New research disputes a long-held view that our earliest tool-bearing ancestors contributed to the demise of large mammals in Africa over the last several million years. Instead, the researchers argue that long-term environmental change drove the extinctions, mainly in the form of grassland expansion likely caused by falling atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels.
As scientists draw more and more detail from the fossil record, it makes the “Were you there?” argument all the more mind-boggling and depressing.
I wonder if any climate-change denialists will spin this finding to argue: “See! Science tells us that rising CO2 levels can be a good thing. It can be very beneficial to giant mammals!”
They will. I’ve already seen denialists making that argument.
And they would be right – it could be a good thing if we want the kind of world from before there were humans. But it won’t be good for us.
Well, it’s gonna be good for the planet in that case! 
Silver lining.
Everything is relative! 
And evolution says that everything is a relative!
(OK, I know. Evolution would still be solid science even if universal common descent were not valid. So sue me.)
I mean that if we humans kill ourselves off, this might be excellent news for the cockroaches. 
Maybe not. We wouldn’t be heating apartment buildings and dropping food on the floor!
(That is my louse interpretation of your scenario.)
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! 
Somebody new to this forum will have no possible idea for why you laughed at that!
This is welcome from a YEC stance. africa, after the flood, had a glorious fauna as elsewhere.
its impossible the people brought a end to it and yet left a still healthy fauna relative to the world. it could only be the envirorment was diminished.
I think all the world had this crash and africa was just the same. all this within a few centuriues after the flood.
I’m sorry, what!?
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.