RE: Extinction scenarios

["Augustus T. White" <augwhite@neosoft.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From:   Dinogeorge@aol.com [SMTP:Dinogeorge@aol.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, August 18, 1998 11:21 PM
To:     jbois@umd5.umd.edu; augwhite@neosoft.com
Cc:     dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject:        Re: Extinction scenarios

<< Otherwise you just seem to be heading toward the: "we don't know how it
happened but there was a lot of ecological turmoil caused, probably, by a
variety of forces, biological and physical (including the bolide) having
unspecified effects."  Which is to say, away from the bolide-as-sufficient
idea! >>

<Ah-->that's< the point I was trying to make. None of those "forces" would 
have
been brought into play >without< the bolide impact, so it is perfectly 
valid
to maintain that the impact >caused< the extinction--through the 
"ecological
turmoil" that it created as well as through its direct physical effects.>

No disagreement there.  My point is that the validity of the bolide 
hypothesis is not a function of new and more creative ways to translate 
kinetic energy into biochemical entropy.  My personal belief is that the 
bolide is a pefectly good and sufficient sole proximate cause (if I can be 
forgiven a legal reference) for the KT extinction.

[Larry Dunn, or any other lawyers out there, can imagine with me Ms. 
Palzgraf being hit with a meteor, instead of fireworks.  What would Cardozo 
have done with that?  You'll have to email me to find out what Calabresi 
would do].

  --Toby White