User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 39

Thread: further proof biologists should take geology classes

  1. #9
    N=R* fs fp ne fl fi fc L Pyro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    4,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree with Mokele about the press misquoting.

    I also agree with Rattler about the current and past nature of Antarctica.

    Just got done reading a great book by Sean Carroll, part of which details the Antarctic ice fish. IIRC these things are only about 20 odd million years old as species and if you understand the biology behind them they can only survive in frigid waters. So they could not have evolved before said time period.

    Different branches of biology have different understandings. I understand geology to a greater extent than most microbiologists because I have a deep interest in evolution. I would contend that most all evolutionary biologists are intimately aware of geology because they deal in geologic time spans. And most microbiologists don't because we deal with things that have generation times on the order of minutes. It is all a matter of "over specialization". Granted I may be the worlds expert in the activation of the skf operon but that does not necessarily make me smarter than anyone/everyone else. Too many scientists of every ilk forget that.
    'My love was science- specifically biology and, more specifically, when placed in a common jar, which of two organisms would devour the other.'

    See You Space Cowboy

    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat
    Hagerstown, Maryland

    --
    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat

  2. #10
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    my question is why does everyone seem to think that the Earth is supposed to stay the way it was at the point directly before the industrial revolution. we know that even within the last 1,000 years the global temps were a degree or so warmer than present. i think the main problem with all this global warming stuff is the fact no living person has seen just how quickly the natural processes of this planet can change the climate, even if temproary. when Krakatoa blew in the 1880's it dropped global temps 1.6*C and kept the average temps below normal for most of 5 years. that was just one major erruption of a single volcano, think of what can happen if you get a couple going off like that.

    man is not responsible for 99% of the current rise in temps. in order for us to do that the air would have to be heating up at a faster rate than the ground which is not happening, they are rising at about the same rate. so infact it is increased radiation from the sun causing the vast majority of the global warming......who would think that huge nuclear reaction going on not that far from us would influence the temps on earth?

    are we warming up at present? yes, is it abnormally fast? no not really. we are still coming out of an ice age. we are going to spike and just as likely as temps continuing to rise we are likely to start down another valley into another ice age like has been cycling for the last 40 million years.

    the earths climate is not going to stay the same with or without us. do i think we should reduce polution? yes ofcourse, but passing stupid legislation because of the theory man is causing the earth to warm up is idiotic in the extream. is it possible we will loose the ecosystem around the Antactic? not really, will it change? of course its inevitable. hell the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem is only between 20,000-60,000 years old. 20 million years is a hella long time for an ecosystem to stay intact on this planet.
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  3. #11
    N=R* fs fp ne fl fi fc L Pyro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    4,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well the reason everyone is up in arms about it is because it has to do with evil horrible nasty sharks coming in to wipe out the entire ecology of the Antarctic... If it were something cute and fuzzy like sea otters that were going to invade Antarctica and decimate the ecology we would have friggin Greenpeace boats carting the otters in in droves under armed protection. People are stupid. George Carlin said it best.
    'My love was science- specifically biology and, more specifically, when placed in a common jar, which of two organisms would devour the other.'

    See You Space Cowboy

    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat
    Hagerstown, Maryland

    --
    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat

  4. #12
    herenorthere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    almost Hartford
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That's just plain wrong. The woman who Rattler's original post quoted is a shark biologist. Greenpeace is one of the organizations that has taken up the cause to protect sharks and made its name protecting whales, which aren't cute and fuzzy either. I'm no fan of Greenpeace and think some of its stunts have alienated a lot of people who might otherwise favor environmental causes, but at least try understand what it's all about.

    As for "why does everyone seem to think the earth is supposed to stay the way it was", that sounds like a strawman Rush Limbaugh cobbled together to knockdown for his fans. I've never heard anyone say something like that. The fundamental argument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is that there's strong (but not conclusive) evidence that we might cause catastrophic changes if we don't.

    One of the most aggravating things about this is that so many of the same people who, with little concern for evidence, supported our president's decision to invade Iraq choose to ignore the far more compelling case about global warming.
    Bruce in CT

    Madness is something rare in individuals but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche

  5. #13
    N=R* fs fp ne fl fi fc L Pyro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    4,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It is called hyperbole Bruce. I know I was misrepresenting the case but I did it in an extreme fashion to make a point, which you obviously missed.

    It does not matter who originally put out the theory it is how the media spins it and how the public is going to view it. And a sad fact of life is that 99.9999% of the common public hate sharks for no reason other than they are sharks. Jaws did a great job of exploiting that fear and at the same time exacerbating it. Your average Joe on the street thinks that a shark is a mindless eating machine. Likewise he probably does not know or even care how threatened sharks are. It is the same case with many many animals.

    You want a different spin on it? There are (conservatively) hundreds animals much closer to extinction than the Giant Panda but what is the WWF logo?? There is a reason for that, people like Pandas. People don't like Aye-Ayes. Personally I think the Aye-Aye is a lot cuter but then I have been told I am odd.




    And, if I may, this statement is equally wrong:

    The fundamental argument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is that there's strong (but not conclusive) evidence that we might cause catastrophic changes if we don't
    You need to add a caveat there-- to man. We only give a rip about what happens to the environment because of how it will effect us. Does the planet in and of itself care if hurricanes get stronger? Not one whit. But when one levels a city we sure freak out. Does the planet care about rising sea levels? Nope. But we do because it'll effect out crops and out weather patterns and our real estate.

    Nature is a remarkable force and there is nothing we can do to destroy life on this planet shy of detonating all the atomic arsenal on the planet at one place at one time. And even then I would put good money on life surviving. But I am biased by the (low estimate of) 10^28 bacteria that inhabit the planet.

    Evolution thrives on catastrophe. It is humans that do not.
    'My love was science- specifically biology and, more specifically, when placed in a common jar, which of two organisms would devour the other.'

    See You Space Cowboy

    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat
    Hagerstown, Maryland

    --
    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat

  6. #14
    herenorthere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    almost Hartford
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have no doubt life will endure as long as the planet remains tectonically active and the sun doesn't do anything too drastic. But to justify a particular action or inaction by saying, don't worry life will still survive in some form, is to argue against caring or doing anything about anything. That's a way of thinking I just can't agree with.
    Bruce in CT

    Madness is something rare in individuals but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche

  7. #15
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nessie is the latest victem......


    Veteran Loch Ness Monster Hunter Gives Up
    Feb 13 2008 By Bob Dow

    LEGENDARY Nessie hunter Robert Rines is giving up his search for the monster after 37 years.

    The 85-year-old American will make one last trip in a bid to find the elusive beast.

    After almost four decades of fruitless expeditions, he admitted: "Unfortunately, I'm running out of age."

    World War II veteran Robert has devoted almost half his life to scouring Loch Ness.

    He started in 1971. The following year, he watched a 25ft-long hump with the texture of elephant skin gliding through the water.

    His original trip was to help another monster hunter with sonar equipment and quickly identified large moving targets.

    He was smitten and returned the next year, which is when, he says: "I had the misfortune of seeing one of these things with my own eyes."

    Since then, he has been obsessed with tracking down the creature with a staggering array of hi-tech equipment. It was this gear that took the famous "flipper" picture that year which created a stir around the world.

    Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming.
    link to story
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  8. #16
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    man is not responsible for 99% of the current rise in temps.
    So this is good. I would still like to hear how we can change the composition of our own atmosphere and not see some change...
    that makes no logic

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •