Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site imsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!elsie!imsvax!ted
From: ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: A case of mistaken identity
Message-ID: <434@imsvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Oct-85 23:37:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: imsvax.434
Posted: Mon Oct 14 23:37:29 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 01:44:08 EDT
Organization: IMS Inc, Rockville MD
Lines: 53


Chris Lewis writes:


>In article <425@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
>>
>>At least one reader has misunderstood one of my statements regarding the
>>...
>>
>>b.  In the archaic world, with its lesser gravity, the correct model would be
                           ???????????????????????
>>a vulture-like creature which mostly glided and sought free rides in thermal
>>currents and winds, YET NONETHELESS HAD THE POWER TO TAKE OFF FROM LOW GROUND
>>AND TO GET BACK HOME AGAINST THE WIND IF IT ABSOLUTELY HAD TO.

>Are you *STILL* spouting this bullshit?  SHEESH!

    You seem to be mistaking me for Michael McNeil or Piotr Berman.  I am
spouting CATASTROPHISM, the only theory of origins which makes sense.  The
gentlemen I mentioned are attempting to defend what I would call a "bullshit"
theory concerning the extinction of the earth's megafauna, actually bullshit
both literally and figuratively.  They are claiming that by smearing the afore-
mentioned comodity all over themselves, ancient man could have snuck up on
mammoth herds in Northern Russia and Siberia, and killed enough of them (by
cutting their achilles tendons with their straight-razors or spears) to have
caused the extinction of the mammoths.

    Now, this theory seems like bull.... to me (forgive me if I seem to be
having too much fun with this one) for several reasons, not the least of
which would be one related to the notion of evolution by sexual selection
which I read about in various articles on evolution.  This would come about
due to the fact that it is too cold to ever take showers in Siberia; anyone
who hunted that way THERE would never smell right again until the day of
judgement, and St. Peter would probably laugh at him then.  Now, I claim
that this would result in a problem for these hunters when they sought
wives for themselves.  I mean, have you ever walked into a bar all covered
with bullshit and tried to pick up women?  I've never tried it but I have
to believe it would be pretty near impossible.  Thus, I claim that natural
selection would have favored hunters who went out and killed deers and rabbits
and ducks, and that those who smeared bullshit over themselves and went out
after mammoths would have had no progeny.

    What about the stories you hear about Masai or Pigmy tribesmen killing lions
and elephants?  From what I can gather, talking to people who have spent time
in Africa, this invariably amounts to a once-in-a-lifetime initiation rite or
something, and that about half the people attempting such things get killed.
This couldn't put a dent in elephant or lion populations;  humans would have to
be hunting lions or elephants on a regular basis to pose any real threat to
them, and nobody is going to be doing anything that dangerous on a regular
basis.  Being a predator doesn't work that way, for any animal including man.
If a predator hunts prey which is capable of killing or disabling him even once
out of a hundred times, then, statistically, he isn't going to live longer than
his hundredth hunt, in most cases, less than a year.