Newsgroup sci.bio.paleontology 9449

Directory

Ah, you want proof!  Well, there probably isn't ever going to be proof.  
The best proof I can offer is our known history.  Species fall before our 
onslaught as autumn leaves.  We have hunted and fished animals into 
extinction.  More telling is that just our presence and behavior has 
driven and is driving more species over the edge every day.  
So far as mammoth extinction is concerned, keep in mind a changing 
climate could have put extraordinary stress on these animals, and if the 
paleo hunters were specialized in mammoth hunting, and other animals were 
eating them too...H.sapiens may have been the last straw.
-- 
Don Jordan
POB 2357
Chiefland, FL 32644
http://ripserv.com/indyjones

Whoops.  That should read CLASSIC Neandertals as represented by 
LaChapelle.
-- 
Don Jordan
POB 2357
Chiefland, FL 32644
http://ripserv.com/indyjones

"Thomas R. Holtz, Jr."  wrote:
>Let us just say that I have every confidence in the observational
>capabilities of Phil Currie and Michael Skrepnick (who, it can now
>be revealed, were the folks that I interrogated over the objects in
>question, Skrepnick for quite some time!).
Well, I am glad to hear this added support.
I looked at the pictures on the Dinosauria-On-Line Web site.  And,
while the pictures were very interesting, I cannot really say I could
see feathers in them (lack of resolution, most likely).
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen

Replying to rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu 
: > >But showing that the mammoths were hunted doesn't prove that the hunting
: > >caused the extinction.
: >
: > Correct. It supports it (as per the subject line), not necessarily
: > proves it.
: 
: No -- it only supports the idea that mammoths were being hunted.  It 
: provides no information about whether that hunting contributed to 
: extinction.
Well, if the Mammoths responded with lowered age at first birth, and
smaller size, then the increase in predation pressure must have been
significant. Unquantifiable, but significant. 
: Rebecca Lynn Johnson
: Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
MVH: Mike Noreen       |"Cold as the northern winds 
Net: ev-michael@nrm.se | in December mornings,
                       | Cold is the cry that rings
                       | from this far distant shore."
Proud to have been dubbed 'Incorrigible', 'idiot', 
   and 'IQ below 50' by that most "complex" of 
         Black Knights - Peter Nyikos!

In article <56liu1$thv@obi-wan.fdt.net> Don Jordan  writes:
>Whoops.  That should read CLASSIC Neandertals as represented by 
>LaChapelle.
As another historical note, the Classic Neanderthal was briefly
replaced by the New Neanderthal.  The latter proved to be a marketing
failure and the Classic soon returned.
  -- David "Chris" Wright, Associate Professor, CS Dept, U of Ediacara
     wright@hi.com  ::  Babe Ruth Chair of Designated Hitting
     Official Spokesman for U of E when sober  ::  Go Anomalocaridids!

jimamy@primenet.com wrote:
> The point that man killed mega fauna is so stipulated.  But to prove that 
> we did it to the point of extinction, you need more.
For any one big animal in any one place, you can always concoct a
bunch of explanations, but world wide there is clear pattern:  Men
turn up, big animals disappear.
Remarable coincidence that this happened everywhere.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald       jamesd@echeque.com

bhowatt@humboldt.k12.ca.us (H. Brent Howatt) writes:
>edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>>Fact is, the few bits and pieces of what they called ``Lucy" -- to go
>>with the vast majority of manmade bonelike additions that were used to
>>fill the many gaps -- weren't even found in close proximity.
>I post this not to convince the Ed entity, who is clueless, but for
>other readers.  Ed's statements regarding the Lucy fossil are all
>false.  There is more of Lucy than of almost all other fossil
>hominids.  The Lucy fossil was found all in one locality, not spread
>out.  The creationist lie that Lucy's knee was found at another
>location.  This has been debunked more times than I can count.
Yes, a lie that Ed has qualms about repeating.
So what does that make of Ed?
+----------+    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/

bhowatt@humboldt.k12.ca.us (H. Brent Howatt) writes:
>edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>>Fact is, the few bits and pieces of what they called ``Lucy" -- to go
>>with the vast majority of manmade bonelike additions that were used to
>>fill the many gaps -- weren't even found in close proximity.
>I post this not to convince the Ed entity, who is clueless, but for
>other readers.  Ed's statements regarding the Lucy fossil are all
>false.  There is more of Lucy than of almost all other fossil
>hominids.  The Lucy fossil was found all in one locality, not spread
>out.  The creationist lie that Lucy's knee was found at another
>location.  This has been debunked more times than I can count.
> [...]
Yes, a lie that Ed has no qualms about repeating.
So what does that make of Ed?
+----------+    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/

Barry Vaughan wrote:
> Nick Longrich wrote:
>>Scientists don't make the claim that humans are descended from chimps,
>>but rather, that we share an ancestor. The fact that about 98% of the
>>average human's DNA is also found in Bonzo is a pretty convincing 
>>argument that this is in fact the case.
> 
> 98% ?
> 
>I think you'll find it's about 99.5% in the bonobo (sp?) or pygmy chimp.
> About 99% with common chimps and about 97% with baboons.
> 
> To give a sense of scale, it's about 60% common with dogs.
Just out of curiousity, has(T)ed ever attempted to explain the
genetic similarity between humans and bonobos?
+----------+    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/

In <3282B397.BE7@hcn.hcnews.com>, 
Brother Blaze  writes:
>Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1974)
>The actual definition reads:
>
>1 c: an organismic state characterised by the capacity for metabolism,
>growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. (pg 663)
>> Automobiles, for instance, could be considered alive by this definition.
>> So could candleflames.
["this definition" referring to the physiological definition of life]
>I see no way in which automobiles could fit this definition.
>How do they grow?
Cars "grow" during their assembly until they are "mature" enough.
My grandfather hasn't grown since 1975, but he's still alive. :)
Does he fit this definition?  Lichens in extreme northern Alaska
stop growing after a while; does that mean they're no longer alive?
>How do the react to stimuli?
My car detects heavy braking on a slippery surface and modulates the
brake fluid pressure.  My car detects an increase in load and adjusts
the spark timing to compensate.  My car controls fuel delivery when
cruise control is active in order to maintain a uniform speed.  My
car unlocks its doors when I ask it to.
I'd say it acts moderately intelligent. :)
>How do they procreate?
In much the same way as viruses procreate.  A successful automobile will
create a demand for more copies of itself, and the existing mechanism
by which automobiles are produced creates more of them.
>As for candle flames--
>How do they react to external stimuli?
By moving, growing, shrinking, changing color, changing temperature,
producing smoke, flickering, dying...
>Reaction to external stimuli does not entail such things as: "I pushed
>it and it moved."  It involves reactions which are not simple physical
>or chemical reactions.
Well, that pretty much narrows it down to nothing!  How do you define
"simple" here?  Does a virtual-reality simulation of a dog count?  How
about a venus' flytrap?  A homeostatic environmental control system with
a fuzzy-logic neural network?  An immune system T-cell?
>And, of course, adding the 4th criteria (hate those memory lapses)
>neither flames nor car metabolize.
me.tab.o.lize \-.li-z\ vt : to subject to metabolism to perform metabolism
That didn't help -- let's try again. :)
me.tab.o.lism \m*-'tab-*-.liz-*m\ n [ISV, fr. Gk metabole- change, fr.
   metaballein to change, fr. Xmeta- + ballein to throw - more at DEVIL 1a:
   the sum of the processes in the building up and destruction of protoplasm
   incidental to life; specif : the chemical changes in living cells by which
   energy is provided for vital processes and activities and new material is
   assimilated to repair the waste 1b: the sum of the processes by which a
   particular substance is handled in the living body 2: METAMORPHOSIS
Ignoring the circular references to "life", it looks like metabolism is
something which involves chemical changes which provide energy and produce
waste.
People consume fuel and produce energy and waste.
Flames consume fuel and produce energy and waste.
Cars consume fuel and produce energy and waste.
= === ===   === = = =   === === === === =   = === =   = = ===   = = === =
# Alan Anderson #  Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent.  #
  (I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)