Size based extinctions.

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11341
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Size based extinctions.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:46 pm

Reference, Science Daily, 19 April 2018

Primitive humans destroy animal life. An interesting pattern is that they selectively render extinct larger animals, while smaller species survive. This pattern has been seen all around the world.

Waves of extinctions are shown by those who study animal bones, with large animals dying off much more than smaller ones. This has been shown for Australia, NZ, both North and South America, Madagascar, and numerous islands. These extinctions happen after humans arrive, and selectively remove larger species.

The reference above points out a further point. Humans evolved in Africa, and Africa has smaller animals than existed in both North and South America before the extinctions. It appears that any larger species are gone by 125,000 years ago. The simplest explanation is that early humans (or even genus Homo before sapiens ) wiped out the larger ones in Africa.

Who said that modern humans are uniquely evil ?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21614
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:36 pm

"Who"? People who aren't paying attention. The First Nations used to stampede whole herds of bison over cliffs and pick and choose what they wanted from the resulting pile of dead animals.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11341
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:57 pm

Indeed. Fortunately, a lot of bison lived in areas where there were no cliffs.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31366
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Gord » Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:04 am

Humans probably hunted all the species, large and small. It's the slow reproduction rate of the larger ones that led to their dying off due to the extra predation. Smaller animals can usually reproduce faster and hide better. Well, not the dodo of course, it reproduced slowly and couldn't hide very well, but those features were due to it living on a small island.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21614
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:43 am

Gord wrote:Humans probably hunted all the species, large and small. It's the slow reproduction rate of the larger ones that led to their dying off due to the extra predation. Smaller animals can usually reproduce faster and hide better. Well, not the dodo of course, it reproduced slowly and couldn't hide very well, but those features were due to it living on a small island.

Economy of scale.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11341
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:06 am

My own hypothesis is that it is lack of fear that leads to large animal extinctions. Bison, elk and deer would be afraid of wolf size predators and would run. Mammoths, giant sloth, saber tooth cats and the like would not be afraid and would not run. Humans with stone tipped spears and powerful spear throwers are far more lethal than wolves. Thus the large and unafraid animals go extinct.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14331
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:32 am

....and they have low reproductive rates. ..... or is an issue of species survival down to only one variable?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31366
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Gord » Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:08 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:My own hypothesis is that it is lack of fear that leads to large animal extinctions. Bison, elk and deer would be afraid of wolf size predators and would run. Mammoths, giant sloth, saber tooth cats and the like would not be afraid and would not run. Humans with stone tipped spears and powerful spear throwers are far more lethal than wolves. Thus the large and unafraid animals go extinct.

Don't forget, there were large predators before human arrived. Those species also faced bears and large cats. Dire wolves averaged about 150 lbs, and the American lion was about 25% larger than the modern African lion.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11341
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:54 am

True, Gord.

But a wolf or dire wolf would be no threat to the larger animals, and not feared. Humans would be in that size range. Not the bear or lion size range.

I have seen directly the result of evolution away from fear. When I was at the Galapagos Islands, which have no mammal predators, I was able to get to within less than a metre of sea lions, pelicans, and other large sea birds (should I mention their names, since it is boobies ?).

Certainly slow reproduction would not help the survival of larger animals. But we have the question of why mammoths and their ilk died out while bison thrived. The bigger difference, in my view, is fear.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14331
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:23 am

Millions of herbivores vs fewer meat eaters.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3941
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:36 am

For obvious reasons, the animals at the top of the food chain are susceptible to all perturbations that occur on lower levels.
And the more an animal needs to eat, the more space it needs and the less time it has for anything else.
While it is true that hunting big game is just convenient for humans, large animals are also more a risk to start with.
"'I don't know what I was doing wrong, but I promise I won't do it again."
- Daddy Pig

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11341
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:58 am

Hunting large animals, EM, is both easier and safer if they show no fear of humans. You can walk up to such an animal without alarming it. While I would be reluctant to do that with a saber tooth cat, a fearless mammoth, mastodon, rhino, or giant sloth would be unlikely to attack, and would be easy to drive a spear into.

The top of the food chain, by the way, was humans.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3941
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:08 am

humans are omnivores, so they don't fit into a classical food pyramid.
And classical hunting methods make use of the fact that animals are scared of humans, allowing a group of noise-makers to drive the prey into a trap- which is better than having a docile creature suddenly becoming enraged.
"'I don't know what I was doing wrong, but I promise I won't do it again."
- Daddy Pig

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11341
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:08 am

Classical hunting methods, EM, make use of a little thing called human ingenuity.

In other words, there are numerous hunting methods. Whatever works.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11133
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:02 pm

It's too bad that elephants went extinct in Africa and southern Asia at least 125,000 years ago. I wonder what all those ivory poachers think thy are shooting at?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11341
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:17 pm

Oleg

Try to be a little less snarky. When a person gets snide and is shown to be wrong, it makes them look bad.

African and Indian elephants are small compared to mammoths.

If you compare modern African wild life to that which existed in the Americas before man, it is smaller. The comparison is between equivalents. So compare elephant to elephant. Tiger to tiger. Sloth to its equivalent. The same applies to birds. The moa of NZ and the elephant bird of Madagascar both made ostriches look small.

Until human immigrants with stone weapons wiped them out.

The survival of slow breeders like African elephants makes the slow breeding hypothesis less likely. It is noteworthy, though, that African survivors like the elephant are not fearless. If humans approach them, they react. Either with aggression or by running. Of course, if there was a human generated extinction event in Africa 125,000 years ago, the survivors have had time to evolve new behaviour.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11133
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:54 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Oleg


African and Indian elephants are small compared to mammoths.

If you compare modern African wild life to that which existed in the Americas before man, it is smaller. The comparison is between equivalents. So compare elephant to elephant. Tiger to tiger. Sloth to its equivalent. The same applies to birds. The moa of NZ and the elephant bird of Madagascar both made ostriches look small.


The size difference is minor. Show with evidence that it is significant.

Show with evidence that North American megafauna were not afraid of, or at least wary of humans.

Show that the climate changes which brought the humans did not adversely affect megafauna habitat.

Keep in mind that not all of the extinctions were megafauna. The giant beaver being a case in point.

The biggest problem with the humans-did-it as the sole explanation is that it does not explain why humans-didn't-did-it elsewhere. Most of the humans-did-it (except NZ) is nothing more than post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11341
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:06 pm

Oleg

Humans did it almost everywhere.

Mass extinctions followed the arrival of humans in the Americas, Australia, NZ, Madagascar, Hawaii, the Caribbean, and many smaller places. Africa is unproven as yet. The reference I posted suggested a mass extinction in Africa 125,000 years ago, but we need more data on that.

Humans appear to have been responsible even for the extinction of our Neanderthal brothers. Maybe others of genus Homo ?

There are people of great naievity who refuse to believe this of indigenous people. I hope you are not that naive.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21614
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:16 pm

It's good to know I won't go extinct.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31366
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Gord » Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:54 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:It's good to know I won't go extinct.

Why, did you get a new shower?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21614
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Size based extinctions.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:18 pm

Gord wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:It's good to know I won't go extinct.

Why, did you get a new shower?

I got the megakaiju model from Home Depot.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests