prehistoric and current animal life

It's true for whales, descended from this little land-based critter from 50 million years ago:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/nature06343.html

thing's don't seem to be obvious in the matter, feather's , they are related to skin . The obvious sign's in relation to a whale and evolution from a small creature with all the attributes of a deovlved carnivore and the indifferance of a whale 's physical appearance , only support's my view that prehistoric creature have just deovolved to what we have here today and this is supported by the fact that the meteor theory is buncum , as many remains of dino's have been found after the date of all had demized in there ussual habitat feeding or just there turf if you like , there are to many close connections with reptiles and amphibious reptile . The bird connection could just be another connection with what I originaly said that the animal's we have today could be the re evolved form of dino's I wonder what will happen after say human life demized and the animal kingdom fruitated over another say 100 million years then what would we see , what would be the outcome .

What do you mean by "re evolved" form of dinos?

You are familiar with Gerta Kellers thesis? She and a colleague have sampled the area near Chixculib and have found 52 species below and just above the meteor impact area. NONE of these species were dinosaurs. Gerta has had a lifes mission to come up with another death blow to dinosaurs. She has come up with some REAL evidence that vulcanism, also played a role.

I read her article in the GSA Journal and I feel that its her thesis thats bunk, TIME mag picked up her article, distilled it and removed all science to make it palatable for children. Her data is not compelling because she relies on sedimentary rates that are , to her, unchanged for a 300K period of time post Chixiculub. Thats just crap. ALl around there was evidence of tsunamis and massive stratigraphic discontinuity, but not in her field area.
Id need to see her field site cause I dont believe it at all.
I hate it when some scientific debate gets turned into a cartoon for weekly news mags.

Keller had some interesting finds several years ago when she showed clearly that the dinosaurs were already disappearing at a pretty good clip well before the terminal K/T event. These data , published in several joiurnals were from worldwide sampling areas and showed that several species of the "duckbills" were declining in their traditional paleoenvironments as the environments themselves began to change. Now, with her latest "animals survived the chixiculub' I think she has not provided anything relevant about a terminator event(s).

David Raup had a more scholarly explanation for the offing of the dinosaur.

"It had gone on quite long enough and it was a bad idea to begin with"

I reread Kellers article in the Journal GSA and she postulates that , because the "iridium layer and the "terminator layer" whisch contains all the melted glass blebs are separated by several stratigraphic layers which are quiet water deposition features, she states that there were actually 2 bolide strikes.

My problem with all the bolide strike theories is that

1we can see that in the Maastrichtian period or the late K, they can see that dinosaurs were already disappearing. Then, all of a suddne, a bolide the size of Manhattan hits Cancun and then the dinosaurs all died.

HOW come we dont see any evidence of dinosaur fossils right at the bolide iridium layer and the KT boundary? If we look at this forensically, we dont have any corpus delictii. EVery time I asked this question of my paleo colleagues they tell me that my question is silly. If we make and argument that a truck hit and killed somone, we usually have a body and a dented truck. Here we have a bolide hitting the earth and lots of stratigraphic evidence, we have the ash and fern explosion at the KT boundary, we have no dinos after the KT, but theres no place on earth where it appears that a dinosaur got snuffed by the bolide and left a fossil at the boundary or just after.

The dinosaurs all got hit by a truck? Ain't that kinda deus ex machina?

STop the lame humor or the rest of the puppets get it.

Doorsmad - there are no birds and no feathers in the post to which you are replying. The skeleton of the extinct land creature shown in it is an ancestor of whales.

Btw, doesn't it strike you as somewhat ambitious to express views on paleobiology before you have completed basic grammar class, including how to add an "s" in order to form a plural? At least try and distinguish between "birds" and "whales", if only phonetically. Thanks.

Speculation is fine, but it's nice to at least have your foot in the door with regard to the established facts of biology first. Otherwise you're just spinnin' a good yarn.

There was a show on TV recently called "life after humans" or something like that, which speculated on what the planet would be like if humans vanished and other animals "fruitated" (good word by the way ) over time. You might find it on YouTube if you're interested.

sorry, all I meant was that from your example of the forfather of the whale , I rest my case that the the pic you added of the dino had evolved into a whale , and that support's the fact the whale is here today and as I said so are alot of species of animal life that also have , lizard's turtle snake croc rino whale komodo dragon , emu kangaroo , platupus

The pic of a skeleton which HighSeas provided is not of a Dino. It's of a mammal. There's a big difference.

Dinosaurs and Mammals are from different *branches* of the genetic tree. You seem to be thinking of genetic evolution as a linear progression rather than the branching structure that it is.