4 ms·
> That's mistaking correlation for causation. I made no such mistake. Though, I was not aware of there being competing theories regarding the significant number
by desotus 2mo ago
> That's mistaking correlation for causation.
I made no such mistake. Though, I was not aware of there being competing theories regarding the significant number of extinct megafauna species around the gross time interval of the arrival of Aboriginals to Australia and Tasmania, my apologies. There are two competing set of theories, namely human-caused ones and natural-climate-caused ones, as far as I can tell. I was only aware of or could only remember the first type of theory.
For a clearer and possibly more settled and agreed upon example: From your or the other commenter's perspective, what caused the extinction of Moa after the arrival of Maori in New Zealand? Some claims that the Moa went extinct within 100 years of human settlement, and that it had a large population before that
- frmersdog 2mo agohttps://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/zoology/maoris-hunt-moa-extinction https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/zoology/maoris-hunt-... >The extinction of all moa species occurred relatively swiftly, between 1380 and 1440, making it one of the most rapid extinctions in history. Contributing factors included habitat destruction through woodland burning, the introduction of non-native predators such as dogs and rats, and the birds' natural life cycle, which featured low egg production. It's not a good example to use to prove your contention, because it's an outlier, and because it involved the use of technology that wasn't necessarily available to other incidences of megafauna extinction.