Posted on 09/20/2012 7:18:47 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Thank you. I don’t know how much you’ve read concerning the most recent extinction event(End Pleistocene) but there are any number of explanations for many of the anomalies relating to that period. As far as I know the only mammoth/mastodon found with buttercups or whatever in their mouths and/or stomachs were in Siberia which reportedly wasn’t covered with an ice sheet during the last glaciation. Fact is, evidence seems to indicate the climate was much milder then; maybe even sub-tropical. Go figger...
I am a trained anthropologist so you can trust me on this, a hairy a$$ed mammoth would like it a lot colder than a bald a$$ed mammoth would. they are going to be as far away from the equator as they can and still be able to find food.
Soooo, marigolds in the periglacial area or no?
But wait a minute; weren't the woolly mammoths suited to living in a cold climate? They are described as woolly due to their hairy coat, but this is only hair, greaseless hair. To help protect them from the cold, all of today's Arctic mammals have glands that make their hair oily to retain warmth - the mammoths had no such gland. Although thicker, a mammoth's hair is the same as that of elephants, and they live in the tropical regions. Many animals found in equatorial jungles also have thick hair, the tiger being one such example. Anyone still unconvinced could consider this - bones of tigers, rhinoceroses and antelope were found alongside the mammoths, and these are obviously not Arctic creatures.FWIW...
Now to my chores.
Dr. Walt Brown PhD still hass the best explanation for the wooly mammoth extinctions as far as I’m concerned...
Center for Scientific Creation
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
actually i agree with you, hair will trap moisture and as it evaporates it will cool, i just like to say hairy a$$ed mammoth! but this doesn’t explain the hairy highlander, i dont have a gland that makes my hair oily but my peoples prefer the colder climes!
If I hand’t read the headline before seeing that picture I would have sworn I was looking a colonoscopy photo of Obama after his latest round of golf.
It isn’t confined to North America.
http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=black+mat&t=all&sort=0&g=s
My pleasure.
When I was of schoolin’ age, most of the school faculties were human. Not too sure nowadays.
Well said.
Immanuel Velikovsky to Claude F. A. Schaeffer
http://www.varchive.org/cor/schaeffer/610417vs.htm
[snip] One of the most amazing spectacles that I have observed is this: Those very men who observed and described the great catastrophes fall back and defend the theory of uniformity with even greater jealousy than their colleagues who never wavered and never were even tempted to question the ever harmonious run of centuries. Here is the case of Professor F. Rainey, presently with the University of Pennsylvania; him I quoted on p. I of “Earth in Upheaval” and please look up: “Wide cuts, often several miles in length” are sliced by giant machines in Alaska; “This ‘muck’ contains enormous numbers of frozen bones of extinct animals such as the mammoth, mastodon, super-bison and horse” (Rainey). [/snip]
;’)
12,400 years ago? Hydrologic cycle came to a screeching whoa for some reason, hmm, what could it have been? And might it have been 12, 900 years ago?Evolution in Your FaceLake Victoria, Africa's largest lake, is home to more than 300 species of cichlids. These fish, which are popular in aquariums, are deep-bodied and have one nostril, rather than the usual two, on each side of the head. Seismic profiles and cores of the lake taken by a team headed by Thomas C. Johnson of the University of Minnesota, reveal that the lake dried up completely about 12,400 years ago. This means that the rate of speciation of cichlid fishes has been extremely rapid: something on average of one new species every 40 years!
by Patrick Huyghe
Omni
Big Rock? Whole lot of stuff happened at the end of the Last Ice Age and no one has a clue. Then there was the Maunder Minimum no one has a clue there either.
Darwin is another example, what he saw and wrote in his private journals, was left out of his The Origin of Species.
Darwin Puzzles Over the Evidence
In his book The Origin of Species Darwin wrote, "The extinction of species has been involved in the most gratuitous mystery.
No one can have marveled more than I have at the extinction of species" (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, New York: Collier, 1962, p. 341).
Darwin was referring to his five-year cruise as amateur naturalist aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. In his notes he revealed WHY he and the paleontologists of today, "are puzzled by the record of catastrophic death found in the rocks."
"What then, has exterminated so many species and whole genera?" Darwin asked in astonishment. "The mind at first is irresistibly hurried into the belief of some great catastrophe; but thus to destroy animals, both large and small, in Southern Patagonia, in Brazil, on the Cordillera of Peru, in North America up to Behring's [Bering's] Straits, WE MUST SHAKE THE ENTIRE FRAMEWORK OF THE GLOBE" (Charles Darwin, Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries Visited During the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle Round the World, citation under date of January 9, 1834).
What he wrote in his notes never reached the book he wrote years later. His patron Lyell, the father of Uniformitarianism, wouldn't have approved...
Think about the time it took Monte Verde in Chili to get a somewhat approval.
I don’t know what section you were sending me to but chances are I’ve most likely read it since I have previously spent some time at the site.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/614600/uniformitarianism
excerpt:
“The idea that the laws that govern geologic processes have not changed during the history of the Earth were articulated by the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, who in 1785 presented his ideaslater published in two volumes as Theory of the Earth (1795)at meetings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. In this work Hutton showed that the Earth had a long history and that this history could be interpreted in terms of processes observed at the present, of which he gave examples. He showed, for instance, how soils were formed by the weathering of rocks and how layers of sediment accumulated. He stated that there was no need of any preternatural cause to explain the geologic record. Huttons proposal challenged the concept of a biblical Earth (with a history of some 6,000 years) that was created especially to be a home for man; the effect of his ideas on the learned world can be compared only with the earlier revolution in thought brought about by Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo when they displaced the concept of a universe centred on the Earth with the concept of a solar system centred on the Sun. Both advances challenged existing thought and were fiercely resisted for many years. In the publication Principles of Geology, 3 vol. (183033), the Scottish geologist Sir Charles Lyell deciphered the history of the Earth employing Huttonian principles and made available a host of new geologic evidence in support of the view that physical laws were permanent and that any form of supernaturalism can be rejected. Lyells work in turn profoundly influenced Charles Darwin, who recognized Lyell as having produced a revolution in science...”
They were simply working on theories using what information was available to them at the time. Lyell followed Hutton, and Darwin needed the long spans of time to explain his theory of evolution. The catastrophists understood that the earth wasn’t created six thousand years ago...what was created was the landscape, not the globe.
No one deserves to be called a liar imo. It’s a matter of interpretation, and clinging to dogma. In the case of Darwin he had to close his eyes to what he saw.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.