Mammoth found, killed with buckshot

shadron said:
Since I'm the one who placed the quote, I'll explain that bone in a living animal is living tissue. Bone cells continually arrange and rearrange the calcium salt crystals which make up the hard load-bearing structure of bone; they do that for injury, as in a broken bone, and in response to changing stress, as when the astronauts in extended weightlessness loose bone mass. Any injury that physically damages a bone is eventually repaired or "paved over" with new bone. My son has a screw in his elbow from a childhood accident; at twenty, surgery to remove the screw failed because it had been locked in by bone growth around it. In the photomicrograph that accompanies the quote (from Dr. Firestone of the Berkeley Livermore Labs) the "nugget" of metal has been encased with bone growth; compare to the photos of the tusk embedment.
Click to expand...

Oh, I wasn't asking for an explanation of why there is new bone growth.

I am asking skeptigirl why there is new bone growth, if the animal was killed.

But thanks, anyway!
 
I'm not skeptigirl, but I don't see where she said all the animals were killed. In fact, she first says that it's not hard to imagine one surviving. If one survived to regrow bone, obviously it wasn't killed.
 
CFLarsen said:
Explain, please.
Click to expand...
Explain what? If you can't post more than 2 words, I am not going to guess what the heck you are on about.

CFLarsen said:
Which are about a meteor blast from 12,900-13,000 years ago. The OP is about a meteor blast from 35,000 years ago.
Click to expand...
See posts 13, 14 & 15. The links I posted are by the SAME researcher on the SAME subject, discussing the hypothesis which led him to look for the fragments in the first place and I posted a link to the Science News article on this research which gives more info than the BBC article.

Just what is it you are bothered about from this science? Seems pretty well documented events and a strongly supported hypothesis. Perhaps if you'd elaborate on your issues it would explain what part of the story you are missing.
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
Oh, I wasn't asking for an explanation of why there is new bone growth.

I am asking skeptigirl why there is new bone growth, if the animal was killed.

But thanks, anyway!
Click to expand...
No, you asked
CFLarsen said:
Why would a bullet - or even a meteorite - kill a mammoth, if it was lodged in the tusk?
Click to expand...
The mammoths did not have new bone growth after the fragments, only the BISON did. Maybe you should either be nicer or post more carefully. Being snotty and wrong doesn't look too good.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
shadron said:
Just a little jest about the dinosaur track finds in Texas with human footprints in side them. (http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm) What if a creationist had found these first?
Click to expand...

They did:
The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved specimens
Click to expand...

From your link.
 
skeptigirl said:
Explain what? If you can't post more than 2 words, I am not going to guess what the heck you are on about.

See posts 13, 14 & 15. The links I posted are by the SAME researcher on the SAME subject, discussing the hypothesis which led him to look for the fragments in the first place and I posted a link to the Science News article on this research which gives more info than the BBC article.

Just what is it you are bothered about from this science? Seems pretty well documented events and a strongly supported hypothesis. Perhaps if you'd elaborate on your issues it would explain what part of the story you are missing.
Click to expand...

I'm not bothered at all by anything from this science. What gave you that idea?

skeptigirl said:
No, you asked

The mammoths did not have new bone growth after the fragments, only the BISON did. Maybe you should either be nicer or post more carefully. Being snotty and wrong doesn't look too good.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you about bone growth of the mammoth. I asked shadron if the program explained why a meteorite/bullet would kill a mammoth if it was lodged in the tusk.

Then, I asked you about the bison and bone growth. As I quoted in my post #38 to you.
 
Claus, I copied your question. It's right there in front of you. And I copied it and quoted it when you asked the question in the first place. And you are claiming you asked me something else?

You are really really weird.

Whatever your question was about the Bison was incomprehensible. All you said was, "Explain please". But since I had no idea that in your mind you were connecting the answer I posted about the mammoths to "Explain please" and a link to the Bison, I had no way of knowing what in the he!! you were talking about.

You are really really weird.

So when did I ever say anything I needed to "explain"? I repeat, explain what?
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
Claus, I copied your question. It's right there in front of you. And I copied it and quoted it when you asked the question in the first place. And you are claiming you asked me something else?

You are really really weird.

Whatever your question was about the Bison was incomprehensible. All you said was, "Explain please". But since I had no idea that in your mind you were connecting the answer I posted about the mammoths to "Explain please" and a link to the Bison, I had no way of knowing what in the he!! you were talking about.
Click to expand...

In my mind? You had no way of knowing? The quote clearly said:

"In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."
Click to expand...

How can you possibly mistake "bison" for "mammoth"?

skeptigirl said:
You are really really weird.

So when did I ever say anything I needed to "explain"? I repeat, explain what?
Click to expand...

How did the bison survive an impact close enough to get fragments, but not close enough to be killed by the blast?
 
shadron said:
It has been established that pygmy mammoths lived on Wrangel Island (in the Arctic Ocean) up to 2500BC.
Click to expand...

There were several mammoth refugia, but the species rapidly declined at the beginning of the Holocene. I've heard local tales in Mississippi about Native Americans hunting mammoths until shortly before white folks arrived, but I have never seen anything to validate such stories.

I hate citing Wikipedia, but this is the most concise source that I can find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth

You can google "Mammoth refugia" and get lots of journal articles citing specific places where mammoths lived longer.
 
CFLarsen said:
In my mind? You had no way of knowing? The quote clearly said:



How can you possibly mistake "bison" for "mammoth"?



How did the bison survive an impact close enough to get fragments, but not close enough to be killed by the blast?
Click to expand...
For crying out loud ... can you not follow a simple discussion?


You yourself asked how could the fragments embedded in the tusks kill the mammoths, then you turn around and ask how could the Bison have survived. And all the while you ignored everything I posted.

Maybe if I shout and spell it out ....

HUMANS SURVIVED THE TUNGUSKA BLAST YET WERE CLOSE ENOUGH TO HAVE BEEN KNOCKED DOWN. THEY GAVE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF BEING KNOCKED DOWN AND OBVIOUSLY THEY LIVED TO TELL ABOUT IT.

THE BLAST CAN KILL. THOUSANDS OF TREES WERE KNOCKED FLAT. SURELY MOST IF NOT ALL THE ANIMALS WITHIN RANGE OF THE TREE FALL WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED.

THE AIR BLAST AT TUNGUSKA RESULTED FROM AN OBJECT FROM SPACE SHATTERING FROM THE SHOCK WAVE AS IT ENTERED THE ATMOSPHERE. THE OBJECT THAT SHATTERED HAD SOME KIND OF MASS. SOME OF THE FRAGMENTS WOULD HAVE ACCOMPANIED THE AIR BLAST. I BELIEVE THOSE FRAGMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND EMBEDDED IN TREES.

EVEN IF THE TUNGUSKA FRAGMENTS WERE NOT SIMILAR TO THE FRAGMENTS FOUND IN THE TUSKS AND THE BISON SKELETON, IF YOU HAD READ ANY OF THE LINKS I POSTED ON THE WORK WHICH LED UP TO THE MOST RECENT DISCOVERIES, YOU'D HAVE SEEN THAT THE RESEARCHERS FOUND SIMILAR METEORITE FRAGMENTS IN THE GROUND LAYERS BEFORE LOOKING FOR THEM IN THE TUSKS.

So just what is your problem?
 
Last edited:
Here are some more links:

Ancient Meteor Blast Peppered Mammoths With "Shrapnel"
Anne Minard in San Francisco, California for National Geographic News; December 14, 2007

An ancient meteor impact in North America sent up waves of rock fragments that peppered prehistoric mammals with "space shrapnel" about 34,000 years ago, scientists say.

...

That's the story being pieced together by a research team led by Richard Firestone of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California.

The team had done previous work on a suspected impact that occurred 13,000 years ago. But while looking for evidence of that more recent blast in mammoth tusks, the scientists found traces of the much older event.

"The surprise was the tusks were dating back to 30,000 to 34,000 years ago," Firestone said.

"Nobody had thought of it before. It was serendipitous."
Click to expand...



Mammoth tusks show up meteorite shower
The dating showed that most of the tusks were 30,000 to 34,000 years old, and so not relevant to their theory about the end of the Clovis people (for more on that theory, see Blast in the past?). One tusk dated to 21,000 years ago, and the bison skull to 26,000 years old, but Firestone thinks that the dating of these specimens might have been affected by contamination of the samples. Future work, he thinks, will probably show them to be from the same meteorite shower as the other samples. They plan to refine the dates on all specimens as they move towards publication.

Firestone and his colleagues note that other scientists have found evidence that the populations of some large mammals — such as bison, horses and mammoths — declined about 34,000 years ago. That could go well with a theory of a meteor impact at that time.
Click to expand...



Related article from a couple weeks earlier, The end of an (ice) age - A group of University scientists have proposed a controversial new theory about the end of the last ice age
 
skeptigirl said:
For crying out loud ... can you not follow a simple discussion?
Click to expand...


Claus is out for a fight. I'd recommend simply ignoring his nonsense. Rising to it makes it look like there is an argument to be had. The rest of us see it for what it is.

Thanks for your links though, skeptigirl. I used this story on my program today and made for a decent discussion with my guests.

Athon
 
skeptigirl said:
For crying out loud ... can you not follow a simple discussion?
Click to expand...

It isn't me who mistook bison for mammoth.

How can you not have noticed the "bison" in my quote?

skeptigirl said:
You yourself asked how could the fragments embedded in the tusks kill the mammoths, then you turn around and ask how could the Bison have survived. And all the while you ignored everything I posted.

Maybe if I shout and spell it out ....

HUMANS SURVIVED THE TUNGUSKA BLAST YET WERE CLOSE ENOUGH TO HAVE BEEN KNOCKED DOWN. THEY GAVE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF BEING KNOCKED DOWN AND OBVIOUSLY THEY LIVED TO TELL ABOUT IT.

THE BLAST CAN KILL. THOUSANDS OF TREES WERE KNOCKED FLAT. SURELY MOST IF NOT ALL THE ANIMALS WITHIN RANGE OF THE TREE FALL WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED.

THE AIR BLAST AT TUNGUSKA RESULTED FROM AN OBJECT FROM SPACE SHATTERING FROM THE SHOCK WAVE AS IT ENTERED THE ATMOSPHERE. THE OBJECT THAT SHATTERED HAD SOME KIND OF MASS. SOME OF THE FRAGMENTS WOULD HAVE ACCOMPANIED THE AIR BLAST. I BELIEVE THOSE FRAGMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND EMBEDDED IN TREES.

EVEN IF THE TUNGUSKA FRAGMENTS WERE NOT SIMILAR TO THE FRAGMENTS FOUND IN THE TUSKS AND THE BISON SKELETON, IF YOU HAD READ ANY OF THE LINKS I POSTED ON THE WORK WHICH LED UP TO THE MOST RECENT DISCOVERIES, YOU'D HAVE SEEN THAT THE RESEARCHERS FOUND SIMILAR METEORITE FRAGMENTS IN THE GROUND LAYERS BEFORE LOOKING FOR THEM IN THE TUSKS.

So just what is your problem?
Click to expand...


No need to shout.

I don't have a problem. You do.

You are saying that shrapnel can travel further than the deadly air blast. Somehow, the shrapnel found a way to travel from the site of impact to the bison - without being carried by the blast.
 
CFLarsen said:
You are saying that shrapnel can travel further than the deadly air blast. Somehow, the shrapnel found a way to travel from the site of impact to the bison - without being carried by the blast.
Click to expand...


Rarely have I seen a more clearly presented fallacy.



So, even though the above is "just a question" and you are "not making a claim" about the airblast, let me ask this to clarify:


Are you seriously trying to imply that it is the air that is actually causing the fragments to move through the air? Is that really the position you are taking? I ask only because without that underlying premise, your question is nonsensical, so let's just get that out of the way officially.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
Rarely have I seen a more clearly presented fallacy.



So, even though the above is "just a question" and you are "not making a claim" about the airblast, let me ask this to clarify:


Are you seriously trying to imply that it is the air that is actually causing the fragments to move through the air? Is that really the position you are taking? I ask only because without that underlying premise, your question is nonsensical, so let's just get that out of the way officially.
Click to expand...

What is it about "blast" you don't get?
 
CFLarsen said:
Why would a bullet - or even a meteorite - kill a mammoth, if it was lodged in the tusk?
Click to expand...
skeptigirl said:
Maybe because a massive blast of superheated air accompanied the fragments. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
CFLarsen said:
Explain, please.
Click to expand...
CFLarsen said:
I am asking skeptigirl why there is new bone growth, if the animal was killed.
Click to expand...
CFLarsen said:
I didn't ask you about bone growth of the mammoth. I asked shadron if the program explained why a meteorite/bullet would kill a mammoth if it was lodged in the tusk.

Then, I asked you about the bison and bone growth. As I quoted in my post #38 to you.
Click to expand...
Note that skeptigirl said nothing of any bison, but responded only to Claus's first question about the mammoth.

Claus then introduces the comment about the bison as "In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks." Which has nothing to do with a dead mammoth or how meteorite fragments in a mammoth's tusk would kill a mammoth.

Then he says:

CFLarsen said:
How can you possibly mistake "bison" for "mammoth"?
Click to expand...

Well, considering you asked how a mammoth could be killed by asteroid chunks hitting its tusk, with skeptigirl responding that it could have something to do not so much with the asteroid chunks in the tusk but the blast that might well have accompanied it...

Not to mention the question itself was pretty bloody ridiculous. Why couldn't the mammoth have suffered soft tissue damage from other bits of asteroid that didn't impact the bone? Who knows? It's not such a complexing question to wonder how the mammoth died.

How did the bison survive an impact close enough to get fragments, but not close enough to be killed by the blast?
Click to expand...
Now...this was a follow-up question later introduced by Claus which was not present when skeptigirl first responded. He then accuses her of getting confused by the bison and the mammoth - when it was he who slipped in the quote "In the case of the bison, we know that it survived the impact because there's new bone growth around these marks."

Insane just doesn't cover it.

More dishonest tactics. More lies. And worse yet, over what? No woo here, no bad science. Just an interesting discussion.

:rolleyes: Seriously Claus, this as trolling as behaviour gets.

But I'm sure you'll evade with another lie. I can't wait to see what you come up with.

Athon
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
What is it about "blast" you don't get?
Click to expand...

So, do you seriously think that 'blast' insinuates the air is being propelled with the same force over the same distance as the asteroid shrapnel? Have you any comprehension of physics at all?

Athon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom