
Research backs human role in extinction of mammoths, other mammals - wellokthen
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-human-role-extinction-mammoths-mammals.html
======
Houshalter
I was just reading Guns Germs and Steel, and Jared Diamond made a convincing
argument that humans are most likely responsible. Wherever humans go, the
large megafauna seem to die shortly afterwards. Humans are pretty effective
hunters, and hunt in different ways than other animals. Animals evolved to
defend themselves from wolves, not spears or being chased off cliffs.

The reason megafauna didn't die off in Africa is because humans evolved
alongside them. As humans gradually became better hunters, the animals had
time to adapt. But now that humans have guns, and that's starting to change
too.

The alternative hypothesis of climate change doesn't really make sense,
because there have been many periods of climate change in the past that didn't
wipe out all the megafauna.

~~~
mc32
Megafauna in Africa has two different characteristics not found in the Arctic:

1\. Scavenger species which would've nullified the prize of the prey [you
can't easily drag an elephant away for butchering]

2\. Things in the tropics rot fast. Your megafauna will either rot or more
likely eaten by scavengers before you have a chance to hack something useful
off. And, you're likely not keen on attracting predators who might see you as
competition for the foodsource you just produced.

------
tokenadult
I see this university press release and the paper to which in points[1] both
came out in October 2015. I wonder if there has been some follow-up on this by
other scientists yet.

[1]
[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/23/1504020112](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/23/1504020112)

------
briantakita
See Graham Hancock's book, "Magicians of the Gods: The Forgotten Wisdom of
Earth's Lost Civilization" ([http://www.amazon.com/Magicians-Gods-Forgotten-
Wisdom-Civili...](http://www.amazon.com/Magicians-Gods-Forgotten-Wisdom-
Civilization/dp/1250045924)) for a rebuttal to the archaeological model
presented in this article.

Hancock's position is the archaeological model from this article is full of
holes; created by multiple assumptions based on assumptions re: radiocarbon
dating & general lack of critical thinking.

Instead he points to evidence of two comets hitting the ice caps in the last
ice age (younger Dryas period), which melted the ice, causing "fire to rain" &
worldwide flooding.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis)

\---

Imo, there is too much uncertainty to commit to one historical model; yet I
perceive Hancock's model to have more integrity.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
Graham Hancock's theories are charitably described as "unconventional" (1) and
less charitably as "crank" (2) and "woo" (3)

I don't think it qualifies as a "rebuttal" of anything.

1)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock)

2)
[https://fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/the-l...](https://fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/the-
lure-of-the-crank/)

3) [https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/more-
woo...](https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/more-woo-and-anti-
science-rants-at-tedx/)

~~~
briantakita
> "unconventional" (1) and less charitably as "crank" (2) and "woo" (3)

those are socially defined terms (i.e. they don't say much about the validity
or invalidity of a theory). only the facts & the system that ties the facts
together.

the thing is, many of our "facts" poorly constructed assumptions. one has to
be discerning & not afraid of ambiguity, nuance, & unknowns. i recommend to
not lock yourself into a predefined box.

from your perspective, you don't see this as a "rebuttal". from my
perspective, i see it as a rebuttal. ad hominem techniques are not evidence
for a position.

i'm also open to neither of these models as being correct.

indeed, we choose what we are skeptical toward, based on our existing bias...

