🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:49:20 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>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.
>
I don't base this on a religious belief. I don't think of American
indians as nasty natives. However I do think that as humans they are
capable of exploiting a  food sources to depleation.

>>>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.

Like believing Indian people all live and harmony and are incapable of
violence.