[qam1]

Wow, looks like a lot of the same wheels turning in the same ruts, again. Some raging nimrod added “piltdownman” to the keywords.

It's "studies" like this that give Creationist ammo against all science

You would think the authors would have at the very least check when exactly these animals actually went extinct before proclaiming that a comet wiped them out 1000's of years before they really did die out.

If it makes anyone feel any better, this scenario — which involves bombardment of the Earth by various waves of particles and objects, different sizes and energies, with the waves separated by either hundreds or thousands of years, and originating in a relatively nearby star which went kaboom —

More and more Epicycles!!!!!!!!!

is catching on some, but, as with the Alvarez model for dino extinction via an impact at the K-T boundary, has met with furious resistance.

Megafaunal extinctions followed human arrival in Australia, North America, New Guinea, Madagascar and South America.

Now which makes more sense?

A) Human predation and maybe diseases slowly drove these species to extinction

or

B) Coincidentally, where ever humans arrived, comets/asteroids then began to hit where these new humans were and over 100 to 1000s of years they bombarded the area, leaving no trace, but they somehow killed one or two species off at a time (while apparently leaving the others unscathed) until they were all gone.

[SunkenCiv]

You would think the authors would have at the very least check when exactly these animals actually went extinct before proclaiming that a comet wiped them out 1000's of years before they really did die out.

Over many thousands of years the mammoths were fine. Small populations endured in a few places (including some dwarf variety, which was around perhaps as late as a couple of thousand years ago in Siberia), but almost all of those alive at the time of the bombardments were killed off quite precipitously.

It's "studies" like this that give Creationist ammo against all science

Creationists saddle on anything that seems to support their cause, even if it's false, though they sometimes (if the info gets out) dump it on its ass as if nothing is wrong, a criticism they nearly universally (and justly) raise against Darwinists for doing the same thing.

"Heads I Win, Tails You Lose."

More often though, Creationists regurgitate the same bogus stuff, along with nonsequiturs, such as "more and more epicycles".

There's a real problem among plenty of people (not just Creationists) in accepting the reality of sudden changes to Earth conditions, the most significant of which come from outside the Earth. Over 2000 years ago Aristotle stated that rocks can't come from the sky, and he was dead wrong, but that particular kinda weird (and unsupportable) bias remains strong today, on both sides of the cr/evo debate.

Coincidentally, where ever humans arrived, comets/asteroids then began to hit where these new humans were and over 100 to 1000s of years they bombarded the area, leaving no trace, but they somehow killed one or two species off at a time (while apparently leaving the others unscathed) until they were all gone.

Besides being a straw man argument, it's a simpleminded belief, rooted as it is in the false idea that dinosaurs -- which were in fact wiped out 65 million years ago, by an asteroid impact -- were on the Earth in the time of humans. They weren't. My reference to wheels turning in the same ruts pertains to that, as well as to the evo catechisms.