🚀 go-pugleaf

Gatos Loco <gatosloco@hotmail.com> wrote:
>floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>So the evidence is that an animal went extinct, and there were
>>humans in North America at the same time.
>>
>>That is no evidence at all.
>>
>>In fact, I doubt there is any real evidence that said animal was
>>even hunted by humans!  The one and only large animal from that
>>period that we can be somewhat (but perhaps not very) certain
>>was hunted is the mammoth.  They've actually found one or two of
>>them with spear points embedded in them.  The others are purely
>>speculation...  (And when that speculation gets to the point of
>>claiming something was hunted to extinction it is much closer to
>>fabrication.)
>>
>>Finding bones of an animal carved up in a cave does *not* equate
>>to proof that the animal was hunted and killed by humans.  It
>>merely proves that a dead specimen was carved up.
>>
>True I wasn't there to see it. However points such as the clovis
>variety were not used to hunt birds. If you don't wan't to accept that
>there is evidence that at least points to a human component in the
>extinction of some of these species. Don't.

The fact that Clovis points existed, humans existed, and an
animal went extinct are *not* sufficient to claim the three are
related.  That is simply invalid logic.

Worse yet, there is *clear* evidence that there is no
relationship.  The lack of Clovis or similar technology in
Siberia, yet the same animals became extinct there at the same
time.

Logically, that eliminates the connection to Clovis technology.
And absent the claim that some new fangled technology suddenly
gave humans an advantage that led to these extinctions, there is
nothing significant about human predation on those animals as
regards them becoming extinct.

>I happen to believe the
>evidence I have seen that points to a human component in tipping the
>balance of these species becoming extinct. Perhaps climate change
>created circumstances that weakened the species but I don't believe
>that was the only factor that caused extinction.

But, as I said, there is no such evidence of a human
connection...

You might have a religious belief (aka "a leap of faith") that
of course those nasty Natives were as bad as everyone else and
therefore had to have hunted animals to extinction, but that
isn't logical.

>>When relatively newer middens are excavated it is pretty easy to
>>determine what percentage of the diet certain animals provided.
>>Hence on Greenland 4000 years ago we know that Eskimos ate a lot
>>of seals, but not so many whales; and that in more recent times
>>they increased the number of whales taken.
>>
>>But when looking at artifacts from 7 to 15 thousand years ago,
>>they are lucky to find a mere few identifiable bones, and it
>>generally does not present sufficient information to make the
>>same determinations.
>>
>>As I said, there simply is no evidence that actually supports
>>a claim that Native Americans hunted even one single animal to
>>extinction.
>
>There is. You may find it weak. I don't.

Well, *you* haven't presented any, and neither has anyone else.
That is not for lack of trying either.  There have been a couple
of serious attempts at making a case, and they've fallen flat by
all counts.  None of them hold water if *all* facts are
included.  They only look reasonable if significant exclusions
are made.  Hence people who *want* to believe are quite able to
put on a set of blinders and believe.

-- 
FloydL. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com