They say 80-90% of species but to get those numbers, in terms of actual individuals basically everything died right? Like you could walk the surface of earth 50 years later and it would have just looked like the surface of mars for hundreds of miles, with a random valley here or there with 10 inbred animals and a few ferns yes?
>>17014489They pull whatever number sounds good out of their ass. It's not something that can be tested.
>>17014561My guess is if you locked a houseplant in a closet with no light and whatever happens to it, like that
>>17014489>Like you could walk the surface of earth 50 years later and it would have just looked like the surface of mars for hundreds of miles, with a random valley here or there with 10 inbred animals and a few ferns yes?More or less. If you're talking about the Permian-Triassic Extinction; absolutely. The Nanjing Institute of Geology and the Missouri University of Science, are currently digging up one such site in Taodonggou Xinjiang China - where the *local* extinction rate was only like 21% and something comparatively lush continued to persist in an isolated valley refugee while everything else was a barren, hot, stinky, wasteland.
>>17014489You would see lystrosaurus dominate. No single species has ever dominated Earth to such a degree, not even people (yet). Basically all other life had to reevolve to survive in lystrosaurus' presence.
>>17014489>like the surface of mars for hundreds of milesIt was cold and wet. Actual hell for dinosaurs with big energy demands. Under the surface of the cold goo and water were the things whose lineages persisted
