[net.origins] Extinction

hardie@uf-csg.UUCP (Peter T Hardie [stdnt]) (11/02/84)

	A question to the creationists.
	If the major reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs is the Flood
that Noah survived, then why did the aquatic dinosuars die?  Many of them were
as adapted, if not better adapted, than whales, which survived.
	A corollary question is why are there 3 (at least) distinct races of
humans, since the only human survivors were Noah and his family.  I can see the
*remote* possibility of two races from that family, but not 3+!!!!
	(I am reminded of Gene Rodenberry's talk on the result of submitting
the Bible to TV censors as a script.  "...incestuous...recommend a fleet of
arks, or possibly strong swimmers from other families...")





I believe Spinoza said "The will of God is the refuge of incompetents"
-- 
	Pete Hardie, Univ. of Florida, CIS Gould
		username: hardie

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/09/84)

> 
> 	A question to the creationists.
> 	If the major reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs is the Flood
> that Noah survived, then why did the aquatic dinosuars die?  Many of them were
> as adapted, if not better adapted, than whales, which survived.

Aquatic dinosaurs?  Like crocodiles and alligators?
-- 
Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (11/09/84)

[I have this neurotic fear of nuclear war.]

>> 	If the major reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs is the Flood
>> that Noah survived, then why did the aquatic dinosuars die?  Many of them 
>> were as adapted, if not better adapted, than whales, which survived.

>Aquatic dinosaurs?  Like crocodiles and alligators?

I believe the reference here is to the plesiosaurs.  On the basis of
their skeletal features they are distinctly different from crocodiles
and alligators.  In fact, they were true aquatic animals (as opposed
to crocs which have an amphibious lifestyle).  They are usually
assigned, on the basis of their skeletons, a closer degree of relationship
to dinosaurs than to crocodiles.  
                         
"I can't help it if my     Ethan Vishniac
    knee jerks"         {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                           Department of Astronomy
                           University of Texas
                           Austin, Texas 78712

friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (11/15/84)

<>

> > 
> > 	A question to the creationists.
> > 	If the major reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs is the Flood
> > that Noah survived, then why did the aquatic dinosuars die?
> > Many of them were as adapted, if not better adapted, than whales,
> > which survived.
> 
> Aquatic dinosaurs?  Like crocodiles and alligators?
> -- 
> Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

No, I think he means things like plesiosaurs, and ichthyosaurs.

ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (09/07/85)

     In  an  article  now  on  the  net  entitled "Powerlifting and the
Ultrasaur", I  present  an  outright  mathematical  and  physical proof
that  at  least  one  species  of  sauropod could not possibly exist or
function in our gravity.  The conclusion regarding the ultrasaur was:

>    It would thus seem that, given our gravity,  there is  a threshold
>for size  and weight  beyond which  no animal  could be wide enough to
>provide a base for the legs it would take to bear it's own weight.  An
>animal  beyond  that  threshold  should  properly  be  regarded  as  a
>mathematical impossibility  in  our  world,  given  our  gravity.  The
>ultrasaur is beyond that point by a considerable margin.

     For  anyone  who  was  having  problems  understanding why some of
these creatures  could  not  function  in  our  world  as  it presently
exists, I  can honestly  say I've  done all I can to help you.  I would
now like to take one last stab at a sensible approach to the problem of
the extinction  of virtually  all of this planet's large animals before
changing the topic to something more interesting.

     I don't particularly  like  being  involved  in  an  argument over
whether  or  not  man  could  have  caused the extinction of any or all
of  the  planet's  megafauna.   The  notion  seems  preposterous  to me
and, frankly, it was not what I expected as a retort when I first wrote
one or  two articles  on catastrophic  evolution and  extinction on the
net.   I  actually  had  replies  ready for several more sensible kinds
of retorts which I expected, but  which never  materialized.  But let's
talk about  reality for  awhile.  Let's  take a hard look at this whole
notion of stampeding animals over a cliff.

     What  would  I  want  for  an  ideal  victim  for  such  a hunting
technique,  assuming  I  intended  to  practice  it?   Several  things,
actually.  These would include:

     1.   I would want the prey to be as  stupid as  possible.  Cattle,
          deer, or bison obviously qualify.  Elephants are a bad choice
          from this angle.

     2.   I would want the prey to  be  fairly  short  i.e. have  a low
          eye-view of  the world  so the lead animals would not see the
          edge of the cliff  untill too  late.  Giraffes  and elephants
          are  the  two  worst  choices  on the planet from this angle.
          Again, bison might be a reasonable choice.

     3.   I would want the prey to  travel in  large herds  so that the
          animals in the rear of the stampede would push those in front
          over the cliff without  hearing  any  cries  of  warning etc.
          Elephants  travel  in  small  groups (females and calves) and
          singly (bulls);  again, not the right choice.

     4.   I would want the prey to be big enough to justify the effort,
          but not big enough to pose any ridiculous danger to me and my
          companions.  Again,  elephants are  the wrong  choice;  bison
          would be more like it.


     I  can't  believe  that  writers  on  net.origins keep refering to
mammoths as  HERD  ANIMALS.   New  York  city  street  gangs  travel in
something like  the same  numbers as elephant groups; that doesn't make
them herd animals.  I  have to  believe that  attempting to  stampede a
group  of  elephants  over  a  cliff  would be about like attempting to
stampede one of these street gangs over a 40 story roof top or the high
point  of  the  G.W. bridge.   I  would expect either group to turn and
fight to the death before going over the edge.  In any scene  of actual
human inflicted  carnage amongst mammoths in the vacinity of a cliff, I
would expect to find the mammoths AT THE  TOP OF  THE CLIFF,  DEAD FROM
SPEAR WOUNDS, along with many human skeletons.  

     Conversely, I can think of several reasons not involving man why a
herd of elephants might have ended up over  a cliff  on occasion, which
might or might not have left any obvious signs as to cause.  Aside from
several effects due to catastrophies which I could think of,  loco weed
might have  caused such  scenes.  Spear  points found in mammoths below
cliffs could  indicates  humans  putting  several  animals  which still
suffered  out  of  their  miseries  as  easily  as  they could indicate
anything else.  Modern  scientists  have  proven  themselves  again and
again to  be masters at misinterpreting any evidence regarding origins,
and I  have no  particular reason  not to  believe that  they have done
their usual  superb job with this kind of evidence.  Sorry, Stanley and
Pam.

     Immanuel Velikovsky  believed  that  most  of  the  elephants died
in  a  castrophy  which  was  violent  enough  to actually have shifted
major parts of  the  earth's  surface  with  respect  to  the  poles so
that  some  of  the  elephants,  which  died  either  directly from the
catastrophy  or  froze  to  death  shortly  thereafter,  actually  were
frozen before their bodies had time to decompose, and are thus found in
Siberia today.  This means that the  elephants  had  been  living  in a
tropical zone  (a jungle)  which became  an arctic  zone overnight, and
they are indeed found  to have  tropical vegetation  in their stomachs.
It should be obvious to anybody who knows anything about elephants that
they cannot LIVE in arctic zones on a  regular basis.   It goes without
saying that  if this  earth surface  change had taken place over one of
the huge spaces of  time which  traditional scientists  are so  fond of
believing in,  that all  that would have been left to freeze would have
been bones. 

     This also  means  that  we  catastrophists  (or  Velikovskiites or
whatever) do  not truly believe in ice ages.  We believe that after the
earth's surface shifted,  the  former  arctic  zones  which  had become
temperate zones lost their ice sheets after some years and that present
scientists err when they interpret this evidence of ice sheets over our
temperate zones  as indicating  an age when ice sheets CREPT over these
zones from the  north.   It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the Aryan
migrations  are  generally  dated  around  1500  B.C., exactly the date
Velikovsky gives  for  the  big  catastrophy  described  in  "Worlds in
Collision".  I  take this  to mean  that these people's former home had
been shifted too far North and they had to seek greener pastures.

     But back  to  our  topic.   Catastrophists  believe  that  many if
not  most  of  the  earth's  megafauna  died  directly in catastrophies
of one sort or  another,  at  which  times  they,  of  all  the world's
creatures, had  the most difficult time finding high ground or shelter.
Further, it seems very likely to many of  us that  a certain  number of
left-over large  dinosaurs and  other creatures,  several of which Noah
had made an effort to save, perished WHEN THE FELT EFFECT OF  THE FORCE
OF GRAVITY  ITSELF CHANGED  FOREVER ON THIS PLANET AFTER THE FLOOD.  In
all likelyhood, these  included  the  pteratorn  and  several remaining
pterosaurs.  As  long as these creatures were able to function, I can't
truly believe that any  catastrophy, even  the flood,  could have wiped
them all out;  the sky and mountaintops are pretty safe and a big eagle
could live on fish for  a  long  time.   With  the  change  in gravity,
however, any hope for these creatures died.

     Noah, aside from being a man of God, must have been something of a
scientist;  he saw the flood coming somehow in time  to have  built the
great ship  to which  we owe our not living in a world of humans, rats,
cockroaches, and little else.  A  "science"  which  does  not recognize
this  man  or  regards  him  as  a  fable,  aside  from being wrong, is
ungrateful.  Like I say, these scientists  would have  their laboratory
rats, and  rats to  pet and walk on leashes, rats in their zoos to show
their  children,   fried  rats   for  breakfast,   barbecued  rats  for
dinner......   

     But I digress.  Back to the notion of man having killed all of the
megafauna.  On this topic, I am speaking strictly  for Ted  Holden, and
not for  Immanuel Velikovsky  (who had  little or nothing to say on the
subject of humans killing large animals), or any  other catastrophists.
I will  admit to  the possibility that men killed an occasional mammoth
and it is even remotely possible that they killed an occasional herd of
mammoths.  But no way did they kill all or even a majority of the large
animals, which is what several of  the writers  on net.origins  seem to
believe.  Most of these animals died at the hand of a violent nature as
I have described.

     I am completely  turned  off  by  modern  science's  insistence on
describing our  ancesters as  idiots at every opportunity.  Can anybody
believe that our ancestors  were so  stupid as  to ALWAYS  go after the
biggest and  most dangerous  and wretched  tasting game when there were
always deer and cattle and buffalo and rabbits and ducks  nearby?  Such
a disfunctional  mental trait  on the  part of our ancestors would have
indeed caused the extermination  of at  least one  species I  can think
of: OURS.   And with what?  Fire?

     Fire is  the only  thing which  comes close to making (a perverted
kind of) sense.  But fire would be a  two edged  sword when  used as an
offensive  weapon  against  animals.   Anyone  attempting  to  stampede
elephants by fire in the swirling winds you  usually get  in areas with
cliffs  nearby   would  likely  cook  themselves  while  the  elephants
laughed.  There is another  problem as  well;   the humans,  torches in
hand,  would  have  to  approach  the  animals  FROM UPWIND TO USE FIRE
AGAINST THEM.  An elephant would smell  all of  that coming  from MILES
and be  long gone.   Like I  have said,  one mammoth would feed a whole
tribe for a hell of a long time, assuming the  tribe consisted entirely
of masochists  willing to  eat elephant.   There was no need for any of
this.  It would be far simpler  to pick  out a  straggler and  kill him
with spears  or kill  one elephant  in a pit trap;  this would have the
added advantage of not  destroying your  entire hunting  ground for the
season.

     Oh,  man  killed  mammoths  here  and  there,  but that is not why
mammoths are  extinct.  The  really big  mammoth kill  sites, in Alaska
and  in  northern  Siberia  and  in  the islands off the north coast of
Russia and  Siberia, show  no evidence  of man's  hand; only  that of a
violent nature.   Velikovsky's book,  "Earth in Upheaval", gives a good
account of several of these.   

     Pam Pincha, speaking of the mythical fire hunts writes:


>(Note: neither does this method kill of all of a herd 
>just a significant portion -- but that was enough at the time. 
>these animals were in a highly stressed position at this time 
>period.  All it took was a little of the wrong push to wipe them out.)

     Do you mean that of, say 100,000 mammoths alive at the time, after
nature had killed 999,995 of them, man killed the other  five (for this
is about  the real  ratio), and  this is  simply your definition of man
having exterminated the mammoths?  I could almost buy  that.  Actually,
just a slight problem with semantics which might could be overlooked. 
 
Also:

>At  this  point,  I  am  disapointed in the quality of these responses
>in this article. It seems fraught with numerous instances 
>of either no information of massive mis-information on 
>the large body of  evidence  involved  in  this  particular hypothesis
>about the these extinctions. 
> 
>Please go to the nearest university library and check into 
>the reams of site descriptions and VERY detailed studies 
>of the Big Game Hunter Gatherer tradition in North America. 
 
     To learn how five of every 100,000 mammoths died, Pam?  I honestly
couldn't  spare  the  time.   You  might  consider  reading  "Earth  in
Upheavel", however,  if you  are interested  in learning  how the other
999,995 died

     Generally, I can think of only one altogether right way  to go out
after  super  bisons,  super-rhinos,  giant  cave  bears,  super-lions,
sabre-tooths, wolf-bears, a  pteratorn,  or  any  of  the  other really
dangerous animals which modern scientists apparently give our ancestors
credit for killing.  That would be with a  375 H  & H  magnum or  a 460
Weatherby  magnum  safari  rifle  in  my  hand  and  several companions
similarly armed.  Anybody who would go out after one of these guys with
a  spear,  with  or  without  an  atlatl, a zip-gun, chucks, a straight
razor, a switch-blade knife or anything else like that would have to be
out of  his mind.   Judging from what I read, I can believe that one or
two of the ivory tower dwellers who contribute to net.origins  might be
capable of  attempting such  a thing (about once), but I give Alley Oop
credit for having had more sense than that.

     I've mentioned this one once;  it's worth going over  again.  Fred
Bear  is  one  of  America's  best  bow-hunters  and  is  owner of Bear
Archery.  He hunts with a modern 70 lb. recurve hunting bow  of hiw own
companie's manufacture,  a weapon  far more powerful and efficient than
anything Alley Oop ever had.  He uses light aluminum arrows  with three
bladed razor head tips.  These not only travel much faster and hit with
one hell of a lot  more  authority  than  anything  Oop  had,  but they
penetrate hide and bone far better.  Deer and small brown bears usually
drop within a few yards of being hit by one of these.   During the late
sixties and  early to mid seventies, Fred made several attempts to kill
polar bears with his bow.  He  was intelligent  enough to  have a buddy
backing him with a 300 magnum rifle each time, and it was only on about
the fifth or sixth  attempt that  he didn't  actually NEED  that friend
along.   On  each  of  the  prior  attempts,  he would have been killed
otherwise.

     Fred is better at placing  shots  than  any  ancient  hunter would
likely have  been, yet  on all but one of his polar bear hunts, despite
one well placed shot (the first one) and several other  shots placed as
well as  possible on  a charging  animal, Fred and anyone else standing
around would have been slaughtered, other  than for  the dude  with the
300 magnum.  Readers please note, on no occasion did the bear, when hit
by the first arrow, say to himself:

     "Alas, I am not loved!"

and, despondant,  commit suicide  by jumping  over a  cliff.  Note also
that one of the 1000 lb North American super-lions or one of the double
sized super-rhinos likely would have gotten to Fred  faster than  a big
bear would.  I don't think you'd get more than one shot at one of those
creatures.

     I  would  like  to  suggest  that  some  of  the  contributers  to
net.origins who  have been writing these articles about man causing the
extinction of these giant animals leave the ivory tower long  enough to
drive to  the nearest  shooting range at which heavy caliber rifles are
kept, and talk the man in charge into letting you  actually fire  a 300
or 375  magnum rifle so that you can SEE and FEEL and HEAR just what in
the hell it actually takes in the real  world to  kill 1000  or 2000 lb
predators and  rhinos etc.,  and kill  them in  a reasonable enough way
that you and 15  of your  companions don't  get slaughtered.   And make
sure the man shows you how to use it, so that you don't get hurt.

pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (09/12/85)

Let's go back to the current discussion of the Human Overkill
theory that ted finds so unacceptable.

The veiw amoung most of my former colleagues is on the
conservative side. We think that the human factor in the
extinction of the megafauna was only part of a group of
factors. The veiw most commonly held is that a series
of paleoenvironmental changes directly affected the food
supplies of these fauna. The changes affected both the
extent in area and the character of the available food
resources. In particular, to quote from one of my
references
	"The most prominant change was the large scale
	reduction of the steppe environment about 10000
	years ago, which coincides with the latest dates
	for extinctions of the many grazers such as the
	giant groundsloth. Stress on food resources for
	all the large grazers may well have hastened their
	extinction. Hunting pressures by paleoindians may]
	have been the final blow...that led to the
	extinction of some of the already more decimated
	beasts..." (Markgraf,V.,1985,Science,(May 12),
	v.228,n.4703,p.1110-1112.)

Note: What I am trying to point out is that there is
proof out that there is a direct link between vegetation
change and the dietary response of fauna. A drastic change
can decimate a population without too much difficulty.
The time period we are talking about was just such a time
period.


The human factor still cannot be over looked, because
in some cases the deitary changes were not as drastic,
wereas the human influence is more evident. Hence the
view being put forth here.


Now as for the inablity of some to believe that we
mere humans couldn't kill much larger beasts than
ourselves, I think we've been maligned. All the cases
that have been thrown out have consisted of looking
at our current weapons and scoffing.  The one weapon
close to what was used at that time period, the
bow and arrow, was actually NOT USED then. Having
played with an atlatl and spear and seen the strength
enhancement it has, I'd still pit a canny, experience
former ancestor against some of the megafauna anyday.

--------------------------------------------------------
				P.M.Pincha-Wagener

friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/16/85)

In article <390@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
>

>  I would
>now like to take one last stab at a sensible approach to the problem of
>the extinction  of virtually  all of this planet's large animals before
>changing the topic to something more interesting.
>

> I don't particularly  like  being  involved  in  an  argument over
>whether  or  not  man  could  have  caused the extinction of any or all
>of  the  planet's  megafauna.   The  notion  seems  preposterous  to me
>and, frankly, it was not what I expected as a retort when I first wrote
>one or  two articles  on catastrophic  evolution and  extinction on the
>net.   I  actually  had  replies  ready for several more sensible kinds
>of retorts which I expected, but  which never  materialized.  But let's
>talk about  reality for  awhile.  Let's  take a hard look at this whole
>notion of stampeding animals over a cliff.
>
>     What  would  I  want  for  an  ideal  victim  for  such  a hunting
>technique,  assuming  I  intended  to  practice  it?   Several  things,
>actually.  These would include:
>
>     1.   I would want the prey to be as  stupid as  possible.  Cattle,
>          deer, or bison obviously qualify.  Elephants are a bad choice
>          from this angle.
>
>     2.   I would want the prey to  be  fairly  short  i.e. have  a low
>          eye-view of  the world  so the lead animals would not see the
>          edge of the cliff  untill too  late.  Giraffes  and elephants
>          are  the  two  worst  choices  on the planet from this angle.
>          Again, bison might be a reasonable choice.
>
>     3.   I would want the prey to  travel in  large herds  so that the
>          animals in the rear of the stampede would push those in front
>          over the cliff without  hearing  any  cries  of  warning etc.
>          Elephants  travel  in  small  groups (females and calves) and
>          singly (bulls);  again, not the right choice.
>
>     4.   I would want the prey to be big enough to justify the effort,
>          but not big enough to pose any ridiculous danger to me and my
>          companions.  Again,  elephants are  the wrong  choice;  bison
>          would be more like it.
>
	All of this is of course an *ideal*, in reality I may not have
much choice, especially if my life depends on getting *some* food. I
may have to hunt whatever is most available. Alos there are other
reasond to hunt an animal besides food. Elephant ivory is a rather
useful material, and it is rather hard to find except on an Elephant.
>
>     I  can't  believe  that  writers  on  net.origins keep refering to
>mammoths as  HERD  ANIMALS.   New  York  city  street  gangs  travel in
>something like  the same  numbers as elephant groups; that doesn't make
>them herd animals.

	Herding is a *behavior*, and size of the group is almost
irrelevant. As a matter of fact Humans *are* "herd" animals, or rather
pack animals, since a "herd" of carnivores is more often called pack
(herd being mostly reserved for herbivores).

> I  have to  believe that  attempting to  stampede a
>group  of  elephants  over  a  cliff  would be about like attempting to
>stampede one of these street gangs over a 40 story roof top or the high
>point  of  the  G.W. bridge.   I  would expect either group to turn and
>fight to the death before going over the edge.  In any scene  of actual
>human inflicted  carnage amongst mammoths in the vacinity of a cliff, I
>would expect to find the mammoths AT THE  TOP OF  THE CLIFF,  DEAD FROM
>SPEAR WOUNDS, along with many human skeletons.  
>
	Oh, nice reasoning, but science is based on *observation*, and
when observation conflicts with logic it is the *logic* which must
give way. Your *conclusions* are contrary to *observed* facts.

>     Conversely, I can think of several reasons not involving man why a
>herd of elephants might have ended up over  a cliff  on occasion, which
>might or might not have left any obvious signs as to cause.  Aside from
>several effects due to catastrophies which I could think of,  loco weed
>might have  caused such  scenes.  Spear  points found in mammoths below
>cliffs could  indicates  humans  putting  several  animals  which still
>suffered  out  of  their  miseries  as  easily  as  they could indicate
>anything else.  Modern  scientists  have  proven  themselves  again and
>again to  be masters at misinterpreting any evidence regarding origins,
>and I  have no  particular reason  not to  believe that  they have done
>their usual  superb job with this kind of evidence.  Sorry, Stanley and
>Pam.
>
	Well, the explanations you have come up with are all
distinguishable from human engineered results on the basis of evidence
available at the fossil site(taphonomy, cause of death, sedimentology &c.)
If you want us to believe these, show the *evidence* for the
explanation where the fossils are found. Reason alone will not do,
since it is dependent on the validity of assumptions.

>     Immanuel Velikovsky  believed  that  most  of  the  elephants died
>in  a  castrophy  which  was  violent  enough  to actually have shifted
>major parts of  the  earth's  surface  with  respect  to  the  poles so
>that  some  of  the  elephants,  which  died  either  directly from the
>catastrophy  or  froze  to  death  shortly  thereafter,  actually  were
>frozen before their bodies had time to decompose, and are thus found in
>Siberia today.  This means that the  elephants  had  been  living  in a
>tropical zone  (a jungle)  which became  an arctic  zone overnight, and
>they are indeed found  to have  tropical vegetation  in their stomachs.
>It should be obvious to anybody who knows anything about elephants that
>they cannot LIVE in arctic zones on a  regular basis.   It goes without
>saying that  if this  earth surface  change had taken place over one of
>the huge spaces of  time which  traditional scientists  are so  fond of
>believing in,  that all  that would have been left to freeze would have
>been bones. 

	But such a catastrophe would leave *extensive*
sedimentological and tectonic evidence. In the abscence of such
evidence it simply cannot be accepted. Certainly a modern *Elephant*
could not live in tha Arctic, but Mammoths were *not* the same as
modern Elephants. Really does the fact that an African Water Buffalo
cannot live in the Arctic prove that Yaks cannot!?!? Certainly not,
since it is an observed fact that Yaks do indeed live in the Arctic.
>
>     But back  to  our  topic.   Catastrophists  believe  that  many if
>not  most  of  the  earth's  megafauna  died  directly in catastrophies
>of one sort or  another,  at  which  times  they,  of  all  the world's
>creatures, had  the most difficult time finding high ground or shelter.

	Well, this was in fact a serious scientific theory about a
century ago. The problem that kille dit was the incredibly *large*
*number* of catastrophes necessary to explain all of the seperate
episodes of extinction.

>Further, it seems very likely to many of  us that  a certain  number of
>left-over large  dinosaurs and  other creatures,  several of which Noah
>had made an effort to save, perished WHEN THE FELT EFFECT OF  THE FORCE
>OF GRAVITY  ITSELF CHANGED  FOREVER ON THIS PLANET AFTER THE FLOOD.  In
>all likelyhood, these  included  the  pteratorn  and  several remaining
>pterosaurs.  As  long as these creatures were able to function, I can't
>truly believe that any  catastrophy, even  the flood,  could have wiped
>them all out;  the sky and mountaintops are pretty safe and a big eagle
>could live on fish for  a  long  time.   With  the  change  in gravity,
>however, any hope for these creatures died.
>
	This is totally in contradiction to the evidence, *no*
dinosaurs have been found in any sediments containing "advanced"
mammals, and no specimen of Pteratorn(or any other raptorial bird) has
been found in any sediment bearing pterosaurs. There is *no* evidence
for any kind of synchronicity between thees forms, and much evidence
against it.

>
>     Fire is  the only  thing which  comes close to making (a perverted
>kind of) sense.  But fire would be a  two edged  sword when  used as an
>offensive  weapon  against  animals.   Anyone  attempting  to  stampede
>elephants by fire in the swirling winds you  usually get  in areas with
>cliffs  nearby   would  likely  cook  themselves  while  the  elephants
>laughed.  There is another  problem as  well;   the humans,  torches in
>hand,  would  have  to  approach  the  animals  FROM UPWIND TO USE FIRE
>AGAINST THEM.  An elephant would smell  all of  that coming  from MILES
>and be  long gone.

	Except that this method *does* work, at least against some of
the prey of N.A. Indians, since they used fire in this way quite
regularly and successfully. I believe fire was even used aginst
Bison!

>>(Note: neither does this method kill of all of a herd 
>>just a significant portion -- but that was enough at the time. 
>>these animals were in a highly stressed position at this time 
>>period.  All it took was a little of the wrong push to wipe them out.)
>
>     Do you mean that of, say 100,000 mammoths alive at the time, after
>nature had killed 999,995 of them, man killed the other  five (for this
>is about  the real  ratio), and  this is  simply your definition of man
>having exterminated the mammoths?  I could almost buy  that.  Actually,
>just a slight problem with semantics which might could be overlooked. 
> 
	No, it is more like this. After nature has killed 60,000 of
them and man has killed another 35,000, the remainder were so few and
scattered that they could not get together to have any kids and died
without offspring. This is what is happening to many endangered
species *now*, we are no longer hunting them, but still they decrease
in number, because they cannot reproduce fast enough. The few cases
where we have reversed this have been by intensive management,
eliminating *all* predation, providing safe home sites and even
rounding them up and bringing them together.

>> 
>>Please go to the nearest university library and check into 
>>the reams of site descriptions and VERY detailed studies 
>>of the Big Game Hunter Gatherer tradition in North America. 
> 
>     To learn how five of every 100,000 mammoths died, Pam?  I honestly
>couldn't  spare  the  time.   You  might  consider  reading  "Earth  in
>Upheavel", however,  if you  are interested  in learning  how the other
>999,995 died
>
>     Generally, I can think of only one altogether right way  to go out
>after  super  bisons,  super-rhinos,  giant  cave  bears,  super-lions,
>sabre-tooths, wolf-bears, a  pteratorn,  or  any  of  the  other really
>dangerous animals which modern scientists apparently give our ancestors
>credit for killing.  That would be with a  375 H  & H  magnum or  a 460
>Weatherby  magnum  safari  rifle  in  my  hand  and  several companions
>similarly armed.  Anybody who would go out after one of these guys with
>a  spear,  with  or  without  an  atlatl, a zip-gun, chucks, a straight
>razor, a switch-blade knife or anything else like that would have to be
>out of  his mind.
>

	Or maybe he was *using* his mind to *outsmart* the prey. The
secret of hunting with such weapons is not brute force, it is clever
gimmicks to put the prey at a disadvantage. This is what African
tribesmen do when they hunt Elephants for the ivory. This is what
Amerindians did with their fire and Bison skin cloaks. This is *really*
what we are trying to get at with the run-em-over-the-cliff stuff.
Remember, mankind's most dangerous weapon is his *mind*.

>     Fred is better at placing  shots  than  any  ancient  hunter would
>likely have  been, yet  on all but one of his polar bear hunts, despite
>one well placed shot (the first one) and several other  shots placed as
>well as  possible on  a charging  animal, Fred and anyone else standing
>around would have been slaughtered, other  than for  the dude  with the
>300 magnum.  Readers please note, on no occasion did the bear, when hit
>by the first arrow, say to himself:
>
	Well, I would seriously doubt that he is that much better than
someone who's life depended on accurate shooting. I suspect that most
early men would be considered marksmen by modern standards! Also you
are talking about *one* hunter with a bow, early man hunted in *packs*,
there would have been at least a dozen crack archers(or spear
throwers) in even the most routine hunt. And hunting of large,
dangerous game was usually done in *much* larger groups, and using
much more sophisticated *tactics* than simply attacking head on.

-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/18/85)

> 
> 
> 
>      In  an  article  now  on  the  net  entitled "Powerlifting and the
> Ultrasaur", I  present  an  outright  mathematical  and  physical proof
> that  at  least  one  species  of  sauropod could not possibly exist or
> function in our gravity.  The conclusion regarding the ultrasaur was:
> 
I heard about a mathematical proof that the may beatle cannot fly.
The only problem is that it is not extinct, and everyone may see these
beatles flying.

>      I don't particularly  like  being  involved  in  an  argument over
> whether  or  not  man  could  have  caused the extinction of any or all
> of  the  planet's  megafauna.   The  notion  seems  preposterous  to me
> and, frankly, it was not what I expected as a retort when I first wrote
> one or  two articles  on catastrophic  evolution and  extinction on the
> net.   I  actually  had  replies  ready for several more sensible kinds
> of retorts which I expected, but  which never  materialized.  But let's
> talk about  reality for  awhile.  Let's  take a hard look at this whole
> notion of stampeding animals over a cliff.
> 
>      What  would  I  want  for  an  ideal  victim  for  such  a hunting
> technique,  assuming  I  intended  to  practice  it?   Several  things,
> actually.  These would include:
> 
>      1.   I would want the prey to be as  stupid as  possible.  Cattle,
>           deer, or bison obviously qualify.  Elephants are a bad choice
>           from this angle.

This suggests the method you prove a disonaur could not move : you knew
better than the guy how it should move.  More comments below.
> 
>      2.   I would want the prey to  be  fairly  short  i.e. have  a low
>           eye-view of  the world  so the lead animals would not see the
>           edge of the cliff  untill too  late.  Giraffes  and elephants
>           are  the  two  worst  choices  on the planet from this angle.
>           Again, bison might be a reasonable choice.
> 
>      3.   I would want the prey to  travel in  large herds  so that the
>           animals in the rear of the stampede would push those in front
>           over the cliff without  hearing  any  cries  of  warning etc.
>           Elephants  travel  in  small  groups (females and calves) and
>           singly (bulls);  again, not the right choice.
> 
>      4.   I would want the prey to be big enough to justify the effort,
>           but not big enough to pose any ridiculous danger to me and my
>           companions.  Again,  elephants are  the wrong  choice;  bison
>           would be more like it.
> 
> 
>      I  can't  believe  that  writers  on  net.origins keep refering to
> mammoths as  HERD  ANIMALS.   New  York  city  street  gangs  travel in
> something like  the same  numbers as elephant groups; that doesn't make
> them herd animals.  I  have to  believe that  attempting to  stampede a
> group  of  elephants  over  a  cliff  would be about like attempting to
> stampede one of these street gangs over a 40 story roof top or the high
> point  of  the  G.W. bridge.   I  would expect either group to turn and
> fight to the death before going over the edge.  In any scene  of actual
> human inflicted  carnage amongst mammoths in the vacinity of a cliff, I
> would expect to find the mammoths AT THE  TOP OF  THE CLIFF,  DEAD FROM
> SPEAR WOUNDS, along with many human skeletons.  
> 
I read about Pigmies hunting elephants.  A little hunter can incapacitate
a big elephant by himself.  First, he spread shit of some animal on his
skin, so the elephant would not feel the human smell.  Then he walks
under the elephant and slits Achilles tendons.  Voila!  The giant cannot
walk anymore.  No skeletons of Pygmies at all!
You theorise, those people were doing this for living.  I would not
consult you how to hunt (if I would be a primitive tribesman) or how
to walk, if I would be a dinosaur.
> 
>      I am completely  turned  off  by  modern  science's  insistence on
> describing our  ancesters as  idiots at every opportunity.  Can anybody
> believe that our ancestors  were so  stupid as  to ALWAYS  go after the
> biggest and  most dangerous  and wretched  tasting game when there were
> always deer and cattle and buffalo and rabbits and ducks  nearby?  Such
> a disfunctional  mental trait  on the  part of our ancestors would have
> indeed caused the extermination  of at  least one  species I  can think
> of: OURS.   And with what?  Fire?
> 
What about Pygmies hunting elephants?  Also impossible?

>      Fire is  the only  thing which  comes close to making (a perverted
> kind of) sense.  But fire would be a  two edged  sword when  used as an
> offensive  weapon  against  animals.   Anyone  attempting  to  stampede
> elephants by fire in the swirling winds you  usually get  in areas with
> cliffs  nearby   would  likely  cook  themselves  while  the  elephants
> laughed.  There is another  problem as  well;   the humans,  torches in
> hand,  would  have  to  approach  the  animals  FROM UPWIND TO USE FIRE
> AGAINST THEM.  An elephant would smell  all of  that coming  from MILES
> and be  long gone.   Like I  have said,  one mammoth would feed a whole
> tribe for a hell of a long time, assuming the  tribe consisted entirely
> of masochists  willing to  eat elephant.   There was no need for any of
> this.  It would be far simpler  to pick  out a  straggler and  kill him
> with spears  or kill  one elephant  in a pit trap;  this would have the
> added advantage of not  destroying your  entire hunting  ground for the
> season.
> 
>      Oh,  man  killed  mammoths  here  and  there,  but that is not why
> mammoths are  extinct.  The  really big  mammoth kill  sites, in Alaska
> and  in  northern  Siberia  and  in  the islands off the north coast of
> Russia and  Siberia, show  no evidence  of man's  hand; only  that of a
> violent nature.   Velikovsky's book,  "Earth in Upheaval", gives a good
> account of several of these.   
> 
Mammoths are found in those plases because they got well preserved in the
permafrost.  Probably the drown in Arctic bogs and later were submerged
in the permafrost, like a lot of other creatures.  Because of those
marvelously preserved specimens we know that mammoth, unlike elephant,
was very hairy: a trait of a subarctic animal.
Actually, the population of mammoths had to be sparse: semiarid tundra
would not support them otherwise.  The huge amount of skeletons in 
some places resembles the elephant "graveyards".  The reason for their
extinction could be manifold and difficult to recreate.  For sure they
were multiplying very slowly, and because of that were very vunreable
as the species.
> 
> >(Note: neither does this method kill of all of a herd 
> >just a significant portion -- but that was enough at the time. 
> >these animals were in a highly stressed position at this time 
> >period.  All it took was a little of the wrong push to wipe them out.)
> 
>      Do you mean that of, say 100,000 mammoths alive at the time, after
> nature had killed 999,995 of them, man killed the other  five (for this
> is about  the real  ratio), and  this is  simply your definition of man
> having exterminated the mammoths?  I could almost buy  that.  Actually,
> just a slight problem with semantics which might could be overlooked. 
>  
If there were any diseases or other stresses on the population, 
several thousand kills a year could contribute decisevily to
a negative reproduction rate.
Besides, 100,000-5=99,995, not 999,995.  The result suggested by you
would be more appropriate fo rabbits.
> 
>      Generally, I can think of only one altogether right way  to go out
> after  super  bisons,  super-rhinos,  giant  cave  bears,  super-lions,
> sabre-tooths, wolf-bears, a  pteratorn,  or  any  of  the  other really
> dangerous animals which modern scientists apparently give our ancestors
> credit for killing.  That would be with a  375 H  & H  magnum or  a 460
> Weatherby  magnum  safari  rifle  in  my  hand  and  several companions
> similarly armed.  Anybody who would go out after one of these guys with
> a  spear,  with  or  without  an  atlatl, a zip-gun, chucks, a straight
> razor, a switch-blade knife or anything else like that would have to be
> out of  his mind.   Judging from what I read, I can believe that one or
> two of the ivory tower dwellers who contribute to net.origins  might be
> capable of  attempting such  a thing (about once), but I give Alley Oop
> credit for having had more sense than that.
> 
The problem is that YOU do not know how to hunt.  A Masai brave hunts
alone a lion with his spear and knife only.  Pigmies kill elephants.
Eskimo were killing whales with their stone-age tools.  Primitive
people were as intelligent as you, and they were spending generations
polishing their hunting technics.  Not the firepower but the cunning
tricks and deep knowledge on animal behavior were the effective
weapons.

Piotr Berman

beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (09/25/85)

[We're back up, we're back up!!!!!]

>[Ted Holden]
>     Immanuel Velikovsky  believed  that  most  of  the  elephants died
>in  a  castrophy  which  was  violent  enough  to actually have shifted
>major parts of  the  earth's  surface  with  respect  to  the  poles so
>that  some  of  the  elephants,  which  died  either  directly from the
>catastrophy  or  froze  to  death  shortly  thereafter,
>[...]
>As  long as these creatures were able to function, I can't
>truly believe that any  catastrophy, even  the flood,  could have wiped
>them all out;  the sky and mountaintops are pretty safe and a big eagle
>could live on fish for  a  long  time.

Wouldn't you think that someone who so rabidly propounds catastrophism
would learn how to spell catastroph*E*?
                                    =
-- 

--JB        (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth)

"What if the after-effect of the terrible bomb is unusual beyond belief?
 Wouldn't you rather the whole population had listened to somebody like
    the old Indian chief?"   (The Roches)