As creative as this theory may be, it fails to mention the many facts which go against it. For example: a meteor will cause a major damage in the area that it has landed, but by no means it will cause the Earth to get significantly dark for months or years; at least, not the meteors which have been found to have collided with the Earth. Another evidence is, the fact that the extinction of the dinosaurs happened much slower than it would have happen if a meteor or meteors would have been the cause.
But the great factor which proves the meteor theory to be wrong, lies in one very significant evidence: if a meteor or meteors really killed the dinosaurs, how come one specific dinosaur with specific qualities survive while the others got extinct? Meteors, by no means, can make this type of natural selection; however, a gradual change in the environment can.
These dinosaurs survivors which I am referring to were the dinosaur like birds which existed during that time.
So the answer to what killed the dinosaurs would most likely lie in a fast environmental change. A change which, for some reason, one or a few dinosaur species with the same qualities were able to survive and adapt, escaping extinction.
By the fact that there are very few fossils of bird like dinosaurs, it is logical to intelligently assume that the evolutionary change of these beings happen very rapidly. In nature, when there is a fast change in the environment, the beings who possess certain qualities which make them fit well enough to take a drastic environmental change, are the ones who are able to escape extinction; but since, in many cases, not too many beings can have these qualities, many of them go extinct while only a few others survive.
Within this fast changing environment, competition is always under pressure, which places the beings with certain specific qualities, withing the fittest groups, to survive more efficiently than the rest, thereby, always making the newer generation, with the fittest genes, the dominant ones. This also creates a fast frame of adaptations, for the newest fittest groups are the ones continuously replacing the past ones.
I believe that, many times, the most fittest groups which are evolving within a fast environment, also tend to become significantly prone to mutations which are also inclined to fit withing that fast environmental change.
So what we usually get within a fast environmental change, is a large amount of extinction followed by the rapid evolution of the few survivors, which usually leaves very few ancestors and fossils behind.
According to the fossil evidence, as well as the biological evidence which can still be seen on the beings of today, I believe that this fast environmental change was probably a drastic change in the light of the sun or the ozone layer.
Based on the bones and other abstract evidence, when we see the dinosaurs, we see them as beings with rough skin able to withstand all of the rays which the sun can deploy, but perhaps all of these beings had a different skin than the ones we imagine, a skin sensitive to certain light rays. If so, then, for some reason, their skin could not take the new rays of the sun, and was not able to mutate fast enough to help the adaptation process.
Furthermore, because they could not adapt, their extinction also damage the web of life, which also cause the extinction of other beings that where not dinosaurs.
Bird dinosaurs, however, since they had feathers, a good mutation already in progress before the sun light began to change, where protected against these light rays and where able to survive, even though, the large collapse of the web of life might have affected a few of them.
Within these group of bird dinosaurs, there were probably individuals which were genetically prone to mutations. Besides this, these mutations were also prone towards a specific direction. For example: the DNA might have been genetically prone to make mistakes in the area of producing less or more feathers.
The DNA, can sometimes become quite clever within an organism. It is, by natural selection, prone to make certain mistakes which are the most required. This is why we rarely get organisms with two heads, but we get many organism with longer or shorter legs, shorter or longer hair, different color of eyes and so on.
So the groups of bird dinosaurs with these types of genetic qualities, were the ones who not only had a chance to survive, but a chance to succeed and take over.
I believe that, until now, I have shown a good theory of how the dinosaurs might have gotten extinct, but by no means I have shown a good amount of evidence that could give this theory a better standing.
It could have been a coincidence that the dinosaurs who survive just happen to have had feathers, and from them birds evolved. However, if we take a look at the beings living today, and the beings which lived during the time of the dinosaurs, we find something very different: before the mass extinction, most of the dominant land and air beings on this planet had bare skin; but after the mass extinction, most of them began to have protective skin covering adaptations such as hair and feathers, and the most dominant reptiles in the oceans, where replaced by those with shells. This factor, I believe, shows a very strong evidence of what when on in the environment during the time of the dinosaurs.
When it comes to reptiles, one good example of this survival adaptation are the turtles. Most of the reptiles living in the oceans today are turtles; but during the time of the dinosaurs, there were many reptiles without shells who also dominated the oceans. Since the oceans are a place without any shade, most of the reptiles who could have survive this drastic change would have been the ones with shells.
As a scientist, it is to my belief that something did, indeed, happen concerning the rays of the sun, which made a drastic change in the way many species look today.
Perhaps, this change was cause by a certain cycle of the sun; or it might have been certain reactions withing the sun star which cause some deadly rays to be deployed for a few million years; or, perhaps, it was a gradual change in the atmosphere which cause the ozone layer to be depleted.
This theory, although strong in evidence, needs a lot more research to get it closer to a fact. If you are a scientist with the knowledge and the means to continue the research on this theory, please do so. It could be quite an exiting opportunity.
This theory is very much open for criticism.