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