The Mystery of the "Frozen Mammoths"
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
BillyBob said:
DNA tests have shown that the differences between the mammoth "species" is quite remarkably minor. For example, based on their DNA the difference between Asian and African elephants is said to be greater than between the mammoth. Most determinations of a "species" use physical/visual characteristics. This is logical since the primary usefulness of the term is communication between scientists as to what particular lifeform is being discussed. However, in discussions regarding "evolution", the term is given more weight than it probably should, because if applied consistently in certain other cases, such as dogs, one should logically end up with dozens if not hundreds of "species" of dogs.
This is the question being discussed, not what we have learned.
Agreed, but wonder how significant this would be in the overall picture.
Yes, but we are speaking of mammoths, not mammals in general.
Since I never used the word "cumbersome" does that make you a liar? I suggest when calling a person a "liar", a rather serious charge, that you be capable of backing up the claim more than you have already been able to do. An extreme mode of speech is not prudent.
This was the point where Walt Brown referenced sources differed and emphasized: the Musk Ox has a different type of coat than the Wooly Mammoth.
See "Permafrost". Did the Wooly Mammoths hibernate, migrate or simply starve during the many months that elapse until the top of the permafrost melts sufficiently so that plants could grow in the brief Arctic summer?
Yes, but was it cold at the time when the Mammoths flourished by the millions?
Yes, in spots 5000 feet deep. How is this possible? Is it happening today, or are the deep layers slowly melting from the bottom up? This could be determined scientifically by monitoring over many years the temperature at or near the bottom of bore holes.
You are funny.
Even when you are trying to be serious.
Look at one of my prior posts, there is an International Permafrost Association. Perhaps they already have answers to your questions. Suggest you contact them and report back. That might be more constructive than simply raising questions the answers to which you have no real clue.bob b said:
Review Walt Brown's story with them as well, they could probably use a good chuckle.
Jukia said:
Good suggestion.
I went to their website and found mentioned there a rather interesting phenomenon: bore holes in the ocean have determined that permafrost exists in layers below the sea bottoms.
Unfortunately, it would seem to be quite difficult to determine how that could possibly happen. Another mystery?
The Berean
Well-known member
:vomit:BillyBob said:
Damian
New member
bob b said:The horror of the whole episode caused them to lose their hair so that their descendents became the the Asian and African varieties we see today.
At least that's how they told it to me at the barbershop.
Okay. For a moment, I thought you really believed in the Noah's ark story.
Real Sorceror
New member
He does believe it, but he still has a sense of humor.Damian said:
bob b said:
The DNA of chimps is remarkably similar to humans and is closer to humans than it is to gorillas.
It is just one of many modifications for cold weather sported by the mammoths.
Why would current mammals be able to find food year round in the Arctic but just not mammoths? Besides, you claim the Arctic wasn't even cold when the Woolly's were marching around the Arctic tundra.
Nope.
All you have to do is go back and reread the first 2 pages of this thread to discover that you lied about my posts.
I haven't said anything extreme.
Right. So a Musk Ox can walk around in the snow all day without having it's fur cake up with snow but a Woolly Mammoth could not.
Absolutely.
Irrelevant to the discussion of Woolly mammoths and the frozen Ice Age Arctic they called home.
It's a gift. :BillyBob:
BillyBob said:
Possibly, but not definitively.
Size.
Which explains why their remains were found in great numbers: food was plentiful, unlike today.
I went back and looked and found that I had not lied.
You have.
Right. So a Musk Ox can walk around in the snow all day without having it's fur cake up with snow but a Woolly Mammoth could not.
I am glad that you have conceded the point.
Solving the mystery of why permafrost is found today in some spots in cores 5000 feet deep (and of late below the bottom of the ocean) will undoubtedly shed light on how creatures as large as a wooly mammoth could be quick frozen so rapidly that the flesh has been preserved.
Methinks your "gift" is limited making puns.
BillyBob said:
Possibly, but not definitively.
Size.
Which explains why their remains were found in great numbers: food was plentiful, unlike today.
I went back and looked and found that I had not lied.
You have.
Right. So a Musk Ox can walk around in the snow all day without having it's fur cake up with snow but a Woolly Mammoth could not.
I am glad that you have conceded the point.
Solving the mystery of why permafrost is found today in some spots in cores 5000 feet deep (and of late below the bottom of the ocean) will undoubtedly shed light on how creatures as large as a wooly mammoth could be quick frozen so rapidly that the flesh has been preserved.
Methinks your "gift" is limited to making puns.
bob b said:
Well, we know that the Woolly Mammoths lived in the Arctic during the height of the last Ice Age, so I'd say it's a safe bet.
But all the evidence suggests that Mammoths did live in the Arctic during the last Ice Age so they obviously found plenty to eat.
Tell that to the millions and millions of Arctic creatrures who currently live there.
Sure you did.
Not at all.
What mystery? Mammoths lived in a fridgid climate and when they died their remains were often frozen. It's elementary, my dear Watson.
Methinks your "gift" is limited to making puns.
And yours is Obfuscation.
BillyBob said:
Actually we know that their frozen remains are found there. I do believe that there was an Ice Age. The two phenomena have some connection.
It suggests that to many who have not given sufficient weight to the evidence of the "impossible" depth of permafrost in some spots.
We have no direct evidence that mammoths lived in a frozen arctic like it is today. It is a reasonable inference only if one ignores a number of critical pieces of evidence, i.e. mammoths require a massive amount of plant material each day to survive, large bodies would take so much time to freeze that it is unlikely that one could find and identify plants found in their mouths and stomachs, and finally the thousand foot depths of permafrost could not form under conditions of arctic cold no matter how cold the air temperature would get and how long it would last, meaning that something highly unusual happened to do this and that "something" is undoubtedly what quick froze the mammoths.
You are a pretty good punster, but far from a Sherlock.
bob b said:Actually we know that their frozen remains are found there. I do believe that there was an Ice Age. The two phenomena have some connection.
It suggests that to many who have not given sufficient weight to the evidence of the "impossible" depth of permafrost in some spots.
We have no direct evidence that mammoths lived in a frozen arctic like it is today. It is a reasonable inference only if one ignores a number of critical pieces of evidence, i.e. mammoths require a massive amount of plant material each day to survive, large bodies would take so much time to freeze that it is unlikely that one could find and identify plants found in their mouths and stomachs, and finally the thousand foot depths of permafrost could not form under conditions of arctic cold no matter how cold the air temperature would get and how long it would last, meaning that something highly unusual happened to do this and that "something" is undoubtedly what quick froze the mammoths.
You are a pretty good punster, but far from a Sherlock.
Oh, I see the point you are making with perma frost depth. And it was a catastrophe, but it wasn't the flood directly. It must have been a post-flood catastrophe because I'm pretty sure when we get good data, we'll find that water-borne sediments are directly beneath every frozen mammoth carcass in Siberia.
Also, if I could note, quick-freezing would not be necessary to get the results we see with the frozen mammoths stomach contents. I'm not sure the science on that is complete.
Yorzhik said:
Walt Brown agrees with you that this is a test of his theory.
Perhaps not, but you are "betting on the come". Right now few experts would agree with you.
I consider this aspect of the mammoth situation to be analogous to evolutionists holding out the hope that some "unknown" process can preserve soft tissue for hundreds of millions of years (dinosaurs are not the only examples).
bob b said:
Yes, the connection is that the Woolly Mammoths lived in the frozen Arctic during the last Ice Age and when they died they were occassionally frozen because of the fridgid climate they lived in.
See, it all makes perfect sense.
The depth of the permafrost has absolutely nothing to do with frozen mammoth remains, they would still be frozen with a much shallower permafrost.
Sure we do, the fact that they were quickly frozen proves the Arctic was a fridgid environment.
Musk Ox find plenty of food and survive in the Arctic today as well as herds of other large mammals.
So you are saying that Woolly Mammoths never froze upon death?
Except for the fact that frozen mammoth remains have been dated from well over a 10,000 year range.
:sozo: Myth BUSTED!
You are a pretty good punster, but far from a Sherlock.
You are a pretty good liar and obfuscator, but far from a scientist. :devil: