Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scientists trying to clone, resurrect extinct mammoth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    there is no way man could have made these animals go extinct.

    What did they use? satellites to track them all down?

    Comment


    • #92
      Agriculture is a relatively recent invention, DFG. Less than 10,000 years old. Before that, we were hunting and gathering full time, moving around to follow the herds. Wherever there was a herd, there'd be a batch of humans thinking of dinner, no need for satellites. Oh, and primitive cultures used less "sporting" hunting practices than we did, I hear. Like starting fires to stampede whole herds over a cliff...kill your meat and tenderize it, all in one step.
      1011 1100
      Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Docfeelgood View Post
        there is no way man could have made these animals go extinct.

        What did they use? satellites to track them all down?
        Biologists have done lots of studies and computer models which have shown humans don't actually have to kill that many large animals like mammoths to send a species into a death spiral especially if the species is already under stress from climate change or disease. Hell, even unintentional effects of humans on the environment can have a catastrophic effect such as deforestation (for wood or fuel), use of fire, or erosion (from farming or over grazing or even just cutting down trees); all of these can change the environment thus disrupting the web of species living in the area eventually sending the megafauna over the edge even with just light to moderate hunting. Most of the megafauna all have the same problem namely low reproduction rates and long lead times before an infant matures and becomes sexually active. Combine that with the need for large unbroken tracks of territory needed by the animals and it's easy to see how humans can drive them extinct. Even stone age peoples.
        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

        Comment


        • #94
          Climate models together with population models provide quantitative evidence that the combined effects of climate change and anthropogenic pressures can explain the extinction of the woolly mammoths.


          It has been particularly difficult to untangle these two potential causes of extinction, as climate change and increased human hunting are linked. When the climate in mammoth territory started to become too warm for the furry beast, it allowed humans--who couldn't handle the lower, mammoth-friendly temperatures--to move into the area.

          Therefore, the mammoth faced the heat and predation pressure from hunting in the same regions at approximately the same times, making it difficult to test the importance of the two factors independently. It had also been argued that, as the mammoth had survived many temperature fluctuations previous to those that coincided with its demise, it was only human hunting that was a substantially different condition that could have caused the extinction of the species.


          Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
          GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

          Comment


          • #95
            it allowed humans--who couldn't handle the lower, mammoth-friendly temperatures


            This also doesn't make sense.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Elok View Post
              Agriculture is a relatively recent invention, DFG. Less than 10,000 years old. Before that, we were hunting and gathering full time, moving around to follow the herds. Wherever there was a herd, there'd be a batch of humans thinking of dinner, no need for satellites. Oh, and primitive cultures used less "sporting" hunting practices than we did, I hear. Like starting fires to stampede whole herds over a cliff...kill your meat and tenderize it, all in one step.
              Not to mention even small tribes can quickly exhaust the hunting and gathering potential of an area in a short time. Let's say you have a tribe of 30-40 people, you'd need at least one deer per day to feed those people but are there really 365 deer in a 20 mile area to feed them all in a year? There probably isn't even 40 or 50 so even if you consider they're hunting all the game animals in that 20 mile radius area and gathering plants and maybe even fishing (if they have the technology) they're still very likely to exhaust all the available food in 3-6 months and for sure with in one year even in especially productive areas. Thus the need to keep moving because each area quickly gets exhausted. Now imagine human population is going up so that more and more of these bands/tribes are looking for virgin areas but those areas are becoming fewer and fewer while even previously used areas are getting less rest time between humans coming in and using up the resources. That spells population collapse for most of the wild species even with relatively low densities of humans.
              Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

              Comment


              • #97
                perhaps - in sufficient numbers - is missing
                Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
                GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

                Comment


                • #98
                  Even stone age peoples can make clothing out of animal hides using bone needles. Inuit have been around for a very long time and seem to do just fine hunting in extremely cold places. Now, I will give you this: Humans will naturally want to take advantage of more productive areas (which tend to be warmer areas) of the global before expanding out into more marginal areas (like the arctic) so human population densities would have likely had to go up in the more productive areas before hunter gatherers would move into the marginal areas simply because they had no better option open to them.
                  Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Oerdin View Post
                    Biologists have done lots of studies and computer models which have shown humans don't actually have to kill that many large animals like mammoths to send a species into a death spiral especially if the species is already under stress from climate change or disease. Hell, even unintentional effects of humans on the environment can have a catastrophic effect such as deforestation (for wood or fuel), use of fire, or erosion (from farming or over grazing or even just cutting down trees); all of these can change the environment thus disrupting the web of species living in the area eventually sending the megafauna over the edge even with just light to moderate hunting. Most of the megafauna all have the same problem namely low reproduction rates and long lead times before an infant matures and becomes sexually active. Combine that with the need for large unbroken tracks of territory needed by the animals and it's easy to see how humans can drive them extinct. Even stone age peoples.
                    Too far fetched!
                    A global extinction by monkey men?
                    There were not that many monkey men .
                    I just watched a docu and they are starting to think a comet did them in.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X