Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What killed the mammoths and other behemoths?
FR Post 6-6-2 | Interview with Ross MacPhee

Posted on 06/05/2002 3:34:28 PM PDT by vannrox

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-96 last
To: Alas Babylon!
I thought the mammoth was the junior senator from NY????

Only from the belt down. ;)

51 posted on 06/05/2002 6:29:17 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
Again, where is the evidence for diseases making species go extinct? To argue this one would have to ignore the capacity for species to develop increased immunity to diseases.

A good for-instance is the American Indians. They had no immunity to pox diseases and died in droves, even if they were far from the white men who carried the diseases to the New World.

I don't have a problem with the disease scenario per se, I just don't see how a very sparse human population could spread it all around North America, from tropics to ice floes, from east to west, in such a short time. Also left to the imagination is some idea of how all of these very different animals were somehow vulnerable to a virus that had probably never seen their RNA before.

52 posted on 06/05/2002 6:40:04 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
There is no known instance of a disease wiping an entire species off a continent in recorded history as far as I know. If you don't believe in cosmic catastrophes within the age of man, than the activity of man is the only thing left to try to explain the great pleistocene dieouts and that's basically what the "overkill" and "blitzkrieg overkill" theories amount to, i.e. an attempt to blame the recent loss of all of our North American megafauna on the ancestors of the American Indians.

Scientists have gone to lengths to explain how mammoths might have lived, commissioning artwork showing mammoths trooping through snow-covered tundras, their massive fur coats much in evidence. What these pictures don't show is silos or grocery stores in those tundras; the mammoths would need them.

The problem is that the bulk of mammoth remains are found in the far reaches of Canada and Alaska, and in Island groups to the North of Siberia in the Arctic circle.

The question is, how given anything like the standard version of Earth history, did vast herds of such large creaturesever find food when the entire territory is covered by ice ten months of the year? Elephants are gluttonous; they spend most of their waking hours eating, in fact, McGowan has stated that he does not understand how anything ever ate enough to get bigger than elephants since there would not appear to be time in the day for it.

You could literally take the healthiest elephant on Earth, fit him with the best fur coat and the best pair of jogging shoes in the world, start him off from any point on Earth habitable to elephants, and build for him a highway to the Liakhovs, and he would never get there. Winter would arrive and he would starve before he got there.

This conundrum has scientists flamboozled to so great an extent that their pronouncements on the subject often don't even sound coherent. Typical would be the mammoth article in the Talk.origins/Ediacara/Toromanura "FAQ" system which, aside from an irrelevant discourse on whether the occasional specimen found in the ice was quick-frozen or mummified, discusses every adaptation which the mammoth supposedly had for life in cold climes other than the vital one, i.e. what adaptation did they have for living without eating? Typically, the article notes that Arctic climes must have been significantly warmer than they are now to allow for mammoth herds, without telling us how that might have been given any possible history of our Earth which could be projected backwards to those times starting from present conditions and known processes, i.e. without using the dread non-word "catastrophe".

Velikovsky claimed that these vast herds, the remnants of which are seen in those arctic circle island groups, were peacefully grazing on vast fields which were in temperal zones, when the entire surface of the Earth shifted due to one of the catastrophes hediscusses, that they very quickly thus ended up in arctic regions along with their fields,and froze to death or otherwise died due to effects of the catastrophe itself.

Again, the real problems are:

1. how did vast herds of mammoths ever inhabit regions which a mammoth today could not even get to much less live in?

and

2. how do the vast bulk of their remains come to be found in obvious scenes of vast destruction?

Vine DeLoria is a past president of the National Council of American Indians and the best known American Indian author of the last 50 years or so. His "Custer Died for Your Sins" is the standard text on Indian affairs in universities.

The Native American section of any Barnes/Noble or Borders store will have ten or twenty of Vine's books, including one, "Red Earth, White Lies", which is a book about catastrophism, and about the megafauna dieouts. Deloria utterly destroys the "overkill" and "blitzkrieg overkill" theories, as well as the general Bering Strait hypothesis concerning how Indian Ancestors got here.

DeLoria Notes:

In even the most prejudiced murder trial there is one essential element: there has to have been a killing. Fancy legal terminology generally requires a body the corpus delictus as the TV detec- tive shows are fond of telling us. It would seem reasonable, if one was to promulgate a theory of blitzkrieg slaughter as have Martin and Diamond, to identiiy where the bodies are buried and then take the reader on a gut-wrenching tour through a graveyard of waste and butchery. We are deprived of this vicarious thrill because the evidence of the destruction of the megafiuna suggests a scenario well outside the orthodox interpretation of benign natural processes. Therefore mere mention of the reality of the situation is anathema to most scholars. So let us see what the actual situation is.

The first explorers of the northern shores of Siberia and its offshore northern islands and of the interior of Alaska, and some of its northern islands, were stunned to discover an astro- nomical number of bones of prehistoric animals piled indis- criminately in hills and buried in the ground. The graveyards of these animals were classified as "antediluvian" (prior to Noah's flood) by the majority of scientists and laypeople alike who still believed the stories of the Old Testament. Near these grave- yards, incidentally, but located in riverbanks on the northern shore of Siberia, are found the famous Siberian mammoths whose flesh was supposedly edible when thawed.

Reading an extensive set of quotations is always tedious to readers but I hope you will bear with me in this chapter be- cause it is only in the repetition of the reports of the discoveries of these areas that the entire picture of the demise of the mam- moths and other creatures really becomes clear. These Siberian remains are not the thousands of mammoth bones which Jared Diamond thinks are searched frantically by archaeologists seek- ing signs of human butchering. It is doubtful that any archaeol- ogists or paleontologists have made extensive studies of the skeletons in these locations or we would certainly have a far different view of megafauna extinction than is presently ac- ceptable to orthodox scholars.

Russian expeditions to Siberia and the northern islands of the Arctic Ocean began in the latter half of the eighteenth cen- tury, and with the discovery of these large mounds of animal bones, most prominently the tusks of mammoths and other herbivores, franchises were given to enterprising people who could harvest the ivory for the world market. Liakoff seems to have been the first iniportant ivory trader and explorer in the late eighteenth century. After his death the Russian govern- ment gave a monopo~ to a businessman in Yakutsk who sent his agent, Sannikofi, to explore the islands and locate additional sources of ivory. Sannikoff's discoveries of more islands and his reports on the animal remains found there are the best firsthand accounts of the Siberian animal graveyards.

Hedenstrom explored the area in 1809 and reported back on the richness of the ivory tusks. Sannikoff discovered the island of Kotelnoi, which is apparently the richest single location, in 1811. Finally, the czar decided to send an official expedition and from 1820 to 1823, Admiral Ferdinand Wrangell, then a young naval lieutenant, did a reasonably complete survey of the area. Since these expeditions and explorations were inspired by commercial interests and not scientific curiosity; the reports are entirely objective with no ideological or doctrinal bias to slant the interpretation of the finds.

Around the turn of the century interest in the Siberian is- lands seems to have increased, whether as a result of the few Christian fundamentalists who were not reconciled to evolu- tion frantically searching for tangible proof of Noah's flood, or as part of the leisure activities of the English gendemen of the time, we can't be sure. The definitive article on the Siberian prehistoric animal remains was written by the Reverend D. Gath Whitley and published by the Philosophical Society of Great Britain under the title "The Ivory Islands in the Arctic Ocean." It drew on older sources, primarily reports of expedi- tions of the ivory traders, and captured the spectacular nature of the discoveries well.

Liakoff discovered, on an island that now bears his name, rather substantial cliffs composed primarily of frozen sand and hundreds of elephant tusks. Later, when the Russian govern- ment sent a surveyor, Chwoinoff, to the island he reported that, with the exception of son~e high mountains, the island seemed to be composed of ice and sand and bones and tusks of ele- phants (or mammoths) which were simply cemented together by the cold.Whitley reported:


   Sannikoff explored Kotelnoi, and found that this large
   island was full of the bones and teeth of elephants, rhi-
   noceroses, and musk-oxen. Having explored the coasts,
   Sannikoff determined, as there was nothing but bar-
   renness along the shore, to cross the island. He drove in
   reindeer sledges up the Czarina River, over the hills,
   and down the Sannikoff River, and completed the cir-
   cuit of the island.All over the hills in the interior of the
   island Sannikoff found the bones and tusks of ele-
   phants, rhinoceroses, buffaloes, and horses in such vast
   numbers, that he concluded that these animals must
   have lived in the island in enormous herds, when the
   climate was milder.5

Hedenstrom explored Liakoff's island in 1809 and discov- ered that". .. the quantity of fossil ivory . . . was so enormous, that, although the ivory diggers had been engaged in collecting ivory from it for forty years, the supply seemed to be quite undiminished. On an expanse of sand little more than half a mile in extent, Hedenstrom saw ten tusks of mammoths stick- ing up, and as the ivory hunters had left these tusks because there were still other places where the remains of mammoths were still more abundant, the enormous quantities of elephants' tusks and bones in the island may be imagined?' Indeed, a number of explorers reported that after each ocean storm the beaches were littered with bones and tusks which had been ly- ing on the sea bottom and brought to shore by wave action.

The elephant or mammoth bones and tusks were the most spectacular finds primarily because they were so plentiful and consequently they attracted public attention the most. The is- lands contained an incredible mixture of bones of many extinct and some living species of mammals. Mixed with the animal bones were trees in all kinds of conditions. Whitley quoted some of the Russian explorers as reporting "it is only in the lower strata of the New Siberian wood-hills that the trunks have that position which they would assume in swimming or sinking undisturbed. On the summit of the hills they lie flung upon another in the wildest disorder, forced upright in spite of gravitation, and with their tops broken off or crushed, as if they had been thrown with great violence from the south on a bank, and there heaped up?'7

A few conclusions can be drawn from the reports of the Russian ivory traders. First, it appeared that several reasonably large islands were built primarily of animal bones, heaped in massive hills and held together by frozen sand. To indicate the scope of the debris, we should note that all of these islands are found on modern maps of the area, indicating that we are not talking about little tracts of land of limited area. Second, the sea floor north of Siberia and surrounding the islands was covered with so many additional bones that it was worthwhile for the ivory traders to check the beaches after every storm to gather up tusks and other bones.

Third, and very important for estimating the scope of the disaster, the ivory was of outstanding quality, so much so that the area provided most of the world's ivory for over a century. Estimates of the number of tusks taken from the islands range in the neighborhood of 100,000 pairs taken between the 1770s and the 1900s. Whitley noted that Sannikoff himself had brought away 10,000 pounds of fossil ivory from New Siberia Island alone in 1809.9- In reality; however, only about a quarter of the ivory was of commercial grade, so the true figure must approach half a million pairs of tusks.

Fourth, an amazing variety of animals, many extinct, were mixed with the mammoth and rhinoceros bones, although these two animals have become symbolic of the whole menagerie. Fifth, trees, plants, and other floral materials were in- discriminately mixed with the animal remains, sometimes lead- ing the Russians to suppose that the islands represented a sunken isthmus or broad stretch of land where these animals and the companion plants lived in a warmer climate. The chaotic na- ture of stratification of the remains soon abused that notion.

Finally, it is important to note that none of the bones of any of the species had carving or butchering marks made by human beings. N. K.Vereshchagin wrote: "The accumulations of mam- moth bones and carcasses of mammoth, rhinoceros, and bison found in frozen ground in Indigirka, Kolyma, and Novosibirsk lands bear no trace of hunting or activity of primitive man. Here large herbivorous animals perished and became extinct because of climatic and geomorphic changes, especially changes in the regime of winter snow and increase in depth of snow cover."9 The "climatic and geomorphic changes" must have been very sudden indeed and exceedingly violent, consid- ering the fact that these bones are always described as "heaps" of material deposited as if they had been thrown into a pile by an incredibly strong force.

The testimony regarding the richness of the animal remains in the Arctic north of the continental masses is not restricted to Russian sources. Stephen Taber, writing in his report "Perenni- ally Frozen Ground in Alaska: Its Origins and History," had this to say about the Siberian islands:

Pfizenmayer [citation omittedj states that in the New Siberia island collectors have "found inexhaustible sup- plies of mammoth bones and tusks as well as bones and horns of rhinoceros and other diluvial mammals"; and Dr. Bunge, during expeditions in the summers of 1882-1884, "gathered almost two thousand five hun- dred first class mammoth tusks on the new Siberian is- lands of Lyakhov; Kotelnyi, and Fadeyev;" although many collectors had previously obtained ivory from the islands since their discovery in 1770 by Lyakhov.~~

It would seem obvious to anyone seriously pursuing the question of the demise of the mammoth and the other mega- herbivores that a good place to locate the bodies to determine the cause of their demise would be the islands north of the Siberian peninsula. Yet we hear not a word about them in sci- entific articles and books concerning the overkill hypothesis.

When we inquire if the Alaskan area has similar deposits, we learn that the situation is the same. Early gold miners in Alaska discovered that in many cases they had to strip off a strange de- posit popularly called "muck" in order to get to the gold-bearing gravels.The muck was simply a frozen conglomerate of trees and plants, sand and gravels, some volcanic ash, and thousands if not milhons of bits of broken bones representing a wide variety of late Pleistocene and modern animals and plants.

Two scholars describe the scenes of destruction and chaos which the muck represents. Frank Hibben, in an article survey- ing the evidence of early man in Alaska, said that while the for- mation of muck was not clear,". . . there is ample evidence that at least portions of this material were deposited under cata- strophic conditions. Mammal remains are for the most part dis- membered and disarticulated, even though some fragments yet retain in this frozen state, portions of llgaments, skin, hair, and flesh. Twisted and torn trees are piled in splintered masses con- centrated in what must be regarded as ephemeral canyons or arroyo cuts."'1

Stephen Taber's report echoes the same conditions. He says: "Fossil bones are astonishingly abundant in frozen ground of Alaska, but articulated bones are scarce, and complete skeletons, except for rodents that died in their burrows, are almost un- known."'2 Many laypeople will be confused by this technical language and fail to grasp what Taber is saying, allowing him to imply a benign orthodox interpretation when the situation re- quires that a clearer picture be drawn.

When a scholar says "articulation" of bones he means an arrangement of bones that a person observing them would identify as a complete skeleton and from which an experienced observer could identify the species.To say that articulated bones are scarce, then, means that the bones are scattered and mixed so badly that expert examination is needed to idemify even the bone itself, let alone the species from which it comes. Remem- ber this problem of articulation, for we shall meet it again in another context. Taber concludes with the observation that "the dispersal of the bones is as striking as their abundance and indicates general destruction of soft parts prior to burial."13 In other words,Alaskan muck is a gigantic pile of bones represent- ing a bewildering number of species, a good number of them the megafauna I have been discussing.

We find the missing megafauna of the late Pleistocene in the Siberian islands, in the islands north ofAlaska, and in the muck in the Alaskan interior. Obviously we have here victims of an immense catastrophe which swept continents and left the de- bris in the far northern latitudes piled in jumbled masses that now form decent-sized islands. Most anthropologists and ar- chaeologists avoid discussing these deposits because the ortho- dox uniformitarian interpretation of the natural processes precludes sudden unpredictable actions.

Paul Martin, in private correspondence with me in June 1993, stated flatly that the mammoths could not have been de- stroyed by any such force or event.14 The sole basis he gave for that conclusion was radiocarbon dating of mammoth remains in the Siberian and Alaskan muck. I will have more to say about the reliability of radiocarbon dating below but if we were to accept his argument, then we would have to create a scenario where Paleo-Indians kill all these animals without leaving a trace of a spear point or hatchet blade, drag the carcasses out to sea some 150 miles north ofAlaska, and dispose of the evidence of their misdeeds. Here friendly wolves would not be much help.

Although Martin maintains that his thesis explains the disap- pearance of the megafauna, his argument really centers on the loss of three species: mammoths, mastodons, and ground sloths, with an occasional reference to horses and camels that makes it appear as if the important species have been covered. But overkill avoids asking about the possibly half-million mammoth skeletons lying frozen in the Arctic regions because that would completely negate the theory. <>


53 posted on 06/05/2002 6:46:24 PM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!; blam
Since we have been homo spaiens sapiens, whenever we entered an entirely new area, the big meaty animals went extinct. I've also seen studies showing how only a moderately heavy predation of an animal species can have a sprial effect downward on that species survival, especially large animals that have few young that take years to reach adulthood. My vote still resides with (hungry) man the predator as the culprit.

Ha ha ha. Africa gives the lie to this. You're arguing post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The more likely explanation is that the same thing that enabled people to travel into hitherto inaccessible areas was the same thing that made a big impact on the large fauna in those areas. One thing would be a sudden global cooling caused by massive volcanic eruptions. The ejecta would cause a global decrease in temperatures and sunlight which would both result in decreased plant growth. Ice-ages are characterized by decreased precipitation and a build-up of snow and ice resulting in lowered ocean levels, permitting travel into formerly inaccessible areas (and a need to do so in order to search for food). The places in the world that had mega-fauna also happen to be those that, for the most part, lie far to the north where effects of a downturn in the climate would be exacerbated by the latitude (ie, all across Siberia and North America). Australia has obviously undergone a major climatic change that turned a lot of it into desert. Much as most of North Africa and the Middle East used to be lush grasslands and home to mega-fauna. Now some of the last places on earth with mega-fauna are equatorial Africa and the Asian subcontinent. Remember that the woolly mammoth and woolly rhinoceros aren't necessarily inhabitants of continuously cold climes. They are (were) voracious plant eaters. Plants don't grow in continuously cold climes. Not enough of them to support the kind of tonnage mammoths/elephants need to survive. Besides, remember that in Siberia mammoths have been found quickfrozed with buttercups still in their mouths. This was not the doing of humans, unless you want to posit that humans moving into the area brought about a very sudden climate change.

The question is, have there been such worldwide downturns in climate due either to massive volcanic eruptions or to asteroid/cometary impact or close-calls? Yes, undoubtably, both during human history and prehistory. Do such downturns have a disproportionately great effect on very large animals? Also without a doubt. The disease/hunting hypothesis is itself an example of an opportunistic phenomenon--the need for devising a fundable thesis project or for carving out a new niche in academia. Besides, even if some common disease organisms were found in the remains of these large animals, they would only argue for a proximate cause of death. It's also well-known that animals that are stressed and starved are far more susceptible to infection than healthy animals. Massive stress and starvation would be (and has been) most easily accomplished by rapid climate downturns (such as happened in or around 540 AD, for example).
54 posted on 06/05/2002 6:48:00 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gladwin
Thanks for the ping. I'm glad the mammoth is extinct! (Someone had to say it.)
55 posted on 06/05/2002 6:54:59 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which some politically correct scientists will go to deny the obvious. After all, they have to defend the myth of the American Indian as "noble, ecologically sensitive, soulful mystical types". They just can't admit that the sudden extinction of quite a few large mammal species in North America (horse, camel, mammoth, mastodon, giant sloth, etc.) coincided with the arrival of the American Indian (the current American Indian migrants from 10-15,000 years ago, not the earlier, non-American Indian migrants).

There are a couple of cases in which gold being discovered in a region led within a short space of time to the construction of a number of new churches in the region, as well as to new whorehouses. People like yourself who didn't know how to look past first-level correlations naturally assumed that religion was the root cause of immorality.

Other than that, the first time in the history of the world that humans ever had the combination of firepower and mobility to even think about exterminating animal species off entire continents was the advent of Chengis Khan's army. To try to picture American Indian ancestors doing anything like that is a sick joke.

56 posted on 06/05/2002 6:58:11 PM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
Again, please show us an example of where a disease has caused a species to go extinct.

Seems like he gave pretty good examples of the honeycreeper (at least in lower altitudes), the Golden Toad (sightings have dropped to zero in 5 years), and the African Wild Dogs (from canine distemper)

Also, remember the findings about the pygmy mammoths living on an isolated island until about 5,000 years ago.

57 posted on 06/05/2002 7:03:21 PM PDT by chaosagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: general_re
mammoth is actually mighty tasty

Weren't there some frozen carcasses found in Siberia fresh enough to cook a steak and eat it?

The last mammoth died about 4000 years ago in Alaska, although some say that was a baby pigmy mammoth, which means nothing to me. Also there were stories of mammoths in Canada just 400 years ago.

58 posted on 06/05/2002 7:13:35 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Also there were stories of mammoths in Canada just 400 years ago.

In 1811 David Thompson reported seeing mammoth tracks near the Athabasca river.

a.cricket

59 posted on 06/05/2002 7:34:13 PM PDT by another cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: another cricket
mammoth tracks near the Athabasca river

I take a look before stepping outdoors, mainly because sometimes the way is blocked by the furry side of a moose, but you never know, a mammoth in the yard would be interesting for talk around the water cooler. Mammoths would probably eat my vegetable garden even quicker than moose do. Fence? What fence? Tromp! Trample! Stamp! Slurp! Mmmmm, fresh cabbages.

60 posted on 06/05/2002 7:46:15 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Uh, you do know who he was, don't you? Mind you, he could have been spinning a yarn but I doubt he would have put it in the offical report in that case. Big Business tends to have no sense of humor about such things.

Of course he could have made a mistake or the local tribe could have been pulling his leg.

a.cricket

61 posted on 06/05/2002 7:56:33 PM PDT by another cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST

Hmmm, have you ever seen Gerold Nadler in the same room as Hussein Ibish? Would they fit in the same room?

62 posted on 06/05/2002 8:41:05 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; vannrox; blam; Dirtboy
Even if it were a disease, there's no evidence that humans introduced it.

Interesting article. Although I don't buy it all, there is reason to think that a human population chasing a food source whose population has been depleted by disease could easily extirpate a species. IOW, why not "All of the Above"?

All sorts of critters came over from Asia with humans. I am certain that not a few bore parasites. Birds would spread them fast (as they did Brucellosis (Lyme's disease) for example). That being true, however, one would think the worldwide distribution would have already been attained.

For the theory to hold, whatever family of pathogens MacPhee suspects must all be terribly lethal, but not lethal to birds or spread by birds, or insects that parasiticize birds (such as ticks and fleas), because they would have already been here. That is a pretty narrow band of possibile carriers but not out of the question (soft-tissue worms for example). One then wonders about the vector or transmission mechanism and how it could have been so efficient and whether looking in bone marrow will yield anything.

Still, an interesting article and a thought provoking and possibly useful hypothesis.

63 posted on 06/05/2002 8:55:26 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: another cricket
Never heard of him. Let me guess. Hudson Bay Company.
64 posted on 06/05/2002 9:10:03 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Socialism, brought on by the queen mother of all sloths....

Hillary,

IMHO, just a guess.

65 posted on 06/05/2002 9:17:40 PM PDT by SERE_DOC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forester
This one is for fun.
66 posted on 06/05/2002 9:53:06 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
So let me get this straight...this disease could jump across so many species as to wipe out Mammoth, Wolly Rhinos, Giant Sloths, Saber Tooth Tigers, Dire Wolves, Mega Elk...but their cousins, smaller elk, mountain lions, wolves and elephants did not die out? How is this possible? If this disease is so deadly and jumps animal families so easily, why wipe out the big ones and not the little cousins?
67 posted on 06/05/2002 10:22:28 PM PDT by Stavka2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Barbie Doll
Over 100 specie of flora and fauna go extinct everyday.

And the empirical evidence for this is? The "100 species go extinct per day" claim was an off-the-cuff comment by some environmentalist whacko back in the '70s that has been taken as gospel by an credulous media ever since. Truth be told, there is no way to determine the number of species that may go extinct at any given time, and the 100-per-day claim means that 36,500 species go extinct each year (36,600 each leap year). There are between 1 million and 4 million species extent on the Earth right now. If the claims of the whackos were correct, in the last 30 years (since the claim was first made) somewhere between 25 percent to 100 percent of all species on the planet would now be extinct -- this is something not supported by the empirical evidence.

68 posted on 06/06/2002 3:15:38 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Missus
I meant 'early' Spaniards. The pox plague that killed most of the indigenous people of Mexico occurred around 1500-1515 or so. Way before any real exploration of the continental US.
69 posted on 06/06/2002 6:33:02 AM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Junior
If the claims of the whackos were correct, in the last 30 years (since the claim was first made) somewhere between 25 percent to 100 percent of all species on the planet would now be extinct -- this is something not supported by the empirical evidence.

Well, "Howdy Doody", I guess that means that speciation is not happening to replenish the losses. Darwin would be unhappy about that empirical evidence.

70 posted on 06/06/2002 6:36:14 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
A plague? Wow, I was always taught that we humans were the plague that wiped out the mammoths. :P
71 posted on 06/06/2002 6:41:24 AM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
You are a master at reading that which is not there. Speciation, as has been stated before on these threads (though I don't expect you'd admit to seeing such) does not occur overnight -- and would therefore be incapable of keeping up with the supposed level of extinction referred to by Miss Barbara.
72 posted on 06/06/2002 6:47:27 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
It was probably the Gun Show Loophole that did them in! IMO
73 posted on 06/06/2002 6:56:40 AM PDT by gilor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
What caused the extinctions? The Flood is my guess. DNA tests show that the people that were in North America 13,000 years ago are not related to American Indians. They were wiped out too. The species that were not wiped out were Old World Species that came over and re-populated after the Flood. Examples :the Moose and Musk Ox (and man). Other suriveors included species that lived high in the Andes mountains like the Llama. Every place man lived was wiped out, along with every ground-dwelling species that lived there.
74 posted on 06/06/2002 7:19:40 AM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
and would therefore be incapable of keeping up with the supposed level of extinction referred to by Miss Barbara.

Please enlighten us on the empirical evidence, i.e. the numbers to establish the facts one way or the other. Extinction, except in rare cases, does not occur overnight either.

75 posted on 06/06/2002 8:26:27 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Junior
You are a master at reading that which is not there.

I find that rather ironic considering the source, a Darwinian - who are champions of the just so stories.

76 posted on 06/06/2002 8:36:48 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Correct. Professional Explorer to be exact. I always thought that had to be the coolest profession.

a.cricket

77 posted on 06/06/2002 8:40:14 AM PDT by another cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Extinction, except in rare cases, does not occur overnight either.

Which is exactly what I said in response to Miss Barbara's claim that 100 species go extinct daily. Are you having problems following the discussion, or do you like to argue with evolutionists for the sake of arguing with them?

78 posted on 06/06/2002 8:55:09 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Which is exactly what I said in response to Miss Barbara's claim that 100 species go extinct daily.

No it isn't. You made no claim other than that empirical evidence, whatever you mean by that, does not support 100 species per day loss. I do not put any particular credence to that number as it is unsubstantiated and thus to be considered in the same light as many Darwinians claims. However, the fact is that " overnight" and "100 losses per day" are not the same. In light of the definitions used by Darwinians to justify speciation, it is not difficult to imagine the production of the required numbers hourly.

79 posted on 06/06/2002 9:13:42 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: another cricket
I guessed Hudson Bay Company because they were trapping all over the wilds of Canada trying to exterminate the beaver in those days and on into Alaska as well even though Alaska was Russian territory then. Fort Yukon was a Hudson Bay Company outpost on Russian territory, and the Russians didn't care since the Czar didn't venture far inland.
80 posted on 06/06/2002 9:28:28 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
See, now you are twisting my words in an effort to not admit an error on your part. In other words, you are like every other creationist on these threads -- afraid to admit an error because you fear that means your position in general would be in peril. Evolutionists never seem to have a problem admitting errors because we know that in general our position is correct and not likely to be threatened by any personal errors on our parts. 

What I said was the empirical evidence does not support the claim of the extinction of 100 species per day:

And the empirical evidence for this is? The "100 species go extinct per day" claim was an off-the-cuff comment by some environmentalist whacko back in the '70s that has been taken as gospel by an credulous media ever since. Truth be told, there is no way to determine the number of species that may go extinct at any given time, and the 100-per-day claim means that 36,500 species go extinct each year (36,600 each leap year). There are between 1 million and 4 million species extent on the Earth right now. If the claims of the whackos were correct, in the last 30 years (since the claim was first made) somewhere between 25 percent to 100 percent of all species on the planet would now be extinct -- this is something not supported by the empirical evidence.[68]

To which you replied:

Well, "Howdy Doody", I guess that means that speciation is not happening to replenish the losses. Darwin would be unhappy about that empirical evidence.[70]

Note that I had said nothing about speciation or even evolution at this point.  I simply stated the empirical evidence did not support the 100-species-per-day claim -- which I immediately pointed out to you:

You are a master at reading that which is not there. Speciation, as has been stated before on these threads (though I don't expect you'd admit to seeing such) does not occur overnight -- and would therefore be incapable of keeping up with the supposed level of extinction referred to by Miss Barbara.[72]

You came back with:

Please enlighten us on the empirical evidence, i.e. the numbers to establish the facts one way or the other. Extinction, except in rare cases, does not occur overnight either.[75]

Your reply 76 was a non-sequitur and just this side of an ad hominem, but as it  bears little relevance for the discussion here, we'll overlook it.  However, I pointed out in 78 that:

Which is exactly what I said in response to Miss Barbara's claim that 100 species go extinct daily. Are you having problems following the discussion, or do you like to argue with evolutionists for the sake of arguing with them?

In other words, I had never said species go extinct overnight.  Neither had I said species evolve overnight.  That was something you came up with completely on your own.  The sad fact is, you're slipping to the level of a Mr. Saturn or HWWNBN.  I often wondered why you and VadeRetro went at it tooth and nail and pretty much ignored most of your exchanges.  Now I understand just how infuriating it can be to discuss anything with you -- you obfuscate, prevaricate and generally twist words in an effort to get in little jabs.  I am seriously considering relegating you to the status of persona non grata as I have done to HWWNBN because of your tactics.

 

 

81 posted on 06/06/2002 9:35:13 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Plus they were the only "Big Business" around at this time in the North Americas I believe. They and The East India Company, now there was truly "Big Business."

To get back on the subject, while decease and loss of habitat might have contributed to the extinction I would say that hunting was what finished them off. The idea of taking “one or two per year” is contrary to the hunting methods used against large herd animals at this time, which was to drive the herd over a cliff. This allowed you to get maximum bang for your buck and kept your hunters from getting killed. Keeping your hunters healthy was a major consideration when a large band might have 100 people in it with maybe 25 hunters. Most were smaller with 10 to fifteen hunters. Losing even one was a serious loss to the tribe.

This was the method used against the buffalo and the buffalo population was steadily shrinking until the arrival of the horse when it became possible to hunt a few as needed. And buffalo have a much shorter cycle then the mammoths probably would have. Four years as opposed to twenty years I think.

a.cricket

82 posted on 06/06/2002 9:58:04 AM PDT by another cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Your reply 76 was a non-sequitur and just this side of an ad hominem,

This is truly hilarious. As if, You are a master at reading that which is not there. is not an Ad Hominem! And talk about twisting words. I mention overnight in response to your mention of the word and the use is to deny overnight. You make this out to mean that I said you said things happen overnight. Balderdash!


Well, "Howdy Doody", I guess that means that speciation is not happening to replenish the losses. Darwin would be unhappy about that empirical evidence.

Please enlighten us on the empirical evidence, i.e. the numbers to establish the facts one way or the other. Extinction, except in rare cases, does not occur overnight either.

I find that rather ironic considering the source, a Darwinian - who are champions of the just so stories.

No it isn't. You made no claim other than that empirical evidence, whatever you mean by that, does not support 100 species per day loss. I do not put any particular credence to that number as it is unsubstantiated and thus to be considered in the same light as many Darwinians claims. However, the fact is that " overnight" and "100 losses per day" are not the same. In light of the definitions used by Darwinians to justify speciation, it is not difficult to imagine the production of the required numbers hourly.


Now those are all of my words in this exchange. Point out where I have twisted your words. I made a comment on the fact that species were said to disappear without the mention of the appearance of new species. Not only would dear Charles be disappointed, but the danger of total extinction of life is evident in that situation. If that is twisting your words, you need to debate elsewhere or remain frustrated. At two points of the four responses you have had opportunity to provide numbers and substance to your claims, you have not done so. My third response was in answer to an Ad Hominem(a real one). My last response was to tell you that I did not see you mention overnight in your initial answer to Miss B. You mention Ad Hominem and then finish with a flourish of Ad Hominem in your response. Now who is it that starts Ad Hominem? Look at your first word in your initial response to me, post 72.
83 posted on 06/06/2002 10:33:27 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Great article. Gets me thinking.

Who says that disease and hunting couldn't have worked together to wipe them out? Same happened to Native Americans BTW. Poetic justice? Maybe God didn't like the fact that the NA peoples wiped out his mammoths so he sent his world exterminator service (AKA the "white devil") over to make them pay 11K years later!

EBUCK

84 posted on 06/06/2002 11:23:58 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I don't have a problem with the disease scenario per se, I just don't see how a very sparse human population could spread it all around North America, from tropics to ice floes, from east to west, in such a short time.

That is not the problem that you think. The Europeans were very few at first and they did spread the sicknesses throughout the Americas. The black plague went through Europe in just 2-3 years. All humans and all species have contact with their neighbors. This is not as unlikely as it sounds.

85 posted on 06/06/2002 5:37:43 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
I'm sure it was a MEGALETHAL, supersecret, scarey, hidden epidemic of the common cold.
86 posted on 06/06/2002 5:44:36 PM PDT by exnavy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
See, now you are twisting my words in an effort to not admit an error on your part.

He did no such thing. He just asked you to back up your claim that there is evidence that 100 species do not die every day. That's all. That you answer him with an ad hominem rant shows that he was right to question your statement. You had no such evidence, had never seen any such evidence, you just plain made it up. If you were able to back up what you said you would not have to degrade this discussion by insulting someone that disagrees with you.

87 posted on 06/06/2002 5:53:00 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: gore3000; RightWhale; Junior; AndrewC
I wish I had come across this thread earlier. These silly assertions that there are 100 extinctions a day, or more, are simply a hoax. There is no verifiable evidence that can be cited to back up these wild allegations.

Check out The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg.

Lomborg, a self-described former "old leftist Greenpeace member" deals with the issue of species extinction on pages 249-257 of his book.

The actual facts, as best as can be determined, are that about 25 species go extinct every decade, most of them insects, worms, bacteria, viruses, fungi and other invertebrates.

Lomborg, like the Fox News Channel, presents all sides of the argument - Fair and Balanced. Without humans in the picture, the number of extinctions per decade, based on historical records, would only be about 2 instead of 25. So humans do have a negative influence, but certainly nothing like the ludicrous claims of lunatic left-wing environmental extremists.

88 posted on 08/15/2002 7:52:48 PM PDT by StopGlobalWhining
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: another cricket
hunting was what finished them off

When I was in second grade or third, I attended an art class and learned how to draw. My drawing has not progressed significantly since, but the interesting thing was this other kid, a marginal retard. He wasn't smart, not even for a second-grader, but he didn't know anything, really nothing. Most kids know some stuff, he knew nothing.

He wasn't able to draw or do anything with clay or mache, just a total dunce. But one day we were asked to draw an elephant. Surprise! He drew an elephant, rendered in 3-D shadowing and texture, great range of color, and it was just a great-looking elephant. Then we went to clay and he made a clay elephant if anything even better than his drawing. I asked him how he learned to draw elephants, and he didn't know. He just always could, but nobody ever asked him to, so he never did.

Perhaps he was descended from a group of mammoth hunters a few eons ago. Something like mammoth-hunting would have to be almost genetic, you would have to "know" how the mammoth works, how it thinks. Bet that kid would have been a mammoth hunter.

89 posted on 08/15/2002 8:43:07 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

Just adding this to the GGG catalog, not sending a general distribution.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest
-- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

90 posted on 05/19/2005 9:05:19 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (FR profiled updated Tuesday, May 10, 2005. Fewer graphics, faster loading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox

"What killed the mammoths and other behemoths?"

Bush's fault.


91 posted on 05/19/2005 9:09:29 AM PDT by FatherofFive (Choose life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox

They were all slain in the Battle of Pellinor Fields.


92 posted on 05/19/2005 9:11:36 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Just updating the GGG information, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

93 posted on 12/16/2006 2:12:15 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Don't bother, I haven't updated my profile since 11/16/06. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

blast from the past.
 
Catastrophism
 
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·
 

94 posted on 06/16/2007 1:12:47 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Time heals all wounds, particularly when they're not yours. Profile updated June 15, 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes: Flood, Fire, and Famine in the History of Civilization The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes:
Flood, Fire, and Famine
in the History of Civilization

by Richard Firestone,
Allen West, and
Simon Warwick-Smith


95 posted on 11/27/2007 10:04:40 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Tuesday, November 27, 2007___________________https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


96 posted on 08/27/2008 9:53:29 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile hasn't been updated since Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-96 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson