PDA

View Full Version : Australian Megafauna wiped out by Aboriginal burning



Vanir
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 01:59 PM
So much for the Media friendly ideal of the "Enviro-Abo"...

http://www.desertimages.com.au/alastair/images/post_mudlarks_420.jpg
"BURN....KILL....EAT...EVERYTHING!"

'Fires wiped out' ancient mammals
By Helen Briggs
2005/07/08

The first humans to arrive in Australia destroyed the pristine landscape, probably by lighting huge fires, the latest research suggests.

The evidence, published in Science magazine, comes from ancient eggshells.

These show birds changed their diets drastically when humans came on the scene, switching from grass to the type of plants that thrive on scrubland.

The study supports others that have blamed humans for mass extinctions across the world 10-50,000 years ago.

Many scientists believe the causes are actually more complex and relate to climate changes during that period, but, according to Dr Marilyn Fogel, of the Carnegie Institution in Washington, US, chemical clues gleaned from the eggshells suggest otherwise.

"Humans are the major suspect," she said. "However, we don't think that over-hunting or new diseases are to blame for the extinctions, because our research sees the ecological transition at the base of the food chain.

"Bands of people set large-scale fires for a variety of reasons including hunting, clearing and signalling other bands.

"Based on the evidence, human-induced change in the vegetation is the best fit to explain what happened at that critical juncture."

Carbon clues

Dr Fogel's team, based in the US and Australia, examined hundreds of fragments of fossilised eggshells found at several sites in Australia's interior dating back over 140,000 years.

They looked at the indigenous emu and the Genyornis , a flightless bird the size of an ostrich that is now extinct.

The type of carbon preserved in eggshells gives a picture of the food the birds ate.

Before 50,000 years ago, emus pecked at nutritious grasses. But after humans arrived, about 45,000 years ago, they switched to a diet of trees and scrubs. Genyornis , however, failed to adapt and died out.

"The opportunistic feeders adapted and the picky eaters went extinct," said Professor Gifford Miller, of the University of Colorado at Boulder, US.

It is likely that extinctions were not caused by any single event
Clive Trueman, University of Portsmouth

"The most parsimonious explanation is these birds were responding to an unprecedented change in the vegetation over the continent during that time period."

The data sheds light on the contentious issue of what led to the extinction of 85% of Australia's large mammals, birds and reptiles, after about 50,000 years ago, when human settlers arrived by sea from Indonesia.

Climate change theory

Mass extinctions on other continents also coincide with the arrival of modern humans, suggesting the two events are linked.

In North America, for example, the disappearance of the likes of mammoths and ground sloths is coincident with the arrival on the landmass of new stone-spear technologies carried by humans about 12,000 years ago.


In Australia, scientists have debated whether climate changes, human fires or excessive human hunting were the cause of the continent's big extinction.

Dr Fogel's team doubts the climate explanation but there are plenty of others who support the theory - such as Clive Trueman of the University of Portsmouth, UK.

He says some large mammals survived long after the sudden changes in vegetation identified by Dr Fogel's team.

"While there may be a connection between the arrival of humans and changes in vegetation, as demonstrated by carbon isotopes, sudden changes cannot be largely responsible for megafaunal extinctions as the beasts survived for at least 15,000 more years," he told the BBC News website.

"It is likely that extinctions were not caused by any single event, but reflect compounding factors such as natural climate changes associated with the Ice Age fluctuations and, quite possibly, the arrival of humans," Dr Trueman added.

source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4660691.stm)

DreamWalker
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 05:40 PM
An old friend of mine visited Darwin and the "Outback" a few times, he told me that "Abos" were more primitive than Africans. I don't think I ever really believed him.

Until now:icon_surp

They seem fairly blond SURT, is that natural or a current fashion with them?

The Horned God
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 06:04 PM
An old friend of mine visited Darwin and the "Outback" a few times, he told me that "Abos" were more primitive than Africans. I don't think I ever really believed him.

Pardon me for butting it. I'm not Austrailian, however; If anything the Australian Aboriginies as a group seem to be less able, intelligent and motivated than most negro peoples, with the possible exception of Congoids.



They seem fairly blond SURT, is that natural or a current fashion with them?

I believe that the gene which gives the Aboriginies their pigmentation is a recessive gene, rather than a dominate one as in Africans, indicating perhaps that the Abo's aquired it more recently in evolutionary time or that they are decended from less pigmented ancestors.

Agrippa
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 04:54 PM
Some people seem to think that the most primitive sapiens stratum looked like subsaharan Negrid people, but thats not true, the real archaic group which didnt really evolved on, isolated and in a certain rather stable environment (on the long run) are the Australids. They are the most primitive, but not degenerated group. F.e. Bambutids (Pygmies of Africa) are both primitive and degenerated (paedomorphised).

Sure they influenced the Flora and Fauna, its just idiotic to think of the intrusion of a new species using tool, hunting quite a lot and especially using fire not influencing the environment though its difficult to prove their "guilt", especially saying they were the main factor.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 11:05 AM
Some people seem to think that the most primitive sapiens stratum looked like subsaharan Negrid people, but thats not true, the real archaic group which didnt really evolved on, isolated and in a certain rather stable environment (on the long run) are the Australids. They are the most primitive, but not degenerated group. F.e. Bambutids (Pygmies of Africa) are both primitive and degenerated (paedomorphised).

Based on what? Genetically African Negroids are the most differentiated from everyone else and have old genetic strains that only they carry. Also based on IQ, Negroids are the lowest (not the various hybrids in America and Europe but the original African Negroids). Notice how bad off Africa is... do we see so much need from Aboriginals to send them foreign aid? I think they can take care of themselves better than Africans can. If a member here is Australian perhaps you could give us your perspective.

Other studies also promote this idea that human intrusion has caused animal extinctions and destruction of flora in the Americas.

Who do we see today leading the way for preservation of earth and animal? By far the majority are Nords.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 11:11 AM
Pardon me for butting it. I'm not Austrailian, however; If anything the Australian Aboriginies as a group seem to be less able, intelligent and motivated than most negro peoples, with the possible exception of Congoids.

You must be referring to hybrid American Negroids. That is not a proper comparison. Not only are these hybrids genetically superior to true Negroids, but they have also had billions of dollars in assistance and continuous government support to advance them. This has never been done for Australoids. But perhaps Negroids do have more talent for sports, song, and dance than Australoids which gives them a particular niche.

Agrippa
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 01:33 PM
Based on what? Genetically African Negroids are the most differentiated from everyone else and have old genetic strains that only they carry.

You speak about genetic markers, mainly rather unimportant "junk genes" and thats an argument many anti-racist people use too, since they "prove" with this assumption that the individual genetic variation blabla...

But "race" is about specialisation and the Negrids of Africa evolved on, I didnt say they became more intelligent, though thats most likely, but just look at certain traits like forehead, lips, special form (unusual in other races) of the jaws, hair etc. I dont say they are progressive, since they aren't, but the specialisation for the tropical and subtropical region went on in them, but Australids are basically the same as the first humans who settled in Asia and Australia, they represent anatomically the most primitive living type of man. Even more primitive, significantly below African Negrids in every aspect, were the now extinct Tasmanids, which lived, like the name suggests, in Tasmania.
They are closely related to Australids.
Here some examples of Australids:

In this thread I brought an Tasmanid example and spoke about progressive features:
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=7182

In any case, Australids are more like the most primitive human stratum 50.000 years ago than Negrids, since they are more specialised whereas the former are undifferentiated. Its said that even the brain of Australids is more primitive and they usually dont rank above Negrids of any kind though physical-anatomical primitive features and less intelligence must not always be that strictly correlated (f.e. parts of the Weddids). Btw, Abos didnt even managed to make a bow and used a hunting technique Europeans (which were more similar to them than modern Europeans, though not as primitive) used 30.000 years ago...



Also based on IQ, Negroids are the lowest (not the various hybrids in America and Europe but the original African Negroids). Notice how bad off Africa is... do we see so much need from Aboriginals to send them foreign aid? I think they can take care of themselves better than Africans can. If a member here is Australian perhaps you could give us your perspective.

Thats a cultural comparison, and even that is not true since Negrids were able to organise themselves and form state like structures at a primitive state. They already used metal and herds, whereas the Abos didnt even had a bow and "forgot" to make boats.
Furthermore most of them are alcoholics (similar can be seen in many indigenous people though, even Europeans might get more often some in the future) and cases for the social welfare system. They tend to be violent and very low in school.



Other studies also promote this idea that human intrusion has caused animal extinctions and destruction of flora in the Americas.
Where humans lived in masses...




Who do we see today leading the way for preservation of earth and animal? By far the majority are Nords.
Even in Europe some mammals might have died out because of human influence, at least as one factor out of others...

Death and the Sun
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 04:32 PM
On a related note: most of the destruction of the Amazon rainforests is caused by the slash-and-burn type of native lifestyle, not by the Western timber companies, contrary to what environmental organisations (and Hollywood) would have us believe.

The Horned God
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 05:35 PM
On a related note: most of the destruction of the Amazon rainforests is caused by the slash-and-burn type of native lifestyle, not by the Western timber companies, contrary to what environmental organisations (and Hollywood) would have us believe.

Are you sure it's not also from the clearing of land by South American ranchers to create grazing for beef cattle for export of frozen meat to America, Russia etc? I would't have thought there would be high enough numbers of indigenous peoples around to have much of an effect, that was just my perception.

Death and the Sun
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 05:40 PM
Are you sure it's not also from the clearing of land by South American ranchers to create grazing for beef cattle for export of frozen meat to America, Russia etc? I would't have thought there would be high enough numbers of indigenous peoples around to have much of an effect, that was just my perception.

Well, it depends on what you consider an indiginous person -- I mean not all of them are primitives who live in the forests.

But actually that's exactly what I meant: the type of agriculture that depletes the soil in a few years, forcing the ranchers/farmers to move on.

The Horned God
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 05:54 PM
Right, I thought you might mean some of these guys:-http://www.visualsunlimited.com/images/watermarked/380/38025.jpg



When the likely culprets probably look more like this:-http://www.pbrnow.com/images/riders/97-90071.jpg (grin)

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 06:38 PM
You speak about genetic markers, mainly rather unimportant "junk genes" and thats an argument many anti-racist people use too, since they "prove" with this assumption that the individual genetic variation blabla...

Whether significant or not genetic studies show that the first humans came from Africa, specifically East Africa.

Cavalli-Sforza and his team compiled tables depicting the "genetic distances" separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. He concluded that, "The most important difference in the human gene pool is clearly that between Africans and non-Africans "


But "race" is about specialisation and the Negrids of Africa evolved on, I didnt say they became more intelligent, though thats most likely, but just look at certain traits like forehead, lips, special form (unusual in other races) of the jaws, hair etc. I dont say they are progressive, since they aren't, but the specialisation for the tropical and subtropical region went on in them, but Australids are basically the same as the first humans who settled in Asia and Australia, they represent anatomically the most primitive living type of man. Even more primitive, significantly below African Negrids in every aspect, were the now extinct Tasmanids, which lived, like the name suggests, in Tasmania.

Anatomically in the sense of less specialized develop you may be right, I haven't looked at that specifically... however I was considering all things such as intelligence, culture, behavior, etc. We must also consider that Africans have had many intrusions into their societies, taken as slaves, adopted other cultures and religions, while Australian Aboriginals have been very isolated for thousands of years. Considering the greater interaction Africans have had you'd think they would be more progressive in intelligence, behavior and culture, but they are not.

So let's consider the raw intelligence between the two. In that sense the evidence indicates that Africans are less intelligence.

"http://www.prometheism.net/articles/intevo.html

In the US, differences between whites and blacks have been found using Piagetian tests that are similar to those found using traditional intelligence tests. Interestingly, US aboriginals score well above blacks and close to very low socio-economic status whites, although they are culturally further (many being bilingual) from the white majority than the blacks (Gaudia, 1972). While the charge is frequently made that Westerners always do better on tests designed by Westerners, this is not true for the Piagetian tests, and Arctic Eskimos have been found to do better than white Canadian children (McArthur, 1968, p. 48) on many Piagetian tests, including one of volume conservation (such as employed with Australian aborigines), and Canadian Indians do almost as well as Eskimos (Jensen, 1980 citing Vernon,1965, and McArthur, 1968)."

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 07:09 PM
My mistake on my former post, it is addressing Amerindians instead of Abos.

Agrippa
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 07:41 PM
Amerindians are generally more progressive than Negrids and some are even progressive compared with the "world standard" what no Negrid group, probably with the exception of the Aethiopids which go in an Europid direction, is.
Sure they are more intelligent...I know the tests and even Baker made in his book good comments about that issue. Australids on the other hand and Tasmanids in particular are not just culturally but also genetically isolated in a small and STABLE area with not too much changes. They stood anatomically behind almost every other human group except those morphologically related to them. I wouldnt say they are necessarily "inferior" compared with the average pure Negrid, but neither superior and thats for sure.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 07:50 PM
IQ tests for Aboriginals seem quite scarce, but tests for blacks and Africans are well known. This is the only article I'm able to find at the moment which gives some data.

"De Lacey (1971, 1972) has reported Peabody Picture Vocabulary test scores for high-contact aboriginals (urban, not speaking a native dialect) and for low-soci-economic status whites. The 40 Northern territory aboriginals averaged 64, and the 80 Wollongong low-socio-economic white children averaged 94, a difference well beyond the .01 level of probability. Interestingly, on Piagetian classificatory ability tests the aborigines were in the same range as the low-socioeconomic status whites (i.e, below the white average) (De Lacey, 1970, 1971). De Lacey (1972) also reports Peabody results for Bourke Island part aborigines (63 IQ) and Bourke Island low socio-economic status whites (87 IQ)."

So it does seem that Australian Aboriginals are slightly lower than Africans. I am curious about the comparison specifically, usually everything is white vs black. I will post more information if I can find it.

I am now curious about crime statistics.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 07:57 PM
Amerindians are generally more progressive than Negrids and some are even progressive compared with the "world standard" what no Negrid group, probably with the exception of the Aethiopids which go in an Europid direction, is.
Sure they are more intelligent...I know the tests and even Baker made in his book good comments about that issue. Australids on the other hand and Tasmanids in particular are not just culturally but also genetically isolated in a small and STABLE area with not too much changes. They stood anatomically behind almost every other human group except those morphologically related to them. I wouldnt say they are necessarily "inferior" compared with the average pure Negrid, but neither superior and thats for sure.

The Tasmanians were supposedly the most inferior:

"The isolation of the now extinct Tasmanians should have isolated them from late occurring mutations on the Australian mainland. Although no mental tests data is available on the Tasmanians, their culture is usually considered among the most primitive known. Apparently, they are the only people known that could not make fire, but had to get it from another band if theirs went out. Likewise, their stone tools were unhafted (Ryan, 1982)."

Lissu
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 08:00 PM
I've seen Abos when I visited in Australia few years back. Not a single one of them I saw was sober. They are too different from Europeans to adapt the European way of life. The only time I have had to take a cab for the sake of my safety to drive less than than a kilometre was when I had to go from a railway station to hotel alone because our hotel was situated in a not-so-peaceful district - full of Abos. And our hotel was run by Japanese...:rolleyes:

As for Abos wiping out the megafauna of Austalia, well, in that way they haven't been any different from other human races. The same has happened in every continent, Europe and Americas included.

Arcturus
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 08:57 PM
The same has happened in every continent, Europe and Americas included.

Yupp, otherwise we might have to have warning signs for mammoths. If you though an elk-crash is bad... whoah!