Unnatural Selection: Chicxulub Impact Highly Selective on Victims

Does it make any sense to believe
that delicate creatures survived
what killed all the dinosaurs?

 

Bivalves Reveal ‘Something Very Weird’:
But Sir Bacon, Our Certainties Won’t Budge

by Ronald Fritz, PhD

Francis Bacon is credited as the father of the scientific method. He once said:

“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.” (Bacon, 1620)

What he meant is simple but profound: starting with preconceived beliefs can lead us to false conclusions, while beginning with doubt and letting the evidence speak for itself leads us closer to truth.

Because of this conviction, Bacon developed what has become modern science’s foundation—a systematic method built not on ancient authorities or pure reasoning, but on observation and inductive logic. He warned that without such discipline, we would cling to error and superstition and miss the truths hidden in nature.

Thankfully, much of modern science has embraced Bacon’s approach—and it’s brought about extraordinary advances. But is this method still consistently followed?

One wonders what Bacon would think of a recent article titled:

“‘Statistically, That Shouldn’t Have Happened’: Something Very Weird Occurred in the Ocean After the Dinosaur-Killing Asteroid Hit” (Stewart Edie, Live Science, 15 June 2025)

This layperson-friendly article, written by researcher Stewart Edie (Smithsonian Institution), summarizes findings from a new study on bivalve fossils—those familiar two-shelled mollusks like clams, oysters, and mussels. The study examined their extinction and survival patterns around the time of the asteroid impact that is widely believed in secular circles to have caused the demise of the dinosaurs some 66 million years ago.

So let’s ask the Baconian question: are these researchers starting with doubt, allowing the data to guide their conclusions? Or are they beginning with “certainties,” using the evidence to affirm accepted beliefs?

They begin their paper with these statements:

“About 66 million years ago – an asteroid smashed into our planet. The fallout was immediate and severe. Ancient fossils recorded it all.”

This opening confidently declares the mainstream theory: that a massive asteroid impact at Chicxulub (Yucatán Peninsula) triggered a “nuclear winter,” disrupting life globally and ending the age of the dinosaurs. Supporting evidence includes the crater itself and a worldwide iridium-rich sediment layer near the boundary of the Cretaceous and Paleogene periods.

Fossils found above this boundary—especially of dinosaurs—are generally dismissed as displaced by geological activity, not as evidence that they lived post-impact. With this framework in place, researchers proceed to investigate how bivalves were affected by the extinction.

What did they find?

“Marine bivalves lost around three-quarters of their species during this mass extinction, which marked the end of the Cretaceous Period.”

But here’s the twist—the “very weird” part: while many species were lost, none of the major functional groups (or “modes of life”) among bivalves appeared to be disproportionately affected. This is unexpected. As the authors admit:

“Kill 70% of bivalve species, even at random, and some modes of life should disappear.”

Especially those dependent on sunlight, which should have perished first in a sun-blocking “nuclear winter.” Yet these survived. The researchers were baffled:

“We thought surely these more specialized modes of life… would have been snuffed out by the effects of the asteroid’s impact, including dust and debris likely blocking sunlight and disrupting… photosynthetic algae and bacteria. Instead, most persisted…”

How can that be? If sunlight was cut off globally, bivalves depending on photosynthetic organisms should have died out quickly. But the data contradict this. In fact, based on unpublished odds estimates, the chance of this outcome under their assumptions is roughly one in 14 billion.

The authors seem to sense the tension—enough, perhaps, to double-check their math—but not enough to question the foundational premise. The guardrails of consensus thinking remain firmly in place.

This isn’t the first time findings have clashed with the “nuclear winter” hypothesis. Consider O’Connor et al. (2023), who studied fossilized bacteria in coal layers before and after the Chicxulub impact. These bacteria thicken or thin their cell walls based on temperature. Their conclusion?

“We found no evidence for the ‘nuclear winter.’” (O’Connor et al., 2023)

Similarly, creationists Sarfati and Tay (2023) pose an important question:

“If an asteroid hit the Earth leading to a nuclear winter, how did photosynthesis-dependent plants survive? Why did delicate bees and moths—or even sensitive amphibians like frogs—survive?”

They continue:

“If volcanic activity and toxic gases filled the Earth after an extinction event, then why did birds survive? Birds have a unique and very efficient lung design…”

These are not trivial points—and yet they’re routinely brushed aside.

If Sir Bacon were here, he might ask: Is this another case of beginning with certainties, then forcing the evidence to fit them? He warned us that man’s default tendency—especially in a fallen state—is to trust ancient authorities and rational constructs more than empirical reality.

And sadly, this isn’t an isolated case. It reflects a pattern. A prevailing secular theory is treated as flawless—until mounting evidence pushes it aside, only to be replaced by another slightly cleaner version of the same underlying assumptions. When one “shirt” becomes too dirty to wear, it’s replaced by the next cleanest in the laundry bin.

So here we are again: the researchers wrap up by calling their findings “very weird” and saying they “leave many questions to explore.” And the cycle continues. An impressive piece of research, undermined by interpretive constraints.

So if the Chicxulub theory collapses, what replaces it?

Perhaps this very data—if followed without precommitments—could point instead to a recent global flood. That idea, while unpopular in secular science, is supported by a growing body of physical evidence:

– Vast sedimentary rock layers stretching across continents, deposited above sea level
– Flat, erosion-free boundaries between layers—unexpected if millions of years separate them
– Simultaneously bent, unfractured strata, suggesting all layers were soft during uplift
– Ephemeral features like animal tracks and raindrop impressions, preserved between layers
– Sea creature fossils on mountain peaks
– Exquisitely preserved fossils, consistent with rapid burial on a massive scale

And much more.

Yet despite such clues, a global flood won’t likely become the next dominant theory. For many, the commitment to deep time and unguided evolution is immovable. And so, square pegs will continue to be hammered into round holes—a costly exercise in missing the point.

So, Sir Bacon, we’re sorry. Today’s scientists conduct world-class research—only to be led astray by preordained conclusions. We can only hope more of them will eventually heed your wisdom:

Start with doubt. Let the evidence lead. Only then will we find truth.

---

Addendum (by Editor, David Coppedge):

Another anomaly in the impact theory was announced recently: certain lizards survived that were living close enough to the impact to see it. How is that statistically probable?

Survivor-Lizards of the Night

Night lizards survived dinosaur-killing asteroid strike, despite being close enough to see it happen (Live Science, 24 June 2025). Patrick Pester writes, “Mysterious night lizards survived the giant asteroid strike that ended the reign of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago, despite living right next to the impact site, a new study finds.”

Enigmatic lizards somehow survived near Chicxulub asteroid impact (New Scientist, 25 June 2025). “The night lizards may have been the only terrestrial vertebrates that survived in the region of the asteroid impact 66 million years ago,” James Woodford says.

How night lizards survived the asteroid that ended the dinosaurs (Phys.org, 28 June 2025). Justin Jackson notes that “if every explosive that humans have ever made all detonated at once, it still wouldn’t come close to the energy released by the Chicxulub asteroid.” Yet somehow nearby lizards survived not only the nearby blast, but the global winter that presumably followed it. How does he explain this? With academic gobbledygook of the speculative kind:

Authors contend that the persistence of night lizards through the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event unsettles assumptions about which traits shield lineages from annihilation. Survival did not depend on broad geographic ranges or large broods, qualities often credited in mammals and birds. Instead, night lizards appear to have crossed the extinction threshold while occupying narrow habitats and producing only one or two offspring per reproductive event.

Night lizards survived the Cretaceous–Palaeogene mass extinction near the asteroid impact (Brownstein et al., The Royal Society Biology Letters, 25 June 2025). Here is the formal paper for those interested who have access.

Who Dreamed Up the Impact Hypothesis?

The asteroid appears to have been highly selective in what it destroyed, if the impact theory is to be believed. It was first proposed in 1980 by father and son Luis and Walter Alvarez. The Chicxulub impact site was identified as the “smoking gun” of the impact shortly after.

The boundless energy, and ego, of Luis Alvarez (Science book review, 10 July 2025). In the new biography Collisions, author Alec Nevala-Lee portrays Luis Alvarez as an energetic, eclectic egomaniac who rubbed a lot of his colleagues the wrong way. His achievements were notable, including a Nobel Prize, but this was the kind of man who came up with the impact theory:

The friction was considerable. Nevala-Lee documents, sometimes with mordant humor, the trail of bruised egos and rolled eyes that Alvarez left in his wake. Physicist Richard Muller, who considered himself a friend, observed, “Luie was actually hated—he was probably the most hated physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab.” Others recall a man whose “fantastic ego” led him to boast endlessly about his youth, intellect, and charm—once even loudly discussing his classified work in a hotel lobby with a naval officer who promptly reported him. This brashness, and a tendency to trample over more cautious collaborators, emerges as both a strength and a flaw. Alvarez got results, but often at the cost of alienating those around him.

Reviewer Ananyo Bhattacharya considers the book “the definitive biography of Luis Alvarez.”

How Impacts Are Dated (Or Not)

Incidentally, two planetary scientists announced a revision to the date of another impact:

Earth’s ‘oldest’ impact crater is much younger than previously thought – new study (The Conversation, 9 July 2025). Down from 3.5 billion years ago to possibly 400 million years ago— wow, that represents a monumental revision! The world’s “oldest impact crater” might be only 11.4% of its earlier date. This shows that dating geological artifacts like impact craters is not an exact science. Could wishful thinking have gone into the date of the Chicxulub crater to make it fit the impact hypothesis? What if the Chicxulub impact had nothing to do with the death of the dinosaurs, as Dr Fritz suggests?

See our previous stories about the Chicxulub impact theory:

• Chicxulub Impact Not a Global Catastrophe (29 March 2006)
• Dinos Not Killed Off by Meteor, but by Worms (24 Oct 2006)
• Evaluating the Chicxulub Impact Dinosaur Extinction Hypothesis (10 Feb 2013)
• Chicxulub Crater Reports Begin (19 Nov 2016)
• Surprises in the Chicxulub Tale of Dino Extinction (5 June 2018)
• Massaging Extinction Narratives with Microfossil Divination (13 Dec 2021)
• Chicxulub: A Consensus With Big Questions (2 Nov 2023)

—End of Addendum—

References:

Bacon, F. (1620). Novum Organum. (P. Urbach & J. Gibson, Trans.). Open Court.

Edie, S. (2025). ‘Statistically, that shouldn’t have happened’: Something very weird occurred in the ocean after the dinosaur killing asteroid hit.  LiveScience.com, 6/15/25.

Edie, S.M., Collins, K.S., & Jablonski, D. (2025). The end-Cretaceous mass extinction restructured functional diversity but failed to configure the modern marine biota. Science Advances, 11(21). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adv1171.

O’Connor, L.K., et al., (2023). Steady decline in mean annual air temperatures in the first 30 k.y. after the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary: Geology, https://doi.org/10.1130/G50588.1

Sarfati, J., Tay, J. (2023). Did a Chicxulub impact wipe out dinosaurs? If not, what did? Creation.com, 5/20/23.

---

Ronald D. Fritz, PhD, is a retired research statistician whose career spanned 27 years. Before entering the field of statistics, he worked as an engineer and engineering manager in the defense industry. He earned his doctorate in Industrial Engineering, with a minor in Mathematical Statistics, from Clemson University, where he was honored as a Dean’s Scholar.

Dr. Fritz served as a consulting statistician across a broad range of industries, culminating in a 12-year role as a global statistical resource at PepsiCo.  During his time at PepsiCo, he led significant research on gluten contamination in oats and its relationship to celiac disease, publishing several articles on the subject.

In retirement, Dr. Fritz developed a deep interest in creation science, sparked by a visit to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. As he delved into the topic, he shared his findings with his pastor, which led to an invitation to speak at their church. This initial presentation opened the door to further speaking engagements at churches throughout the region.

Dr. Fritz has been married for 35 years to his wife, Mitzie. They live in the mountain community of Bee Log, North Carolina, within sight of the church where they were married and now worship. In his free time, Dr. Fritz tends a small chestnut orchard on their property, working to revive what was once a cherished local delicacy. The couple has two adult children.