Re: paleonet Systematics surprisingly interesting Pt.II

["Michael Kishel" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This isn't exactly my field so I could be thinking incorrectly but I thought
I would ask.  Doesn't the fact that the overall size of animals across the
time period in question decreasing in size generally support this idea of
the earths mass increasing substantially (i.e. more mass = greater
gravitation)?  Again forgive me if my thinking isn't quite on as this is not
my area.  It would seem to me from a biomechanical perspective (my area)
that increasing gravitation would favor the evolution of smaller animals.
The only way that I can think of to increase gravitation would be an
increase in mass.  If true then this could provide some insight into the
extinction of the very large animals.  Does this support the theory that you
are talking about or am I on the wrong track altogether?

-Michael Kishel

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Jackson" <strangetruther@yahoo.com>
To: <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk>
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 10:56 AM
Subject: paleonet Systematics surprisingly interesting Pt.II


> The homepage for the movie I mentioned in the last
> posting (
> jerwood.nhm.ac.uk/archives/paleonet/2003/msg02210.html
> ) is:  www.4threvolt.com .
>
> I asked Dennis after his Expanding Earth talk (at the
> 5th Biennial meeting of the Systematics Association at
> Cardiff Uni.) whether there was enough evidence for
> extra matter hitting the land crust as meteorites etc
> in the last 200mys - presumably he didn't mean it was
> being "beamed in"... , but he said there was a net
> influx of subatomic particles into the earth.
>
> Hmm...would that have created the pattern of elements
> and minerals we suspect throughout the earth?  But
> maybe the person who knows exactly what the missing
> mass in the universe is doing is the one entitled to
> say it's impossible!  Remember, it was the rejection
> due to unknown mechanism that unjustifyably prevented
> continental drift from being accepted.  Nonetheless
> I'd guess neither beams nor meteorites have increased
> the earth's mass.
>
> However the convenor during that strand said, quite
> rightly, "...if we accept the expanding earth for the
> moment, just for the sake of argument..." and there
> was a beautiful moment as a slight flutter of nervous
> laughter and a lot of anxious looks went round the
> room.  The theory does claim to explain a few things
> nothing else can at the moment: the funny fossil
> record of India (it didn't have to rush anywhere in
> much of a hurry, I am told), and in particular why
> there is absolutely no deep ocean crust over 200my old
> anywhere, but from that date there's a reasonable
> amount of all ages.  Dennis also says the Tethys is
> being accepted as being closed (or surely that was
> "pretty closed" at a certain time).
>
> I don't mind what happens - I'd love it to be true,
> but if it isn't, it's another splendid example of
> nature being misleading.  I'd guess the true story
> will turn out to go something like this (though I
> don't believe *exactly* this more than anything else):
>
> At one time, perhaps just after the surface became
> solid (and after the moon thing happened), the earth
> really was 20% of its current volume, and the crust
> fitted perfectly all over, just as EE says it did
> 200mya.  Gradually an accretion of meteorites etc
> pumped it up to it's current volume (only a lot
> earlier) and the scars were removed by melting
> underneath, surface erosion, vulcanism etc, but at
> least the pieces of the ripped waistcoat pattern of
> recent times were established.
>
> The exact matching across the southern Pacific of both
> coastlines and interrupted species ranges is explained
> equally well by both EE and versions of current
> tectonic plate theory positing a mesozoic split
> between Australia and S. Am, so doesn't count as
> evidence.  The "coastline matching" in the north
> Pacific (very much edge of continental plate stuff
> there) might be explained by a very much earlier
> split, and maybe the species matching there can be
> explained by frequent Berengia links sharpened by
> subsequent climatic strictures.  (Not saying it's
> exactly a good match for alligators, but that
> explanation works for their current China/SE USA
> distribution, utilising a Panama gap.)  This could
> include freshwater fish lines even the ones without
> ocean-going representatives.  There is still the neat
> complete absence of pre 200myo deep sea crust and
> normal service for everything since to be explained,
> though perhaps it is accounted for by standard plate
> tectonics.
>
> One strand of the symp. was biogeography, and Isabel
> Sanmartin's talk on the event-based approach to
> historical biogeography mentioned a characterisic
> pattern of animal relationships between Australia, NZ
> and S.Am as: (NZ(Aus, S.Am)) whereas for plants
> (S.Am(Aus, NZ)) is more characteristic.  A native
> commented later that NZ is considered to have been 81%
> - 91% entirely submerged in the "Oligocene drowning"
> of 30mya; many now think all NZ's flightless birds
> flew there in the last 40mys.  Dennis the EE man has
> NZ's original positioning as due south of Tasmania,
> with T fitting into the bay at the top of N NZ, though
> that may be old hat now for all I know.  But those
> familial groupings might be explained by all mammals
> and birds on NZ being exterminated by floods,
> glaciation and extreme fragmentation, but plants
> either survived as seeds or isolated specimens on
> small islands, or enjoyed preferential driftability
> along with Sphenodon (whose source population on Aus
> then died out).
>
> (contd. on next posting.)
>
> JJ
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>