Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site bcsaic.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp
From: pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: numerous responses
Message-ID: <342@bcsaic.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 13:05:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: bcsaic.342
Posted: Thu Oct 24 13:05:10 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 03:52:57 EDT
References: <438@imsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha)
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle
Lines: 88
Summary: 

In article <438@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
>
>                                   ELEPHANTS
>
>From Chris Lewis's recent flame:
>
>>No large animals in Siberia Ted?  Ever heard of a Polar bear?  Siberian
>>Tiger?  Caribou?  Arctic wolves?  Reindeer?  Bears?  Has it ever
>>occurred to you that a Woolly Mammoth was woolly precisely because it
>>was COLD?  In fact, they probably couldn't survive long in warmer
>>climates because they would overheat (remember the volume/surface area
>>calculations you were so fond of?)
>
>     My understanding of the basic food chain in the far north is that plankton
>live with no need for warmth,  little fish  eat plankton,  big fish  eat little
>fish, penguins,  seals, and eskimos eat big fish, polar bears and killer whales
>eat all of above except plankton.   Elephants  don't figure  into any  of this;
>the finding  of mammoth bodies, perfectly preserved, in places which have never
>thawed from the day they died to this day (and  hence which  could not possibly
>support  mammoths)  indicates  the  occurrence  of  something very strange.  If
>mammoths were so well adapted to cold weather,  they should  still be  found in
>the  arctic;    the  way  to  get  there from Novo Sibirsk is there, in winter.
>Finally, it should be obvious to anybody that caribou and deer migrate somewhat
>FASTER than  elephants.   A herd  of mammoths  might could survive by migrating
>back and forth between Georgia and Maryland, say, but a herd of mammoths trying
>to  get  to  Novo  Sibirsk  from  anyplace where they could hope to survive the
>winter would not even get there in time to turn back.
>
At this point I think it would be good for this author to do some basic
research on arctic ecology -- permafrost areas in particular. Note:
These areas do support vegetation during the breif summer months (at
least in the Arctic -- which is what we are discussing for the mega
fauna mentioned didn't live in the Antartic...). To begin with,
permafrost does not stay frozen to the surface year round. The upper
layer melts to various depths during the summer (turning the area into 
a marshy mess -- navigatable but wet). This upper layer in many portions
of the arctic will support plant life -- plant life that grows quiclky
and abundantly. Hence the reason for caribou and musk oxen staying in
the area. In tundra areas (a major portion of the arctic area) the
vegatation is even more lush -- and just the sort that the mammoths
liked (it was just such vegetation that was found in their tummys --
not anything remotely tropical...). I don't find the scarce food
argument viable. (For those unfamilar with the Arctic ecology
try checking into the Britannica Encyclopedia - it has an adequate
section on the Arctic, Mammoths and permafrost areas.)

Now as for the New Siberian Islands (Novo Sibirsk), I can only speculate
since I do not know the age of the fossil finds there. If they are of
an age around 15000 to 12000, then winter is the only way they could
have gotten there. These islands are on a part of the continental margin
that may have been emergent at that time and they could have walked.
(North America and Russia were connected by a land bridge during  and
just after the ice ages for the water level was lowered when the ice
sheets tied a good portion of the world's water. Note: the rise and fall
of the oceans in response to these conditions are well documented and
play a big part in the oil companies search for oil. The evidence works
remarkably well.(Look under the reference of Seismic Stratigraphy for
more information -- Peter Vail's works are a good place to start.))

Somehow I still feel that Ted's assumptions are still too uneducated
and lack a certian reliable base. I wish that there were more evidence
for at least going to an ecology text to see what is up in the Arctic
to live off of before relying on memory (I'd also like to see the
references referred to on these.)  


>
>                     MORE ON GLIDING AGAINST THE WIND ETC.
>
>Note to Pam Pincha-Wagoner on gliding: 
>
>You seem to have missed the entire section on pterosaurs in my long "ultrasaur"
>article.  Check out Adrian Desmond's  "Hot  Blooded  Dinosaurs",  page  182 and
>thereabouts, for more on the limits of size for flying creatures.    
>
I didn't miss it. I didn't agree with it in your context. There were
such creatures. They were not all the huge size. Most were of a quite
reasonable size that could quite easily fly the way we described.
I'm personally tired of the "I can't believe it could.... therefore
let's totally change nature and the universe to make it fit" argument.
Especially built on the assumption that all previous scientific evidence
is wrong... :-(  The comments I've read so far don't even scratch the
surface of the evidence to the contrary. All I've read is pseudoscience
with little grip on reality. It's a shame. (Small flame.... Sorry)

				P.M.Pincha-Wagener