<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Climate change knocked mammoths down, humans finished them off</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:00:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry Meyer</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-210</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry Meyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:21:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-210</guid>
		<description>If a small hunting band wanted an abundant supply of fresh tender meat with a relatively small risk, they may realize that the above conditions could be met by following a pregnant mammoth until at the time of birth.  Then to quickly dispatch the youngster and run off to a safe place until the parent realized her young was dead and left the scene.  Then the hunters could return to butcher the &quot;veal&quot; like animal and consume it before the meat spoiled.
Under this scenerio, a small population of hunters with low technology could cause mammoths would die out in a local are in one generation.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If a small hunting band wanted an abundant supply of fresh tender meat with a relatively small risk, they may realize that the above conditions could be met by following a pregnant mammoth until at the time of birth.  Then to quickly dispatch the youngster and run off to a safe place until the parent realized her young was dead and left the scene.  Then the hunters could return to butcher the &#8220;veal&#8221; like animal and consume it before the meat spoiled.<br />
Under this scenerio, a small population of hunters with low technology could cause mammoths would die out in a local are in one generation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Husher</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-209</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Husher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:39:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-209</guid>
		<description>You know, every time I read about the demise of the mammoths and the other Pleistocene megafauna, I am struck by the almost desperate efforts made by paleontologists and archeologists to come up with some sort of alternative reason for their extinction, other than the MOST obvious, and that is they were quite simply killed and eaten.  I have heard and read all the arguments, all the discussions, but yet, at the end of the day, every single alternative theory is proven demonstrably false.  Every one, and every time!
Let&#039;s look at each in turn that I am aware of.... First, the collapse of the &#039;mammoth steppe&#039; environment theory.  the &#039;mammoth steppe&#039; is an environment that was CREATED by mammoths, and depended upon mammoths to survive (much like the African savannah today).  All the studies showing the progressive loss of the &#039;mammoth steppe&#039; as being a cause for the extinction of the mammoth, should simply turn this scenario on its head, as being indicative of the loss of mammoths to maintain the environment, not the other way around.  And of course, with the loss of this environment and the mammoths that created it, comes the loss of all the other species as well (and the same thing can happen in Africa with the loss of elephants).  There is not one plant species described for the &#039;mammoth steppe&#039; that is not still extant, and mostly in the same places they have always been; it is simply a matter of not having the environment altered periodically by herds of mammoths trundling through that prevents them from establishing themselves as densely as during the Pleistocene.
A corollary of this argument regards the specialization of the mammoths themselves, and that they somehow were restricted to the &#039;mammoth steppe&#039; because of their dietary requirements.  In fact, mammoths in North America were found from Alaska, all the way down to Florida, Mexico and Central America, which covers a HUGE range of biotic ecologies, vegetation types, relative rainfall, etc, etc.  In other owrds, mammoths were not particularly exclusive to ANY particular environment, but could live almost anywhere there was some sort of vegetation.  What IS true is they were not fond of dense coniferous forests or jungles, but surprise, surprise, there was ANOTHER proboscidean that DID, and that is the American Mastodon, and its bizarre relatives, the Gomphotheres.  In other words, if the environment gets increasingly bad for mammoths for some reason, it gets BETTER for mastodons, which means that the spread of the boreal forest after the last glaciation SHOULD have been bonanza time for mastodons, but of course, THEY went extinct at the same time too.  Finally, given the amazing ability of mammoths and other large herbivores to travel large distances in search of food, there seems to be no reason in the face of changing environmental conditions for them to not simply GO SOMEWHERE ELSE (which is what elephants do).  For some reason, paleontologist seem to &#039;skip over&#039; this bit when examining the changing ecology of their favored digging sites, as if the ability to travel hundreds, or even thousands of miles is somehow negligible (and you can still see the migrations of the herds  happening today in Africa, and among the caribou, and the bison too!)!
The next argument for extinction involves extinction caused by the spread of diseases caused by animals migrating from Asia to North America and South America and vice versa..... First off, these kinds on interchanges and migrations had been taking place for MILLIONS of years prior to the end of the Pleistocene, and while certainly some animals came into competition for which they were not suited and became extinct, MOST did quite well in their new environments and continued to spread.  Yes, there is always a possibility that a &#039;new&#039; disease could be introduced, and probably did on occasion.  However, all historical evidence shows that in such cases, there will be a quick die-off, but then there are always SOME animals that are resistant to those diseases, and will very quickly reproduce to &#039;fill in&#039; the population gap in just a few generations.  Paleontologically and geologically speaking, such a &#039;blip&#039; is almost unnoticeable in the fossil record, which is why there is no fossil evidence for it EVER happening!  Even in historical times, such terrifically fatal things as small pox, measles, etc introduced to North America did not &#039;wipe out&#039; the native Americans, and they bounced back quite quickly within just a few generations.  Once again, this a &#039;theory&#039; with no legs!
The third (and most recent) theory for the megafauna extinctions can perhaps best be described as &#039;astronomical interventions&#039; by comets, asteroids and the like.  While there is some evidence for a possible meteor strike in Canada around that time, it was certainly not on the scale of the asteroid that finished the dinosaurs at the end of the Mesozoic, and had almost no impact at all on the many other species that are still extant (and from the fossil record, it appears it had little impact on the mammoths either).  This particularly to be in evidence when looking at both mastodons living in South America, as well as mammoths (and mastodons) living in Asia, where there is virtually NO evidence for such an astronomic catastrophe (as against the end of the Mesozoic, where the &#039;KT Boundary is evident world-wide).
So there you have it, there is NO ecological or environmental reason why mammoths and the rest of the Pleistocene megafauna should not be alive and well, but for ONE difference, and that difference is MAN and his technology.
Which leads me into another point, this time giving a slap to the Archeologists..... For some reason, Archeologists have always equated a bit of technology with culture, as if someone with a can opener in China is somehow in the same culture as an Englishman with the same sort of can opener.  Nothing could be further from the truth!!!! Technology exists almost in exclusion to culture, and technology spreads like wildfire, across cultures, terrain, religion, you name it.  THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN CULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY!!!  So when you read learned articles about &#039;Clovis people lived here, and spread there,&#039; or anything along those lines, that is absolute RUBBISH!!!  Tool technology transfers very quickly, and a very successful tool type will fly across the world in no time, and even in ancient times.  further, such tools and technology are ALWAYS subject to local interpretation for local purposes.  In other words, just because some Europeans invented a really good point for hunting large animals (Solutrean), does NOT mean those people had to make the journey all the way across the Atlantic ocean for a similar large point to appear in North America.  Instead, one of TWO thigs can happen, either A, the tool design travels from band to band who find it useful, all across the &#039;mammoth steppe,&#039; or B, there are intelligent people here who come to the same conclusion about what is needed to bring down a mammoth (Clovis).  There is NO reason for physical travel of any particular people, as long as trading and other social relationships continue to exist.
So what is the point of all this?  i think the main point is that there is FAR more to be learned by examining the current batch of scientists, their motives, agendas and biases, than there is to be learned by examining extinct animals!!
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know, every time I read about the demise of the mammoths and the other Pleistocene megafauna, I am struck by the almost desperate efforts made by paleontologists and archeologists to come up with some sort of alternative reason for their extinction, other than the MOST obvious, and that is they were quite simply killed and eaten.  I have heard and read all the arguments, all the discussions, but yet, at the end of the day, every single alternative theory is proven demonstrably false.  Every one, and every time!<br />
Let&#8217;s look at each in turn that I am aware of&#8230;. First, the collapse of the &#8216;mammoth steppe&#8217; environment theory.  the &#8216;mammoth steppe&#8217; is an environment that was CREATED by mammoths, and depended upon mammoths to survive (much like the African savannah today).  All the studies showing the progressive loss of the &#8216;mammoth steppe&#8217; as being a cause for the extinction of the mammoth, should simply turn this scenario on its head, as being indicative of the loss of mammoths to maintain the environment, not the other way around.  And of course, with the loss of this environment and the mammoths that created it, comes the loss of all the other species as well (and the same thing can happen in Africa with the loss of elephants).  There is not one plant species described for the &#8216;mammoth steppe&#8217; that is not still extant, and mostly in the same places they have always been; it is simply a matter of not having the environment altered periodically by herds of mammoths trundling through that prevents them from establishing themselves as densely as during the Pleistocene.<br />
A corollary of this argument regards the specialization of the mammoths themselves, and that they somehow were restricted to the &#8216;mammoth steppe&#8217; because of their dietary requirements.  In fact, mammoths in North America were found from Alaska, all the way down to Florida, Mexico and Central America, which covers a HUGE range of biotic ecologies, vegetation types, relative rainfall, etc, etc.  In other owrds, mammoths were not particularly exclusive to ANY particular environment, but could live almost anywhere there was some sort of vegetation.  What IS true is they were not fond of dense coniferous forests or jungles, but surprise, surprise, there was ANOTHER proboscidean that DID, and that is the American Mastodon, and its bizarre relatives, the Gomphotheres.  In other words, if the environment gets increasingly bad for mammoths for some reason, it gets BETTER for mastodons, which means that the spread of the boreal forest after the last glaciation SHOULD have been bonanza time for mastodons, but of course, THEY went extinct at the same time too.  Finally, given the amazing ability of mammoths and other large herbivores to travel large distances in search of food, there seems to be no reason in the face of changing environmental conditions for them to not simply GO SOMEWHERE ELSE (which is what elephants do).  For some reason, paleontologist seem to &#8216;skip over&#8217; this bit when examining the changing ecology of their favored digging sites, as if the ability to travel hundreds, or even thousands of miles is somehow negligible (and you can still see the migrations of the herds  happening today in Africa, and among the caribou, and the bison too!)!<br />
The next argument for extinction involves extinction caused by the spread of diseases caused by animals migrating from Asia to North America and South America and vice versa&#8230;.. First off, these kinds on interchanges and migrations had been taking place for MILLIONS of years prior to the end of the Pleistocene, and while certainly some animals came into competition for which they were not suited and became extinct, MOST did quite well in their new environments and continued to spread.  Yes, there is always a possibility that a &#8216;new&#8217; disease could be introduced, and probably did on occasion.  However, all historical evidence shows that in such cases, there will be a quick die-off, but then there are always SOME animals that are resistant to those diseases, and will very quickly reproduce to &#8216;fill in&#8217; the population gap in just a few generations.  Paleontologically and geologically speaking, such a &#8216;blip&#8217; is almost unnoticeable in the fossil record, which is why there is no fossil evidence for it EVER happening!  Even in historical times, such terrifically fatal things as small pox, measles, etc introduced to North America did not &#8216;wipe out&#8217; the native Americans, and they bounced back quite quickly within just a few generations.  Once again, this a &#8216;theory&#8217; with no legs!<br />
The third (and most recent) theory for the megafauna extinctions can perhaps best be described as &#8216;astronomical interventions&#8217; by comets, asteroids and the like.  While there is some evidence for a possible meteor strike in Canada around that time, it was certainly not on the scale of the asteroid that finished the dinosaurs at the end of the Mesozoic, and had almost no impact at all on the many other species that are still extant (and from the fossil record, it appears it had little impact on the mammoths either).  This particularly to be in evidence when looking at both mastodons living in South America, as well as mammoths (and mastodons) living in Asia, where there is virtually NO evidence for such an astronomic catastrophe (as against the end of the Mesozoic, where the &#8216;KT Boundary is evident world-wide).<br />
So there you have it, there is NO ecological or environmental reason why mammoths and the rest of the Pleistocene megafauna should not be alive and well, but for ONE difference, and that difference is MAN and his technology.<br />
Which leads me into another point, this time giving a slap to the Archeologists&#8230;.. For some reason, Archeologists have always equated a bit of technology with culture, as if someone with a can opener in China is somehow in the same culture as an Englishman with the same sort of can opener.  Nothing could be further from the truth!!!! Technology exists almost in exclusion to culture, and technology spreads like wildfire, across cultures, terrain, religion, you name it.  THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN CULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY!!!  So when you read learned articles about &#8216;Clovis people lived here, and spread there,&#8217; or anything along those lines, that is absolute RUBBISH!!!  Tool technology transfers very quickly, and a very successful tool type will fly across the world in no time, and even in ancient times.  further, such tools and technology are ALWAYS subject to local interpretation for local purposes.  In other words, just because some Europeans invented a really good point for hunting large animals (Solutrean), does NOT mean those people had to make the journey all the way across the Atlantic ocean for a similar large point to appear in North America.  Instead, one of TWO thigs can happen, either A, the tool design travels from band to band who find it useful, all across the &#8216;mammoth steppe,&#8217; or B, there are intelligent people here who come to the same conclusion about what is needed to bring down a mammoth (Clovis).  There is NO reason for physical travel of any particular people, as long as trading and other social relationships continue to exist.<br />
So what is the point of all this?  i think the main point is that there is FAR more to be learned by examining the current batch of scientists, their motives, agendas and biases, than there is to be learned by examining extinct animals!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Marjanovi&#263;</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-208</link>
		<dc:creator>David Marjanovi&#263;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:54:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-208</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;a sleeping elephant&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Forest elephants are rather solitary, aren&#039;t they? Mammoths seem to have lived in herds... Also, don&#039;t pygmies use poisoned spears? I don&#039;t think there are any poisonous plants in a mammoth steppe.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>a sleeping elephant</p></blockquote>
<p>Forest elephants are rather solitary, aren&#8217;t they? Mammoths seem to have lived in herds&#8230; Also, don&#8217;t pygmies use poisoned spears? I don&#8217;t think there are any poisonous plants in a mammoth steppe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-207</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:59:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-207</guid>
		<description>So they did die out from exhaustion building all those huge the pyramids (as depicted in 10,000BC)?!!
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So they did die out from exhaustion building all those huge the pyramids (as depicted in 10,000BC)?!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BlindSquirrel</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-206</link>
		<dc:creator>BlindSquirrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:45:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-206</guid>
		<description>Popular depictions of mammoth kills, With paleohunters chucking and even thrusting spears into a wildly thrashing beast not withstanding,   Mammoths might have been easy.Pigmys hunt African elephants by planting a cluster of spears in front of a sleeping elephant and then kicking them in the trunk to cause them to charge and impale themselves.  Even so,a small band of hunter-gatherers can&#039;t afford to take many chances in the process of acquiring lunch. Judging by the bones, much of the time they stuck to eating turtles.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Popular depictions of mammoth kills, With paleohunters chucking and even thrusting spears into a wildly thrashing beast not withstanding,   Mammoths might have been easy.Pigmys hunt African elephants by planting a cluster of spears in front of a sleeping elephant and then kicking them in the trunk to cause them to charge and impale themselves.  Even so,a small band of hunter-gatherers can&#8217;t afford to take many chances in the process of acquiring lunch. Judging by the bones, much of the time they stuck to eating turtles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Romeo Vitelli</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-205</link>
		<dc:creator>Romeo Vitelli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-205</guid>
		<description>I think it was in &lt;i&gt;Guns, Germs and Steel&lt;/i&gt; that Jared Diamond pointed out that a good way of dating when humans first entered a new territory is to check and see when the mass extinctions happened.  That&#039;s been the case for just about every continent or island inhabited by humans.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it was in <i>Guns, Germs and Steel</i> that Jared Diamond pointed out that a good way of dating when humans first entered a new territory is to check and see when the mass extinctions happened.  That&#8217;s been the case for just about every continent or island inhabited by humans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Coturnix</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-204</link>
		<dc:creator>Coturnix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:45:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/02/climate-change-knocked-mammoths-down-humans-finished-them-off/#comment-204</guid>
		<description>You could send a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.plos.org/cms/node/261&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;trackback&lt;/a&gt; to the paper as well (and make me happy...).  ;-)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You could send a <a href="http://www.plos.org/cms/node/261" rel="nofollow">trackback</a> to the paper as well (and make me happy&#8230;).  <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
