formed prokaryotic mats that covered terrestrial areas.[8]
The Cambrian Period marked a profound change in life on Earth; prior to the Cambrian, living organisms on the whole were small, unicellular and simple. Complex, multicellular organisms gradually became more common in the millions of years immediately preceding the Cambrian, but it was not until this period that mineralized — hence readily fossilized — organisms became common.[8] The rapid diversification of lifeforms in the Cambrian, known as the Cambrian explosion, produced the first representatives of all modern animal phyla. Phylogenetic analysis has supported the view that during the Cambrian radiation metazoa (animals) evolved monophyletically from a single common ancestor: flagellated colonial protists similar to modern choanoflagellates.
The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, currently dated around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms.[note 1] Prior to the Cambrian explosion,[note 2] most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of diversification accelerated by an order of magnitude[note 3] and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today.[5] Many of the present phyla appeared during this period,[6][7] with the exception of Bryozoa, which made its earliest known appearance in the Lower Ordovician.[8]
The Mississippian was a period of marine ingression in the Northern Hemisphere: the ocean stood so high only the Fennoscandian Shield and the Laurentian Shield stood above sea level. The cratons were surrounded by extensive delta systems and lagoons, and carbonate sedimentation on the surrounding continental platforms, covered by shallow seas.[2]
In North America, where the interval consists primarily of marine limestones, it is treated as a geologic period between the Devonian and the Pennsylvanian. During the Mississippian an important phase of orogeny occurred in the Appalachian Mountains. It is a major rock building period named for the exposures in the Mississippi Valley region. The USGS geologic time scale shows its relation to other periods.[3]
In Europe, the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian are one more-or-less continuous sequence of lowland continental deposits and are grouped together as the Carboniferous system, and sometimes called the Upper Carboniferous and Lower Carboniferous instead.
The Permian witnessed the diversification of the early amniotes into the ancestral groups of the mammals, turtles, lepidosaurs and archosaurs. The world at the time was dominated by a single supercontinent known as Pangaea, surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa. The extensive rainforests of the Carboniferous had disappeared, leaving behind vast regions of arid desert within the continental interior. Reptiles, who could better cope with these drier conditions, rose to dominance in lieu of their amphibian ancestors. The Permian Period (along with the Paleozoic Era) ended with the largest mass extinction in Earth's history, in which nearly 90% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species died out.[6] It would take well into the Triassic for life to recover from this catastrophe.
Triassic - Wikipedia`
; The Triassic began in the wake of the Permian—Triassic extinction event, which left the Earth's biosphere impoverished; it would take well into the middle of the period for life to recover its former diversity. Therapsids and archosaurs were the chief terrestrial vertebrates during this time. A specialized subgroup of archosaurs, dinosaurs, first appeared in the Late Triassic but did not become dominant until the succeeding Jurassic.[5] The first true mammals, themselves a specialized subgroup of Therapsids also evolved during this period, as well as the first flying vertebrates, the pterosaurs, who like the dinosaurs were a specialized subgroup of archosaurs. The vast supercontinent of Pangaea existed until the mid-Triassic, after which it began to gradually rift into two separate landmasses, Laurasia to the north and Gondwana to the south. The global climate during the Triassic was mostly hot and dry,[6] with deserts spanning much of Pangaea's interior. However, the climate shifted and became more humid as Pangaea began to drift apart. The end of the period was marked by yet another major mass extinction, wiping out many groups and allowing dinosaurs to assume dominance in the Jurassic.
The Cretaceous—Paleogene (K—Pg) extinction event,[a] formerly known as the Cretaceous—Tertiary (K—T) extinction,\[b\] was a mass extinction of some three-quarters of plant and animal species on Earthincluding all non-avian dinosaursthat occurred over a geologically short period of time 66 million years ago.[2][3] It marked the end of the Cretaceous period and with it, the entire Mesozoic Era, opening the Cenozoic Era which continues today.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : fix quote codes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2014 7:54 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2014 5:37 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 390 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2014 3:47 AM Faith has replied
 Message 392 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2014 8:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025