New www page on mammoths
Brett J. Vickers
Don Lowry <jlo...@tfb.com> wrote:
[...a bunch of questions, most of which are answered in the original
posting...]
>>Finally, Ted writes:
>
>> "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?"
>
>Still two very good questions which you haven't answered.
The first question was pretty much answered by my previous excerpts
from the talk.origins FAQ, though I'll grant that the second one
wasn't addressed very well. In any case, the brief answers are:
1. Subarctic climates weren't always the same as they are today.
2. Predation by humans. Other mass-kill sites suggest that hominids
sometimes hunted large animals by herding them off cliffs or into
swamps. Kind of wasteful, but it puts food on the table.
More details can be found in the FAQ at
http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/mammoths.html.
>And don't refer my to some other web site. You brought it up here.
>Answer it here.
I'm no expert on mammoths. My point was not to argue whether mammoths
were killed by a pinball-planet catastrophe. Rather, it was to prove
that Ted Holden's claims about the talk.origins mammoth FAQ were
false.
--
Brett J. Vickers bvic...@ics.uci.edu
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~bvickers/
Ted Holden
>>> "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?"
> 1. Subarctic climates weren't always the same as they are today.
> 2. Predation by humans. Other mass-kill sites suggest that hominids
> sometimes hunted large animals by herding them off cliffs or into
> swamps. Kind of wasteful, but it puts food on the table.
Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
White Lies". Anybody interested in seeing exactly how much garbage is
retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
"FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
copy of Deloria's book.
There is simply zero evidence of anything such as that ever having
happened in the Americas. To exterminate all of the vast herds of
large animals in the Americas would hae required four things in
quantities which nobody ever dreamed of having in the Americas, i.e.
firepower, mobility, organization, and logistics. Even if Indian
ancestors had had automstic weapons (i.e. just the firepower) they could
not have exterminated the mammoths and other megafauna, which would have
simply filled in behind them.
The first human being in the entire history of the world who could have
plausibly done such a thing would have been the Washington Post's nominee
for Man of the Millenium, Chengis Khan.
Deloria's chapter on this topic is titled "Mythical Pleistocene Hit Men",
which is about as much respect as the theory rates.
Carl J Lydick
=bvic...@tango.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
=
=>>> "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?"
=
=> 1. Subarctic climates weren't always the same as they are today.
=> 2. Predation by humans. Other mass-kill sites suggest that hominids
=> sometimes hunted large animals by herding them off cliffs or into
=> swamps. Kind of wasteful, but it puts food on the table.
=
=
=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
=White Lies". Anybody interested in seeing exactly how much garbage is
=retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
=copy of Deloria's book.
Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such sites as
Buffalo Jump, Wyoming? C'mon, if the author actually has some other way to
account for them than simply ignoring them, some folks might actually consider
buying the book. As it stands, the fact that you recommend the book makes it
seem likely that it's nothing more than a bunch of unsubstantiated speculation
written without any knowledge of, nor regard for, inconvenient facts.
=There is simply zero evidence of anything such as that ever having
=happened in the Americas.
So explain Buffalo Jump, Wyoming to us, Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Ted Holden
>In article <medved.820586640@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>=bvic...@tango.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>=
>=>>> "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?"
>=
>=> 1. Subarctic climates weren't always the same as they are today.
>=> 2. Predation by humans. Other mass-kill sites suggest that hominids
>=> sometimes hunted large animals by herding them off cliffs or into
>=> swamps. Kind of wasteful, but it puts food on the table.
>=
>=
>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
>=White Lies". Anybody interested in seeing exactly how much garbage is
>=retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
>=copy of Deloria's book.
>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such sites as
>Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
interpretation your ilk places on it.
The real story of mammoth extinction is told in the muck of Alaska and
Canada, and in the Liakhovs and Novo-Sibirsk island chains, and Deloria
gives a very detailed analysis of those sites.
Unlike yourself, he does not appear interested in trivia or
irrelevancies.
John Morris
ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU "Carl J Lydick" writes:
> Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such sites as
> Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
What is "Buffalo Jump, Wyoming"?
--
John Morris Usenet is essentially Letters to the Editor
Jo...@kirsta.demon.co.uk without the editor. Editors don't appreciate
GM4ANB@GB7EDN.#77.GBR.EU this, for some reason. - Larry Wall
Bill Snyder
Holden) wrote:
>ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such sites as
>>Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
>I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>interpretation your ilk places on it.
>The real story of mammoth extinction is told in the muck of Alaska and
>Canada, and in the Liakhovs and Novo-Sibirsk island chains, and Deloria
>gives a very detailed analysis of those sites.
>Unlike yourself, he does not appear interested in trivia or
>irrelevancies.
Or in verifiable facts, quite evidently.
--
-- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]
Rick Toomey
>I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>interpretation your ilk places on it.
>
>The real story of mammoth extinction is told in the muck of Alaska and
>Canada, and in the Liakhovs and Novo-Sibirsk island chains, and Deloria
>gives a very detailed analysis of those sites.
>
>Unlike yourself, he does not appear interested in trivia or
>irrelevancies.
>
No, the muck in the places you mention provides SOME of the
story. The story is also in Illinois, New York, California,
Texas, Florida, central Mexico, Scandinavia, Spain, Great
Britian, Ukraine, and all of the large number of other
places from which mammoths have been recovered.
To go extinct, a species must go extinct throughout its
range. Regional explanations are not enough.
Rick Toomey
Illinois State Museum
too...@museum.state.il.us
Carl J Lydick
=>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
=>=retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
=>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
=>=copy of Deloria's book.
=
=>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such sites as
=>Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
=
=I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
=interpretation your ilk places on it.
In other words, Ted accounts for facts which refute his fantasies by simply
ignoring them.
Carl J Lydick
=In article <4ccbu7$m...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
= ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU "Carl J Lydick" writes:
=
=> Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such sites as
=> Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
=
A cliff, at the bottom of which are the bones of MANY buffalo, along with
artifacts from the Indians who butchered the buffalo at the site.
Rich Travsky
>>=bvic...@tango.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>>=
>>=>>> "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?"
>>=
>>=> 1. Subarctic climates weren't always the same as they are today.
>>=> 2. Predation by humans. Other mass-kill sites suggest that hominids
>>=> sometimes hunted large animals by herding them off cliffs or into
>>=> swamps. Kind of wasteful, but it puts food on the table.
>>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
>>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
>
>I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
where a herd was stampeded over the edge of cliff. Wasteful no doubt,
but easier and safer to carry. Large numbers of animals were killed
in this fashiion and there is evidence that such sites were used
repeatedly.
Mammoths, like today's elephants, were probably slow breeders. Mass
kills could put a severe crimp in the populations of such large animals.
>The real story of mammoth extinction is told in the muck of Alaska and
>Canada, and in the Liakhovs and Novo-Sibirsk island chains, and Deloria
>gives a very detailed analysis of those sites.
So what about ones in say, Florida?
>Unlike yourself, he does not appear interested in trivia or
>irrelevancies.
Trivial and irrlevant only because of the holes it pokes in your scenario.
+----------+ Rich Travsky RTRAVSKY @ UWYO . EDU
| | Division of Information Technology
| | University of Wyoming (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
| UW | "Wyoming is the capital of Denver." - a tourist
| * | "One of those square states." - another tourist
+----------+ http://plains.uwyo.edu/~rtravsky/
Ted Holden
>>>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
>>>=White Lies". Anybody interested in seeing exactly how much garbage is
>>>=retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
>>>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
>>>=copy of Deloria's book.
>>
>>>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such sites as
>>>Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
>>
>>I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>>interpretation your ilk places on it.
>You should care. The Buffalo Jump site is a mass kill site. One of those
>where a herd was stampeded over the edge of cliff. Wasteful no doubt,
>but easier and safer to carry. Large numbers of animals were killed
>in this fashiion and there is evidence that such sites were used
>repeatedly.
Basically, without having had cameras there or having been there, you
don't have any real idea what stampeded the herd of buffalos (I assume
that's what you're talking about) over the cliff in question, if that in
fact happened. A lightning storm, a volcano, or anything else might have
caused the cliff jump and you'd have no way of knowing it, would you. I
mean, even if Indians had somehow spooked a herd of buffalo over a cliff,
there'd be no way to tell that because anything the Indians might have
done would be annihilated by the bufalo tracks, wouldn't they?
Likewise, Indians finding a herd o buffalo at the bottom of such a scene
would be within their rights to butcher one or two and eat them, wouldn't
they? Equally obviously, Indians occasionally burned off grasses to
encourage new growth the following year; any evidence of fires started
by Indians could as easily be that kind of story as anything else.
I mean, basically, You don't really have any clue at all as to what
you're talking about, do you? Anybody trying to make a case of Indian
ancestors killing out all North American megafauna based on that kind of
evidence is really out to lunch, isn't he?
According to the overkill theory which you are mouthing, the Indians are
supposed to have wiped out all mammoths, all mastodons, all short-faced
bears, all yaks, all camels, all giant ground sloths, all oxen, all giant
armadillos, all extinct moose, all giant beaver, all extinct pronghorn,
and a whole slew of other animals which went extinct at the same time.
Why did they not start with the smaller animals, which would have been
far easier to kill?
Having developed so great a blood-lust, why did they stop with the animal
groups which they had killed out and not kill out the buffalo and all
American deer as well?
Why did the mega-carnivores go extinct? Did the Indians kill all of the
sabre-tooth cats and North American super lions (6' at shoulders, 1200
lbs.) for food when there wre abundant deer? That would be stupid as
hell, wouldn't it? The mega-carnivores obviously did not all starve with
abundant deer and bison around, did they?
Likewise according to standard theory, Indians are supposed to have
exterminated vast numbers of mammoth in areas which were often -60
degrees. Wouldn't you stop after one mammoth and then get back indoors?
That's pretty stupid, isn't it?
Likewise, Deloria notes that the overkill theory postulates a population
explosion (amongst the hunters who supposedly came over the Bering land
bridge) of from 100 or so to 10 million in about 340 years. Deloria
notes that sex is normally viewed as fun, and that these people, having
gotten that good at it, should have retained the same birth ratio into
historical times, and the europeans should have arrived upon a continent
as densely populated as China.
Basically, the overkill hypothesis amounts to a whole lot of really
stupid bullshit, doesn't it?
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Charles Bragg
>>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such sites as
>>Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
>I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>interpretation your ilk places on it.
>The real story of mammoth extinction is told in the muck of Alaska and
>Canada, and in the Liakhovs and Novo-Sibirsk island chains, and Deloria
>gives a very detailed analysis of those sites.
>Unlike yourself, he does not appear interested in trivia or
>irrelevancies.
Ah. If Ted doesn't know about it, it's irrelevant.
================
"I ain't an ilk. I'm a gnu." -- Michael Flanders (well, nearly).
================
================
"It's not irrelevant, it's a hippopotamus." -- Michael Flanders.
================
CHARLES JOHNSON
rtra...@UWYO.EDU (Rich Travsky) wrote:
>med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>>ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>>>med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>>>=bvic...@tango.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>>>=
>>>=>>> "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?"
>>>=
>>>=> 1. Subarctic climates weren't always the same as they are today.
>>>=> 2. Predation by humans. Other mass-kill sites suggest that hominids
>>>=> sometimes hunted large animals by herding them off cliffs or into
>>>=> swamps. Kind of wasteful, but it puts food on the table.
>>>=
>>>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
>>>=White Lies". Anybody interested in seeing exactly how much garbage is
>>>=retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
>>>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
>>>=copy of Deloria's book.
>>
>>>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such sites as
>>>Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
>>
>>I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>>interpretation your ilk places on it.
>You should care. The Buffalo Jump site is a mass kill site. One of those
>where a herd was stampeded over the edge of cliff. Wasteful no doubt,
>but easier and safer to carry. Large numbers of animals were killed
>in this fashiion and there is evidence that such sites were used
>repeatedly.
>
>Mammoths, like today's elephants, were probably slow breeders. Mass
>kills could put a severe crimp in the populations of such large animals.
>
>>The real story of mammoth extinction is told in the muck of Alaska and
>>Canada, and in the Liakhovs and Novo-Sibirsk island chains, and Deloria
>>gives a very detailed analysis of those sites.
>So what about ones in say, Florida?
>
>>Unlike yourself, he does not appear interested in trivia or
>>irrelevancies.
>Trivial and irrlevant only because of the holes it pokes in your scenario.
>
Pray tell what do buffalos killed in 1700 and 1800 AD have to do with
mammoths no matter where the mammoths are?
==========================================================================
cha...@mci.newscorp.com |Proverbs 3:5,6 Trust in the LORD with all thine
ch...@testla.netline.net |heart; and lean not on thine own understanding.
user7...@aol.com |In all thy ways acknowledge HIM and HE shall
|direct thy path.
==========================================================================
CHARLES JOHNSON
ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) wrote:
>In article <medved.820637703@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>=>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
>=>=White Lies". Anybody interested in seeing exactly how much garbage is
>=>=retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
>=>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
>=>=copy of Deloria's book.
>=
>=>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such sites as
>=>Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
>=
>=I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>=interpretation your ilk places on it.
>
>In other words, Ted accounts for facts which refute his fantasies by simply
>ignoring them.
Why worry about things that have nothing to do with the discussion. What
indians did in 1700 and 1800 AD with buffalos has nothing to do with
mammoths that were long dead at that time.
Ted Holden
>Why worry about things that have nothing to do with the discussion. What
>indians did in 1700 and 1800 AD with buffalos has nothing to do with
>mammoths that were long dead at that time.
If the Buffalo-jump event (assuming it is not immaginary) occurred in the
1700's or 1800's, then it was accomplished by Indians who probably had
horses, while the guys who supposedly exterminated the mammoths and other
megafauna were on foot. Again, they could have had automatic weapons on
foot and not been able to exterminate mammoths all over North America.
The herds would have simply filled in behind them, like trying to punch
through jello.
Bob Casanova
>From: ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
>Subject: Re: New www page on mammoths
>Date: 3 Jan 1996 23:54:45 GMT
>In article <medved.820637703@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>=>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
>=>=White Lies". Anybody interested in seeing exactly how much garbage is
>=>=retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
>=>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
>=>=copy of Deloria's book.
>=
>=>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such sites as
>=>Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
>=
>=I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>=interpretation your ilk places on it.
>In other words, Ted accounts for facts which refute his fantasies by simply
>ignoring them.
And he can't even tell the difference between ilk and bison... ;-}
(Sorry 'bout that)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-->Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
>understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
>unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
>organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
>hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Bob C.
* Good, fast, cheap! (Pick 2) *
phil. Felton
<cha...@mci.newscorp.com> wrote:
> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) wrote:
> >In article <medved.820637703@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net (Ted
Holden) writes:
> >=>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
> >=>=White Lies". Anybody interested in seeing exactly how much garbage is
> >=>=retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
> >=>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
> >=>=copy of Deloria's book.
> >=
> >=>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such
sites as
> >=>Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
> >=
> >=I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
> >=interpretation your ilk places on it.
> >
> >In other words, Ted accounts for facts which refute his fantasies by simply
> >ignoring them.
> Why worry about things that have nothing to do with the discussion. What
> indians did in 1700 and 1800 AD with buffalos has nothing to do with
> mammoths that were long dead at that time.
I don't know where the 1700-1800 AD date comes from but the Buffalo Jump in
Alberta was used for over 6000 years.
Phil.
Rich Travsky
>CHARLES JOHNSON <cha...@mci.newscorp.com> wrote:
>> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) wrote:
>> >med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>> >=>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
>> >=>=White Lies". Anybody interested in seeing exactly how much garbage is
>> >=>=retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
>> >=>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
>> >=>=copy of Deloria's book.
>> >=
>> >=>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such
>> >=I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>> >=interpretation your ilk places on it.
>> >
>> >In other words, Ted accounts for facts which refute his fantasies by simply
>> >ignoring them.
>> Why worry about things that have nothing to do with the discussion. What
>> indians did in 1700 and 1800 AD with buffalos has nothing to do with
>> mammoths that were long dead at that time.
>
>I don't know where the 1700-1800 AD date comes from but the Buffalo Jump in
>Alberta was used for over 6000 years.
periods of time. In other words, a well established hunting technique.
Rich Travsky
>CHARLES JOHNSON <cha...@mci.newscorp.com> writes:
>>Why worry about things that have nothing to do with the discussion. What
>>indians did in 1700 and 1800 AD with buffalos has nothing to do with
>>mammoths that were long dead at that time.
>
>1700's or 1800's, then it was accomplished by Indians who probably had
>horses, while the guys who supposedly exterminated the mammoths and other
>megafauna were on foot. Again, they could have had automatic weapons on
>foot and not been able to exterminate mammoths all over North America.
>The herds would have simply filled in behind them, like trying to punch
>through jello.
ore automatic weapons. Further, early native Americans also applied
mass killing techniques to other animals such as Big Horn Sheep and antelope.
The animals can be driven by noise, fire, herding techniques (simply chasing
them). I recommend some elementary North American Archaeology.
phil. Felton
Holden) wrote:
> CHARLES JOHNSON <cha...@mci.newscorp.com> writes:
>
>
> >Why worry about things that have nothing to do with the discussion. What
> >indians did in 1700 and 1800 AD with buffalos has nothing to do with
> >mammoths that were long dead at that time.
>
> If the Buffalo-jump event (assuming it is not immaginary) occurred in the
> 1700's or 1800's, then it was accomplished by Indians who probably had
> horses, while the guys who supposedly exterminated the mammoths and other
> megafauna were on foot. Again, they could have had automatic weapons on
> foot and not been able to exterminate mammoths all over North America.
> The herds would have simply filled in behind them, like trying to punch
> through jello.
The buffalo jump in Alberta was in use for 6000 years so the comments regarding
horses don't apply. Hunters on foot with rifles did a pretty efficient job
of wiping out the African elephant over the last 150 yrs, it took determined
government intervention to stop them. Likewise the plains buffalo was reduced
from 60,000,000 to virtual extinction in a few decades, they had the useful
feature of forming large herds which would follow known migration routes to the
killing fields. If mammoths had similar habits automatic weapons would not
have been necessary! What evidence is there for vast herds of Mammoth in
North
America, they entered the continent across the Bering land bridge relatively
recently and so may not have been present in large numbers?
Phil.
Rich Travsky
>CHARLES JOHNSON <cha...@mci.newscorp.com> writes:
>=>med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>=>>ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>=>>>med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>=>>>=bvic...@tango.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>=>>>=
>=>>>=>>> "Again, the real problems are:
>=>>>=>>> 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?"
>=>>>=
>=>>>=> 1. Subarctic climates weren't always the same as they are today.
>=>>>=> sometimes hunted large animals by herding them off cliffs or into
>=>>>=> swamps. Kind of wasteful, but it puts food on the table.
>=>>>=
>=>>>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
>=>>>=White Lies". Anybody interested in seeing exactly how much garbage is
>=>>>=retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
>=>>>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
>=>>>=copy of Deloria's book.
>=>>
>=>>>Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
>=>>
>=>>interpretation your ilk places on it.
>=>You should care. The Buffalo Jump site is a mass kill site. One of those
>=>where a herd was stampeded over the edge of cliff. Wasteful no doubt,
>=>but easier and safer to carry. Large numbers of animals were killed
>=>in this fashiion and there is evidence that such sites were used
>=>repeatedly.
>=>
>=>Mammoths, like today's elephants, were probably slow breeders. Mass
>=>kills could put a severe crimp in the populations of such large animals.
>=>
>=>>The real story of mammoth extinction is told in the muck of Alaska and
>=>>Canada, and in the Liakhovs and Novo-Sibirsk island chains, and Deloria
>=>>gives a very detailed analysis of those sites.
>=>So what about ones in say, Florida?
>=>
>=>>Unlike yourself, he does not appear interested in trivia or
>=>>irrelevancies.
>=>Trivial and irrlevant only because of the holes it pokes in your scenario.
>=>
>=Pray tell what do buffalos killed in 1700 and 1800 AD have to do with
>=mammoths no matter where the mammoths are?
>
>They demonstrate that native Americans used a particular technique for killing
>big game in large numbers. Ted has repeatedly claimed that in order to make
>such kills, one needed technology not available to the native Americans. And
>that premise is fundamental to his claim that the American indians had nothing
>to do with the extinction of the mammoths.
There is other archaeological evidence for mass hunting tactics. Early
native Americans also drove Big Horn Sheep and antelope into killing zones
(to borrow a contemporary term). Applied against slow breeding animals,
the results could be devastating...
Rich Travsky
>rtra...@UWYO.EDU (Rich Travsky) writes:
>>>>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
>>>>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
>>>
>>>I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>
>Basically, without having had cameras there or having been there, you
Apply this specious logic to your own claptrap: Without cameras, what
evidence do you have for telepathic doggies? For Saturn flying by the
Earth? (or whatever it is you spew)
>don't have any real idea what stampeded the herd of buffalos (I assume
>that's what you're talking about) over the cliff in question, if that in
>fact happened. A lightning storm, a volcano, or anything else might have
>caused the cliff jump and you'd have no way of knowing it, would you. I
>mean, even if Indians had somehow spooked a herd of buffalo over a cliff,
>there'd be no way to tell that because anything the Indians might have
>done would be annihilated by the bufalo tracks, wouldn't they?
>
>Likewise, Indians finding a herd o buffalo at the bottom of such a scene
>would be within their rights to butcher one or two and eat them, wouldn't
>they? Equally obviously, Indians occasionally burned off grasses to
>encourage new growth the following year; any evidence of fires started
>by Indians could as easily be that kind of story as anything else.
Right. Buffalo are so dumb they just walk over the same dropoff several
thousand years in a row...
>I mean, basically, You don't really have any clue at all as to what
>you're talking about, do you? Anybody trying to make a case of Indian
>ancestors killing out all North American megafauna based on that kind of
>evidence is really out to lunch, isn't he?
Wiping out large numbers of breeding adults could severely affect
populations of slow breeding animals.
>According to the overkill theory which you are mouthing, the Indians are
>supposed to have wiped out all mammoths, all mastodons, all short-faced
>bears, all yaks, all camels, all giant ground sloths, all oxen, all giant
>armadillos, all extinct moose, all giant beaver, all extinct pronghorn,
>and a whole slew of other animals which went extinct at the same time.
Sorry. Mass kill sites show evidence of having been used over long periods
of time. In Wyoming there are also sheep traps (that is, Big Horn Sheep)
where herds were channeled so they could be more easily killed. Affecting
one part of the ecosystem can have dynamic effects on other parts of the
ecological chain. Example: Herds of buffalo churn up the ground, softening
it for new plant growth. Hunt out the buffalo, this has a long term effect
on the plant fauna. And plants are eaten by ...?
>Why did they not start with the smaller animals, which would have been
>far easier to kill?
Large animals are easily herded and provide such nice things as _hides_.
Try making clothes or a tent out of a mass of rabbit hides...
>Having developed so great a blood-lust, why did they stop with the animal
>groups which they had killed out and not kill out the buffalo and all
>American deer as well?
>
>Why did the mega-carnivores go extinct? Did the Indians kill all of the
>sabre-tooth cats and North American super lions (6' at shoulders, 1200
>lbs.) for food when there wre abundant deer? That would be stupid as
>hell, wouldn't it? The mega-carnivores obviously did not all starve with
>abundant deer and bison around, did they?
There is evidence sabre tooths were considerably over specialized. Again,
whack one part pf the system, you can adversely affect other parts.
>Likewise according to standard theory, Indians are supposed to have
>exterminated vast numbers of mammoth in areas which were often -60
>degrees. Wouldn't you stop after one mammoth and then get back indoors?
>That's pretty stupid, isn't it?
No. Kill a bunch at one time and you can let the meat freeze, thus you
needn't hunt as often. You have to think in terms of a group, not an
individual. Big DUH for you.
>Likewise, Deloria notes that the overkill theory postulates a population
>explosion (amongst the hunters who supposedly came over the Bering land
>bridge) of from 100 or so to 10 million in about 340 years. Deloria
>notes that sex is normally viewed as fun, and that these people, having
>gotten that good at it, should have retained the same birth ratio into
>historical times, and the europeans should have arrived upon a continent
>as densely populated as China.
Hmmm. Without a camera, how do we know this really happened?
>Basically, the overkill hypothesis amounts to a whole lot of really
>stupid bullshit, doesn't it?
If it does, you sure haven't shown it.
Gotta go, my telepathic dog says he wants out.
Timothy A. Seufert
Holden) wrote:
>If the Buffalo-jump event (assuming it is not immaginary) occurred in the
>1700's or 1800's, then it was accomplished by Indians who probably had
>horses, while the guys who supposedly exterminated the mammoths and other
>megafauna were on foot. Again, they could have had automatic weapons on
>foot and not been able to exterminate mammoths all over North America.
>The herds would have simply filled in behind them, like trying to punch
>through jello.
Ted, the buffalo (which were present in huge populations) were nearly
wiped out in a *very* short period of time without the use of automatic
weapons.
Furthermore, very large animals such as mammoths do not have large
populations. They eat too much, and will starve if there are too many
animals competing for food in the same area. They also have very slow
reproduction rates (I vaguely recall that gestation time for modern
elephants is on the order of two years, and the young take a long time to
grow to maturity). Both these factors mean that mammoth would be much
easier to wipe out than buffalo. The fact that you cannot personally
imagine the possibility of doing so without modern technology does not
mean that it couldn't be done.
I'm not, by the way, stating any opinion about whether the Indians did or
didn't almost wipe out any species. I'm just addressing some of the usual
silly arguments that turn up in your posts.
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|Tim Seufert, bwa...@cats.ucsc.edu | UselessWastedSpace(tm) |
| "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth, and they |
| think it is hell." -Harry S Truman |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Carl J Lydick
=
=
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Ted Holden
>Furthermore, very large animals such as mammoths do not have large
>populations. They eat too much, and will starve if there are too many
>animals competing for food in the same area. They also have very slow
>reproduction rates (I vaguely recall that gestation time for modern
>elephants is on the order of two years, and the young take a long time to
>grow to maturity). Both these factors mean that mammoth would be much
>easier to wipe out than buffalo. The fact that you cannot personally
>imagine the possibility of doing so without modern technology does not
>mean that it couldn't be done.
>I'm not, by the way, stating any opinion about whether the Indians did or
>didn't almost wipe out any species. I'm just addressing some of the usual
>silly arguments that turn up in your posts.
The guys who wiped the bison had trains, horses, and 50 caliber rifles firing
miniballs at 1200'/sec., and the full backing of the US government, i.e. the
firepower, mobility, logistics, and organization I mentioned as necessary for
grandiose killouts of large herds of animals over wide areas, and the bison
were in a few states rather than spread out over the Northern US and Canada.
One guy could sit there and drop 50 - 100
bison in an hour or so.
Sorry, Bwanga, try again...
Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html
______
[ \ ^^^^^^^^^^ / ]
\ \ / /---
| \ \ / / |
_..-'( / _0 | 0_ \ )`-.._
./'. '||\\. / \ _ / \ .//||` .`\
'.|'.'||||\\|.. _______ / \__/ \__/ \ _____..|//||||`.`|.`
/'.||'.||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||.`||.`\.
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
Thomas S. Zemanian
> med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
[deletia]
> >
> >Likewise, Indians finding a herd o buffalo at the bottom of such a scene
> >would be within their rights to butcher one or two and eat them, wouldn't
> >they? Equally obviously, Indians occasionally burned off grasses to
> >encourage new growth the following year; any evidence of fires started
> >by Indians could as easily be that kind of story as anything else.
> Right. Buffalo are so dumb they just walk over the same dropoff several
> thousand years in a row...
>
Huh? Buffalo are close relatives of lemmings? This is going to throw the
claddists into a tizzy!
--Tom
--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy hands off 'em!
Ted Holden
>The paranoia about racism inherent in the Red Earth White Lies stuff is
>way off beam. Mass extinction of species caused by human immigration
>is not a accusation directed _solely_ at aboriginals on the continents
>called America.
The real accusation is of stupidity; I suspect it simply irks Deloria
and other Indians to have anybody think ill of Indians simply because
scientists wish to be stupid...
Carl J Lydick
=Vine Deloria notes (Red Earth, White Lies) wrt the notion of Indian
=ancestors having exterminated the American megafauna (not just mammoths):
=
=.........................................................................
=
=
=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.
Well, Deloria starts off by demonstrating a willingness to use words that he
(or is it she?) doesn't understand. The corpus delicti is "the body of the
case." I.e., the evidence taken as a whole. It need not be the corpse.
=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.
Note the actual argument here: It's asserted that since some animals
apparently died of natural causes, the extinction of the species could not have
been the result of overhunting. I guess that means that, since many smallpox
viruses have died of natural causes, the (apparent) extinction of smallpox
(except for samples kept at a couple of labs) can't have been due to human
actions, right Ted?
Ted Holden
>The buffalo jump in Alberta was in use for 6000 years so the comments regarding
>horses don't apply. Hunters on foot with rifles did a pretty efficient job
>of wiping out the African elephant over the last 150 yrs, it took determined
>government intervention to stop them. Likewise the plains buffalo was reduced
>from 60,000,000 to virtual extinction in a few decades, they had the useful
>feature of forming large herds which would follow known migration routes to the
>killing fields. If mammoths had similar habits automatic weapons would not
>have been necessary! What evidence is there for vast herds of Mammoth in
>North
>America, they entered the continent across the Bering land bridge relatively
>recently and so may not have been present in large numbers?
Whether or not you could construct some sort of a fairytale world in
which 100 Indians walk over the Bering straight and somehow manage to
survive and totally wipe all the North American megafauna, the actual
evidence insists that nothing like that ever happened, and that the
megafauna perished in global catastrophe.
Vine Deloria notes (Red Earth, White Lies) wrt the notion of Indian
ancestors having exterminated the American megafauna (not just mammoths):
........................................................................
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 Mar-
tin and Diamond, to identiiy where the bodies are buried and
then take the reader on a gut-wrenching tour through a grave-
yard 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
Mike Gilbert
arrival of humans. Elephant exist in only the minutest fraction of their
former range, again due to predation pressure. My own ancestors in Ireland
obliterated Megaceros, among other indigenes. Think of the passenger pigeon,
the dodo, the rapid disappearance of the moa in New Zealand. There used to
be wolves, bear, great bustard and countless other species on the UK
mainland, all of which were extinguished by humans.
I am well aware that the American aboriginals were crapped on from a great
height by European settlers, and that they are still disadvantaged. This,
however, is no reason to regard science as anything other than
dispassionate. I have never heard it expressed that the immigrants went all
out to destroy any species. The dodo problem happens; animals need to evolve
fear of humans. Large tonnages of meat on the hoof are a wonderful resource
to any hunter-gatherer. Concepts of shortage also need to evolve, if plenty
becomes a norm.
--
Mike Gilbert - Education Sales Manager, Taunton Micro Education
Suppliers of Acorn 32-bit RISC systems to schools & people across SW England
Opinions herein are personal, not corporate
Steve Hagy
>indians did in 1700 and 1800 AD with buffalos has nothing to do with
>mammoths that were long dead at that time.
#If the Buffalo-jump event (assuming it is not immaginary) occurred in the
#1700's or 1800's, then it was accomplished by Indians who probably had
#horses, while the guys who supposedly exterminated the mammoths and other
#megafauna were on foot. Again, they could have had automatic weapons on
#foot and not been able to exterminate mammoths all over North America.
#The herds would have simply filled in behind them, like trying to punch
#through jello.
Why would you need to have automatic weapons, couldn't they just use fire.
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
#bwa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Timothy A. Seufert) writes:
#>Furthermore, very large animals such as mammoths do not have large
#>populations. They eat too much, and will starve if there are too
many
#>animals competing for food in the same area. They also have very
slow
#>reproduction rates (I vaguely recall that gestation time for modern
#>elephants is on the order of two years, and the young take a long
time to
#>grow to maturity). Both these factors mean that mammoth would be
much
#>easier to wipe out than buffalo. The fact that you cannot
personally
#>imagine the possibility of doing so without modern technology does
not
#>mean that it couldn't be done.
#>I'm not, by the way, stating any opinion about whether the Indians
did or
#>didn't almost wipe out any species. I'm just addressing some of the
usual
#>silly arguments that turn up in your posts.
#The guys who wiped the bison had trains, horses, and 50 caliber
rifles firing
#miniballs at 1200'/sec., and the full backing of the US government,
i.e. the
#firepower, mobility, logistics, and organization I mentioned as
necessary for
#grandiose killouts of large herds of animals over wide areas, and the
bison
#were in a few states rather than spread out over the Northern US and
Canada.
#One guy could sit there and drop 50 - 100
#bison in an hour or so.
#Sorry, Bwanga, try again...
There were millions of bison, not nearly as many mamoths. To deny the
mammoth extinction, at the same time as a large number of mammals were
wiped out, in a relatively few centuries is not logical. That many of
these mammals had existed for millions of years and then to be wiped
out in a short time, at approximately the same time as the first
americans arrived is suspicious at best. Considering that the
mammoths and other large mammals that became extinct at about the same
time didn't know what man was or how to deal with him is of the same
order of problem as the bison had when the white man came. Do not
underestimate the skill, courage, and intelligence of the first
americans.
Twi...@hub.ofthe.net
Don Lowry
>In article <4cfvmq$7...@klein.delphi.com>, CHARLES JOHNSON
><cha...@mci.newscorp.com> wrote:
>> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) wrote:
>> >In article <medved.820637703@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net (Ted
>Holden) writes:
>> >=>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
>> >=>=White Lies". Anybody interested in seeing exactly how much garbage is
>> >=>=retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
>> >=>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
>> >=>=copy of Deloria's book.
>> >=
>> >=>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such
>sites as
>> >=>Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
>> >=
>> >=I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>> >=interpretation your ilk places on it.
>> >
>> >In other words, Ted accounts for facts which refute his fantasies by simply
>> >ignoring them.
>> Why worry about things that have nothing to do with the discussion. What
>> indians did in 1700 and 1800 AD with buffalos has nothing to do with
>> mammoths that were long dead at that time.
>I don't know where the 1700-1800 AD date comes from but the Buffalo Jump in
>Alberta was used for over 6000 years.
By carbon-14-dating charcoal from the buffaloes' campfire? Or was one
of the buffalo carrying a calendar with him at the fatal moment?
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
Don Lowry
>In article <medved.820761731@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net (Ted
>Holden) wrote:
>> CHARLES JOHNSON <cha...@mci.newscorp.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> >Why worry about things that have nothing to do with the discussion. What
>> >indians did in 1700 and 1800 AD with buffalos has nothing to do with
>> >mammoths that were long dead at that time.
>>
>> If the Buffalo-jump event (assuming it is not immaginary) occurred in the
>> 1700's or 1800's, then it was accomplished by Indians who probably had
>> horses, while the guys who supposedly exterminated the mammoths and other
>> megafauna were on foot. Again, they could have had automatic weapons on
>> foot and not been able to exterminate mammoths all over North America.
>> The herds would have simply filled in behind them, like trying to punch
>> through jello.
>The buffalo jump in Alberta was in use for 6000 years so the comments regarding
>horses don't apply. Hunters on foot with rifles did a pretty efficient job
>of wiping out the African elephant over the last 150 yrs, it took determined
>government intervention to stop them. Likewise the plains buffalo was reduced
>from 60,000,000 to virtual extinction in a few decades, they had the useful
>feature of forming large herds which would follow known migration routes to the
>killing fields. If mammoths had similar habits automatic weapons would not
>have been necessary! What evidence is there for vast herds of Mammoth in
>North
>America, they entered the continent across the Bering land bridge relatively
>recently and so may not have been present in large numbers?
The hunters with rifles may not have been on horses at the moment they
fired their rifles, but they had horses or trains or some means of
catching up with the buffalo or they never would have been able to
make enough shots to wipe them out.
What evidence is there that the mammoths crossed a Bering land bridge,
let alone recently, and if they did, which direction were they going?
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
Don Lowry
>In article <medved.820761731@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net (Ted
>Holden) wrote:
>>If the Buffalo-jump event (assuming it is not immaginary) occurred in the
>>1700's or 1800's, then it was accomplished by Indians who probably had
>>horses, while the guys who supposedly exterminated the mammoths and other
>>megafauna were on foot. Again, they could have had automatic weapons on
>>foot and not been able to exterminate mammoths all over North America.
>>The herds would have simply filled in behind them, like trying to punch
>>through jello.
>Ted, the buffalo (which were present in huge populations) were nearly
>wiped out in a *very* short period of time without the use of automatic
>weapons.
No, but they had weapons and means of transport (and supposedly
numbers of humans) not available to Native Americans prior to 1492.
>Furthermore, very large animals such as mammoths do not have large
>populations. They eat too much, and will starve if there are too many
>animals competing for food in the same area. They also have very slow
>reproduction rates (I vaguely recall that gestation time for modern
>elephants is on the order of two years, and the young take a long time to
>grow to maturity). Both these factors mean that mammoth would be much
>easier to wipe out than buffalo. The fact that you cannot personally
>imagine the possibility of doing so without modern technology does not
>mean that it couldn't be done.
Humans have a gestation period of almost a year, their young also take
a long time to grow up and yet we have a pretty large population of
them in North America! How come the sabertooth tigers didn't wipe us
out long ago?
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
Rich Travsky
>fel...@phoenix.princeton.edu (phil. Felton) writes:
>>The buffalo jump in Alberta was in use for 6000 years so the comments regarding
>>horses don't apply. Hunters on foot with rifles did a pretty efficient job
>>of wiping out the African elephant over the last 150 yrs, it took determined
>>government intervention to stop them. Likewise the plains buffalo was reduced
>>from 60,000,000 to virtual extinction in a few decades, they had the useful
>>feature of forming large herds which would follow known migration routes to the
>>killing fields. If mammoths had similar habits automatic weapons would not
>>have been necessary! What evidence is there for vast herds of Mammoth in
>>North
>>America, they entered the continent across the Bering land bridge relatively
>>recently and so may not have been present in large numbers?
>
>which 100 Indians walk over the Bering straight and somehow manage to
>survive and totally wipe all the North American megafauna, the actual
>evidence insists that nothing like that ever happened, and that the
>megafauna perished in global catastrophe.
North Amerca consisted of one migration of 100 individuals? Are you ignoring
the evidence of a steady flow over several thousand years? _That's_ the
only fairy tale here...
>Vine Deloria notes (Red Earth, White Lies) wrt the notion of Indian
>ancestors having exterminated the American megafauna (not just mammoths):
To continue your own absurd logic, did DeLoria have a time machine and camera?
>[...]
Timothy A. Seufert
Holden) wrote:
>bwa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Timothy A. Seufert) writes:
>>I'm not, by the way, stating any opinion about whether the Indians did or
>>didn't almost wipe out any species. I'm just addressing some of the usual
>>silly arguments that turn up in your posts.
Please reread these words, Ted. They don't seem to have sunk in.
>The guys who wiped the bison had trains, horses, and 50 caliber rifles firing
>miniballs at 1200'/sec., and the full backing of the US government, i.e. the
>firepower, mobility, logistics, and organization I mentioned as necessary for
>grandiose killouts of large herds of animals over wide areas, and the bison
>were in a few states rather than spread out over the Northern US and Canada.
>One guy could sit there and drop 50 - 100
>bison in an hour or so.
>
>Sorry, Bwanga, try again...
I don't care whether or not Indians did or did not wipe out large numbers
of any species. That is irrelevant to the point which I was making. I
argue that your dismissal of the mere _possibility_ of mass kills is
completely bogus. You said, or implied pretty clearly, that mammoth
populations were huge enough and breeding rates were fast enough that no
effort on the part of primitive American Indians could have killed
significant numbers off. I disagree. I think the Indians clearly had the
means to do it. Furthermore, mammoth populations and breeding rates would
make the mammoth quite vulnerable to mass killing techniques.
Note that nowhere did I contend that the Indians actually did kill large
numbers of mammoths off. I am not stating a position on that question,
because I lack the knowledge to debate it effectively. Please try to
apply some miniscule level of reading comprehension before replying.
Sorry, Splifford, try again...
Rich Travsky
>fel...@phoenix.princeton.edu (phil. Felton) wrote:
>>CHARLES JOHNSON <cha...@mci.newscorp.com> wrote:
>>> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) wrote:
>>>>med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>>>>=>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
>>>>=>=White Lies". Anybody interested in seeing exactly how much garbage is
>>>>=>=retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
>>>>=>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
>>>>=>=copy of Deloria's book.
>>>>=
>>>>=>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such
>>>>=I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>>>>=interpretation your ilk places on it.
>>>>
>>>>In other words, Ted accounts for facts which refute his fantasies by simply
>>>>ignoring them.
>>>indians did in 1700 and 1800 AD with buffalos has nothing to do with
>>>mammoths that were long dead at that time.
>
>>Alberta was used for over 6000 years.
>
>By carbon-14-dating charcoal from the buffaloes' campfire? Or was one
>of the buffalo carrying a calendar with him at the fatal moment?
Rich
Rich Travsky
> [...]
>What evidence is there that the mammoths crossed a Bering land bridge,
>let alone recently, and if they did, which direction were they going?
both continents, continents whose physical connection only occurs in
Alaska (ice, and in times of lowered sea levels, land). Are you proposing
that they swam?
Jamie Schrumpf
Bubonic plague bacilli have a gestation period of minutes. How come they
didn't wipe humans out long ago?
Your responses are good sound bites, but bad science. Why don't you go read
something on the subject you're trying to argue before you offer any comments?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schrumpf
ja...@dcd00745.slip.digex.net
http://www.access.digex.net/~moncomm
Home of the Firesign Theatre newsletter!
Rich Travsky
>>Furthermore, very large animals such as mammoths do not have large
>>populations. They eat too much, and will starve if there are too many
>>animals competing for food in the same area. They also have very slow
>>reproduction rates (I vaguely recall that gestation time for modern
>>elephants is on the order of two years, and the young take a long time to
>>grow to maturity). Both these factors mean that mammoth would be much
>>easier to wipe out than buffalo. The fact that you cannot personally
>>imagine the possibility of doing so without modern technology does not
>>mean that it couldn't be done.
>
>Humans have a gestation period of almost a year, their young also take
>a long time to grow up and yet we have a pretty large population of
>them in North America! How come the sabertooth tigers didn't wipe us
>out long ago?
And humans make intelligent prey (as well as predators). And they take
extended care of their young, with a resulting higher probability of
survival. Plus they competed with sabre cats for many of the same prey.
Now, since you specifically mention sabre toothed kitties, the evidence
strongly suggests that they were over specialized. Dirktooths appeared more
than once in the fossil record and always died out. Their adaptions were more
geared towards large, slow moving prey. When that prey faded, so did they.
A better question would've been why didn't bears, wolves,
coyotes, cougars, panthers, etc. wipe out humans.
Timothy A. Seufert
>bwa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Timothy A. Seufert) wrote:
>
>>Ted, the buffalo (which were present in huge populations) were nearly
>>wiped out in a *very* short period of time without the use of automatic
>>weapons.
>
>No, but they had weapons and means of transport (and supposedly
>numbers of humans) not available to Native Americans prior to 1492.
Yes. And I ask you this: which is likely to kill more of a herd animal at
once, stampeding the whole herd over a cliff or shooting them with rifles?
The point of bringing up buffalo was to show a clearly documented case of
a species being hunted to near extinction. Ted believes that the numbers
and breeding of mammoths would have protected them from extermination by
Indians. Buffalo were far more numerous than mammoth ever could have
been, and bred faster, but that didn't save them. Indian hunting of the
mammoth would have been less intensive than the great buffalo hunts, but I
see no reason why their hunting methods could not have severely depleted
mammoth populations, given enough time. As long as the annual birthrate
is smaller than the annual death rate, the species will eventually become
extinct.
>Humans have a gestation period of almost a year, their young also take
>a long time to grow up and yet we have a pretty large population of
>them in North America!
No, really? Gosh, I didn't know that.
Turn on the old thinking machine for a moment, will you? Mammoths had
especially low birthrates because, like modern elephants, there simply
isn't enough food to support large herds. It is thus comparatively easy
to kill enough mammoths (or elephants) that the birthrate is much, much
lower than the death rate.
>How come the sabertooth tigers didn't wipe us
>out long ago?
Sabertooth tigers had no language.
Ted Holden
>med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) raged:
>>Whether or not you could construct some sort of a fairytale world in
>>which 100 Indians walk over the Bering straight and somehow manage to
>>survive and totally wipe all the North American megafauna, the actual
>>evidence insists that nothing like that ever happened, and that the
>>megafauna perished in global catastrophe.
>In 1992 Nicholls, Reith and Casagrade presented a paper at the meeting
>of the American Anthropological Association on how the focal hunting
>adaptation common in circumpolar populations might have the result of
>intense predation on a single species. Large mammals on the African
>savannah have established an interesting co-evolutionary relationship
>called a grazing succession. If North American megafauna had also
>established this kind of relationship intense predation on a single
>species might have been enough to disrupt an ecology made increasingly
>fragile by the environmental changes associated with the ice age.
That doesn't answer the mail wrt North American megafauna at all. As
Deloria notes, it's way too cold in the far North to have primitive
people even thinking about wiping whole herds of animals; you're going
to go kill whatever you need to live and then get back indoors.
Other than that, you still have to explain how or why Indians wiped out
all of the mega-carnivores which, even if the mammoths and what not had
perished in some uniformitarian kind of fashion which they didn't, should
have gone happily on killing deer and bison and what not and still be
here.
The North American super lion was 6' at the shoulders, over 1000 lbs.
Why would Indians want to hunt such frighteningly dangerous prey to
extinction rather than simply kill deer and eat them? I mean, going
after a 1000+ lb. lion with a spear is a death wish.
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Carl J Lydick
=>I don't know where the 1700-1800 AD date comes from but the Buffalo Jump in
=>Alberta was used for over 6000 years.
=
=By carbon-14-dating charcoal from the buffaloes' campfire? Or was one
=of the buffalo carrying a calendar with him at the fatal moment?
Yet another wacko who's too damned ignorant to realize that the mammoth bones
themselves contain carbon?
Phil Nicholls
>Whether or not you could construct some sort of a fairytale world in
>which 100 Indians walk over the Bering straight and somehow manage to
>survive and totally wipe all the North American megafauna, the actual
>evidence insists that nothing like that ever happened, and that the
>megafauna perished in global catastrophe.
In 1992 Nicholls, Reith and Casagrade presented a paper at the meeting
of the American Anthropological Association on how the focal hunting
adaptation common in circumpolar populations might have the result of
intense predation on a single species. Large mammals on the African
savannah have established an interesting co-evolutionary relationship
called a grazing succession. If North American megafauna had also
established this kind of relationship intense predation on a single
species might have been enough to disrupt an ecology made increasingly
fragile by the environmental changes associated with the ice age.
We were going to write it up for publication but Casagrade dropped out
of graduate school, Reith got involved in other projects and my
advisor didn't think it a good idea for me to dive into projects
unrelated to my primary research areas.
I might add that the overkill hypothesis is not widely accepted. It
has its supporters but it also has many opponents in American
archaeology.
Phil Nicholls pn...@globalone.net
"To ask a question you must first know most of the answer"
-Robert Sheckley
Mark Isaak
ACCOUNTS, passed down as an ancient legend of the Caribou Eskimos, tell that
mammoths were hunted to extinction. Of course, it didn't happen quite as
you might think. The mammoths fled underground to escape from inept
hunting. (I hardly need mention that this provides further evidence for the
Once Hollow Earth theory.) You can read about it in _Northern Tales_ by
Howard Norman, in the chapter "Why Woolly Mammoths Decided to Flee
Underground."
Ted, of course, will not be interested in this, because he only accepts
fables that were written since 1950.
--
Mark Isaak "It is impossible for anyone to learn that
is...@aurora.com which he thinks he already knows." - Plutarch
John Ritson
[snip]
> That doesn't answer the mail wrt North American megafauna at all. As
> Deloria notes, it's way too cold in the far North to have primitive
> people even thinking about wiping whole herds of animals; you're going
> to go kill whatever you need to live and then get back indoors.
>
> Other than that, you still have to explain how or why Indians wiped out
> all of the mega-carnivores which, even if the mammoths and what not had
> perished in some uniformitarian kind of fashion which they didn't, should
> have gone happily on killing deer and bison and what not and still be
> here.
>
> The North American super lion was 6' at the shoulders, over 1000 lbs.
> Why would Indians want to hunt such frighteningly dangerous prey to
> extinction rather than simply kill deer and eat them? I mean, going
> after a 1000+ lb. lion with a spear is a death wish.
Would the Indians relax 'indoors' (inside tents) munching their deer-burgers
knowing that 6' high carnivores were wandering around outside?
Not to mention that surviving risky activities (like killing carnivores)
and wearing their skins is considered proof of reaching manhood in many societies.
John
Don Lowry
>In article <4cm7e5$6...@news2.cts.com>, jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) wrote:
>>bwa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Timothy A. Seufert) wrote:
>>
>>>Ted, the buffalo (which were present in huge populations) were nearly
>>>wiped out in a *very* short period of time without the use of automatic
>>>weapons.
>>
>>No, but they had weapons and means of transport (and supposedly
>>numbers of humans) not available to Native Americans prior to 1492.
>Yes. And I ask you this: which is likely to kill more of a herd animal at
>once, stampeding the whole herd over a cliff or shooting them with rifles?
>The point of bringing up buffalo was to show a clearly documented case of
>a species being hunted to near extinction. Ted believes that the numbers
>and breeding of mammoths would have protected them from extermination by
>Indians. Buffalo were far more numerous than mammoth ever could have
>been, and bred faster, but that didn't save them. Indian hunting of the
>mammoth would have been less intensive than the great buffalo hunts, but I
>see no reason why their hunting methods could not have severely depleted
>mammoth populations, given enough time. As long as the annual birthrate
>is smaller than the annual death rate, the species will eventually become
>extinct.
Would be a valid point if the Indians had wiped out the buffalo, but
they didn't.
Don Lowry
Ted Holden
>rtra...@UWYO.EDU (Rich Travsky) wrote:
>>jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) writes:
>>> [...]
>>>What evidence is there that the mammoths crossed a Bering land bridge,
>>>let alone recently, and if they did, which direction were they going?
>>Evidence? Their remains, dated over thousands of years, are found on
>>both continents, continents whose physical connection only occurs in
>>Alaska (ice, and in times of lowered sea levels, land). Are you proposing
>>that they swam?
They could have gotten to America before there was any need of a land
bridge. If God or somebody created them, which is more likely than their
having evolved from dust which somehow got lucky, then he/she/they might
simply hae made some in america, others in Asia.
Chrysler does just that sort of thing now; they make some Neons in
Illinois, and others in Mexico. Ever wonder how the Neons in Mexico got
across the Rio Grande?
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
DonLowry
>jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) writes:
>> [...]
>>What evidence is there that the mammoths crossed a Bering land bridge,
>>let alone recently, and if they did, which direction were they going?
>Evidence? Their remains, dated over thousands of years, are found on
>both continents, continents whose physical connection only occurs in
>Alaska (ice, and in times of lowered sea levels, land). Are you proposing
>that they swam?
I'm not proposing anything. I'm checking to see what are facts and
what are assumptions. Evidently you are assuming the mammoths used a
Bering land bridge for lack of any other explanation. Not a bad
assumption, as long as you remember that it is only an assumption. Or
is there, as I originally asked, some real evidence? There seems to
be an unfortunate tendency among scientist that one generation's
widely held assumptions become the next generation's supposed facts.
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
Don Lowry
>In article <4cm7cp$6...@news2.cts.com>, jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) writes:
>=>I don't know where the 1700-1800 AD date comes from but the Buffalo Jump in
>=>Alberta was used for over 6000 years.
>=
>=By carbon-14-dating charcoal from the buffaloes' campfire? Or was one
>=of the buffalo carrying a calendar with him at the fatal moment?
>Yet another wacko who's too damned ignorant to realize that the mammoth bones
>themselves contain carbon?
Are we talking about real bones or fossils?
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
Don Lowry
>jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) writes:
>>fel...@phoenix.princeton.edu (phil. Felton) wrote:
>>>CHARLES JOHNSON <cha...@mci.newscorp.com> wrote:
>>>> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) wrote:
>>>>>med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>>>>>=>=Item number two is massively and overwhelmingly refuted in "Red Earth,
>>>>>=>=White Lies". Anybody interested in seeing exactly how much garbage is
>>>>>=>=retained in standard evolutionary theory (and also reflected in the t.o.
>>>>>=>="FAQ" system) owes it to themselves at this point to spend the $20 for a
>>>>>=>=copy of Deloria's book.
>>>>>=
>>>>>=>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such
>>>>>=>sites as Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
>>>>>=
>>>>>=I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>>>>>=interpretation your ilk places on it.
>>>>>
>>>>>In other words, Ted accounts for facts which refute his fantasies by simply
>>>>>ignoring them.
>>>>Why worry about things that have nothing to do with the discussion. What
>>>>indians did in 1700 and 1800 AD with buffalos has nothing to do with
>>>>mammoths that were long dead at that time.
>>
>>>I don't know where the 1700-1800 AD date comes from but the Buffalo Jump in
>>>Alberta was used for over 6000 years.
>>
>>By carbon-14-dating charcoal from the buffaloes' campfire? Or was one
>>of the buffalo carrying a calendar with him at the fatal moment?
>Huh? How is anything dated? Be serious.
I am serious. And that's just my question: how is anything dated?
People are always throwing around these dates about when such-and-such
happened but don't say how they know, which makes me suspect that they
don't know. So how were these buffalo remains dated? Are they actual
bones, or fossils?
Don Lowry
Tim Thompson
(Ted Holden) writes:
> Whether or not you could construct some sort of a fairytale world in
> which 100 Indians walk over the Bering straight and somehow manage to
^^^ ^^^^^^^
> survive and totally wipe all the North American megafauna, the actual
> evidence insists that nothing like that ever happened, and that the
> megafauna perished in global catastrophe.
I do hope this is Ted's version of sarcasm. I mean, you don't suppose
he really thinks there were only 100 "indians" crossing the Bering land
bridge? Nah, couldn't be. Even Ted wouldn't be that stupid. But, then again ...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory ...
Earth & Space Sciences Division, Terrestrial Science Element ...
ASTER Project Atmospheric Corrections Science Team ...
Secretary, Mount Wilson Observatory Association ...
Board of Directors, Los Angeles Astronomical Society.
Rich Travsky
>rtra...@UWYO.EDU (Rich Travsky) wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>By carbon-14-dating charcoal from the buffaloes' campfire? Or was one
>>>of the buffalo carrying a calendar with him at the fatal moment?
>>Huh? How is anything dated? Be serious.
>
>I am serious. And that's just my question: how is anything dated?
>People are always throwing around these dates about when such-and-such
>happened but don't say how they know, which makes me suspect that they
>don't know. So how were these buffalo remains dated? Are they actual
>bones, or fossils?
luminesce, carbon dating, etc. Can work on bone or fossils...
Rich Travsky
of comparision to illustrate the differences between buffalo and
mammoth population dymanics.
Rich
Ted Holden
>In article <medved.820848920@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net
>(Ted Holden) writes:
>> Whether or not you could construct some sort of a fairytale world in
>> which 100 Indians walk over the Bering straight and somehow manage to
> ^^^ ^^^^^^^
>> survive and totally wipe all the North American megafauna, the actual
>> evidence insists that nothing like that ever happened, and that the
>> megafauna perished in global catastrophe.
> I do hope this is Ted's version of sarcasm. I mean, you don't suppose
>he really thinks there were only 100 "indians" crossing the Bering land
>bridge...
After reading Vine Deloria's Red Earth, White Lies, I don't think <any>
Indians or paleo-Indians, proto-Indians or whatever ever walked over the
Bering land bridge. The 100 figure is about 100 too many; anybody who
reads the book will agree.
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Rich Travsky
land is the only option. The rest is left as an exercise for the reader...
Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661
ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) wrote:
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
How long does fossilization need to work before transforming the
"real" bones in "stones"? I don't know, but I imagine mammuths are way
too young to be already fossilized
(please read my .sig before flaming...)
--
Maurizio Morabito |"I for one could offer a lot of thoughts on any
maur...@nibh.go.jp| subject,but in many cases they would be based on
| speculation at best, or misinformation at worst"
Tsukuba, Japan | D.P.Chassin
WWW = ftp://ripsport.aist.go.jp/pub/outgoing/maurizio/maurizio.html
Stuart Weinstein
>rtra...@UWYO.EDU (Rich Travsky) wrote:
>
>>jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) writes:
>>> [...]
>>>What evidence is there that the mammoths crossed a Bering land bridge,
>>>let alone recently, and if they did, which direction were they going?
>>Evidence? Their remains, dated over thousands of years, are found on
>>both continents, continents whose physical connection only occurs in
>>Alaska (ice, and in times of lowered sea levels, land). Are you proposing
>>that they swam?
>
>I'm not proposing anything. I'm checking to see what are facts and
>what are assumptions. Evidently you are assuming the mammoths used a
>Bering land bridge for lack of any other explanation. Not a bad
>assumption, as long as you remember that it is only an assumption. Or
>is there, as I originally asked, some real evidence? There seems to
>be an unfortunate tendency among scientist that one generation's
>widely held assumptions become the next generation's supposed facts.
>
OK Dan, I give up. They took a taxi across the bearing sea. Do we have
snapshots of mammoths crossing the bearing sea? No. Is this the only form of
evidence you will accept? DO we have evidence that sea level was once low
enough to allow mammoths to make this cross? Yes we do.
>Don Lowry
>jlo...@tfb.com
>
--
Stuart A. Weinstein X X X stu...@kaku.soest.hawaii.edu
Geology and Geophysics X X
University of Hawaii X X
X This X
"To err is human.. X X
But to really foul things X space for X
up requires a creationist" X X
X rent X
X X
X X
X X X
Rick Toomey
>rtra...@UWYO.EDU (Rich Travsky) wrote:
>
>>jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) writes:
>>> [...]
>>>What evidence is there that the mammoths crossed a Bering land bridge,
>>>let alone recently, and if they did, which direction were they going?
>>Evidence? Their remains, dated over thousands of years, are found on
>>both continents, continents whose physical connection only occurs in
>>Alaska (ice, and in times of lowered sea levels, land). Are you proposing
>>that they swam?
>
>I'm not proposing anything. I'm checking to see what are facts and
>what are assumptions. Evidently you are assuming the mammoths used a
>Bering land bridge for lack of any other explanation. Not a bad
>assumption, as long as you remember that it is only an assumption. Or
>is there, as I originally asked, some real evidence? There seems to
>be an unfortunate tendency among scientist that one generation's
>widely held assumptions become the next generation's supposed facts.
>
Here is a primer on the prevalant ideas on the evolution of North
American mammoths, including timing and directions of emigration
events. Much of this is based on Kurten and Anderson (1980) and
references cited therein.
Mammoths (genus Mammuthus) arose in Africa during the
Early Pliocene (call it 4 million years ago). They are found in Africa
from then through the Early Pleistocene. They are found in Eurasia
from the Early Pleistocene through the Late Holocene (Wrangel Island),
although most had gone extinct in Eurasia by the end of the Pleistocene.
Approximately 1.8 million years ago the first mammoths entered North
America. These mammoths came from Eurasia; they crossed the Bering
Strait at a time when sea level was lower than today. The mammoths
that came from Asia belonged to a species called _M. meridionalis_.
The descendants of this species of mammoth in North America included
both the Columbian (_M. columbi_) and Jefferson's (_M. jeffersoni_)
mammoths. In Eurasia descendants of _M. meridionalis_ gave rise to
a number of species including _M. armeniacus_ and the woolly
mammoth (_M. primigenius_). The woolly mammoths which evolved in Eurasia
came over the Bering Strait much later (less than 500,000 years
ago). Mammoths went extinct in North America at the end of the
Pleistocene.
Now, for evidence of the timing and direction of the migrations.
The timing is based on the earliest occurrences of the two
species _M. meridionalis_ and _M. primigenius_ in North
America.
According to Lundelius and others (1987), the Wellsch Valley local
fauna of Saskatchewan, contains one of the earliest occurrences of
_M. meridionalis_. This fauna was deposited during the Olduvai
subchron (between 1.88 and 1.72 mya).
Kurten and Anderson (1980) lists the early Rancholabrean Fairbanks I
fauna as the earilest _M. primigenius_ records.
The direction of migration in each case is based on the fact that
the taxa are found in older deposits in Eurasia than the oldest
known North American occurrence.
I would not agree that we make an assumption that the mammoths
migrated between Eurasia and North America using the Bering
Land Bridge.
Instead I would say that the currently most accepted hypothesis
is that they did so.
We know from deep sea oxygen-isotope records that the global volume
of ice varied considerably during the Pliocene and Quaternary.
We know that many times global ice volume was high enough to
expose the land currently under the Bering Strait (as well as
parts of the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean). So, we know that
the Bering Land Bridge was available.
We know that mammoths occur in both Eastern and Western Beringia.
This means that they were in the area of the land bridge.
We know that mammoths migrated from one side to the other. (Individuals
may have gone both directions; however, the net result was two
species migrating into North America, none into Eurasia).
No one has come up with evidence that falsifies the Bering
Land Bridge hypothesis.
No one has come up with a hypothesis that accounts for the
distribution of fossil occurrences in a more parsimonius
manner.
It is certainly possible that mammoths used another method
of dispersal. Perhaps Thor Hyerdal's Kon-Tiki expedition
should be retried with elephants. Or they may have dispersed
by waif dispersal on really big hunks of vegetation. Or
prehaps they swam from Scotland to Iceland to Greenland
to North America. However, these hypotheses are either
not testable or require many more _a priori_ assumptions
than the one currently favored.
References cited
Kurten, B. and Anderson, E., 1980, Pleistocene Mammals of
North America, NYC: Columbia University Press. 442pp.
Lundelius, E.L., Jr., and others, 1987, The North American
Quaternary Sequence, IN (M.O. Woodburne, ed.) Cenozoic
Mammals of North America: Geochronology and Biostratigraphy,
Berkeley: University of California Press, 211-235.
Rick Toomey
Illinois State Museum
too...@museum.state.il.us
howard hershey
>Mike Gilbert <mgil...@rmplc.co.uk> writes:
>
>>The paranoia about racism inherent in the Red Earth White Lies stuff is
>>way off beam. Mass extinction of species caused by human immigration
>>is not a accusation directed _solely_ at aboriginals on the continents
>>called America.
Indeed, the aboriginals were pikers compared to modern man when it comes
to causing extinction. And it isn't _racist_ to think that Indians can
be just as short-sighted in the exploitation of *their* resources as
modern humans (including the present Congress). [This does not mean that
mass killings, by themselves, necessarily *caused* extinction. But in a
stressed or small population, it could easily be the straw that broke
the mammoth's back.] It is a false understanding of human nature to
believe that any group is particularly more or less likely to do stupid
things than any other. Sometimes people do stupid things from simple
ignorance, like not knowing (or not caring) how fragile a hold a species
has on existence and continuing your standard hunting methods because it
puts food on the table (sounds like some recent conflicts between jobs
and species extinction, doesn't it).
>
>The real accusation is of stupidity; I suspect it simply irks Deloria
>and other Indians to have anybody think ill of Indians simply because
>scientists wish to be stupid...
>
Nah. They were just in the same boat as the rest of us at the time:
Ignorant of the consequences of their actions. On the other
hand, the House Republican freshmen environmental extremists don't
have the excuse of ignorance; just venality, greed, and
short-sightedness.
Stuart Weinstein
>jlo...@tfb.com (DonLowry) wrote:
>>rtra...@UWYO.EDU (Rich Travsky) wrote:
>>
>>>jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>What evidence is there that the mammoths crossed a Bering land bridge,
>>>>let alone recently, and if they did, which direction were they going?
>>>Evidence? Their remains, dated over thousands of years, are found on
>>>both continents, continents whose physical connection only occurs in
>>>Alaska (ice, and in times of lowered sea levels, land). Are you proposing
>>>that they swam?
>>
>>I'm not proposing anything. I'm checking to see what are facts and
>>what are assumptions. Evidently you are assuming the mammoths used a
>>Bering land bridge for lack of any other explanation. Not a bad
>>assumption, as long as you remember that it is only an assumption. Or
>>is there, as I originally asked, some real evidence? There seems to
>>be an unfortunate tendency among scientist that one generation's
>>widely held assumptions become the next generation's supposed facts.
>>
>
>snapshots of mammoths crossing the bearing sea? No. Is this the only form of
>evidence you will accept? DO we have evidence that sea level was once low
>enough to allow mammoths to make this cross? Yes we do.
Bearing? I kill me, it should be Bering
Ted Holden
>med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
>>Mike Gilbert <mgil...@rmplc.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>The paranoia about racism inherent in the Red Earth White Lies stuff is
>>>way off beam. Mass extinction of species caused by human immigration
>>>is not a accusation directed _solely_ at aboriginals on the continents
>>>called America.
>Indeed, the aboriginals were pikers compared to modern man when it comes
>to causing extinction. And it isn't _racist_ to think that Indians can
>be just as short-sighted in the exploitation of *their* resources as
>modern humans (including the present Congress). [This does not mean that
>mass killings, by themselves, necessarily *caused* extinction. But in a
>stressed or small population, it could easily be the straw that broke
>the mammoth's back.]
A copy of Red Earth, White Lies only costs about $22. Buy a copy and
read it. It will disabuse you of that sort of nonsense.
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Ben Waggoner
: >Yet another wacko who's too damned ignorant to realize that the mammoth bones
: >themselves contain carbon?
: Are we talking about real bones or fossils?
: How long does fossilization need to work before transforming the
: "real" bones in "stones"? I don't know, but I imagine mammuths are way
: too young to be already fossilized
Fossils are defined as any trace of a past organism -- the term isn't
restricted to parts that have been petrified; that's only one of several
possible modes of preservation. Fossils are also usually thought of
as old things, but there's no absolute age cutoff -- no minimum age
above which something cannot be a fossil. The dichotomy between "real bones"
and "fossils" introduced here is a false dichotomy. Bad catastrophist!
No doughnut!
As for the time required for permineralization ("transforming bones
into stones"): I don't have absolute dates, but I presume it would
depend on factors such as the volume and mineral content of groundwater.
In something like a limestone cave, permineralization might take less than
a year; on the other hand, if I remember correctly, the dino bones from
which DNA was successfully extracted (or so it is claimed) were sealed in
a coal seam, and were not permineralized at all, but looked almost fresh.
But whether a mammoth bone is permineralized, or whether it's "real bone,"
it is and shall remain a fossil.
--
Ben Waggoner
Dept. of Integrative Biology
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
b...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
pim van meurs
Holden) wrote:
> There are any number of ways mammoths could have gotten between Asia and
> America. Part of the problem is uniformitarian time scales. If you
> assume that Pangaea was 10K or 20K years ago instead of the ideologically-
> based 200 million years you normally read, then the problem (of the
> mammoths) goes away. Again, the catastrophism www page goes into
> some of that sort of thing, and it turns out the millions of years
> supposedly separating us from Pangaea and dinosaurs is illusory. Again,
> it's at:
Of course no scientific evidence, only myths.
But that is better than your attempts to misrepresent people's statements.
See you assumed that it was 10k or 20k years ago, like the formula assumed
that there was thermal balance. Unlike the people who used the formula you
do not show that the assumption is valid one.
The difference between science and Ted.
Regards
Pim
> Ted
pim van meurs
<hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> >med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
> >
> >>Again, Deloria notes that the overkill model postulates a fantastic rise
> >>in population of whatever tiny group is supposed to have come over the
> >>Bering strait and survived within a 300 year period, from 100 or so to
> >>around 10 million, and the same theory offers no explaination as to why
> >>such a birth rate simply did not continue into modern times, so that the
> >>Spanish would have found a nation as populous as china when they came here.
Such uniformistic thinking Ted. I am disappointed. Or does catastrophics
only apply when it suits you
Pim
> Although somewhat off the point, you need to remember that a lot *can* happen
> in 300-500 years. 500 years ago the Indian population underwent a major
> collapse in both North and South America. [It is somewhat specious to
> consider Columbus the *cause* of this collapse (unless you believe
> that the discovery of the New World would have occurred only after
> vaccines were invented). You can argue that some of the deaths were
> due to a primitive and intentional form of biological warfare, however.
> Probably not the major cause of the collapse, however.] After that
> crash there was a massive influx of immigrants from elsewhere. Immigration
> (plus internal births) resulted in a huge population increase over these
> 300 years. Nothing this large is proposed for the paleo-indian migration
> over Beringia (because human populations were a lot smaller). But continued
> in-migration does change the expected population sizes, and can do so
> significantly.
howard hershey
>Again, Deloria notes that the overkill model postulates a fantastic rise
>in population of whatever tiny group is supposed to have come over the
>Bering strait and survived within a 300 year period, from 100 or so to
>around 10 million, and the same theory offers no explaination as to why
>such a birth rate simply did not continue into modern times, so that the
>Spanish would have found a nation as populous as china when they came here.
Is Deloria assuming that only one group of humans came over? And that
only 100 people *ever* came over? My understanding was that there were
at least several different linguistic *invasions* at several different
times with no evidence as to the size of the groups or how many net
groups came over in a span of several thousand years (where does 300 years
come from)? Does the phrase GIGO have any meaning to you? Change the
initial assumptions and...
Since the mammoths came over at roughly the same time, they may not have
ever amassed a population much greater than the paleo-indians (again
depending upon the net relative numbers migrating over time and their
average generation time over here - and the latter may have been affected
by the same climate changes that led to their extinction in Asia).
Continuing to hunt a herd species by techniques
that were common throughout paleo-societies (not just paleo-indians
sent herds flying over cliffs) at a time of stress for a K-selected
species can easily lead to extinction. Not from evil intent, just the
inexorable conflict between traditional hunting methods and a
non-traditional population dip of the prey species. Or do you deny
that humans can help a species to extinction (especially
if the species is undergoing a reduction because of habitat destruction)?
Hint: passenger pigeon, you dodo :-).
Extending birthrates mindlessly in any direction is mathematically possible
but intellectually stupid. GIGO comes to mind once more. Living organisms
don't work that way. Exponential extrapolations are especially stupid
(or we would be up to our asses in fruit flies).
>
>Ted Holden
>med...@digex.com
>
>
Don Lowry
>>rtra...@UWYO.EDU (Rich Travsky) wrote:
>>>jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>What evidence is there that the mammoths crossed a Bering land bridge,
>>>>let alone recently, and if they did, which direction were they going?
>>>Evidence? Their remains, dated over thousands of years, are found on
>>>both continents, continents whose physical connection only occurs in
>>>Alaska (ice, and in times of lowered sea levels, land). Are you proposing
>>>that they swam?
>They could have gotten to America before there was any need of a land
>bridge. If God or somebody created them, which is more likely than their
>having evolved from dust which somehow got lucky, then he/she/they might
>simply hae made some in america, others in Asia.
>Chrysler does just that sort of thing now; they make some Neons in
>Illinois, and others in Mexico. Ever wonder how the Neons in Mexico got
>across the Rio Grande?
>Ted Holden
>med...@digex.com
Please note that Mr. Holden said that, not me.
I will admit, would have before all this discussion, that crossing a
hypothetical Bering Strait is the most likely method for mammoths to
have traveled from one hemisphere to the other. My point was and is,
however, to remind you that it is only an assumption, or a hypothesis,
if you prefer. Therefore it cannot be used to PROVE anything, since
it has not been proven itself.
There is one other way that mamoths could have travelled from one
hemisphere to the other. I don't say they used it, but it might be
worth a small mention. Has anybody noticed that there is an ice
bridge between North America and Siberia? OK, so it's a long way
between snacks on that route. Was it always? Just throwing out a
possibility.
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
Mark Isaak
>. . . the mythical pyromaniac-proto-Indians . . .
I notice Ted is using "mythical" as if it's synonymous with "fictional."
The implications are interesting.
Ted Holden
[mammoths getting to Alaska...]
>>They could have gotten to America before there was any need of a land
>>bridge. If God or somebody created them, which is more likely than their
>>having evolved from dust which somehow got lucky, then he/she/they might
>>simply hae made some in america, others in Asia.
>>Chrysler does just that sort of thing now; they make some Neons in
>>Illinois, and others in Mexico. Ever wonder how the Neons in Mexico got
>>across the Rio Grande?
>Please note that Mr. Holden said that, not me.
There are any number of ways mammoths could have gotten between Asia and
America. Part of the problem is uniformitarian time scales. If you
assume that Pangaea was 10K or 20K years ago instead of the ideologically-
based 200 million years you normally read, then the problem (of the
mammoths) goes away. Again, the catastrophism www page goes into
some of that sort of thing, and it turns out the millions of years
supposedly separating us from Pangaea and dinosaurs is illusory. Again,
it's at:
http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html
Ted
Rich Travsky
>hypothetical Bering Strait is the most likely method for mammoths to
>have traveled from one hemisphere to the other. My point was and is,
>however, to remind you that it is only an assumption, or a hypothesis,
>if you prefer. Therefore it cannot be used to PROVE anything, since
>it has not been proven itself.
>
>There is one other way that mamoths could have travelled from one
>hemisphere to the other. I don't say they used it, but it might be
>worth a small mention. Has anybody noticed that there is an ice
>bridge between North America and Siberia? OK, so it's a long way
>between snacks on that route. Was it always? Just throwing out a
>possibility.
Since the mammoths are/were veggies, it would probably be a fatal
long way between snacks.
The short growing season would have to be the window for travel during
any such land bridge period.
Bill Snyder
<steve...@trcinc.com> wrote:
>#If the Buffalo-jump event (assuming it is not immaginary) occurred in the
>#1700's or 1800's, then it was accomplished by Indians who probably had
>#horses, while the guys who supposedly exterminated the mammoths and other
>#megafauna were on foot. Again, they could have had automatic weapons on
>#foot and not been able to exterminate mammoths all over North America.
>#The herds would have simply filled in behind them, like trying to punch
>#through jello.
>Why would you need to have automatic weapons, couldn't they just use fire.
Presumably Ted's position is that Smokey the God would stomp on them
if they tried that.
--
-- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]
Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661
In case anybody would care, I admit to have been shown wrong in the
phrase
: I imagine mammuths are way
: too young to be already fossilized
and right in the phrase
: I don't know
8-)
Ken Cox
>In message <4cjd7c$h...@inet-gw.trcinc.com>, Steve Hagy
><steve...@trcinc.com> wrote:
>>Why would you need to have automatic weapons [to exterminate mammoths],
>>couldn't they just use fire.
>Presumably Ted's position is that Smokey the God would stomp on them
>if they tried that.
Not quite. Ted has stated that humans couldn't have used fire to
herd mammoths off cliffs, because mammoths were intelligent and
would avoid the fire, and then hunt down and stomp on the humans
who set the fire. Smokey the Vengeful Mammoth, as it were.
Of course, Ted has also stated that the evidence for butchering at
the mammoth mass kill sites is easily explained: The mammoths just
walked off the cliff en masse one day, and the humans wandered by
afterward and took advantage of the free food. How Ted reconciles
mammoths being simultaneously intelligent enough to identify and
hunt down the people who set fires, and stupid enough to repeatedly
walk off cliffs en masse, I do not know.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.att.com
Ted Holden
>In message <4cjd7c$h...@inet-gw.trcinc.com>, Steve Hagy
><steve...@trcinc.com> wrote:
>>#If the Buffalo-jump event (assuming it is not immaginary) occurred in the
>>#1700's or 1800's, then it was accomplished by Indians who probably had
>>#horses, while the guys who supposedly exterminated the mammoths and other
>>#megafauna were on foot. Again, they could have had automatic weapons on
>>#foot and not been able to exterminate mammoths all over North America.
>>#The herds would have simply filled in behind them, like trying to punch
>>#through jello.
>>Why would you need to have automatic weapons, couldn't they just use fire.
>Presumably Ted's position is that Smokey the God would stomp on them
>if they tried that.
My position is much simpler than that; the fire simply would not kill
the mammoths three states over, and when the mythical pyromaniac-proto-
Indians got to the three states over area, some of <those> mammoths would
have simply filled in where the pyros <were>...
Again, Deloria notes that the overkill model postulates a fantastic rise
in population of whatever tiny group is supposed to have come over the
Bering strait and survived within a 300 year period, from 100 or so to
around 10 million, and the same theory offers no explaination as to why
such a birth rate simply did not continue into modern times, so that the
Spanish would have found a nation as populous as china when they came here.
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Russell Stewart
>>>>let alone recently, and if they did, which direction were they going?
>>>Evidence? Their remains, dated over thousands of years, are found on
>>>both continents, continents whose physical connection only occurs in
>>>Alaska (ice, and in times of lowered sea levels, land). Are you proposing
>>>that they swam?
>
>bridge. If God or somebody created them, which is more likely than their
>having evolved from dust which somehow got lucky,
Far more likely than either, though, is that they, like all animals,
evolved from a one-celled common ancestor that arose from self-
replicating molecules that were formed by the natural laws of physics
and chemistry.
>then he/she/they might
>simply hae made some in america, others in Asia.
>
>Chrysler does just that sort of thing now; they make some Neons in
>Illinois, and others in Mexico. Ever wonder how the Neons in Mexico got
>across the Rio Grande?
No, because we already know that Neons are intelligently made. We
have no such knowledge WRT life, and all of the evidence points
away from such creation.
--
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | dia...@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
In myself I trust.
What has God done for me lately?
Rich Travsky
>jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) writes:
>
>[mammoths getting to Alaska...]
>
>>>bridge. If God or somebody created them, which is more likely than their
>
>There are any number of ways mammoths could have gotten between Asia and
>America. Part of the problem is uniformitarian time scales. If you
>assume that Pangaea was 10K or 20K years ago instead of the ideologically-
>based 200 million years you normally read, then the problem (of the
>mammoths) goes away. Again, the catastrophism www page goes into
cease rational consideration of same.
>[...]
Ted Holden
>Of course, Ted has also stated that the evidence for butchering at
>the mammoth mass kill sites is easily explained: The mammoths just
>walked off the cliff en masse one day, and the humans wandered by
>afterward and took advantage of the free food. How Ted reconciles
>mammoths being simultaneously intelligent enough to identify and
>hunt down the people who set fires, and stupid enough to repeatedly
>walk off cliffs en masse, I do not know.
I never said they just walked over cliffs. A natural fire, or one of
the fires Indians set to clear brush, or a volcano, or cats, or lightning,
or any of a hundred things might send mammoths over a cliff, possibly at
night when they couldn't see it easily, and humans butcher one or two of'
the victims.
Humans trying to drive mammoths over a cliff in daylight and without
adequate weaponry would probably get stomped.
Ted Holden
> Does the phrase GIGO have any meaning to you?
[blah, blah...]
>Hint: passenger pigeon, you dodo...
Hope you weren't expecting a response or anything like that...
Rich Travsky
>t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
>>med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>
>>> Whether or not you could construct some sort of a fairytale world in
>>> which 100 Indians walk over the Bering straight and somehow manage to
>> ^^^ ^^^^^^^
>>> survive and totally wipe all the North American megafauna, the actual
>>> evidence insists that nothing like that ever happened, and that the
>>> megafauna perished in global catastrophe.
>
>> I do hope this is Ted's version of sarcasm. I mean, you don't suppose
>>he really thinks there were only 100 "indians" crossing the Bering land
>>bridge...
>
>After reading Vine Deloria's Red Earth, White Lies, I don't think <any>
>Indians or paleo-Indians, proto-Indians or whatever ever walked over the
>Bering land bridge. The 100 figure is about 100 too many; anybody who
>reads the book will agree.
Boy, you really like to put all your eggs in one basket, don't you? Please
explain such shared traits as shovel shaped incisors between Indians
and Asians. The wealth of archaeological evidence illustrating several
human migrations over periods of several thousand years.
Deloria's credentials as an archaeologist, a biologist, and an ecologist
are pathetically lacking.
David Iain Greig
Ted Holden (med...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: p...@pmel.noaa.gov (pim van meurs) writes:
: ...
: >Of course no scientific evidence, only myths.
: >But that is better than your attempts to misrepresent people's statements.
: >See you assumed that it was 10k or 20k years ago, like the formula assumed
: >that there was thermal balance. Unlike the people who used the formula you
: >do not show that the assumption is valid one.
: >The difference between science and Ted.
: >Regards
: >Pim
: Your stuff is sounding less coherent as time goes on, Pimela. Most
: people would assume that some sort of a drinking problem or something
: was involved...
This is clearly sufficient to award Pim the "Ted Badge of Courage", as
one of the conditions is that Ted claim you must be 'on drugs' or the
like to think the way you do.
Congratulations, Pim! Such a high honour in so short a time!
Would Prof. Thompson do the honurs, please?
--D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Iain (Chris) Greig gr...@ediacara.org
Vice-Dean, University Computing Services http://www.ediacara.org/~greig
Prof. of Biochemistry and Philosophy
University of Ediacara "Arbor plena allouattarum"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Eirik Coe
>>Of course no scientific evidence, only myths.
>>But that is better than your attempts to misrepresent people's statements.
>>See you assumed that it was 10k or 20k years ago, like the formula assumed
>>that there was thermal balance. Unlike the people who used the formula you
>>do not show that the assumption is valid one.
>>The difference between science and Ted.
>>Regards
>>Pim
>Your stuff is sounding less coherent as time goes on, Pimela. Most
>people would assume that some sort of a drinking problem or something
>was involved...
Chris Ho Stuart! Are you taking careful notes? See what Ted means?!
--
Brian Eirik Coe * "Not even God himself could sink this ship!"
Optometrist-in-Training * --White Star Line employee at launch of Titanic
"Everything good in life is either illegal, immoral or fattining."-M.'s Law
"That's not fair at all. There was time now. Time enough at last..." -TTZ
Dave Krupp
[snip]
>There are any number of ways mammoths could have gotten between Asia and
>America. Part of the problem is uniformitarian time scales. If you
>assume that Pangaea was 10K or 20K years ago instead of the ideologically-
>based 200 million years you normally read, then the problem (of the
>mammoths) goes away. Again, the catastrophism www page goes into
>some of that sort of thing, and it turns out the millions of years
>supposedly separating us from Pangaea and dinosaurs is illusory. Again,
>it's at:
I cannot believe that you actually believe that the present distribution
continents is the result of Pangea's breakup beginning only 20,000
years ago. Not only is such an idea inconsistent with the evidence,
but if that break up took place during the course of only a few thousand
years, then life would probably not exist at all on our planet. In
other words, we would not even be here.
Aloha,
Dave
Bob Casanova
>From: med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden)
>Subject: Re: New www page on mammoths
>Date: 10 Jan 1996 12:25:00 -0500
>k...@graceland.att.com (Ken Cox) writes:
Ah, now you know it was done in *daylight*! How stupid of the rest of us not
to have checked the...er, just what *was* it you checked to get this
information? Or is it, like most of everything else you post, made up on the
spot to support all of your unfounded and ridiculous allegations?
Oh, and incidentally, what is "adequate weaponry"? Vulcan guns? How do you
explain the ability of the Ituri pygmies to kill elephants with projectile
weapons which wouldn't be legal for hunting *deer* in most states, due to lack
of power? Can it be that, just perhaps, they *know how*? Naaah, too logical.
They must be aided by aliens, or directed by God, or something. Duh.
Bob C.
* Good, fast, cheap! (Pick 2) *
Saulius Muliolis
That's strange. He has usually confused "mythical" with "factual".
At least that's the entire basis of this Velikovskian stuff.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." --Robert A. Heinlein.
Saul Muliolis muli...@en.com
howard hershey
Although I will probably join the elite in your killfile, I do want to
mention that the proper response to my implication that the numbers
you presented were part of the material entering the GI tract (GI is
part of GIGO, after all, and if you have GI, you need to GO, and we
all know the odor of the ideas come out) would be to prove to me that
these numbers weren't GI, that there was some significant evidence
supporting these numbers (beyond wishful thinking). If you have such
support for those numbers, feel free...
As to the passenger pigeon, dodo, I do hope you noticed the smiley.
Mike Everhart
lend support to what Ben is saying. I know that the T.rex material at
the Museum of the Rockies is not mineralized. I've seen the bone and the
test results that showed organic molecules still in the bone.
Beyond that, even bone that was preserved at the bottom of the Western
Interior Sea (part of which is now commonly called Kansas) is not always
mineralized. I know of reseach on mosasaur bone that found collogen and
most of the amino acids that you would expect in living tissue.
In our collection, we have bones from a large fish called Xiphactinus
(lived in Late Cretaceous, about 80mya) that still appears very fresh.
When the vertebrae are broken open, the centra still have an iron red,
open "marrow" like appearance and would probably contain some of the
original bio-molecules.
All fossils aren't rocks.....in fact, a lot of them are the same chemical
structure as when organism was alive.
Ben Waggoner
: Mike Everhart <onyx.southwind.net> writes:
: >At the risk of jumping into the middle of a discussion, I would like to
: >lend support to what Ben is saying. I know that the T.rex material at
: >the Museum of the Rockies is not mineralized. I've seen the bone and the
: >test results that showed organic molecules still in the bone.
[etc.]
: You should entertain the possibility that the fresh look which you find in
: dinosaur remains simply indicates that they <are> fresh, or at least a
: great deal fresher than the ideologically-driven tens-of-millions-of-
: years time frames which you are used to would indicate.
Ah. And the coal seam that some of these bones have been found in is really
fresh plant material, yes?
I could go on with the usual arguments for an old Earth, but that would be
boring. . . As Ted says, the possibility is entertaining.
: Again, I have included the report of the Doheny scientific expedition to
: the Hava Supai Canyon in the catastrophism WWW page at:
: http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html
: The sauropod pictograph is included. This is a picture of a sauropod
: dinosaur standing on his hind legs which some early American Indian drew
: on a canyon wall with sharp tools. The people involved in this had serious
: credentials, the material itself comes from the Harvard University
: museum of American archaeology and ethnology. The findings have never been
: discredited or refuted.
One of the more famous cave paintings in Europe -- I think it's at Lascaux
in France -- shows a dancing bipedal figure with human feet, owl-like
eyes, and antlers. An old image of the Philistine sea god Dagon clearly
depicts a bearded man with a fish tail, while one of the Egyptian
hieroglyphs for "to go" is a fish walking on legs. Clearly, ancient humans
shared the Earth with walking fish, ugly bearded mermaids, and weird spooky
buggers with horns and big eyes. No other interpretation is possible. These
findings have never been discredited or refuted. The lack of any fossil
evidence whatsoever does not bother me one bit; I have carefully selected
these small bits of information, and I'm going to keep repeating them on a
newsgroup where they don't belong until someone believes me. So nanny-
nanny-boo-boo!
--
Ben Waggoner
Dept. of Integrative Biology
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
b...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
Ted Holden
>But what I really wanted to say was that, despite all the training films, I was
>one of the folks who went out and got themselves furloughed. So I missed the
>original post about the new web page on mammoths. If it's a legitimate page on
>mammoths and doesn't discuss their canoeing across the Pacific, could someone
>please repost the URL or, perhaps more appropriate, email it to me.
The mammoth page is included in the catastrophism www site at:
http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
James C. Adamski
In article <pim-100196...@odessa.pmel.noaa.gov>, p...@pmel.noaa.gov (pim van meurs) writes:
> In article <medved.821305275@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net (Ted
> Holden) wrote:
>
> > There are any number of ways mammoths could have gotten between Asia and
> > America. Part of the problem is uniformitarian time scales. If you
> > assume that Pangaea was 10K or 20K years ago instead of the ideologically-
> > based 200 million years you normally read, then the problem (of the
> > mammoths) goes away. Again, the catastrophism www page goes into
> > some of that sort of thing, and it turns out the millions of years
> > supposedly separating us from Pangaea and dinosaurs is illusory. Again,
> > it's at:
>
>
>
>
>
> But that is better than your attempts to misrepresent people's statements.
>
>
I thought the problem of mammoths was that they were all dead.
But what I really wanted to say was that, despite all the training films, I was
one of the folks who went out and got themselves furloughed. So I missed the
original post about the new web page on mammoths. If it's a legitimate page on
mammoths and doesn't discuss their canoeing across the Pacific, could someone
please repost the URL or, perhaps more appropriate, email it to me.
Many thanks.
Jim
Opinions on dead mammoths are my own.
Don Lowry
>bsn...@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) writes:
>>In message <4cjd7c$h...@inet-gw.trcinc.com>, Steve Hagy
>><steve...@trcinc.com> wrote:
>>>Why would you need to have automatic weapons [to exterminate mammoths],
>>>couldn't they just use fire.
>>Presumably Ted's position is that Smokey the God would stomp on them
>>if they tried that.
>Not quite. Ted has stated that humans couldn't have used fire to
>herd mammoths off cliffs, because mammoths were intelligent and
>would avoid the fire, and then hunt down and stomp on the humans
>who set the fire. Smokey the Vengeful Mammoth, as it were.
No. What he said was that you can't kill off a whole continent's
worth of mammoths with fire or anything else unless you can move
faster than the mammoths.
Don Lowry
jlo...@tfb.com
Ted Holden
>>>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such sites as
>>>Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
>>
>>I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>>interpretation your ilk places on it.
>In other words, ignore it, exactly as Carl suggested your favored author
>of the day probably does. Facts are SO inconvenient, Ted, aren't they?
Say, that's good! Walk into the tail end of a conversation with a quote
taken out of context from day one of it as if you knew something!
Fantastic!!!
howard hershey
Christopher Carrell
|>
|>We have a Winner!
|>
|>Ted Holden (med...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
|>
|>: ...
|>
|>: >Of course no scientific evidence, only myths.
|>
|>: >But that is better than your attempts to misrepresent people's statements.
|>
|>: >that there was thermal balance. Unlike the people who used the formula you
|>: >do not show that the assumption is valid one.
|>
|>: >The difference between science and Ted.
|>
|>: >Regards
|>: >Pim
|>
|>: Your stuff is sounding less coherent as time goes on, Pimela. Most
|>: people would assume that some sort of a drinking problem or something
|>: was involved...
|>
|>one of the conditions is that Ted claim you must be 'on drugs' or the
|>like to think the way you do.
|>
|>Congratulations, Pim! Such a high honour in so short a time!
|>
|>Would Prof. Thompson do the honurs, please?
|>
|>--D.
Hey,now, wait a cotton-pickin' minute! I believe Tim Seufert should also be
awarded the 'Ted Badge' after Ted asked Tim when he was going to stop beating
his wife. Unfortunately, I didn't save the post, but maybe Tim (Seufert or
Thompson) did. So, both Tim and Pim are highly deserving of the 'Ted Badge.'
Anyone?
Maybe now I'll be publicly ignored. A high honor, indeed...
have a day
cat
--
Chris Carrell - The Almighty Catfish
Grad Student Purdue University
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Ted Holden
>At the risk of jumping into the middle of a discussion, I would like to
>lend support to what Ben is saying. I know that the T.rex material at
>the Museum of the Rockies is not mineralized. I've seen the bone and the
>test results that showed organic molecules still in the bone.
>Beyond that, even bone that was preserved at the bottom of the Western
>Interior Sea (part of which is now commonly called Kansas) is not always
>mineralized. I know of reseach on mosasaur bone that found collogen and
>most of the amino acids that you would expect in living tissue.
>In our collection, we have bones from a large fish called Xiphactinus
>(lived in Late Cretaceous, about 80mya) that still appears very fresh.
>When the vertebrae are broken open, the centra still have an iron red,
>open "marrow" like appearance and would probably contain some of the
>original bio-molecules.
You should entertain the possibility that the fresh look which you find in
dinosaur remains simply indicates that they <are> fresh, or at least a
great deal fresher than the ideologically-driven tens-of-millions-of-
years time frames which you are used to would indicate.
Again, I have included the report of the Doheny scientific expedition to
the Hava Supai Canyon in the catastrophism WWW page at:
http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html
The sauropod pictograph is included. This is a picture of a sauropod
dinosaur standing on his hind legs which some early American Indian drew
on a canyon wall with sharp tools. The people involved in this had serious
credentials, the material itself comes from the Harvard University
museum of American archaeology and ethnology. The findings have never been
discredited or refuted.
Ted Holden
med...@digex.com
Ted Holden
Jim Rogers
>ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
...
>>Perhaps you could tell us then, Ted, how the author accounts for such sites as
>>Buffalo Jump, Wyoming?
>
>I neither know nor care what Buffalo Jump Wyoming is, nor what sort of
>interpretation your ilk places on it.
In other words, ignore it, exactly as Carl suggested your favored author
of the day probably does. Facts are SO inconvenient, Ted, aren't they?
Jim
Walt Cunningham
>med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>>jlo...@tfb.com (Don Lowry) writes:
>>
>>[mammoths getting to Alaska...]
>>
(snip)
>The problem goes away if you also ignore the accumulated evidence and
>cease rational consideration of same.
I think the original argument was whether there were, or were not
cubic mile "untidy dumpsites" in which were discovered extinct
mammoths whose flesh was frozen in an edible state. Why go off onto
irrelevant paths?
>>[...]
>+----------+ Rich Travsky RTRAVSKY @ UWYO . EDU
>| | Division of Information Technology
>| | University of Wyoming (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
>| UW | "Wyoming is the capital of Denver." - a tourist
>| * | "One of those square states." - another tourist
>+----------+ http://plains.uwyo.edu/~rtravsky/
--
Walt Cunningham
-Life ain't in holdin' a good hand,
but in playin' a poor hand well...