Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,352 Year: 3,609/9,624 Month: 480/974 Week: 93/276 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bison at La Brea Tar Pits
Christian
Member (Idle past 6274 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 16 of 44 (304757)
04-17-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Yaro
04-17-2006 10:41 AM


Yes, I'm still around. I'm even a moderator! Though I don't have time to do much moderating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Yaro, posted 04-17-2006 10:41 AM Yaro has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 17 of 44 (304759)
04-17-2006 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Christian
04-14-2006 5:47 PM


You have reached an important point ...
one that is a major reason that the Flood Scenario has been completely abandoned for so many centuries.
Assume for a second that you are correct when you say
3. Their scenario doesn't seem very likely. What seems more likely is that there was some sudden event which killed all those animals, and there were bison ranging from 2-4 months which had been born that year, bison ranging from 14-16 months which had been born last year, and bison ranging from 26-30 months which had been born two years previously.
and that sudden event was the Biblical Flood.
If that is true, then certain other things also must be true and the evidence for them must be equally apparent.
  • there must be other signs of a flood at the same point in time in ALL other locations, all over the world.
  • all of the bones found in the 100 or so tar pits at La Brea should be found in one contemporary level, jumbled together in one mass.
  • all of the tar pits must have the same age.
  • other signs of a massive flood, either considerably younger or considerably older cannot then be a record of the Biblical Flood.
If you use the contents of the La Brea Tar Pits as the dating incident for the Flood, then the Flood happened at that particular era. If we find a record somewhere in the world covering that era that shows no sign of flooding, then the sudden event that you propose as the cause for the Bison at La Brea was not universal in extent.
Unfortunately for Flood supporters, that is exactly what is found. There are many even more clear examples of catastrophic flooding found all over the world. But they are not all contemporary. Instead, what is found are examples of local or regional floods, some of immense proportions, but also not all happening at the same time.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Christian, posted 04-14-2006 5:47 PM Christian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Christian, posted 04-17-2006 12:54 PM jar has not replied

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 6274 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 18 of 44 (304760)
04-17-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Modulous
04-17-2006 12:25 PM


Modulous writes:
Assuming there are no other factors involved would seem to suggest Christian was right - however as you say, there are likely other factors not discussed in the brief text presented.
Thanks Modulous, I would like to see what those other factors are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 04-17-2006 12:25 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 04-17-2006 12:38 PM Christian has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 44 (304761)
04-17-2006 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Christian
04-17-2006 12:35 PM


Thanks Modulous, I would like to see what those other factors are.
I covered a couple of possibilities at the bottom of my Message 8.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Christian, posted 04-17-2006 12:35 PM Christian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Christian, posted 04-17-2006 1:08 PM Modulous has replied

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 6274 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 20 of 44 (304766)
04-17-2006 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
04-17-2006 12:34 PM


Re: You have reached an important point ...
jar writes:
If that is true, then certain other things also must be true and the evidence for them must be equally apparent.
Then let's not assume it's true. Lets assume the migration scenario is true and see how well that fits the evidence. I'd rather take things one step at a time. I want to know if I am right that their scenario is unsatisfactory. That's all.
jar writes:
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
no, but He is good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 04-17-2006 12:34 PM jar has not replied

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 6274 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 21 of 44 (304769)
04-17-2006 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Modulous
04-17-2006 12:38 PM


Modulous writes:
I covered a couple of possibilities at the bottom of my Message 8.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot to reply to that one.
Modulous writes:
Perhaps the calves we see in the pits were weaned? We'd need more information to be sure (the nature of the teeth wearing for example).
yes, nature of teeth wearing would help. But I have a book on Bison that says the calves nurse for about 8-12 months. So If the ancient bison nursed for that long too, it wouldn't work because most of the bison were between 2-4 months. I have a picture of a graph which illustrates that, but I don't have time to get the picture up for you now. It will have to wait.
Modulous writes:
Alternatively, as Lithoid has said, it could be that we are getting the information worded within error bars (that is, the ages of the calves found are 3 months plus or minus one month).
I'm not sure how this would explain anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 04-17-2006 12:38 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 04-17-2006 2:49 PM Christian has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 44 (304779)
04-17-2006 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Christian
04-17-2006 12:16 PM


Misleading information
I'm only pointing out that their scenario doesn't work very well, and that their info is misleading and false.
I agree that with what information we have it doesn't work out. I suggest that characterizing it as "misleading and false" is a bit premature. We don't know enough to know what they started with before creating a very, very short summary with simplifications for a museum display. It does appear that they didn't do that well enough but we don't know yet.
It was yours. And I don't think bison migrating patterns are that precise. They seem to vary from year to year.Whatever the case, the conditions would have to be almost exactly the same every year for many thousands of years.
Not exactly the same. Only to within the accuracy of the age measurements. Not exactly the same only enough that the great preponderance of the captured calves fit the ranges. The captured calves are given as varying over a 4 month range of ages. That is pretty wide. We don't know if there was a variation in the range of captured age with date of capture either.
The museum sign all by itself doesn't hang together very well. We don't know enough to determine what is wrong. You are jumping to conclusions.
If calves were born at the same time as modern bison (April to August?) then calves under 5 months old (only, and year increments above that) do indicate that they were there during late spring. It also suggests that they must have been there during other times later in the year too but the sign is messed up enough to be unclear.
What "information" am I adding that's not there?
I was mistaken on this. Sorry.
I hope you're not accusing ME of intelectual dishonesty.
No I am not. Only if you attempt to use confusion of a simplified museum sign to hint that the flood is a reasonable explanation. You haven't been clear if you have or not. You did mention a single event, that is clearly out of the question. I think we both agree that the topic here is the quality of information presented at the museum and NOT any other explanation for the pattern found. We'll leave that alone.
But it does say
No bison have yet been recovered that are of intermediate ages- 5 to 13 months old or 17 to 25 months old.
Yes, but that doesn't tell us how those ranges are determined. Are the found fossils aged to within +- 1 week and measured to be between 0 and 4.5 months or +- 2 months and measured to be about 2 months old? Measurements based on wear would indicate something like the former (but not as tight as one week I wouldn't think), measurements based on development of the teeth or skeleton might indicate something more like the latter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Christian, posted 04-17-2006 12:16 PM Christian has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 23 of 44 (304794)
04-17-2006 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Christian
04-17-2006 1:08 PM


yes, nature of teeth wearing would help. But I have a book on Bison that says the calves nurse for about 8-12 months.
Well it seems we have either a contradiction of sources (the ones I looked at suggested differently with 7 months as a maximum, and some reason to believe it might be shorter), or different definitions of nursing and weaning. As I said, we'd need more information on the whole thing. It could be that the age span of bison in the area included younger bison, but that the older bison are particularly vulnerable (eg they have more independence, but not the sense to fully keep out danger). This might the age, for example, where the weaning process begins - so the young 'ens start exploring for food.
Unfortunately, without decent levels of information, I'm unwilling to to provide any solid conclusions.
I'm not sure how [error bars] would explain anything.
I think the point is that if they age a bison at 4 months old, the error on it is 1 month either way, so the bison could be 5 months old or three months old. At the other end they might age it at 2 months, but the error bars give us between 1 and 3 months. At this time, they've not found anything that dates to 5 months (plus or minus a month).
As such the potential age of the bison is between 1 to 5 month. That accounts for staying in the area for a while and a gap between calves. It might be that they have averaged the tested age as being 3 months, and applied the error bars to that for 2-4 months.
Once again, we'd need to know the primary information in order to discern how the museum has simplified it for the public.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Christian, posted 04-17-2006 1:08 PM Christian has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6372 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 24 of 44 (304824)
04-17-2006 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Christian
04-14-2006 5:47 PM


Here's a radical idea
I suddenly realised as I was reading the most recent posts that we're missing a trick here.
As you explain in the Opening Post, you think the information on the sign doesn't add up.
There are repeated comments from others in the thread to the effect of 'we don't know what (published research etc.) they based the information on the sign on'.
Surely the obvious solution is for you to contact the Museum describing your queries/concerns and ask them if they can provide further information to substantiate the summary on the sign.
Assuming you get a reply you can then share it with us (if you do it by e-mail then you can just cut'n'paste it into here to save having to type it all in ).

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Christian, posted 04-14-2006 5:47 PM Christian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Omnivorous, posted 04-17-2006 8:24 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3983
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 25 of 44 (304835)
04-17-2006 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by MangyTiger
04-17-2006 7:02 PM


Re: Here's a radical idea
I see no problem with the sign. Perhaps someone could explain the difficulty more clearly? To merit charges of misleading and false, I would have expected the problem to leap off the page.
The museum's web site tells us that the climate in the area was cooler and more humid (more like San Francisco at present), and that the warmer months were the most dangerous because the asphalt was softer and more likely to be concealed by leaves and other debris.
In particular, I don't understand the notion that the bison would have had to migrate/calve at almost exactly the same day each year for thousands of years, given that the age ranges are months. Since the key data were the relative annual age clusters, what difference does it make which day they were calved? Even if the climate, migratory schedule, or birthing season varied considerably over the millennia, the variance between one year and the next would likely be low.
According to the museum, just 10 large mammals being captured every ten years would account for the total mammal assemblage found: how many were bison? How long did bison capture continue? I bet the researchers at La Brea are thrilled each time a school child e-mails them with that kind of question, though I guess it's easier for adults to call them liars.
Perhaps someone can help me out here. I don't see anything dishonest, misleading, contradictory, or inadequate about the sign. It presents a bite-sized nugget of scientific hypothesis and is intended to make one ask questions and want to learn more. Christian's OP and subsequent posts are quite ad hoc, but that is a function of intellectual bias, or incompetence, not dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by MangyTiger, posted 04-17-2006 7:02 PM MangyTiger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2006 8:45 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 26 of 44 (304840)
04-17-2006 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Omnivorous
04-17-2006 8:24 PM


The museum display
From here: http://www.nhm.org/cats/C24/bison.htm
quote:
The extinct ancient bison (Bison antiquus) was an ancestor of the living North American bison (often called the buffalo). It is the most common of the large herbivores found at Rancho La Brea. A second, rarer species is the long-horned bison. This had a horn core spread of about six feet (1.8 meters). Bison are thought to have come into North America from Asia about 500,000 years ago across a land bridge that connected Alaska with Asia when sea levels were lower.
Not all the animals lived at Rancho La Brea year-round. Some were migratory, traveling in and out of the area. How do scientists know this?
At Rancho La Brea, paleontologists have found fossils of many young bison. They can tell the age of the bison by the number of teeth, baby and permanent, in the jaw and by the amount of wear shown by the teeth. Young bison from the asphalt deposits are either two to four months old, fourteen to sixteen months old, or twenty-six to thirty months old. Each group is thus twelve months (one year) apart. No bison have yet been recovered that are of intermediate ages, five to thirteen months old or seventeen to twenty-five months old.
These clusters of ages indicate the bison were present at Rancho La Brea onIy during a few months of the year. If the calves of extinct bison were born at the same time of year as modern bison calves, then the extinct bison were present at Rancho La Brea every year during late spring.
That looks about right for the kind of thing one might see in a museum.
So here is what I understand the problem to be:
1) Calves born at the same time of year as modern bison means born from april through july or even august with "most" born in the first half of May.
The oldest would be born then 2 months before the end of spring. Therefore the wording "were present at Rancho La Brea every year during late spring" can not be right if they are from 2 to 4 months old. It would be correct if they arrived in late spring.
However, if it is the oldest that arrive there at two months old in "late spring" then there should be ones found all the way down to new born but it says they aren't.
The second problem is it says there were there "a few months" of the year. But the age ranges are only 2 months and some people don't consider a "couple" of months to be "a few".
So given the quote from the web site we have a problem making it precisely correct.
Shall I try to write something which is correct? If the bison migrated through they can't take longer than 2 months since that is the full range of calf fossils found -- this is not a "few months" so it should be worked a "couple of months".
Assuming that a LOT of calves are captured in the tar so that ALL actual age ranges are represented: If they are born the same time as modern bison then they can't arrive until 2 months after NO more calves are born and captured. But that means that the oldest would be more than 4 months (since modern bison are claimed to calve over a period that is longer than 2 months) so the two assumptions cannot be true. Either we are getting a non-representative sample or the bison calved over a shorter period of time than the one we assume is good for modern bison.
The "facts" are supposed to be:
1) born in the same pattern as modern bison which are taken as being over about a 4 month period from late April.
2) None found outside of the 2 month to 4 month (+ 1 year increments) age ranges.
3) arrive in "late spring"
4) stay a "few months"
I can't construct a sign which makes sense given the above. Can you?
Maybe I should email this? I'll wait for Christian in case he wants to do it or word it.
So I can't make a sign up that presents the same "facts"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Omnivorous, posted 04-17-2006 8:24 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 04-17-2006 9:26 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 28 by Omnivorous, posted 04-17-2006 9:50 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 44 (304845)
04-17-2006 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NosyNed
04-17-2006 8:45 PM


Re: The museum display
Some other questions I think need answering. One day when she (Christian) was in chat we went over a few of them.
Is it possible that there are reasons other than migration that might explain what is seen?
  • is it possible that there could be an environmental explanation?
  • is it possible that when water was plentiful that the pools filled beyond the limits of the tar so that animals could drink without getting into the tar?
  • is it possible that when water was low the tar was obvious and so animals avoided it?
  • is it possible that there were only certain temperature conditions where the tar was soft enough and sticky enough to trap animals?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2006 8:45 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3983
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 28 of 44 (304848)
04-17-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NosyNed
04-17-2006 8:45 PM


Re: The museum display
Thanks, Nosy. I see the "problem" better now.
It's a tempest in a tarpit.
Bison, which are migratory animals, were present at La Brea for at least two months of the year, given the ages of the youngest calves captured: possibly, given the age clumping range, they could have been there four months each year.
Given the calving habits of modern bison--and the seasonal nature of the tarpit hazard--we can conclude the bison were present at La Brea in late spring when the hazard began to increase due to temperature. The bison left the area before any new calves had aged more than four months.
So if they arrived in April with some immediate calving ocurring, with most calving in May, and with the hazard increasing in June and peaking in July, just when the bison might seeker greener, cooler pastures (just as an example motivator--the captured large mammals also attracted predators the bison might want to avoid)...they would be there a few months, calves 2-4 months could be captured, and none older. As to finding newborns in the tarpit, IIRC, few large mammals have precocial young, and as I specifically recall, bison herds organize with cows and calves to the center, bulls protectively at the perimeter; the newborns who felt footloose were unlikely to survive long in the land of the direwolf and short-face bear.
Doesn't that work?
BTW, do we actually have migrating herds of bison these days?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2006 8:45 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 04-19-2006 2:29 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1424 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 29 of 44 (304849)
04-17-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Christian
04-14-2006 5:47 PM


Hello Christian,
Let's see if I can help.
quote:
The young bison from the asphalt deposits are either 2 to 4 months old, 14 to 16 months old, or 26 to 30 months old. Each group is thus 12 months (one year) apart. No bison have yet been recovered that are of intermediate ages- 5 to 13 months old or 17 to 25 months old.
Starting with a null hypothesis, there are several ways to explain this:
  1. The {prehistoric} bison herd migrated back then as the {modern} bison herds did in the recent past (before fences) moving to different areas in different times of the year,
  2. Something causes the bison to be less cautious during certain times of the year,
  3. The tar pits only trapped animals at certain times of the year, and
  4. There isn't enough data to judge for sure
These are theories to explain the data, now for some tests:
Regarding (2), while mating seasons have been observed to cause behavior in adults that could be deemed 'less cautious' and make them prone to being caught in the tar, this can be pretty well ruled out for newborns and yearlings, as it has not been observed in modern bison nor in other species.
Likewise regarding (3), this can be ruled out by the presence of other non-migratory animal remains that show a year-round pattern (I am assuming that this has been {considered\done\evaluated} because they talk about bison and not all the species found in the tar pits -- they single out a migratory species).
Regarding (4), while more data is always nice, there comes a point where the pattern emerges that further data only reinforces rather than alters the conclusions. Let's take your information provided:
Modern bison calves are born mostly in may but can be born any time from mid April through July or August. There were no newborn calves, no one month old calves.
What you should develop is a distribution curve of births against day of the year, this would show that, say, 90% of the births were in May, with some before and slightly more after.
The next thing to do then is to look at how a sampling of that population during a one month period, a two month period and a three month period at different times of the year would look, and then compare that with the tar pit results for a best match.
More data could provide a sample or two in the "off" months, but the numbers of other samples in the "on" months would still means it fits the pattern, yes?
This rather leaves us with (1) - which also matches observed patterns of behavior in {modern} bison - as the most likely scenario, unless you can think of other options.
... Also they would've had to go through the area during the same few days every year for 30,000 years. ...
I think if you play with the data for your births versus time of year curve (with a one month period for most births) and look for ways to get consistent 2 month groupings of ages that they could have stayed about a month in the area.
And we are talking a migratory species too, right?
This statement:
quote:
These clusters of ages indicate that the bison were present at Rancho La Brea only during a few months of the year
cannot be true unless all the bison were born on or very near the same day, every year for the 30,000 years represented by the tar pits.
No, it just means that there are ages that are missing from the data, as could not occur in a non-migratory species. A non-migratory species would have young getting trapped all year round (I'm assuming this is a fact re (3) above), and thus would be all ages.
We know there are months when bison do not reproduce, and again, by matching the pattern of births vs time of year against age clusters shows that the bison were only there part of the year.
This statement:
quote:
If the calves of extinct bison were born at the same time of the year as modern bison calves, then the bison were present at Rancho La Brea every year during late spring.
... Modern bison calves are born mostly in may ... If all the calves were born in May, they would've had to go through Rancho La Brea in July, August, or September (mid summer to early fall)
You could have a point here - change late spring to summer - but this does not invalidate the conclusion of periodic visits, just the timing of them. We are still left with a migratory species leaving clustered ages of entrapments.
3. Their scenario doesn't seem very likely. What seems more likely is that there was some sudden event ...
I'm sorry, but you lost me there. You've just been arguing that this couldn't have occurred as described because it would have required a narrow window in time each year, and then you say a more likely theory is an even narrower time window?
Don't all the objections you raised above apply equally to this theory? If so, then it isn't any more likely, is it? What we need is a test that would differentiate results from the two theories to see which is more likely.
...some sudden event which killed all those animals, and there were bison ranging from 2-4 months which had been born that year, bison ranging from 14-16 months which had been born last year, and bison ranging from 26-30 months which had been born two years previously.
The problem here is that this does not account for the data from non-migratory species that would have victims of all ages (see above re (3)). Given that this data would invalidate your theory, and given that it was likely a part of forming the conclusions regarding the bison (as oppossed to other species), I can't "agree with (you) that a sudden event is more likely" -- sorry.
k?
ps -- how goes the time troubles?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Christian, posted 04-14-2006 5:47 PM Christian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Christian, posted 04-19-2006 2:18 PM RAZD has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4773 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 30 of 44 (304873)
04-18-2006 1:24 AM


I think the sign is worded fine. It ain't supposed to be a math problem, so if the uncertainty included in the wording is screwing up your attempts to solve for X, get over it.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 04-18-2006 01:24 AM

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024