ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (10/10/85)
My apologies to anyone who has seen this article more than once. We've
been having major problems with usenet in the D.C. area. Since Sept. 15,
when the CVL computer at U. Md. was taken down with no warning to anyone
below it on usenet (which is most of the D.C. area), very little has
gotten through one way or the other. For awhile, it will be difficult to
tell what has gotten through and what hasn't.
Where would you go to look for mammoth bones? As good a place as any
would be the Liakhov and Novo Sibirsk islands, which lie between Siberia and
the polar ice cap. D. Gath Whitley, in an article titled "The Ivory Islands
in the Arctic Ocean" in the Journal of the Philosophical Society of Great
Britain, wrote the following concerning the Liakhovs:
Such was the enormous quantity of mammoth remains that it seemed
... that the island was actually composed of the bones and tusks of
elephants, cemented together by icy sand.
The same is true of all of the Liakhov and Novo Sibirsk islands. There is
no question of man having killed all these mammoths off; humans don't
inhabit the area. Novo Sibirsk and the Liakhovs are a frozen wasteland for
all but two months of the year, during which they are a semi-frozen
wasteland. The real question is, "How in the world did elephants live there
to begin with?".
Most scholars, (who have never really thought about the problems
involved), see the mammoths with their woolly coats and figure they must
have had an easy time living in ice and snow. But that is rubbish. No fur
coat of any kind would prevent any creature from starving, which is all that
would happen to any kind of elephant which were to parachute into Novo
Sibirsk today. In fact, amongst the creatures which have good fur coats and
would not last a single day in Novo Sibirsk in winter, one could mention
lions, leopards, gorillas, chimps, orangs, AND the woolly mammoth.
Elephants require a great quantity of leaves to eat, EVERY DAY OF THE
YEAR, and they aren't terribly good at walking huge distances to find it.
Therefore, you only find them in tropical zones. There is no possibility
that an elephant could survive the winter in Va. or Md., much less Novo
Sibirsk. To do so, he would have to either make it on pine needles and/or
dead leaves, or hibernate; there is no way. If a road from India to Novo
Sibirsk were opened, no elephant foolish enough to take it would ever get
there; he would perish in the Russian winter far short of the promised
land.
Immanuel Velikovsky's scenario in which the mammoths were living
peacefully in their tropical forrest until it became an arctic zone
overnight, so quickly in fact, that some of their bodies froze before
decomposing at all and remain thus perfectly preserved today, is the only
scenario possible for these creatures. Given the uniformitarian version of
the earth's history, no mammoth bones would ever have been found in such a
place.
The pictures and displays which science presents of mammoths walking
around in ice and snow, are actually more properly suited to the realm of
psychadelia, pink dancing elephants, Dr. Timothy Leary etc. The next time
any of you see such a display in a museum, rather than saying to the exhibit
director:
"I say, you chaps must keep on your toes, to know so much about
creatures which perished so long ago."
which is what he expects to hear, say:
"HEY MAN, what you been SMOKIN, to have dreamed THAT **** up?"
which is what he deserves to hear.pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (10/14/85)
In article <428@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > Where would you go to look for mammoth bones? As good a place as any >would be the Liakhov and Novo Sibirsk islands, which lie between Siberia and >the polar ice cap. Actually, there are several places in the US that I would go looking for mammoth bones. Washington state is a good place (I have helped excavated two such sites, one skeleton is in the Burke museum at University of Washington in Seattle (contact Dr. John Rensberger for info).The other was recovered when I was at Western Washington University in Bellingham Washington (contact Dr. Don Easterbrook for mor information). A documented mastodon kill site was uncovered at a site in Sequim Washington (contact Dr.Carl Gustafson,Washington State University --Manis dig). Then of course, I know of several really good areas in the limestone sinkholes of Florida! Where several full or nearly full skeletons have been unearthed. Add Texas to the list, as well as several other US states --(oh and don't forget Canada -- near the Us border as well as the Arctic). > D. Gath Whitley, in an article titled "The Ivory Islands >in the Arctic Ocean" in the Journal of the Philosophical Society of Great >Britain, wrote the following concerning the Liakhovs: > > Such was the enormous quantity of mammoth remains that it seemed > ... that the island was actually composed of the bones and tusks of > elephants, cemented together by icy sand. > >The same is true of all of the Liakhov and Novo Sibirsk islands. There is >no question of man having killed all these mammoths off; humans don't >inhabit the area. Novo Sibirsk and the Liakhovs are a frozen wasteland for >all but two months of the year, during which they are a semi-frozen >wasteland. The real question is, "How in the world did elephants live there >to begin with?". > > Most scholars, (who have never really thought about the problems >involved), see the mammoths with their woolly coats and figure they must >have had an easy time living in ice and snow. But that is rubbish. No fur >coat of any kind would prevent any creature from starving, which is all that >would happen to any kind of elephant which were to parachute into Novo >Sibirsk today. In fact, amongst the creatures which have good fur coats and >would not last a single day in Novo Sibirsk in winter, one could mention >lions, leopards, gorillas, chimps, orangs, AND the woolly mammoth. > (Sigh. Why is it that the uninformed public believe that science is based on just single facts or conjectures?(-:) Arctic Mammoth (and Mastodon) survival characteristics: 1) average of 3 INCHES of subcutaneous fat only seen in the cold weather forms--not seen in modern elephants 2) 2 -layered wool coat (similar to Arctic musk oxen) layer 1 - soft thick wooolen down close to skin, high in lanolin,very warm (Note: this is also seen in the muskoxen wool which is highly prized in the Seattle area for maximum amont of warmth with the least amont of wool) layer 2 - thick overlying thatch of hair that is very water resistent (Note:This is another common feature of arctic and winter adaptation-- Even my 1/2 coyote pet has the same adaptation for the winters around here -- and he sleeps comfortably outside in below freezing snowy weather.) 3)Smaller ears and trunks than modern elephants (Note; a perfect adaptation for cutting down body heat loss) 4) Environment preferred by arctic types- steppes (arid grasslands, typified by loess soils and extreme temperature range.) (Note:The preferrence for tough tundra and steppe type vegetation is reflected in the diferences in the dentition(tooth structure) between the more arctic (grasslands) mammoths and the more forest dwelling mastodons (which is also reflected in the site environments of these two fossil types.)) These are all difinitive features needed for living in the environments attributed to these types. These are all different from modern proboscidean forms. Mammoths and mastodons ARE NOT ELEPHANTS -- they are elephant relatives! Especially the mastodons -- whose skeleton and especially teeth have significant differences! Now as for size (A point commonly brought up in hunting discussion): ------- Mammoths averaged only around 10-11 feet during their heyday. Individuals as large as 14 1/2 feet high at the shoulders were more the exception than the norm. Furthermore, in areas where the environment showed significant reduction of their normal environment there was a tendancy towards dwarfism(more a response of decreasing the demand on the remaining environmental resources than a change in the species -- This was occurring at the time man was entering the area, thereby making hunting them less incredible than one might think.) extreme temperature range) ------- Mastodons were generally smaller than mastodons, around 7-8 feet at the shoulder. Other facts: In the New world there were 4 species of mammoths (All in the colder North American continent- mainly in the grasslands) 4 species of mastodons (Only 1 species in the North American Continent - found in conifer areas (Florida,Texas and rest of southern portions just after the glacial period, further north later such as Washington)-- all the rest are in the warmer conifer and forested areas of South America.) > Elephants require a great quantity of leaves to eat, EVERY DAY OF THE >YEAR, and they aren't terribly good at walking huge distances to find it. >Therefore, you only find them in tropical zones. There is no possibility >that an elephant could survive the winter in Va. or Md., much less Novo >Sibirsk. To do so, he would have to either make it on pine needles and/or >dead leaves, or hibernate; there is no way. If a road from India to Novo >Sibirsk were opened, no elephant foolish enough to take it would ever get >there; he would perish in the Russian winter far short of the promised >land. > I wouldn't expect an elephant to live in the areas you just pointed out, but a mommoth or mastodon I have no doubts. Just like I'd expect a musk oxen or a yak to survive, or an arctic rabbit, ptarmigarn etc.etc.etc to survive. They are well adapted to the area. > Immanuel Velikovsky's scenario in which the mammoths were living >peacefully in their tropical forrest until it became an arctic zone >overnight, so quickly in fact, that some of their bodies froze before >decomposing at all and remain thus perfectly preserved today, is the only >scenario possible for these creatures. Given the uniformitarian version of >the earth's history, no mammoth bones would ever have been found in such a >place. > The factor that keeps being overlooked when discussing arctic finds is the nature of permafrost and soil production in the arctic. To begin with there is very little soil production in the arctic. This leads to very thin soil cover over the permafrost. Anything that dies in such an environment -- especially if it getshave to go system going down.:wq > The pictures and displays which science presents of mammoths walking >around in ice and snow, are actually more properly suited to the realm of >psychadelia, pink dancing elephants, Dr. Timothy Leary etc. The next time >any of you see such a display in a museum, rather than saying to the exhibit >director: > > "I say, you chaps must keep on your toes, to know so much about > creatures which perished so long ago." > >which is what he expects to hear, say: > > "HEY MAN, what you been SMOKIN, to have dreamed THAT **** up?" > >which is what he deserves to hear.
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/16/85)
In article <428@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > ... > > Immanuel Velikovsky's scenario in which the mammoths were living >peacefully in their tropical forrest until it became an arctic zone >overnight, so quickly in fact, that some of their bodies froze before >decomposing at all and remain thus perfectly preserved today, is the only ^^^^^^^^ >scenario possible for these creatures. ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > The pictures and displays which science presents of mammoths walking >around in ice and snow, are actually more properly suited to the realm of >psychadelia, pink dancing elephants, Dr. Timothy Leary etc. The next time >any of you see such a display in a museum, rather than saying to the exhibit >director: > > "I say, you chaps must keep on your toes, to know so much about > creatures which perished so long ago." > >which is what he expects to hear, say: > > "HEY MAN, what you been SMOKIN, to have dreamed THAT **** up?" > >which is what he deserves to hear. It is funny that this man thinks that popular depictions of how things may have been are science. Pictures of wooly mammoths trudging around in the snow are speculations based on scientifically studied data. But that is not the real point that I am posting this follow-up. This crackpot regularly spouts religion based creationism and blind speculation as "the only scenario possible". As a thinking human being I resent the way this man denegrates scientific theories by questioning the notion of proof (in a previous posting) and then asserts with all certitude that some wild and unfounded speculation is the "only scenario possible". To this man science needs some precise and infallible method of proof in order to find truth. Since this doesn't exist (here comes the non-sequiter) the scientific method must fail when there is a conflict between what a scientist theorizes and what he believes/has faith in/hopes to be true. In effect, what this man is doing is rejecting reasoned discourse for superstition and wild speculation. I suppose he was disillusioned when he found out that science is a human endeavor and hence subject human failures. Now he can rest assured that in superstition and wild speculation he has found the truth and authority that science failed to provide. Let us all hope that he writes the science textbooks our children will use in their formative years :-) (if he does 8-O would be a more appropriate face). p.s. sorry for the flame, but the devil made me do it.