Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by dgold44, Mar 10, 2018.
Many bacteria do that already.
Uranus is also a possibility to probe into.
Uranus is a gas giant
That sounds like an old Russian proverb!
It runs: 'the top end of a peeler can take more than your eye out'.
The thing that is causing the extinction of the greatest number of species is the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, much of it due to the production of sugarcane ethanol as an alternative fuel.
Evolution is a joke which Charles Darwin and his money gang pushed down our throats
And up there as well is Australian land clearing for agriculture.
You would be vaporized if you came within a million miles from it
It’s a frozen cold ball of gas
I hope u are joking ?
Trump and many right wing Repubicans have found a solution:
1) deregulate all industries so that the companies can make more money. Then they will use the money to save more animals.
2) protect the animals from forest fires by chopping down all the trees and clearing forests and digging up the land to extract natural resources for industry
3) allow more fishing and oil rigs everywhere. Don't worry about oil spills.
Why and how will this strategy work?
It will destroy natural resources and disrupt the food supply and kill off the animals and increase global warming even more. Essentials for humans like water and food will become more scarce. This will lead to wars and uprisings. Humans will kill each other. Eventually there will be very few humans and most mammals and animals will be dead, too. This also means the rise of micro-organisms and tougher insects like cockroaches, etc. Evolution will start again from the small creatures and eventually mammals and larger creatures will come to be. Trees and vegetation will start to grow again, too.
Do you happen to have tomorrows lottery numbers? Speculation built upon speculation, rinse and repeat until your hugging a tree with a chain attached to both of you.
Yes. I am willing to sell it to you for $120 million.
Imagine what would happen if 50 million “good guys with guns” decide to stop the poachers from killing endangered species...
What environmental changes would have to occur for the mass extinction of pushers?
Pushers are like cockroaches
If everyone would move to Vegas and open a UPS store, the world will be a much better place
Either that or sureshs becomes a pusher
First strike tennis is part of his dna.
Mongoose on anphetamines
Monkeys are monkeys, humans are humans. Evolution from human to better human yes, but not from a monkey or chimpanzee to human, it's absurd, I wonder why the edu. System still pushes the Darwin invented theory down our throats
You’ve seen video of sureshs playing tennis, right?
Humans didnt evolve from the chimpanzee. Thats a gross misunderstanding of the theory of evolution
High lead racquets and net play
You clearly have no understanding of the theory of evolution
I'm aware that most people claim to find nature so beautiful, but I don't see it. Schopenhauer mentioned something about if the pleasure an animal gets from eating another is balanced by the suffering of the one being devoured. The suffering on this planet far exceeds the happiness or pleasure. If a comet struck this planet and ended all life on it, it would be a good thing, a mercy killing.
So some generation won't be able to see certain animals in a zoo? What is that? One hour out of a lifetime? So what? Animals have been going extinct for ages on this planet. Why should any be exempted from this? Are you virtue signaling with this post? If you're so sensitive, why single out these creatures while ignoring the enormous amount of suffering that is everywhere?
'Virtue signaling"? The RWDB, as the young say, are an evolutionary dead end, that's for sure.
Lions die everyday, why get choked up over this one? They also eat Impala. Should we be indifferent over the Impala?
If the Impala lives, then the lion starves. Nature doesn't allow a nice way out. That's the awful truth folks.
You’re living in the 18th century
We evolved from ape like creature about 50 mllion plus yrs ago if I remember
This is fact from fossil record to DNA to genes
Ape like creatures due to climate change tens of millions of yrs ago
Mowing lions down with shotguns is slightly different, but at least we don't use military assault rifles on them. They're reserved for pesky school children.
Maybe it depends on where you get shot? Being shot in the stomach leads to an awful lingering death. But a bullet to the brain sounds pretty quick, (but I guess we really don't know). I also don't know if lion bothers to kill their prey before eating them. Bears don't. Grizzly man, his being eaten by a bear was recorded, and it took over an hour! If lions are like that, then being eaten by one sounds worse than getting shot.
Read with an open mind
Animals killing animals doesn't quickly lead to the extinction of whole species, if at all, and at the level of animals what we care about is healthy populations.
With regard to humans, we assume that every individual has the right to live and, hence, we punish murderers.
Solution: Three-Body Problem
A thought provoking read, but full of its own logical flaws and leap of faith conclusions.
Humor is good for your mental health.
Keep trying bro
And coyotes and rattlesnakes. Both of which will kill children.
Especially when all the crazies bring them to school in their backpacks for show and tell.
Yep, I do remember kids bringing snakes to school when I was a kid.
The coyotes, bears, and mountain lions were a half-mile away up the hill.
You lived in Pennsylvania Avenue just down from the Hill?
I know it's still a major issue in Vietnam for sure, but China and South Korea have made some strides away from ecologically damaging medicines and cuisine. Yao Ming singlehandedly is responsible for educating China on the barbaric way shark fin is 'harvested', and its popularity has gone downhill.
South Korea generally has been getting better at being environmentally friendly. Even two to three decades ago, there was a huge push to reduce plastic bag usage, increase recycling, and promote sustainable fishing. Every fast food restaurant requires its guests to separate food waste when they're done. We also impose limits on our fishermen so that the next year there are mature fish to catch...but then Chinese trawlers cross into our seas and wipe out entire populations of baby fish that we had been nurturing, and the PRC government is happy to turn a blind eye until they noted the hostilities by the Korean coast guard--forgetting that it was Chinese fishermen armed with makeshift spears and battering rams that started the violence in Korean waters in the first place.
I also don't know why you didn't mention the Japanese and their whaling / fishing practises.
Even with an open mind, the assumptions and arguments made in the article is incorrect. If anything, you have to be closed minded towards evolution to think that the article you linked makes any sense.
Evolution is not an overnight process and takes place over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, so the article's argument that the inuit should have fur by now is ridiculous considering that they have only been around in the last thousand years.
There is no definitive 'start' to a species--by definition it is a gradual change from black to white or white to black with a million shades of grey inbetween. So the fact that we haven't observed a new 'species' being born is complete bogus.
That said, there is plenty of evidence of animals adapting to change--moths living in cities have changed colours from white just 200+ years ago to greys and blacks due to industrialisation. The lighter coloured moths stick out in urban environments and so get eaten, leaving only the darker coloured ones to survive long enough to reproduce.
You basically have to be thick to not understand how evolution works. And no, just because it's called the "Theory of Evolution" does not mean that it's theoretical, for the same reasons why I don't see you arguing that the "Theory of Gravity" is hypothetical because it's "just a theory". For it to be "theoretical" as understood in layman terms, it would need to be called the "Hypothesis of Evolution", and it is not.
It is just baffling that someone in the 21st century can be so sceptical of scientific understanding--all this whilst sitting in front of a microchip powered by lightning and communicating to someone sitting on the other side of the world instantaneously, all made possible by the same scientific method that you are doubting. Leave that doubt to more qualified people via peer review. Your unqualified opinion based on articles written in echo chambers designed to agree with you contributes absolutely nothing.
I believe the moths went from white to black when the English air became far less sooty than it had been for hundreds of years.
I don't think electricity and microchips are in the same general discipline as evolution. They have nothing to do with each other. You can prove physics. Biology is much more difficult to prove.
Evidence from the fossil record, anatomical and molecular homologies...every hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, regardless of the specific science. The gist of evolution is just descent from a common ancestor. I don't know what you're talking about
It is much harder to set up experiments in biology. There are many factors we don't know if we are properly accounting for.
I'm not including anatomy, since you can actually cut up dead bodies to see what's inside. Biological processes are far more complex than electricity which is much more definable and measurable.
I wouldn't consider cosmology and metallurgy the same general discipline either. One is much more definable than the other.
Biology and physics are not the same, yes, which is why I said general discipline--which in hindsight is inaccurate since I actually was referring to the scientific method (I have since edited my earlier post to say the same). The point is that they are not merely pitched at a whim then taken as gospel immediately, and they certainly aren't false just because some guy is disappointed Jurassic Park hasn't happened yet has yet to see scientists genetically engineer a new species.
Biology may have more grey areas (eg pharmaceutical science: "how does drug X address this disease?" "no idea, but it works!"), but the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
I already mentioned the same re: the moths, ie the increase in air pollution as a result of the Industrial Revolution.
I found it pretty hard to swallow. This wiki for example contradicts one of its assumption:
Although darkly pigmented skin absorbs about 30 to 40% more sunlight than lightly pigmented skin, dark skin does not increase the body's internal heat intake in conditions of intense solar radiation. Solar radiation heats up rather the body's surface and not the interior. Furthermore, this amount of heat is negligible compared the heat produced when muscles are actively used during exercise. Regardless of skin colour, humans have excellent capabilities to dissipate heat through sweating. Half of the solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is in the form of infrared light and is absorbed similarly regardless of skin coloration.[2
The idea that only the experiment can constitute a gold-standard science is not a tenable position.
In any event, the whole significance of the Galapagos islands is that different islands created different ecological niches for the evolution of different species or sub-species.
So, in effect, it was a kind of giant experiment made by nature which required, of course, methodical observation.
Separate names with a comma.