Part 2- Some Older Posts about Unanswered Questions in Paleontology

As mentioned in the previous post- over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been diving into three fresh posts covering modern issues: the shift of video gaming toward glorified gambling, the link between being born after the early 1970s and worse life and career prospects in the West, and a rundown of major tech hype cycles that flopped over the past 20 years. Unfortunately, a week-long respiratory illness and unexpected work demands have delayed their completion. In the meantime, I’ll share some more of my older posts about one of my passions—paleontology. Many of you may not know, but when I launched this Substack, my earliest posts focused on this fascinating subject.

1] Unanswered Questions about the Cretaceous–Tertiary Extinction

This post challenges the conventional explanation for the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) extinction event, which is often attributed solely to a comet or asteroid impact. It argues that the current theory to explain this event is incomplete and inconsistent, emphasizing that any hypothesis relying on received authority rather than evidence resembles religion. It does not deny that a large impact event occurred at around the time of the K-T extinction, which wiped out non-avian dinosaurs, most large marine reptiles, pterosaurs, many mammals, and most bird species. However, it questions the ‘impact-only’ hypothesis by highlighting a significant gap of 100-200 thousand years between the youngest dinosaur fossils and the iridium layer associated with the impact, suggesting other factors were at play. It points to the formation of Deccan Traps, a massive volcanic event in southwest India that began 200-300 thousand years before the impact, which released vast amounts of gases and particulates that likely contributed to the extinction. The author suggests that dismissing this massive and prolonged volcanic event may stem from biases within the scientific community.

The post also explores inconsistencies in the extinction patterns, particularly why some birds survived while non-avian dinosaurs, including bird-like dinosaurs with similar traits, did not. The author notes the close evolutionary relationship between some theropod dinosaurs and modern birds, citing examples like Eosinopteryx and Aurornis, which blur the line between dinosaurs and birds. It asks why flighted birds survived but pterosaurs, highly adept flyers, went extinct, despite some of them being comparable in size to modern birds. Similarly, the survival of crocodilians but not smaller mosasaurs or small omnivorous dinosaurs raises further questions. The author argues that factors like size, burrowing behavior, or omnivory, often cited as reasons for mammalian survival, do not adequately explain why similar small dinosaurs or archaic birds perished. The post concludes that current theories about the K-T extinction are inadequate, leaving many questions unanswered about the combination of factors involved in that extinction event and why certain groups survived while others did not, promising further exploration in a future post.

2] More Unanswered Questions about the Cretaceous–Tertiary Extinction

This post continues the critique of conventional understanding for the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) extinction event, further emphasizing its incomplete and inconsistent explanations. It questions why certain vertebrate groups, such as modern birds (Neornithes), survived while other closely related groups like Enantiornithes, Hesperornithes, and Ichthyornithes went extinct, despite their similarities in size, flight capabilities, and habitat diversity. Enantiornithes, for instance, were more numerous, occupied a broader range of habitats, and were likely as adept at flying as Neornithes, yet they vanished. The popular explanation that smaller body sizes (under 10-20 kg) favored survival fails to account for these discrepancies, as both groups had comparable size ranges. The survival of some non-Neornithes birds, like Qinornis, into the early Paleocene further complicates the narrative. Additionally, aquatic bird-like groups such as Ichthyornithes and Hesperornithes, which resembled modern seagulls and diving birds, should have had better access to food resources than land-dwelling Neornithes, yet they perished, highlighting the issues with current theories.

The post also examines marine survivors and extinctions, noting that while mosasaurs, which ranged from alligator-sized to massive 40-60 foot species, went extinct, but crocodilians, turtles, and sharks survived. Mosasaurs were more diverse and widespread than crocodilians, occupying varied ecological niches, yet none survived. Similarly, marine turtles, bony fish, and certain cephalopods (like nautiloids and squids) endured, while ammonoids and belemnoids did not. The survival of crocodile-like Choristodera into the Eocene, only to later go extinct, adds further complexity. The author questions why bees survived despite the devastation of terrestrial plants and why mammalian lineages, though persistent, took 10-15 million years to evolve into larger forms like deer or pigs. Meanwhile, large flightless carnivorous birds, such as Phorusrhacidae, dominated as top predators post-extinction, raising questions about the absence of large mammalian predators during this period. The rapid and almost recovery of Earth’s ecosystems within a hundred thousand years (potentially as short as few thousand years) adds another layer to the mystery.

3] Human Faces and Figures are Curiously Absent from Paleolithic Cave Art

The post makes the point that professionals within scientific fields, reliant on their careers, often avoid asking disruptive questions to preserve their standing, likening scientific practice to religion due to its adherence to religious dogma. This sets the stage for their exploration of a peculiar aspect of Paleolithic and Mesolithic cave art: the near absence of detailed human depictions. Despite the remarkable accuracy and detail in cave art worldwide—showcasing animals like aurochs, wild horses, woolly rhinos, and mammoths with correct proportions, postures, and even coat colors—human figures are consistently underrepresented and, when present, are reduced to simplistic stick figures, outlines of hands, or enigmatic forms resembling "grey aliens." This contrasts sharply with the detailed animal representations, raising questions about why early humans, capable of sophisticated artistry, avoided portraying themselves with similar care.

The post highlights the global consistency of this pattern across prehistoric cave art from Western Europe, Africa, the Middle East, India, the Americas, and Australia, noting that even Neanderthals created animal-focused art before modern humans. It questions why cave artists, who depicted copulating mammals, did not portray human activities like sex or significant figures like chieftains or attractive individuals, despite the absence of apparent taboos against representing human hands in detail. The shift in artistic focus during the Bronze Age, when human-centric art became prevalent, prompts speculation about what changed in human cognition or society with the advent of metal use and settled agriculture. The post dismisses claims about potential rare human face reliefs as insufficient to explain this almost universal phenomenon, emphasizing the mystery of why stone age artists prioritized wild animals over human subjects, which were arguably more immediate and socially significant. It leaves open the question of what cultural or psychological shift might explain this artistic choice.

What do you think? Comments?