Researchers Find First Evidence of Ice Age Wolves in Nevada

Dec 16, 2012

(Phys.org)—A University of Nevada, Las Vegas research team recently unearthed fossil remains from an extinct wolf species in a wash northwest of Las Vegas, revealing the first evidence that the ice age mammal once lived in Nevada.

The metapodial, or foot bone, was uncovered late last year by UNLV geologist Josh Bonde during a survey of the Upper Las Vegas Wash. They have now confirmed that the bone comes from a dire wolf.

The discovery site is near the proposed Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument, a fossil-rich area known for its diversity and abundance of animal remains. Scientists estimate the fossil to be 10,000 to 15,000 years old during the Late .

" are known to have lived in almost all of North America south of Canada, but their historical presence in Nevada has been absent until now," said Bonde, a UNLV geology professor. He was a Ph.D. student at the university when he discovered the bone.

"The Tule Springs area has turned up many species, but it's exciting to fill in another part of the map for this animal and reveal a bit more about the Ice Age ecosystem in Southern Nevada."

The dire wolf, a larger relative of the , was present in much of North and South America for more than a million years. Scientists theorize that competition from other wolf species and a possible food scarcity led to its extinction roughly 10,000 years ago.

Foot bones of the extinct dire wolf are difficult to distinguish from those of the gray wolf. Researchers conclude bone is likely from a dire wolf because of the abundance of dire wolf fossils―and scarcity of gray wolf fossils―in similar-aged excavation sites throughout the Southwest.

Fossil remains of dire wolves are abundant in the La Brea tar pits and have been found in other Southwestern states. Many of the same species of Ice Age animals found at La Brea have also been recovered in the Las Vegas Valley, including Columbian mammoths, camels, horses, bison, and ground sloths.

"This discovery helps flesh out Southern Nevada's Pleistocene ecosystem and shows that there are still important discoveries to be made in the Upper Las Vegas Wash," said UNLV geology professor Steve Rowland, a collaborator with Bonde on the study of local Ice Age fossils. "To understand why certain species became extinct and others did not, we need to learn as much as possible about predatory habits and which species were especially sensitive to changes in the environment."

The announcement comes on the heels of a recent discovery in the same wash of a saber-tooth cat by researchers from the San Bernardino County Museum. Like dire wolves, saber-tooth cats were Pleistocene predators that had been conspicuously absent from the Southern Nevada fossil record.

According to Rowland, Tule Springs was a spring-fed, swampy area during periods of the Late Pleistocene, an ideal spot for plant-eating animals and their carnivorous predators.

The recent discoveries come exactly 50 years after scientists conducted a 'big dig' at Tule Springs, revealing the site to be rich with Ice Age fossils.

"Tule Springs likely had the highest density of large animals in the area during the Late Pleistocene, and the marshy environment was very good for preserving at least some of the bones and teeth of animals that died there," said Rowland.

"In the 50 years since the 'big dig,' the scientists have confirmed that humans interacted with Ice Age animals. We now have a new list of questions about life and death in the Pleistocene, and a new tool kit of research techniques to help us get the answers."

The identity of the find was confirmed by Xiaoming Wang of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, an expert on extinct species of the dog family. Bonde has been surveying the Tule Springs area since 2007, and he and a group of UNLV undergraduate studentss are prospecting for more fossils.

The center of the original 'big dig' is on the same parcel of land where Bonde discovered the wolf fossil.

The dire wolf bone, in addition to other bones collected by UNLV researchers, are cataloged, studied, and stored at UNLV.

Explore further: How dinosaur arms turned into bird wings

Related Stories

Ice Age coyotes were supersized, fossil study reveals

Feb 27, 2012

Coyotes today are pint-sized compared to their Ice Age counterparts, finds a new fossil study. Between 11,500 and 10,000 years ago — a mere blink of an eye in geologic terms — coyotes shrunk to their ...

Tracing the Roots of the California Condor

Oct 29, 2007

At the end of the Pleistocene epoch some 10,000 years ago, two species of condors in California competed for resources amidst the retreating ice of Earth's last major glacial age. The modern California condor triumphed, while ...

New clues to the Falklands wolf mystery

Nov 02, 2009

Ever since the Falklands wolf was described by Darwin himself, the origin of this now-extinct canid found only on the Falkland Islands far off the east coast of Argentina has remained a mystery. Now, researchers ...

Recommended for you

How dinosaur arms turned into bird wings

22 hours ago

Although we now appreciate that birds evolved from a branch of the dinosaur family tree, a crucial adaptation for flight has continued to puzzle evolutionary biologists. During the millions of years that elapsed, wrists went ...

User comments : 66

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

R_R
1.2 / 5 (19) Dec 16, 2012
"To understand why certain species became extinct....we need to learn as much as possible about predatory habits and which species were especially sensitive to changes in the environment."

Another fine example of how the "ice age" conspiracy lives on and on. These scientists are locked in a closed science where the mere suggestion these animals may have gone extinct as a result of the pole shifting impacts 10500 BC is unthinkable. They will pursue the wrong answer the rest of thier lives and never get any where except to the bank to cash thier tainted cheques.
Anda
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2012
@R_R, why do you come to this site?
No one here is interested with your bullshit.
R_R
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 16, 2012
I come here because I'm sick of brainwashed idiots like you forcing lies on the people!
Wolf358
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2012
"...pole shifting impacts..."
Hilarious!
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2012
@R_R, why do you come to this site?
No one here is interested with your bullshit.
-Anda

Where do you get off to make that determination? This site is open to ALL...even you.
How do you KNOW who is interested and who is not? Do you read minds?
You are evidently just another one of Theghostofotto1923's sock puppets, attempting to drive away commenters who don't conform to your brand of "science".
FrankHerbert
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 16, 2012
Report the above post. If enough people do he will be banned. He's been banned many times in the past. You just need to be diligent in reporting his posts.
R_R
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 16, 2012
Wolf, while a selfish little mind will ridicule, a serious mind will consider there is a terminal problem with a theory that allows miles thick continental ice sheets reaching down 3500 miles from the pole on one side of the planet while directly on the other side just 1000 miles from the pole there is no evidence of ice, just the frozen remains of what likely was millions of mammals who thrived along the arctic ocean coast of Siberia. This no laughing matter.
Shakescene21
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2012
@R_R - I'm not sure I agree with you, but I want to read what you have to say. Please keep it up. (A good scientist is open-minded as well as skeptical.)
GenteelWolf
1 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2012
R_R
Any more leads to research? I grasp some of the holes in the slow forming ice age concept, but am curious still to the possibilities.
jsdarkdestruction
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2012
R_R, the magnitude of a collision required to cause your supposed pole shifts in which the earth supposedly stopped rotating and changed direction in rotation would kill every living macroscopic creature on the face of the earth and most likely all microscopic. you have been explained that before. NO humans could of possibley survived it. NONE ZERO! The fact we did not go extinct is proof your theory has been a waste of many years of your time.
jsdarkdestruction
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2012
R_R, the magnitude of a collision required to cause your supposed pole shifts in which the earth supposedly stopped rotating and changed direction in rotation would kill every living macroscopic creature on the face of the earth and most likely all microscopic. you have been explained that before. NO humans could of possibley survived it. NONE ZERO! The fact we did not go extinct is proof your theory has been a waste of many years of your time.

after reading my post again i noticed i accidently said theory which is the wrong word. fantasy is much better. your ideas are nowhere near worthy of being called a theory or hypothesis even.
R_R
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2012
Genteel, perhaps looking at the problem from a before point of view would help, We had a normal sized circular polar ice cap centered at hudsonbay that included the Laurentide ice sheet and Greenland ice sheet. The Canadian Shield represents the area where for millions of years this ice ground down bedrock. No ice sheets in Europe before 10500 BC(dont believe a word of that). The planets axis was close to straight up and therefore no seasons as today. Temperature may well have varied but this only slightly affected size of ice cap, at no time did ice completely disappear from North America. Laws of poles same as today in Antarctica, no magical lopsided ice advances.
R_R
1.3 / 5 (15) Dec 17, 2012
Dark, this planet could have slowed down at a survivable rate, the space shuttle slows from over ten times the speed. You have explained nothing to me except the extent of your closed mind.
jsdarkdestruction
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2012
R_R, perhaps looking at the fact that all life on the planet would of went extinct if you were right would help? the energy required to reverse earth's rotation would be greater that a 1 megaton H-bomb detonated over each and every square mile of earth's surface every second for more than a week! Do you think anything would survive that?
jsdarkdestruction
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2012
You have been explained it many times by many people on this site. if you still dont get it i dont think anyone can help you. look, its obvious since youve got a book you wrote and spent many years on this you've got way too much emotional attachment to your fantasy to actually look at it critically. you know its right and thats all that matters to you.
tadchem
4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2012
"...their historical presence in Nevada has been absent until now," said Bonde.
'Historic' or PRE-historic? I would expect a geology professor to be keenly aware of the difference.
This is a careless error, which casts a pall on the rest of his work.
But claims of 'pole shifting impacts' ca '10500 BC' (sic) are a banner of ignorance if not outright stupidity.
Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.9 / 5 (14) Dec 17, 2012
@R_R, why do you come to this site?
No one here is interested with your bullshit.
-Anda

Where do you get off to make that determination? This site is open to ALL...even you.
How do you KNOW who is interested and who is not? Do you read minds?
You are evidently just another one of Theghostofotto1923's sock puppets, attempting to drive away commenters who don't conform to your brand of "science".


Here we are with another OS accusation of sock-puppetry to cover up his growing collection of phys.org accounts; He seems to believe that there is only one person on this site that is orchestrating a sock-puppet offensive against poor poor OS rather than the harsh reality that everyone thinks he's an imbecile. He can't win arguments because the facts are against him and he has now resorted to down-ranking with a puppet account in the same vein as Lite.

inb4 Bama_sox brings up ET <3 <3 =^-^=
RealScience
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2012
@R_R: The geologic record shows numerous ice ages before the most recent one.
If the supposed end of the recent ice age was actually an impact-driven pole shift, as you propose, and the earth's spin axis was largely parallel to its orbital axis, then please explain:

1) Why do PREVIOUS ice ages line up with Milankovich cycle calculations based on the CURRENT spin axis inclination?

2) Did the ends of previous ice ages (or massive ice redistributions in your theory) also require axis-shifting impacts?

I do not like to see any one or any theory mocked, but several of the people pointing out how destructive a pole-shifting impact would be in your previous-article posts were polite and showed how to calculate the minimum impact and effects. Have you tried the math for yourself? It really isn't difficult.
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2012
"Another fine example of how the "ice age" conspiracy lives on and on. These scientists are locked in a closed science where the mere suggestion these animals may have gone extinct as a result of the pole shifting impacts 10500 BC is unthinkable. They will pursue the wrong answer the rest of thier lives and never get any where except to the bank to cash thier tainted cheques."
this is why R_R gets mocked, batshit crazy rants against science being a conspiracey against his "theory".
R_R
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 17, 2012
RealScience, I am no master of communication but Ill give it a try, the Milankovich cycle is simply a chart of proposed temp change over time, I wouldn't argue against it and its likely the Hudsonbay polar ice cap shrunk and grew a bit accordingly. But I promise you science has absulutely no evidence that previous too 10500 BC Europe was repeatedly encased in ice or North America became completely ice free per the ice age theory being related to the Mil. cycle. Its all hokim. Now you seem convinced this is fact so its up to you to present any evidence whatso ever that Europe was covered in ice or North America was ice free previous to 10500 BC. If you do, Ill show you it all glass and mirror assumption. As too 2, we had a normal stable ice cap centered at Hudsonbay for millions of years NO ice age!
R_R
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2012
Dark, perhaps it beyond you that I am simply trying to do the right thing.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2012
@R_R - the Milankovitch cycle is the amount of solar radiation received by the latitudes of earth that most heat or cool the earth (due to their albedo when snow covered and their snow-cover's sensitivity to temperature).
The timing of previous glaciations can be seen from fossils (such as foraminifera) that preserve oxygen isotope ratios in their shells and thus record the approximate volume of water in the oceans and thus the amount of ice. These correlate with the Milankovitch cyles (and with ice-core temperature data as well), thus supporting my previous question #1.

As for #2, even without the correlation to the Milankovitch cycles the magnitude of the sea-level changes over the last millions of years shows that there have been massive increases and decreases in the amount of ice, or ice ages.

What is the evidence that has you so convinced of your impact-induced sudden pole shift theory?
R_R
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2012
RealScience, With regards to Milankovich cycle, one glance at Wiki and I saw a section dedicated to all the problems with it. With regards to fossils telling us how much water the oceans held, well that is assumption at the extreme, with regards to ice core temperature data, that shows temperature and nothing more, with regard to sea level changes, if the Earths crust was thrust up in places and had major collapses in places 10500 BC, finding old shore lines and such is completely unreliable in determining previous ice cover.
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2012
Why would isotope ratios in fossils telling us about water volumes in the oceans be 'assumption in the extreme'?
We can measure current ratios in the ocean and in glaciers, and use simple algebra to calculate how much ice there must have been to change the ratio by a certain amount.
Then we can measure the ratio in similar shells or fossils from within the last 10K years, and compare them older fossils, and figure out what the ocean's isotope ratio was in the past and thus how much ice there was.

It seems to me that assuming that word-of-mouth stories of the earth's rotation stopping 12K years ago can be taken literally is far more "assumption at the extreme", especially since it would contradict well-established physics that you can verify in your own garage.
R_R
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2012
First you have to assume isotope theory is faultless and then assume dating technic is accurate, cant go back and check. For instance any large impact could greatly effect atmosphere and therefore C14 results. We are not really debating ice volume anyway, I asked for evidence Europe covered in ice or North America ice free before 10500 BC.

And the ancients recorded prolonged daylight, prolonged night, the sun stopped in the sky, the sun changed direction, the earth tilted, the length of day shortened, the stars changed position.......same stories from every part of globe, they werent smoking weed!
jsdarkdestruction
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2012
R_R, a bunch of vague myths and legends mean nothing when the fact that if it happened they would of all died. how you can fail to understand the magnitude of a collision required for the earth to stop and change rotation direction would reduce the surface of the earth to one big sea of molten rock? how do you propose humans survived that? magic? because thats what it would of taken. do you know how long it would take for the earth to possibley become habitable by even the most resilent extremophile? how in the hell did the planet re-solidify and become habitable for the advanced life that would of had to re-evolve. the proof is so obvious youve got to have your fingers in your ears and hum to yourself lest you actually have to consider the plausibleness of your supposed impact 10,500 bc. give it up already.
R_R
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2012
Vague myths? They are a precise record of what one would view from the earth if this planet stopped rotating and then started up on a new axis which is excactly the evidence we find on the ground untill science twists it to fit thier coverup story. The only myth is your ice age.
jsdarkdestruction
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2012
The ice age doesnt matter much to me, im not even going to touch that. other posters have on this very thread explained the evidence to you and you refuse to listen. you see even if you were correct in that part and the ice age is some kind of conspiracy it still doesnt adress the point of how every living creature on the planet would die and at best a few extremophiles would survive if those things had occured here in reality and not just in ancient myths and legends cherrypicked to support your batshit crazy ideas . it is simply not possible R_R. please, look at your theory of a polar shift because of a large impact that stopped and reversed the earths rotation in a more critical light based on the scientific method and not ancient mythology and legend that are notoriously grandiose and unrealistic. why dont we start sacrificing people again? that was a huge part of ancient myths and legends and they strongly felt it must be done to ensure their survival and approval of their "god"
jsdarkdestruction
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2012
cont. why only take parts of ancient myths and legends as real? the parts that you can bend to "support" your theory in particular? they are the of the same reliability in truthfulness and accurate explanations of the actual past. its hypocrtical of you to believe in parts as fact on the ancients words and not others.
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2012
@R_R - Why ask for evidence that Europe was covered with ice when my argument didn't involve that? You said:
we had a normal stable ice cap centered at Hudsonbay for millions of years NO ice age!

1) Evidence that the ice volume changed dramatically several times within that period is evidence against your assumption, regardless of where the ice was.
2) Why would an impact affect C14 - impacts are not nuclear explosions, regardless of their power?
3) And C14 is not one of the isotopes being measured in this case anyway; it is primarily oxygen isotopes
4) Unless pole-shifting impacts were common events, why would multiple isotope ratios be due to impacts, REGARDLESS of which isotopes are being measured?

Your theory assumes that the ancient stories were correct, have not been altered in retelling, and that your interpretation of them is correct, and you can't go back and check. But you can check whether your interpretation contradicts physics (as readers here point out).
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2012
@R_R: I love ancient myths, and I usually find that they have kernels of truth that have survived retelling. I applaud your trying to decipher them to search for such kernels.
It is highly likely that the flood stories of so many cultures trace back to the end of the ice age, when massive floods occurred in many parts of the world as melt-water burst ice dams.
And if a mid-sized impact triggered the Younger Dryas, it is plausible that stories based on interpretations of that event have survived.

But pole-shifting impacts stopping and restarting the earth's rotation? NO WAY we could survive that.

You should learn enough basic science to see whether a given interpretation is possible, or at least listen when open-minded people who do know enough science point out flaws in your conclusions.

If you post links to the myths you find most compelling on the earth's rotation stopping and restarting, I'd be happy to look for interpretations that don't violate basic physics.
R_R
1 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2012
Dark and Real, I do not understand why you are both stuck rotation stop could not happen. There could be many variables and unknowns that had a part. How is saying no, never, impossible scientific method? IT IS NOT. Your obviously smart guys so get them giant brains working and tell me how it *could* happen. Then we'll be making progress rather then bitchin at each other, as our masters desire!!!
barakn
5 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2012
R_R is about as cogent as that drunk bum with the urine-stained pants that keeps staggering around yelling at people in the park. Please don't feed this troll any more. The comment guidelines at http://phys.org/help/comments/ specifically state "Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted." Simply click on the "report" link and otherwise ignore him.
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2012
@R_R: I've never said that rotation stopping is impossible.
An advanced civilization could conceivably use a tractor beam to gradually slow down the earth and restart it, all without violating the laws of physics, and if done GRADUALLY we'd still be around to tell the tale.

However an IMPACT SUDDENLY STOPPING the rotation and restating it in a new direction is NOT plausible.
It is easy to calculate the momentum needed and the minimum kinetic energy needed (high-school physics).
The effects (kilometers-high tidal waves) would scrub all glaciers and loose rocks off of all the mountains on earth, and all the soils and rocks off all of the plains, and every valley in every mountain range would look like the Grand Canyon. It would also produce a magma outpouring that would make the Deccan traps and Siberian Traps look tiny by comparison. It would be FAR WORSE than that movie '2012'.

That did NOT happen 12K years ago, so the earth's rotation did not stop and start from sudden impact.
R_R
1 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2012
OK Real, carry on but when you ready start by reading "cycle of cosmic catastrophies" by nuclear scientist Dr Firestone and collegues. They document how northern hemisphere incinerated by these impacts 10500 BC and how c14 dating etc was altered.

barakn you read definition of "useful idiot"
yyz
5 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2012
@R_R,

I find it interesting that you fervently believe in the work of "nuclear scientist Dr Firestone" which relies heavily on (C14) radioisotope dating while earlier in this thread you take exception to the method:

"First you have to assume isotope theory is faultless and then assume dating technic is accurate, cant go back and check."

So which is it, Dr Firestone and his radioisotope data is spot on or the technique can't be trusted to give accurate results?
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2012
Thanks R_R, I will read it. (I enjoyed reading Hapgood's book a few years back.
Are there any other sources of ancient legends that you recommend?
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2012
@R_R: I read through about 200 pages of the cosmic catastrophes book online - a pretty good case for impacts 12K years ago, but not for earth-axis-shifting ones.

Interesting that the book you recommend says that there have been 9 or 10 ice ages in the last million years, and that the other ice ages ended without mass extinctions...
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2012
R_R, those people say the ice age was real in their book and dont support your pole shift idea in any way.
"In The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes Richard Firestone, Allen West, and Simon Warwick-Smith present new scientific evidence about a series of prehistoric cosmic events that explains why the last Ice Age ended so abruptly."
last ice age.....hmmm, last implies a cycle. ice ages ending abruptly immplies it was happening and then stopped. they support you in no way and actually sounds like they disagree with you....nice try but a fail.
R_R
1 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2012
Real, Velikovskis book "Earth in Upheaval" was a game changer for me. The extent science has covered up the evidence of these pole shifting impacts became clear. This book also shows that ancient myth describes every aspect of these events from a rain of boulders (impact blast debris) to mountains rolling into sea (collapse and rise of the earths crust). Science immediately began attacking and ridiculing this book and has succesfully erased it from society consiousness over last 60 years (google velikovsky affair).
R_R
1 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2012
Dark, in my opinion I would descride it this way "one thing at a time" Dr Firestone and friends have thier hands full just getting science to recognize there were impacts 10500 BC, they have been attacked on all fronts for ten years now but I believe the pendulum has started to swing. Next science must recognize the extent of impacts (500 km wide craters such as lower right Hudsonbay) and then just maybe in 50 years or so they say maybe to pole shift. If we havent wiped ourselves out yet.
R_R
1 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2012
yyz, Dr Firestone spends time showing how C14 dating likely altered by these impacts so I highly doubt he then relied on it elsewhere. Back your statement up with example, I wont hold my breath. PS this why mammoths of Siberia show wide range of C14 dates helping science with ice age lie, these animals all died same day. Ask yourself why ice age animals are frozen in Siberia 10,000 years of a supposed warm interglacial, what nonsense!
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2012
@R_R: I don't argue there having been a big impact near the end of the ice age, or with legends of rains of boulders or massive floods having been based on actual events.
But Velikovski has hardly been erased; almost every curious person I know has read Velikovsky, and no one who knows basic math and physics found Velikovsky convincing as to what caused these ancient events, other than that some of them were astronomical in origin rather than purely terrestrial.

Do you understand the principles of conservation of angular momentum, F=MA (force = mass times acceleration), and E=MV2/2 (energy = mass times velocity squared over two)?

If you understand these (or don't understand them but accept that physics understands how these apply to planets, comets and asteroids in normal circumstances), do you think that these were violated or respected in the impact that you propose?

If you understand and/or accept them as applicable, I'll walk you through the math of what you propose.
R_R
1 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2012
Hey Real, no I dont really understand nor do I want too, I'm a poor peasant that more then done my part. What you need to understand is that something caused this planet to stop rotation and then start up at a new angle (axis). If not these impacts alone then something else was involved as well. There is an answer and if we ever going to find it, its up to you all who are trained in these things too throw aside your preconceptions.
R_R
1 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2012
And given the date today I'd like to share something else related. I've never believed the mayan calander predicted cataclysm but it is based on cataclsym. That being the start date about 3100 BC which is perfectly aligned with another great impact in the Indian Ocean - Burckle crater, where civilization once again had to restart (Egypt etc). And I see many more indicaters of other big impacts scattered through recent history. Just last week a three mile wide Earth shaker passed us close. We'd better wake up soon because as the ancients knew, it just a matter of time till the Dragon returns!
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2012
I agree that impacts happen more often than people think. We are living in a quiet period now, and are basing our statistics on that (both in terms of terrestrial events like extreme weather and volcanoes, and in terms of astronomical events like impacts). But on the other hand we have a pretty good idea about the frequency of really big impacts from looking at the moon and our own fossil record.

What you should understand is that short of something GENTLE working SLOWLY (like a deliberately aimed tractor beam or possibly an off-center ice-cap), the rotation COULD NOT be stopped and restarted without such cataclysm that we would not be here to talk about it. (And even given thousand of years, the ice cap could only noticeably change the rotation of the crust, not the whole planet.)

WHATEVER causes you to come to a different conclusion is either wrong or you have misinterpreted it (or both). It is too bad that you no longer want to understand how the universe works.
jsdarkdestruction
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2012
r_r, i dont care about that. i personally believe theyve found decent evidence for an event happening towards the last ice age. that doesnt change the fact an event of the magnitude you insist happened would of driven all advanced life and almost certainly all simple life besides the most resilent extremophiles extinct. thats all their is too it. if you dont want to understand the reality stop babbling your nonsense. because thats what it is. the drunken bum in barakans analogy was too generous for you i think. theyve at least got something in their system inhibiting them, youve got pure ignorance and humming and putting your fingers in your ears. the events you claim could not of happened. ITS NOT POSSIBLE!
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2012
Well, considering that the Earth's crust actually "floats" around a ball of iron magma, the possibility of a CRUST shift is much more reasonable than an AXIS shift. The thought that potentially 1/4 of the Earths crust material was just sloshing around (newly liquid water)lends credibility to a "crust" shift concept. Or perhaps a VERY close flyby (at just the right angle) of another large celestial body could have gravitationally shifted the CRUST. Who knows? Any good forensic scientist/expert will be quick to point out evidence gathering is often an inexact science.
Anyway. fossil evidence shows SOMETHING happen 10.5k yrs ago and wiped out a lot of North American fauna and created havoc in a variety of places around the globe as evidenced by tales of immense floods(not to mention whole land masses sinking) in our myths (think the Sumerians told of it first, but I'm not exactly sure).
By the way, have we uncovered any fossil remains of Clovis man (other than their spear and arrow tips?
Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
^ The derp is strong with this one.
R_R
1 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2012
Dark, the near perfectly preserved Mammoths that continue to emerge from the Siberian muck are just another glaring example of the suddenness of this pole shift, the problem is not of evidence but of your psychology. The only realistic explanation is these elephants where standing in a food rich temperate zone one minute and then died and where quickly frozen solid in what suddenly and permanently became a frozen wasteland for the last 12,000 years. At the same time the Ice fields of North America melted away to nothing as would be expected.

Put another way, you were trained to cluck like a chicken, and you just keep cluckin, I m just trying to show you how to cluck off.
jsdarkdestruction
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2012
You are beyond help. i am done.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2012
@Gyre: Shifting just the crust above the aesthenosphere is much less unreasonable, but no, a fly-by would NOT have enough tidal pull to shift it the amount that R_R suggests and a sufficient impact would still be fatal to advanced life. Furthermore the crust's rotation is well enough aligned with the core that the current poles would have to be very close to the prior poles, so it still wouldn't have caused the last pole shift that R_R claims to have happened.

The wide-spread floods legends already match the ice-age ending (smaller alpine glaciers currently produce ice dams that produce comparably smaller floods). Yes, something else also happened 12.5K years ago, quite likely a sizable impact.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2012
@R_R: The mammoths found in Siberia are not temperate-adapted, but have very fine fur undercoats much like musk-ox do today, and long tusks adapted for sweeping snow on tundra, not for moving in dense forests. Siberia may have been too COLD for the forests we see today, rather than warmer than today, with the lack of an ice cap cause by little snowfall. Grasses and small trees such as willows and birches are fine mammoth food and grow well on permafrost.
If the mammoths were temperate creatures, why did they have warm wool coats? Elephants with such warm coats would cook themselves today; even almost fur-less they have big ears as radiators to help keep cool. And why did small mammoths (more susceptible to cold) survive on Wrangell island for thousands of year after the impact?

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2012
An impact large enough to trigger the Younger Dryas would add huge amounts of water to the air and produce huge windstorms, and then block the sun with dust for weeks. In the arctic this could soak the mammoths' fur to the skin with rain and then turn into the mother of all mammoth-freezing blizzards. Blocking the sun with that much dust would cool the climate as fast as a pole shift, and it would start colder and hence freeze mammoths, especially mammoths soaked to the skin, even faster than a pole-shift would. Presto: flash-frozen mammoths, with a MUCH more realistic explanation!

As for fast freezing, the billions-of-times-bigger impact that you propose would add so much heat that the mammoths would have been cooked rather than frozen. The frozen mammoths are therefore conclusive evidence AGAINST a pole-shifting impact.

Put another way, you've trained yourself to espouse Velikovsky and you just keep espousing Velikovsky; I'm just trying to show you how impacts actually work.
R_R
1 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2012
Real, as explained earlier C14 dating has a fatal flaw with regards to anything exposed to this impact event, as usual science states things such as the dating of the Wrangle Island Mammoths as fact and most just go along with it. It is not fact, it is assumption and a wrong one in my estimation. These animals died 10500 BC when this area was at a lower latitude and part of mainland. Just because one bone dated 1600 BC does in no way mean these creatures survived on an island in the arctic ocean cloaked in darkness much of the year untill recent times. It sounds absurd because it is. Your dating is flawed.
R_R
1 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2012
As for the rest i am well aware of sciences cosy cover up explanations for the Siberian mammoths but do not have time now to be detailed except to say mammoth tusks deteriorate quickly unless frozen, there are so many thousands of perfectly preserved Mammoth tusks sticking out the muck of Siberia it supports full time tusk hunters. All these creatures frooze instantly and never thawed. No elephants could survive here, hair or no hair, and the last frozen carcass found was a baby with no hair.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2012
@R_R: Your rotation-altering impact is flawed.

Several posters have pointed out that an impact large enough to substantially shift the rotation of the earth would have COOKED the mammoths (or even vaporized them), not frozen them.

In contrast a much more plausible scenario of a SMALLER impact COULD have flash-frozen the mammoths rather than cooking them.

Regarding Wrangel Island mammoths, musk-ox with similar fine wooly undercoats thrive to this day under similar arctic island conditions (and even on Wrangel island itself), so it is NOT absurd that mammoths who were well adapted to ice-age arctic living could live there. (The reason that you think it absurd is that you ASSUME that they were adapted for very different conditions, but that is circular reasoning).

C14 dating accuracy to 1600 BC (even 2000 BC) is calibrated directly by tree rings, and the flash-frozen mammoths and other megafauna consistently C14-date to ~12.5K years or older.
Wrangel mammoths are NOT the same age.
R_R
1 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2012
My reasoning is not flawed because I hold the trump card, the precise eye witness account measured and recorded by the survivors of an advanced civilization, a 28 degree pole shift from Hudsonbay 10500 BC due to the Earths rotation stopping and then starting on a new axis. And among other things they say we were struck at the north pole, the old north pole to be precise (they didnt @#$# around like your science).
RealScience
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2012
@R_R: So your key evidence is stories from people that not only didn't you talk to, but that were told in another language by people 12,000 years ago and had to be passed by word of mouth through hundreds of generations to reach you?
And that your interpretation of conflicts with basic physics that you can test yourself in your garage???
And where if your interpretation of that 12,500 year-old story were correct, those eye-witnesses would be dead?
Have you even heard these stories in their own language, or are you replying on yet another interpreter to have translated them for you?
And when I ask for pointers to the stories, all you can come up with is Velikovsky, who made a lot of wild guesses and only got a few right?

AND YOU CALL THAT A TRUMP CARD?

jsdark is right, you really are beyond help.
R_R
1 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2012
Real, once again your assumptions are wrong, this has nothing to due with myth except that myth backs it completely, but it beyond you so carry on living a lie.
jsdarkdestruction
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2012
r_r, you are the most ignorant person ive had the displeasure of meeting. you speak of assumptions while yours would require some vast global conspiracy against you and all the laws of physics being wrong. ancient stories arent science! you need to go back to high school and finish your education. physics especially. then when you can prove that your idea is somehow physically possible without destroying the people you claim witnessed it will people even begin to contemplate your idea being possible until then this belongs in the garbage can right next to neutron repulsion, electric universe, and aether wave theory.
R_R
1 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2012
Theres a very good reason why 20 years ago Robert Bauval found the date 10,500 BC in the layout of the pyramids at giza. The ancients designed it to be found so that the truth of 10,500 BC would survive anything. Good thing seeing what the truth is up against today, its almost like they knew.
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2012
if what you said had happened there would be no pyramids. why dont you try visiting reality?
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2012

Real, once again your assumptions are wrong, this has nothing to due with myth except that myth backs it completely, but it beyond you so carry on living a lie.


@R_R: It was YOU who said that ancient stories were your evidence that the earth stopped rotating and started up in a new direction.
And now you say that it has nothing to do with myths???

You haven't present any other evidence.
You don't want to check for yourself how momentum and energy work.
You even admit that you don't want to understand.
You don't want to learn from people who do understand.
And if they don't accept what you say, it must be beyond THEM???

I have not argued against something big having happened 12.5K years ago, or against it involving an impact, or even against legends of it existing to this day.
My only assumption has been that whatever happened obeys the laws of conservation of momentum and energy.
So exactly WHAT
RealScience
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2012
So exactly what assumptions are wrong?
Shinobiwan Kenobi
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2012
My reasoning is not flawed because I hold the trump card, the precise eye witness account measured and recorded by the survivors of an advanced civilization, a 28 degree pole shift from Hudsonbay 10500 BC due to the Earths rotation stopping and then starting on a new axis. And among other things they say we were struck at the north pole, the old north pole to be precise (they didnt @#$# around like your science).


Oh, sweet jesus... ^ R_R = Emperor-of-Derp