Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Extinction
Message-ID: <728@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 15:41:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.728
Posted: Mon Sep 16 15:41:26 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 05:24:29 EDT
References: <390@imsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 235

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