>there are people who still believe that the Quaternary extinction

>>3325982
Personally, I think it was a combination of both climate change and over-hunting. The idea that humans could hunt massive amounts of animals seems to imply that doing so was an easy task, and that just doesn't seem right. Things only start to make sense, if you consider that these animals are already debilitated by the loss of their habitats, caused by climate change.

>>3326014
Plus, as far as I know there aren't many archaeological sites which show explicit evidence of such extensive hunting. And even the ones that do seem to provide some evidence, have been contested as being more of a natural disaster than a consequence of human hunting.

>>3326014

>throw spears at big slow dumb animals for a few hundred years
>not an easy task

>>3326033

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14142

>>3325982

why did they persist more in africa??

>>3326014
>The idea that humans could hunt massive amounts of animals seems to imply that doing so was an easy task, and that just doesn't seem right

Have you seen how animals react to humans when they've never seen them before? The same way they react to everything they've never seen before: with pensive curiosity. They have to learn to fear us because we're not innately frightening. We're not even all that large and we were puny for the Pleistocene era.

Think about it, an entire continent filled with big, dumb animals coming into contact with Earth's greatest and most prodigious predator; one they didn't even initially know they had to fear. It's like dropping a wolf pack on an island full of deer: the wolf population explodes and the deer population plummets. This could also offer an explanation for how quickly the Americas were populated in the first place.

Ample food -> population explosion -> population pressures -> mass migration to greener pastures with even more dumb walking meat -> repeat

There's also the question of Africa like >>3326043 this anon said. The prevailing theory is that animals in Africa were less vulnerable to human style hunting because we were evolutionary contemporaries and they knew damn well they had to fear us. The climate change theory could maybe account for the small dip during that period but it clearly wasn't a colossal change.

It's even possible I suppose that megafauna extinction lead to environmental and climate changes.

>>3326043
Humans evolved alongside them. They knew how to deal with human trickery.

The evidence for a mass extinction due to drastic climate changes is overwhelming.

Astetroid impact ca 12 000 years ago

>>3326111
Go to bed Graham.

>>3326111
>>3326041

>>3326111
>population slumps of megafauna all happen at different times per continent
>the extinction events directly follow the first human appearance on the continent
>some retard claims they were caused by a singular event world changing event

If that meteor caused the population collapse it would have happened all at once, directly following the meteors impact, not in dribs and drabs. And why was Africa unaffected?

>>3326875
>And why was Africa unaffected?

Meteors fear the black warrior.

File: 1503869011754s.jpg (7KB, 236x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 236x250px

>>3326035
>being this stupid

>>3326089
Homo Sapiens more like Perfidious Sapiens