?
I don't...
I see.
I'll look for them. But I think their refutations have also
been mentioned numerous times onlist and in said literature.
That I criticized your calling something gradual "shockwaves"
can easily be considered useless semantics. That you wrote the ejecta layer of 3
mm in total extends globally is simply wrong, though.
I didn't. Thanks for the information.
I think the null hypothesis should be that something as catastrophic as a
huge impact should cause real trouble, not that nothing happens
and life ignores the effects of a multi-teraton explosion. I think the burden of
proof is on those that advocate the latter. (And, of course, on all those who
try to specify what "real trouble" exactly is.)
That I hate something is of course not a scientific argument. I apologize.
What I tried to say is just that "survival of the fittest" is not the whole
story and not well applicable to mass extinctions, and there are scientific
arguments (which I won't use to bore everyone by repeating them now) for
this.
|