ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (10/15/85)
Chris Lewis writes: >In article <425@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: >> >>At least one reader has misunderstood one of my statements regarding the >>... >> >>b. In the archaic world, with its lesser gravity, the correct model would be ??????????????????????? >>a vulture-like creature which mostly glided and sought free rides in thermal >>currents and winds, YET NONETHELESS HAD THE POWER TO TAKE OFF FROM LOW GROUND >>AND TO GET BACK HOME AGAINST THE WIND IF IT ABSOLUTELY HAD TO. >Are you *STILL* spouting this bullshit? SHEESH! You seem to be mistaking me for Michael McNeil or Piotr Berman. I am spouting CATASTROPHISM, the only theory of origins which makes sense. The gentlemen I mentioned are attempting to defend what I would call a "bullshit" theory concerning the extinction of the earth's megafauna, actually bullshit both literally and figuratively. They are claiming that by smearing the afore- mentioned comodity all over themselves, ancient man could have snuck up on mammoth herds in Northern Russia and Siberia, and killed enough of them (by cutting their achilles tendons with their straight-razors or spears) to have caused the extinction of the mammoths. Now, this theory seems like bull.... to me (forgive me if I seem to be having too much fun with this one) for several reasons, not the least of which would be one related to the notion of evolution by sexual selection which I read about in various articles on evolution. This would come about due to the fact that it is too cold to ever take showers in Siberia; anyone who hunted that way THERE would never smell right again until the day of judgement, and St. Peter would probably laugh at him then. Now, I claim that this would result in a problem for these hunters when they sought wives for themselves. I mean, have you ever walked into a bar all covered with bullshit and tried to pick up women? I've never tried it but I have to believe it would be pretty near impossible. Thus, I claim that natural selection would have favored hunters who went out and killed deers and rabbits and ducks, and that those who smeared bullshit over themselves and went out after mammoths would have had no progeny. What about the stories you hear about Masai or Pigmy tribesmen killing lions and elephants? From what I can gather, talking to people who have spent time in Africa, this invariably amounts to a once-in-a-lifetime initiation rite or something, and that about half the people attempting such things get killed. This couldn't put a dent in elephant or lion populations; humans would have to be hunting lions or elephants on a regular basis to pose any real threat to them, and nobody is going to be doing anything that dangerous on a regular basis. Being a predator doesn't work that way, for any animal including man. If a predator hunts prey which is capable of killing or disabling him even once out of a hundred times, then, statistically, he isn't going to live longer than his hundredth hunt, in most cases, less than a year.
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (10/18/85)
In article <434@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > >Chris Lewis writes: > > >>In article <425@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: >>> >>>At least one reader has misunderstood one of my statements regarding the >>>... >>> >>>b. In the archaic world, with its lesser gravity, the correct model would be > ??????????????????????? >>>a vulture-like creature which mostly glided and sought free rides in thermal >>>currents and winds, YET NONETHELESS HAD THE POWER TO TAKE OFF FROM LOW GROUND >>>AND TO GET BACK HOME AGAINST THE WIND IF IT ABSOLUTELY HAD TO. > >>Are you *STILL* spouting this bullshit? SHEESH! > > You seem to be mistaking me for Michael McNeil or Piotr Berman. I am >spouting CATASTROPHISM, the only theory of origins which makes sense. The You seem to have changed the topic. What I was referring to was that several posters (including myself) have proved that lower gravity could not have been brought about by having Venus or Saturn orbitting nearby for several reasons. You seem to have accepted this, and are now spouting theories about magnetic shell changes reducing the gravity of the earth. Interesting, but no cigar because there is no connection between gravitation and planetary magnetism. As other posters have pointed out. Now, I don't personally I don't think that ancient man could have made a serious dent in the populations of Mammoths etc. However, there are lots of other things that could have done so. See my previous posting on climactic cycles. Polar precession, which is a measureable and proven phenomenon is perfectly adequate in explaining how the Mammoths died off in Siberia. A fluctuation of 10C in the annual average temp. is perfectly capable of increasing the winter snow depth to prevent Mammoths from feeding. >which I read about in various articles on evolution. This would come about >due to the fact that it is too cold to ever take showers in Siberia; anyone >who hunted that way THERE would never smell right again until the day of >judgement, and St. Peter would probably laugh at him then. Now, I claim >that this would result in a problem for these hunters when they sought >wives for themselves. I mean, have you ever walked into a bar all covered >with bullshit and tried to pick up women? I've never tried it but I have >to believe it would be pretty near impossible. Thus, I claim that natural >selection would have favored hunters who went out and killed deers and rabbits >and ducks, and that those who smeared bullshit over themselves and went out >after mammoths would have had no progeny. First of all, you show a complete lack of understanding what the climate of Siberia is like. Certainly, winters are COLD (averaging around -40 to -50 if I remember rightly), but the summers are quite warm (upper 70's) and are several months long. They can grow crops up there during the summer. Perfectly reasonable for having "showers". I mentioned this in my previous posting. Certainly, waiting 8 months or so for a shower isn't particularly nice. However, read a little history - in Shakespeare's time, people only had one bath per year, when it was time to cut off their winter clothing. Many people wore the same clothes for several months. The people thought that baths caused diseases. Further, many CURRENT cultures (as well as many ancient ones, including 17th century England) had different attitudes towards cleanliness and the appropriate handling of feces. Many native tribes actually DO hunt smeared with excrement EVEN NOW. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/26/85)
In article <434@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > >Chris Lewis writes: > > This would come about >due to the fact that it is too cold to ever take showers in Siberia; anyone >who hunted that way THERE would never smell right again until the day of >judgement, and St. Peter would probably laugh at him then. Now, I claim >that this would result in a problem for these hunters when they sought >wives for themselves. I mean, have you ever walked into a bar all covered >with bullshit and tried to pick up women? I've never tried it but I have >to believe it would be pretty near impossible. Thus, I claim that natural >selection would have favored hunters who went out and killed deers and rabbits >and ducks, and that those who smeared bullshit over themselves and went out >after mammoths would have had no progeny. > Several doubtful assumptions here. First you are assuming that modern NA civilized man's ideas about the pleasantness of odors are universal, they probably are *not* since the affective response to odors is largely a *learned* response in humans. Perhaps the Siberian women *liked* the odor since it indicated a successful hunter and a good provider! Then you assume that a shower is the only way to get clean, it is not. I am sure they had ways of getting clean. Besides the temperature was that cold only during the winter, during the summer it could well have gotten into the 70's. > What about the stories you hear about Masai or Pigmy tribesmen killing lions >and elephants? From what I can gather, talking to people who have spent time >in Africa, this invariably amounts to a once-in-a-lifetime initiation rite or >something, and that about half the people attempting such things get killed. >This couldn't put a dent in elephant or lion populations; humans would have to >be hunting lions or elephants on a regular basis to pose any real threat to >them, and nobody is going to be doing anything that dangerous on a regular >basis. But an initiation ceremony is an *individual* doing the hunting, and as such is not at all comparible to an organized tribal hunt. Then there is the fact that Mammoths were not as large as Elephants. What is usually assumed to have happened is that man's hunting during a time of stress(the retreat of the glaciers) pushed the population over the edge, below the maintenance level. Remember, ecologically similar animals, like the Yak, *still* exist in the same areas as the Mammoth used to. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa