From: winner@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu
Subject: Re: Elaphants CAN'T gallop, ddamn it!!!  Nor mammoths!!!
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:19:23 GMT

In article <2852@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Aug3.181000.1@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu*, winner@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu writes:
>* Ted,
>* Before we side track onto a discussion of graphic formats, can we finish the
>* issue at hand?  I still have an out-standing request that you clairify your
>* position on elephants.  Several people here have pointed out that elephants,
>* like many other four-legged animals are unable to gallop due to their body
>* structure.  Further, the suggestion has been made that they would be unable
>* to gallop in any level of gravity due to these structural problems.  I, and
>* others, have requested that you explain how the structure of an elephant 
>* would allow it to gallop were the gravity sufficiently low enough.  I 
>* specifically asked for an explaination about other 4-legged animals (ie. 
>* do cats and lizards gallop, and if not why not).  
 
> Cats yes, after a fashion, 
What do you mean by "after a fashion"?  I am aware that cats move very quickly,
but I don't know of any stride that is made by a cat which would be considered
a "gallop".

> lizards no.  
Why not?  Can I safely say that you are willing to agree that some animals
cannot gallop simply because of body design, and that current or past gravity
is not the reason?

> Experts refer to elephants as 
> 'graviportal'.  They are now.  It's everything they can do to carry their own
> weight around.
> They weren't always.  In past ages, you have to assume that the seismosaur
> and ultrasaur (400,000 lbs +) would have been 'graviportal', and that
> elephants got around fairly easily by comparison.  
I will agree that some animals get around more easily than others, for certain.
Whales seem to move more easily than elephants, for example.  I will assume,
for the sake of argument only, that a whale's "graviportaliality" is countered
by its living in water.  There are a number of shore birds which do not "get
around" as well on land as an elephant does, and weight has nothing to do with
it.

> As the picture shows, mammoths galloped.  I've heard of other such pictures,
> the one you've seen is the only one I've actually seen.
I must disagree that the picture shows that mammoths galloped.  To be picky, 
only a motion picture could show an animal galloping.  But seriously, even
granting that it is a statue of a mammoth in a gallop would not be hard
evidence that mammoth's galloped, just that primative man built statues that
way.  Think in realistic terms if a primative person was doing symbolic art.
If you wanted to symbolize an elephant moving quickly (which they do) you 
would very likely not show it in its normal "run" since that motion looks very
similar to its normal "walk" (and not too different from its normal "stand").
However, the motions that deer, antelopes, and horses make when running shows
a feeling of speed, even in a still frame.  So you do your symbolism, show
your elephant in a speed position borrowed from a horse.  I feel this is much
more likely to be the context that the statue was made in, rather than an
attempt at realism.  (Always try to look at things in their correct context.)

> After the changes, elephants BECAME graviportal.  Any conformational features
> which might serve to prevent their galloping arose during and after
> the change.
Are you agreeing that elephants TODAY are structurally unable to gallop, 
reguardless of what gravity you put them in (again today)??  If these changes
in structures are the result of elephants becoming graviportal, which you 
seem to imply, then you should be able to show how the structure of mammoths
differs from that of elephants.

You need to understand that you are avoiding the issue, and making claims by
assertation.  Let me try to simplify the issues (though they have been 
presented very simply already.)

1) Elephants are structurally unable to gallop.
	No matter what gravity you put an elephant in, it would not be able to
	gallop.  Now, these changes may be due to a change in their body 
	structure as they became "graviportal", or they may be from other 
	reasons.  But this issue must be addressed, either you agree with the
	above statement or you don't.
	If the statement is not true, then you need to explain how the structure
	of an elephant would allow it to gallop if the gravity were 
	significantly less.
	If the statement is true, then you can bring up the issue that they
	became that way due to "graviportal" effect.  But you need to show that.
	Show the difference in structure between a mammoth (which were pre-
	graviportal effect) and elephants (which are post-).  If a mammoth's
	structure is going to make it impossible for the animal to gallop in
	any gravity, then a statue won't change that.

> By the way, the stated opinion that elephants have two knees in each leg
> strikes me as ridiculous, but no more so than a lot of what I see on t.o.
I agree that I have not been satisfied with the explanations why the structure
makes galloping impossible.  I did see one which explained it well, but I 
don't remember from who.  That explaination was better than the lack of 
structure discussion from you.

>* Someone else has asked for an explaination why
>* baby elephants don't gallop, since weight and gravity should not be an issue
>* for them.
> The conformation of adults begins at birth.  For what it's worth, I don't
> see baby horses galloping either.
I thought I had seen young horses galloping.  Granted not new borns, but within
a very short period of time.  I think you may want to double check that.

> Consider that I have presented here an entire alternative world view as to
> a large body of origins related issues, and that world view hangs together
> as well and better in most cases than the standard one does. Further, the
> view I present explains elegantly all of the things which standard science
> merely sweeps under rugs and refers to as exceptions which 'prove' the
> rule.  A true Latin expert (unlike the aforementioned Meritt) might could
> tell you what's wrong with the way in which the item about exceptions
> 'proving' rules got translated into English.
Yes, you have given an entrie alternative world view, and it does address a 
large body of origins related issues.  However, I disagree that it holds
together better than the standard "main-stream" view.  I think that it tries
to base itself on exceptions, ignoring the bulk of the evidence.  While 
science does often find an anomoly and say that we will ignore it (usually
"for now") in light of the larger body of evidence which claims a diffent
thing.  Maybe this is not perfect, but it is better than throwing out the
larger body of evidence to build a theory on the anomoly.  If you can come
up with a theory that will account for the anomoly and the larger body of 
evidence then you have a theory to work with.

> In the case of the case for a lesser felt effect of gravity in antediluvian
> times, the sum total of evidence is a vast deal more than just the one
> picture of an elephant galloping.  If it were just that one picture, I'd
> toss the picture.
But most of the evidence I have seen from you is similar to the statue.  You
are building a theory (from what I can see) on anomolies.  It is often a lot
of fun, and is a basis for good science-fiction, but it doesn't work for 
science.

> Ted Holden

-Jim Winner