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)