Ocean life on the brink of mass extinctions: study

[mapn4reef]

Just FYI:

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20110621/SCIENCE-US-OCEANS/

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2078840,00.html

[mapn4reef]

Additional info I got from a friend:

There’s actually a record size dead zone deplete of oxygen forming in the gulf right now due to farmland flooding this spring. But if you mention that maybe we shouldn’t use so many farming chemicals, you get labeled as a nutcase.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/mississippi-floods-to-raise-the-dead-zones-in-the-gulf-110620.html

“A record-setting dead zone is predicted to occur in the Gulf of Mexico and expected to kill bottom-dwelling fish and other marine life over a significant portion of the seafloor this summer following the rise in nutrient runoff from the Mississippi floods, according to marine scientists supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.
This year’s forecast estimates that the size of the low-oxygen or hypoxic region in the Gulf will reach up to 9,421 square miles, the size of New Jersey and Delaware combined. City-sized portions of this region could see oxygen levels in the water column dropping to zero.”

[jcolletteiii]

Come on, are you really surprised?

[mapn4reef]

No, not really...not sure that global warming is the primary issue, nor that the warming is primarily caused by humans and their carbon emissions. Just passing on what's floating in the news today...

[csmfish]

Were already 5 steps ahead of extinction.


:blown:

[manhorsedog]

i personally think the killing of sharks is one of if not the biggest problem the ocean faces. I would imagine much of the ocean has been designed around its most predatory creature.

Regardless it would be nice if people were not afraid of information and change.

[kissman]

they should take all suntan lotions off the self unless they are reef safe. Some companies have them out already. Most people don't think that the little bit of lotion we put on our skin is a problem that much probably isn't until you look at how many people around the world put it on and get into the ocean on a daily basis. We are killing the earth

[t4zalews]

There was a mass bleaching recently, and after the initial die off, new fish began populating the area and animals have adapted to the new conditions. It's called evolution. These sways happen all the time.

[manhorsedog]

There was a mass bleaching recently, and after the initial die off, new fish began populating the area and animals have adapted to the new conditions. It's called evolution. These sways happen all the time.

Sure "sways" happen all the time, but in these cases they are man made and can be much larger than the "sways" done by nature. Accepting the information and doing what we can to learn from our mistakes is something a lot people dont want to do.

Also you should go look at how many reefs have not repopulated.

[Toomnymods]

some people are protecting our oceans, but many call them nutcases, i on the other hand am glad finally somone is sticking up for our friends of the deep oceans...
try watching whale wars..

[jcolletteiii]

Extinction happens. But this kind of 'who cares, let nature sort it out' attitude is like waiting next to a ticking time bomb, looking at it, but not trying to cut either the red or black wires. Selection can and has sorted out the aftermath of mass extinctions and the following radiations - but man wasn't part of the equation during these episodes (if he had been, he'd surely be sticking a wrench in the gears and then denying responsibility for messing it up). Now that we most definitely ARE the driving force in the system, the equation may not work the same way.

There was a mass bleaching recently, and after the initial die off, new fish began populating the area and animals have adapted to the new conditions. It's called evolution. These sways happen all the time.

[alton]

i personally think the killing of sharks is one of if not the biggest problem the ocean faces. I would imagine much of the ocean has been designed around its most predatory creature.

Regardless it would be nice if people were not afraid of information and change.

Most sharks taste good and compete with humans for food. So I guess if you can convience people to stop eating fish to feed more sharks I will agree with you? The taking of shark fins and throwing the rest away is plain stupid and wastefull. Nothing beats fried Mako.

[mapn4reef]

E-mail comment from a friend: "I’ve read the tide occasionally gets just right to bring these hypoxic zones into Mobile Bay which forces the fish out ahead of it until they’re pinned up against the beach until thousands of them are jumping out of the water onto the beach. I can’t recall the name they had for it, but decades ago it said people would run down to the beach to catch baskets full of fish."

And more info from another:

A “jubilee”. Bottom sentence.

http://chesapeake.news21.com/blog/index.php/category/water-quality/

Dead zones are caused by an overly heavy influx of nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous from farm run-off, storm run-off and sediment flushing into the Bay from its river tributaries. The nutrients feed algae, which proliferate, die and then suck oxygen out of the water.

Sometimes the dead zones will shift to these waters as well, forcing the panicking fish to physically jump out of the waters – and sometimes into fishermens’ nets, an event ironically known as a “jubilee.”

[ousnakebyte]

There was a mass bleaching recently, and after the initial die off, new fish began populating the area and animals have adapted to the new conditions. It's called evolution. These sways happen all the time.

*chuckle* Yes, and this particular "sway" just happens to be coinciding with the largest proliferation of a single mega-vertebrate species this planet has ever seen in its 4.5 billion year history, most of that population explosion taking place within the last 50 or so years, the evolutionary equivalent of the blink of an eye.

Correlation or causation...? I'll give you three guesses to get the right answer... :rollface:

[T Diddy]

Most sharks taste good and compete with humans for food. So I guess if you can convience people to stop eating fish to feed more sharks I will agree with you? The taking of shark fins and throwing the rest away is plain stupid and wastefull. Nothing beats fried Mako.

I have a personal agreement with the sharks...I don't eat them, and they don't eat me.


As for the fin soup, those fishermen could at least have the decency to kill the frickin shark before they cut off the fins and toss the helpless fish back into the water...

[hotrodolds]

Sure "sways" happen all the time, but in these cases they are man made and can be much larger than the "sways" done by nature. Accepting the information and doing what we can to learn from our mistakes is something a lot people dont want to do.

Also you should go look at how many reefs have not repopulated.

larger than sways by nature? You're kidding right?

Earth has been WAY hotter and WAY colder than it is right now. What is the "right" temperature of earth? What are the "correct" species" to perpetually survive?

[ousnakebyte]

larger than sways by nature? You're kidding right?

Earth has been WAY hotter and WAY colder than it is right now. What is the "right" temperature of earth? What are the "correct" species" to perpetually survive?

Sigh.... I don't think it was implied that the Earth has been at a constant for the past 4.5 billion years. With notable exceptions - the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and cleared the path for mammals to proliferate for example - these changes usually are slow (evolutionary slow) to take place, allowing for organisms to adapt through natural selection. When rapid, often a punctuated equilibrium will take place (Gould's theory). And yes, extinctions happen and have always happened - and they will continue to happen.

The changes happening on the Earth now - please see past climate change here if you choose to think differently, and recognize deforestation, habitat loss, pollution/runoff/sedimentation, overharvesting of marine/terrestrial species and destructive fishing practices, [insert any other anthropogenic disturbance here, whether terrestrial, freshwater or marine - as the list of localized stressors/changes could be the same or different for various locations] are proving too rapid for many animal AND plant species to cope. The extinction crisis we are facing today is brought on by the (good or bad) unchecked proliferation of a single species - humans, if you are still unsure.

Habitat loss - or maybe alteration - is probably the number one cause for most species' declines today - yes, there are exceptions.

Here is a fun game - pick any species currently on the Endangered Species List and/or IUCN Red List of Endangered Species, and see if there is an anthropogenic cause for its decline. You *might* be able to come up with a few that are not (I honestly can't think of one right now), but... rest assured, the vast majority point back to..... well, I'll let you decide for yourself.

Cheers
Mike

[ezerasurfr]

larger than sways by nature? You're kidding right?

Earth has been WAY hotter and WAY colder than it is right now. What is the "right" temperature of earth? What are the "correct" species" to perpetually survive?


The earth will survive no problem.
New fish will most likely, eventually repopulate a new reef.
Evolution will occur.

All these are given; its the which "correct species" will survive that has yet to say whether people are on that list.

[redneckgearhead]

Imagine how much live rock you would have if no corals died. The scientist are guessing! And you must realize that most of the scientist are paid by government funding. Without a crisis to "study further" their money runs out. You must take what they say with a grain of salt. Remember that in the 70's it was a coming ice age, then acid rain was the problem, then global warming, now its climate change.

[jcolletteiii]

Imagine how much live rock you would have if no corals died. The scientist are guessing! And you must realize that most of the scientist are paid by government funding. Without a crisis to "study further" their money runs out. You must take what they say with a grain of salt. Remember that in the 70's it was a coming ice age, then acid rain was the problem, then global warming, now its climate change.

Great screen name! This comment is wrong on a multitude of levels.

Scientists do not guess. We formulate hypotheses based on observations, past studies, and/or previous hypotheses. A hypothesis is our informed idea about how to explain a given phenomena - which could be anything from why hangnails occur to why there are gutless tubeworms living around certain hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean, OR - the cause of reef decline. We then propose ways to test our hypothesis. Here's where most people just don't get it. When we test our hypotheses, we are not trying to PROVE them - that would be circular, kinda like saying 'I believe in something I can't see because I believe it to be true.' What we try to do is to DISPROVE the hypothesis. If every test you can throw at it cannot falsify your hypothesis, then it is still not PROVEN, but accepted. If your hypothesis remains accepted for long enough, it might become a theory. Most people confuse hypothesis and theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has stood up to prolonged testing and has been unable to be falsified by hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of scientists working completely independently of one another. An example of a theory is GRAVITATION. Scientists do not GUESS.

You are correct in your statement that much of science (including the science that allows you to surf the internet and make inaccurate statements, or text message for example) is publicly funded in part, however, we are PAID by our respective institutions, unless a specific scientist works directly for teh government - but I assure you, there are more scientists in colleges, universities, and the private sector BY FAR than work for the governmnt directly. For partial funding of research projects, we may apply for funding to government funding resources, such as NSF (National Science Foundation). However, when we do so, our lengthy applications (15-30 pages or more, depending on the discipline) are peer-reviewed. That means reviewed by experts in OUR FIELD. So, I'm a paleontologist, for example - my NSF proposal is reviewed by fellow geologists, not astrophysicists, doctors, statisticians, or Jehova's Witness. They are NOT REVIEWED by government officials. Decisions are based on proposal merit and fund availability. So there is no way funding can be dispersed, for example, to groups with specific political agendas - funds are allocated ONLY based on the scientific merit of a project.

The only reason people take what scientists say with a grain of salt is because:

1) they cannot understand the technical background behind the conclusions reached;

2) they do not want to believe the results becasue they are counter to a particular agenda;

3) they have been systematically trained to be skeptical of science by people who try to distribute non-science in the guise of science, or to otherwise try to disprove scientific hypotheses and theories by NON-SCIENTIFIC MEANS (often due to number 2, above).

Oh, and there WILL BE another ice age, rest assured of that; and global warming is the cause of anthropogenically-caused climate change. So as not to confuse followers of this thread who might think you have some first-hand knowledge of any of thee things you are discussing, in the future it might be good to start your posts with "I BELIEVE". JUST IMO on that one, though; IME in all of the previous.

[ousnakebyte]

Imagine how much live rock you would have if no corals died.

YES! This is awesome - or, I should say, "ALLSOME!" (that's hick-speak for those who don't know) Never before have I heard the point of view that it's okay that the current loss of corals and reefs is actually GOOD so that we can have live rock. Kudos to you for creativity points; I'm going to incorporate this into my next coral and reef conservation lecture. :thumbsup:

And now that I think about it, I'm actually TOTALLY FINE that Elkhorn and Staghorn corals have declined 80-90% throughout their historical Caribbean/western Atlantic range in the last 30 years; I was JUST saying to myself yesterday that I needed some more rock for my tank, and you know what - a nice dead piece of Elkhorn would fit just right...

"Hellz... lets git in are botes 'n harvist dem ded corals fer are tanks! Dem corals disservd it. They took are jobz!" (No, really, it's okay, I'm from OK - thus the avatar helmet and my alma mater)

Sweet dude... thanks for the laugh... :fun4:



The scientist are guessing! And you must realize that most of the scientist are paid by government funding. Without a crisis to "study further" their money runs out. You must take what they say with a grain of salt. Remember that in the 70's it was a coming ice age, then acid rain was the problem, then global warming, now its climate change.

Ahhh... yes, I never tire of this one.

Oh, and by the way... global warming has historically meant climate change (snicker)

[ousnakebyte]

jcolletteiii - dude... I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish here with the... "gearhead" but... seriously - you can't explain the process of science to these people and expect it to take hold... this individual is a lost cause. :rollface:

The scary thing is that our esteemed Senator Inhofe actually thinks this way... (mods, if I have gone too political, let me know - and my apologies...)

Cheers
Mike

[jcolletteiii]

Unfortunately, you can't discuss topics like these without politics creeping in. Sadly, IBTL.

[manhorsedog]

larger than sways by nature? You're kidding right?

Earth has been WAY hotter and WAY colder than it is right now. What is the "right" temperature of earth? What are the "correct" species" to perpetually survive?


i understand that, i was talking about the speed in which they happen. Man can increase the speed of these "sways" by thousands of years due to a lack of understanding the earth we live on. Some people get it but most choose the path of dealing with it when it happens.

[manhorsedog]

Unfortunately, you can't discuss topics like these without politics creeping in. Sadly, IBTL.

its to bad talking about politics (the system in which rules our lives) is not allowed in so many different areas of life. If somebody wants to get mad so be it, its the freaking internet! worst case, somebody doesnt learn something... but most of the time they will.

[Belmont31R]

Every year I read tons of these doomsday predictions, and nearly none of them turn out to be true or even close to the truth.



Do some research and look at what alarmists have been saying for 40 years. In the 70's they predicted another iceage. In the 80's we were supposed to run out of oil, and they said the same thing when I was in school but this time it was ~2020. The ozone was collapsing around antartica and we were all going to burn to death. The Amazon was supposed to be gone by 2010. The latest one is global warming and tons of spinoffs from that how the world is going to end unless we ACT right now and start living like nomads again.



With that said we do have an impact but there has been life here for quite a while, and we are just pawns to nature. Im not sure why people think humans have such a big impact. I mean we could start dumping mass quantities of poison in the water on purpose with the intent to do harm but we don't, and we have come a long way. Do some other research about how polluted our waters used to be. There used to be so many chemicals in the water they would catch fire and burn for days. But now all the sudden we have the world is going to end when things used to be MUCH worse.

[redneckgearhead]

YES! This is awesome - or, I should say, "ALLSOME!" (that's hick-speak for those who don't know) Never before have I heard the point of view that it's okay that the current loss of corals and reefs is actually GOOD so that we can have live rock. Kudos to you for creativity points; I'm going to incorporate this into my next coral and reef conservation lecture. :thumbsup:

And now that I think about it, I'm actually TOTALLY FINE that Elkhorn and Staghorn corals have declined 80-90% throughout their historical Caribbean/western Atlantic range in the last 30 years; I was JUST saying to myself yesterday that I needed some more rock for my tank, and you know what - a nice dead piece of Elkhorn would fit just right...

"Hellz... lets git in are botes 'n harvist dem ded corals fer are tanks! Dem corals disservd it. They took are jobz!" (No, really, it's okay, I'm from OK - thus the avatar helmet and my alma mater)

Sweet dude... thanks for the laugh... :fun4:




Ahhh... yes, I never tire of this one.

Oh, and by the way... global warming has historically meant climate change (snicker)

NO ONE said it was OK to lose coral! I just made the point that in nature things die. And that LR would not exist as we know it without the skeletons of dead corals. Im glad I could make you laugh with my statement and my user name, its refreshing to know that you are so open minded to listen to another point of view.

Great screen name! This comment is wrong on a multitude of levels.

Scientists do not guess. We formulate hypotheses based on observations, past studies, and/or previous hypotheses. A hypothesis is our informed idea about how to explain a given phenomena - which could be anything from why hangnails occur to why there are gutless tubeworms living around certain hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean, OR - the cause of reef decline. We then propose ways to test our hypothesis. Here's where most people just don't get it. When we test our hypotheses, we are not trying to PROVE them - that would be circular, kinda like saying 'I believe in something I can't see because I believe it to be true.' What we try to do is to DISPROVE the hypothesis. If every test you can throw at it cannot falsify your hypothesis, then it is still not PROVEN, but accepted. If your hypothesis remains accepted for long enough, it might become a theory. Most people confuse hypothesis and theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has stood up to prolonged testing and has been unable to be falsified by hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of scientists working completely independently of one another. An example of a theory is GRAVITATION. Scientists do not GUESS.

You are correct in your statement that much of science (including the science that allows you to surf the internet and make inaccurate statements, or text message for example) is publicly funded in part, however, we are PAID by our respective institutions, unless a specific scientist works directly for teh government - but I assure you, there are more scientists in colleges, universities, and the private sector BY FAR than work for the governmnt directly. For partial funding of research projects, we may apply for funding to government funding resources, such as NSF (National Science Foundation). However, when we do so, our lengthy applications (15-30 pages or more, depending on the discipline) are peer-reviewed. That means reviewed by experts in OUR FIELD. So, I'm a paleontologist, for example - my NSF proposal is reviewed by fellow geologists, not astrophysicists, doctors, statisticians, or Jehova's Witness. They are NOT REVIEWED by government officials. Decisions are based on proposal merit and fund availability. So there is no way funding can be dispersed, for example, to groups with specific political agendas - funds are allocated ONLY based on the scientific merit of a project.

The only reason people take what scientists say with a grain of salt is because:

1) they cannot understand the technical background behind the conclusions reached;

2) they do not want to believe the results becasue they are counter to a particular agenda;

3) they have been systematically trained to be skeptical of science by people who try to distribute non-science in the guise of science, or to otherwise try to disprove scientific hypotheses and theories by NON-SCIENTIFIC MEANS (often due to number 2, above).

Oh, and there WILL BE another ice age, rest assured of that; and global warming is the cause of anthropogenically-caused climate change. So as not to confuse followers of this thread who might think you have some first-hand knowledge of any of thee things you are discussing, in the future it might be good to start your posts with "I BELIEVE". JUST IMO on that one, though; IME in all of the previous.

The reason people take what scientist say with a grain of salt is sometimes YOUR WRONG! As I stated in my other post, in the 70s they formed the hypothesis that we where headed for an ice age, and guess what, they where wrong. It might be an educated guess, but it is a guess just the same. Or can you tell the future?

jcolletteiii - dude... I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish here with the... "gearhead" but... seriously - you can't explain the process of science to these people and expect it to take hold... this individual is a lost cause. :rollface:

The scary thing is that our esteemed Senator Inhofe actually thinks this way... (mods, if I have gone too political, let me know - and my apologies...)

Cheers
Mike

These people? What exactly does that mean?

[blynch002]

Well I look at this whole thread and think about the gulf oil spill that we had here in my home state. The ocean is a miraculous machine and it will take care of itself no matter what humans will do to it. Everyone "speculated" that the oil spill would be have a disastrous affect on our gulf for many years to come. I walk down to the beach now and don't see a single drop of oil anywhere and haven't in over a year.

If the ocean is going through changes, I'm sure it's something that it can handle and people need to quit thinking that humans have such a large impact on the earth.

[redneckgearhead]

Well I look at this whole thread and think about the gulf oil spill that we had here in my home state. The ocean is a miraculous machine and it will take care of itself no matter what humans will do to it. Everyone "speculated" that the oil spill would be have a disastrous affect on our gulf for many years to come. I walk down to the beach now and don't see a single drop of oil anywhere and haven't in over a year.

If the ocean is going through changes, I'm sure it's something that it can handle and people need to quit thinking that humans have such a large impact on the earth.

Great point!

[jcolletteiii]

Another ice age will come, no doubt - 70's science was sound in that regard. As a matter of fact, global warming my cause one sooner than would be expected, ironically.

You are correct, sometimes science is wrong - are you infallible? I know I'm not. However, when science disproves older, dated findings, the resulting science is improved. As I tried explaining in my previous long-winded post, that's what science does.

[Caesra]

Earth has been WAY hotter and WAY colder than it is right now. What is the "right" temperature of earth? What are the "correct" species" to perpetually survive?

Not us if we continue to worry about things that have happened for millions of years when we have more important things to worry about...o hell...global warming gurus must be really upset about the break in the 11 year solar cycle, gonna really screw up there publicity.

ok..done :fun4:

[manhorsedog]

Well I look at this whole thread and think about the gulf oil spill that we had here in my home state. The ocean is a miraculous machine and it will take care of itself no matter what humans will do to it. Everyone "speculated" that the oil spill would be have a disastrous affect on our gulf for many years to come. I walk down to the beach now and don't see a single drop of oil anywhere and haven't in over a year.

If the ocean is going through changes, I'm sure it's something that it can handle and people need to quit thinking that humans have such a large impact on the earth.

are you being serious or sarcastic?

[Caesra]

think dead serious, and I agree....

[redneckgearhead]

Another ice age will come, no doubt - 70's science was sound in that regard. As a matter of fact, global warming my cause one sooner than would be expected, ironically.

You are correct, sometimes science is wrong - are you infallible? I know I'm not. However, when science disproves older, dated findings, the resulting science is improved. As I tried explaining in my previous long-winded post, that's what science does.

Infallible? No, not even close. Sometimes science doesn't prove science wrong, mother nature does. That is exactly my point, that new science and mother nature can prove the older science wrong. They claim things are going to happen and they don't. But still expect us to jump everytime they scream the sky is falling.

I think, jcolletteii you and I will just have to agree to disagree and time will only tell what happens. Thank you for your post they have been a learning experience and fun. Scott

[ousnakebyte]

NO ONE said it was OK to lose coral! I just made the point that in nature things die. And that LR would not exist as we know it without the skeletons of dead corals. Im glad I could make you laugh with my statement and my user name, its refreshing to know that you are so open minded to listen to another point of view.

Sigh... yes, in nature, things do die. Yes, live rock would be difficult to harvest if corals had not made it. There is a world of difference between natural rates of die-off and the accelerated decline we see today. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that...???

Less than 2% of the original Atlantic Coastal Rainforest on the east coast of Brazil remains today. It didn't die off naturally, and many of the species that are endemic to that forest didn't decline naturally. It was cut down.

Since the late 70s, there has been a decline in stony coral coverage upwards of 80-90% throughout the Caribbean and western Atlantic - that's in my lifetime - resulting in the first ever listing of stony corals on the ESL (A. palmata and A. cervicornis). There have been no asteroids or comets, no increased periods of severe volcanic activity, no major shifts in land masses resulting in ocean current shifts, but there has been a population explosion of a single species that has developed and altered the environment in a way never before seen in 4.5 billion years. These reefs - primarily in the Caribbean, though the Pacific has also seen its share of declines - have declined as a direct result of our influence on the environment.

A Clear Human Footprint in the Coral Reefs of the Caribbean (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1636/767.short)


And, unfortunately, the closer a coral reef is to human disturbance, the less healthy it is. I wish it wasn't so, but it is:

Differences in fish-assemblage structure between fished and unfished atolls in the northern Line Islands, central Pacific (http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2008/365/m365p199.pdf)


These two examples are but a FRACTION of the whole of examples to provide.


I will repeat myself here: Again, look past climate change (if you choose not to agree with it) and see the multitude of other anthropogenic-induced stressors caused by 7 billion - SEVEN BILLION - people. Every ecosystem has a carrying capacity. We have been able to artifically increase that carrying capacity through changes in technology - primarliy agriculture and farming. Yes, this is good. It is good to be able to feed people. But we must realize that our actions are coming at a very real cost. And now that we know that - as was said before - to not change our ways when we know better is the real selfish issue at hand. (Though, by reading some of these posts such as Belmont's "I'm not sure why people think humans have such a big impact." - it makes me wonder...)


Honestly, I could care less whether someone predicts that everything is going to die in 10, 20, 50 or 200 years. Again, PLEASE SEE PAST CLIMATE CHANGE HERE - the causes for the declines are synergistic with one another. The fact is that there is absolutely no doubt that reefs are in steady decline almost everywhere due to MULTIPLE anthrpogenic stressors, and that is unacceptable.

Cheers
Mike

[T Diddy]

Mike,

I've been watching this thread. I'm in no way an environmentalist. I drive a ridiculously sweet F150 with stupid low gas mileage, I think BP got taken advantage of, Some of my furniture probably came from the rainforest you mentioned, and I fertilize my lawn. I even own a reef tank that is full of stuff that once dwelled in the ocean.

Having said that, you nailed it on the carrying capacity thing. In fact, I think it is safe to say that we are well beyond any natural carrying capacity for our species. Much of the earth's human population is fed with food that wasn't grown anywhere near them. Fresh water may soon be hard to come by as aquifers and other water supplies are exhausted in an effort to make certain crops like corn grow where they would never naturally occur.

Technology has a way of corrupting the natural order of things, admittedly, but the population explosion is the biggest issue that we and Earth face. Somehow I think that Mother Earth will find a way to cure what ails her. The planet will recover from whatever we do to it (unless we turn it into Venus). We on the other hand, might take a major step backwards as a civilization before it is all over. It may be a stretch, but we might not be around to see the recovery.

[ousnakebyte]

Well I look at this whole thread and think about the gulf oil spill that we had here in my home state. The ocean is a miraculous machine and it will take care of itself no matter what humans will do to it. Everyone "speculated" that the oil spill would be have a disastrous affect on our gulf for many years to come. I walk down to the beach now and don't see a single drop of oil anywhere and haven't in over a year.

If the ocean is going through changes, I'm sure it's something that it can handle and people need to quit thinking that humans have such a large impact on the earth.

It is this very attitude of, "Leave them be; it will all be fine" that has got us where we are today. The thinking of "The oceans are just too big for us to negatively impact" was once widespread, and it is the absolute WORST Fisheries Management and Marine Conservation policy anyone could ever adpot. The countless examples of fisheries declines and collapses, loss of the majority of sharks, whales and other apex predators - and then the grazers like green turtles gone - the plowing under of mangrove forests - do I need to go on, because I can... should be proof enough that WE CAN HAVE A VERY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE HEALTH OF THE OCEANS. Keep removing key players out of any ecosystem, and eventually you will have an impact.

Read the paper above about Kingman Reef. A pristine reef should have about 80% of the fish biomass locked up in top predators living in a perpetual state of hunger, with slow reproductive rates. What we see today, especially where there is a heavy human presence, is reefs where the sharks and groupers have all but disappeared. This has cascading effects all the way down to the microbial levels that inhabit the mucus layer of coral tissue.

Continue to ignore nature - and your oceans - and they might just go away.


Mike,

I've been watching this thread. I'm in no way an environmentalist. I drive a ridiculously sweet F150 with stupid low gas mileage, I think BP got taken advantage of, Some of my furniture probably came from the rainforest you mentioned, and I fertilize my lawn. I even own a reef tank that is full of stuff that once dwelled in the ocean.

Having said that, you nailed it on the carrying capacity thing. In fact, I think it is safe to say that we are well beyond any natural carrying capacity for our species. Much of the earth's human population is fed with food that wasn't grown anywhere near them. Fresh water may soon be hard to come by as aquifers and other water supplies are exhausted in an effort to make certain crops like corn grow where they would never naturally occur.

Technology has a way of corrupting the natural order of things, admittedly, but the population explosion is the biggest issue that we and Earth face. Somehow I think that Mother Earth will find a way to cure what ails her. The planet will recover from whatever we do to it (unless we turn it into Venus). We on the other hand, might take a major step backwards as a civilization before it is all over. It may be a stretch, but we might not be around to see the recovery.

It will be interesting to see what the Earth and its inhabitants will look like once our little, never-before-seen experiment plays out.

Cheers
Mike

[manhorsedog]

think dead serious, and I agree....


so because that guy has not seen a single drop of oil on the beach in the past year you will disregard actually evidence?


if you vote i hate you :lmao:

[Caesra]

T diddy...excellent response..ous...second response from my last...excellent as well

Enough of the media..and get down to personal responsability. Your first post was a repeat of the media...take time to look at how long it has historically taken for the planet to change modes....it isn't thousands of years...it is hundreds of years, and in some cases decades.....sound familiar? If you follow time tables from 'scientific' evidence, you will see we are pretty well due for a major shift as it is... The world may look very different 200 years from now...I expect it...don't you?

I am not at all an advocate of irresponsible, self-indulgent behavior, but I am also very opposed to blowing things out of proportion....

I live in an older home for a reason..I have done everyting I can to upgrade my home to make it more efficient, I yell at my kids for leaving any lights on that are unused (no I am not broke..I can afford it)...we drive hybrids (looking at full electric..but I am not convinced that is anymore responsible than driving full gas). We buy used..damn near everything...and no longer fertalize our lawns...I run my business with same mentality....all of our new emps think I am crazy for my rules regarding power useage....but I get it......

obviously i run a reef, but I breed as much as I can, grow frags as much as I can, well beyond what I consume (monitarily).....I get it...

Does that mean that we have the ability to end to world....nope..just our world.

People have to decide what they are going to care about..and sensationalizing it is not, well should not, make one bit of difference. I respect everyone's opinion regarding the matter, but, honestly, I get tired of hearing how we are going to ruin the world, when we are just another beast infesting the world. We are required to care for the world, and the bottom line is we are not. The difference between the fish we hold in our aquariums and us is the ability to choose.....

As you, or anyone posts on Reef central, consider you are chewing up energy that is killing the world...stop...(sorry RC...don't mean to discourage your use =) )....before you get in your car for work tomorrow, stop....before you turn on your TV...stop.....as long as you are able to voice your opinion on RC, I don't want to hear it..cuz you are....well I won't be rude...

[elegance coral]

Can anyone come up with just one argument to dispute anything Mike (AKA OUSnakebyte) is saying? Just one logical argument. Just one point of fact to show he's wrong. Anything?????? Anything at all??????

So far the counter points are.

1. I walked on a beach in Alabama, after the oil spill that took place in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, and I didn't see any oil.

2. We need live rock.

Seriously???????? These are the facts that show we can continue on our current path and live happily ever after????

Lets break this down to the simplest terms possible. Our population is exploding. Fact. As our population grows, the amount of life we take from the oceans, to feed our population, also grows. Fact. As we take from the oceans, the populations in the ocean decline. Fact. This can't be logically disputed, and you don't have to be real bright to see where it is headed. This doesn't even take into account factors like pollution and physical damage of habitats.

[redneckgearhead]

Can anyone come up with just one argument to dispute anything Mike (AKA OUSnakebyte) is saying? Just one logical argument. Just one point of fact to show he's wrong. Anything?????? Anything at all??????

So far the counter points are.

1. I walked on a beach in Alabama, after the oil spill that took place in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, and I didn't see any oil.

2. We need live rock.

Seriously???????? These are the facts that show we can continue on our current path and live happily ever after????

Lets break this down to the simplest terms possible. Our population is exploding. Fact. As our population grows, the amount of life we take from the oceans, to feed our population, also grows. Fact. As we take from the oceans, the populations in the ocean decline. Fact. This can't be logically disputed, and you don't have to be real bright to see where it is headed. This doesn't even take into account factors like pollution and physical damage of habitats.

No one is disputing the fact that the population is growing and is having an ever increasing impact on the planet. MY argument was against the original OP's post that a massive die off is coming. They can NOT prove that anymore than I can disprove it. They claim the current recession in the reefs is man caused and I can see where some of it is, but they can not prove that it all is. Then they make these claims that we must do something NOW, without knowing what the future holds!

I believe we must be good stewards of the earth and take every chance we can to save/conserve it. BUT we must not take knee jerk reactions to what some scientist claim. If we do, sometimes we wind up in a bigger mess than we started with.

Whats your proposed solution EC?

As Caesra posted, anyone that believes/preaches that we are destroying the planet with global warming but still gets online with a computer made with oil, delivered by a ship/plane/truck that uses oil and consumes electricty made with fossil fuels should lead by example and remove oil from their lives as much as possible or it makes their argument less credible. Do your part to save the reef's!

[kissman]

The average water temp of the ocean is climbing because of the polution that was cause aka greenhouse effect. That increase in temp could be killing off the reefs. It doesnt take much just raise the temp in your home reef tanks and see what happens. We buy fans and ac units for our home aquariums to keep the temps down because we have money invested in them. What do we do for the rising temp in the ocean?

[T Diddy]

The average water temp of the ocean is climbing because of the polution that was cause aka greenhouse effect. That increase in temp could be killing off the reefs. It doesnt take much just raise the temp in your home reef tanks and see what happens. We buy fans and ac units for our home aquariums to keep the temps down because we have money invested in them. What do we do for the rising temp in the ocean?

That'll take care of itself...if the global warming thing is real (and man made)the glaciers and icebergs will melt. The influx of cool, refreshing melted ice should do the trick in terms of cooling the oceans down a little.

j/k :fun4:

[kissman]

That'll take care of itself...if the global warming thing is real (and man made)the glaciers and icebergs will melt. The influx of cool, refreshing melted ice should do the trick in terms of cooling the oceans down a little.

j/k :fun4:


and every year when the icebergs and glacries refreeze they are smaller and smaller because the earth is staying warmer longer. eventually we will not have them. there are pics out there of what the poles looked like years ago and what they look like today they are getting smaller and smaller.

[gabew]

Well I look at this whole thread and think about the gulf oil spill that we had here in my home state. The ocean is a miraculous machine and it will take care of itself no matter what humans will do to it. Everyone "speculated" that the oil spill would be have a disastrous affect on our gulf for many years to come. I walk down to the beach now and don't see a single drop of oil anywhere and haven't in over a year.

If the ocean is going through changes, I'm sure it's something that it can handle and people need to quit thinking that humans have such a large impact on the earth.

Ok, do you have any idea how much us humans had to do to keep the oil spill from wreaking complete havoc on the gulf? Can you just imagine what would have happened if we had had the same "just let mother nature figure it out" attitude for fixing the oil spill? Do you think you could still casually walk down your beach?

[T Diddy]

and every year when the icebergs and glacries refreeze they are smaller and smaller because the earth is staying warmer longer. eventually we will not have them. there are pics out there of what the poles looked like years ago and what they look like today they are getting smaller and smaller.

You should check out before and after pics of Glaciers National Park. Visiting that place is on my to do list. I wanna see them before they're gone

[abrian]

As someone who lives in Pensacola, FL, I can attest to the massive effort it took to clean our beaches from the oil spill. As storm/wave action carried new sand onto the beach, the oil mats became buried and had to be dug up and removed lest they resurface as a result of future storms or other events and become a recurring problem. Anyone who thinks nature took care of it herself wasn't paying attention. That someone actually posted that they thought BP was a scapegoat in this situation just boggles my mind.

[T Diddy]

That someone actually posted that they thought BP was a scapegoat in this situation just boggles my mind.

...not a scapegoat, and not the sole perpetrator, deserving all the blame. What I said was that they were taken advantage of, and certainly an easy target. They had a legal responsibility of less than a million bucks...they promptly offered up $2,000,000,000 for clean up efforts and damages/ lost wages, then were extorted for billions more.

Do you have any idea how many oil spills occur in a year? How come you don't hear about those? Why is it that drilling occurs at such depth in the first place? Why do we drill in the gulf at all? I'm quite sure that oil companies would much rather prefer to work in places that don't create such ridiculous dangers and liabilities...and those were retorical questions by the way.

Without getting this thread shut down over political discussion, I can't really argue my point. I personally feel that we shouldn't be drilling for oil in the ocean, period...nevermind the depth. Even if we as a country decide to stop offshore drilling altogether, Mexico (among other countries) is ramping up offshore drilling in the same Gulf. Who will be responsible for that clean up effort?

Anyhoo, as I said in a previous post, our population is beyond sustainable regardless of how we all feel about coral reefs or rainforests or glaciers or air quality, etc...

I'm with jcoletteiii, IBTL

[redneckgearhead]

The average water temp of the ocean is climbing because of the polution that was cause aka greenhouse effect. That increase in temp could be killing off the reefs. It doesnt take much just raise the temp in your home reef tanks and see what happens. We buy fans and ac units for our home aquariums to keep the temps down because we have money invested in them. What do we do for the rising temp in the ocean?

OK, we had "mid evil warm period" between 500 and 1100 ad, did this kill all the coral? Was it man made? We all know the answers to that. And I don't believe we've had an increase in global temp in 10 years. (I can't find the study on it, most only go to 2000) And if you look at the graphs that indicate the correlation between co2 and temperature you will see that the temp goes up before the level of co2. Indicating that the co2 goes up because the temp goes up not the other way around. AND some scientist have noticed a decrease in sun spot activity and are predicting a cooling trend. Again, I argue that they can not prove it and only time will tell.

[Wannabe29]

I love the arguments stating, "The earth changes all the time. How can you be certain humans are to blame? It's evolution. Global warming is natural...blah, blah, blah...everything will be fine in the end."

Right.

Here's the deal with humans and what we've done to our planet:

Earth is a closed system (let's leave out the ocassional influx of minute amounts of material from asteroids and meteors/meteorites). Whatever elements were here in the past (in my argument, I'll be focusing on carbon) are here in the present.

At one time, carbon was very abundant in the atmosphere....present in levels toxic to life as we know it today. Photosynthesis evolved in our oceans and marine microorganisms began to bind it into their tissues and reproduce. Plants evolved and further contributed to the binding of atmospheric carbon. This binding sucked out huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, lowering the atmospheric temp. and, through photosynthesis, produced huge amounts of oxygen, making life on the surface kind of peachy. To make matters even better on the surface, the huge numbers of plants that evolved hundreds of millions years ago became bound into sediments forming coal and oil. So, that ancient carbon was removed from the system for what could have been forever...more on that later.

Okay, yeah, that same life, plants included, added a lot of carbon to the atmosphere. However, the tendancy was to bind more than produced. Now, you had addtions to atmospheric carbon through outgassing and other geological events. That all served to keep the whole thing going. You also had the oceans and bodies of water themselves holding onto and outgassing carbon on a regular basis. So, it's not like carbon levels were being rapidly reduced by the life on earth. But there was a balance.

That balance, however, was based on the carbon that remained in the atmospere and surface level carbon. The fossilized stuff didn't factor into this new picture. During the majority of earth's geolical history, after the huge oil and coal deposits were formed, climate swings were primarily based on the earth's tilt, tectonic shifts and any other non-human-related inputs of carbon and other greenhouse gasses to the system. Those additions were very slow and change, in both directions, happened over vast periods of time.

Then, humans figure out how to burn things. Ok, not terrible. Plants are burned, new ones grow...kind of carbon neutral (not really since our numbers were growing and we were raising farm animals which equals more gaseous carbon, but not a devastating increase, either). Then, the discovery of coal...not so good. Ancient carbon (and soot, let's not forget that) is being returned to a system that once had lower carbon levels. Then, the industrial revolution followed, better medicines, lower death rates and the discovery of oil. Basically, more people, more innovation, fewer plants = more carbon.

Well, now the earth has a problem. Human beings are exploding in population, belching ancient carbon back into the system at tremendous rates, in huges quantities. In our greed for space, we're removing and burning huge tracks of old-growth forests and releasing their stored carbon back to the atmosphere. In addtion, the carbon that we're releasing is raising atmospheric temps, which raises water temps. Water, when warm, doesn't hold on to gasses very well. Ever leave a cup of soda out on a warm day? What happens? It goes flat pretty quick. So, the world's oceans outgas carbon at a greater rate. Not good. You now have three carbon sinks releasing their carbon into the atmosphere at much higher rates with no new sinks for it to get absorbed into. So, what happens? Welcome back ancient atmosphere.

Anyone who looks at what we've been doing to the carbon cycle over the last few hundred years should be able to see pretty quickly that we're on track to turning the world back the way it was around the time before all that ancient carbon got locked up in the form of coal and crude. The sad part is, without a way to rapidly lock up all the ancient carbon we've released, we'll probally never be able to fix the problem. We've created a positive feedback loop. More carbon + fewer sinks leads to higher temps which leads to more carbon. Our other activities aren't helping things, either. Paved parking lots, concrete cities and farming really are combining with all the negative effects of releasing more carbon to really screw us all.

So, enjoy it while you can, folks. I think we've pretty much set ourselves on a one way trip towards extinction. We're not so great and powerful that we can survive for long on an earth with broken systems. We still need food. Our food needs food and so on, and so on. We almost certainly won't be able to sustain our numbers for long with the trends in the natural world going the way they are.

[redneckgearhead]

I love the arguments stating, "The earth changes all the time. How can you be certain humans are to blame? It's evolution. Global warming is natural...blah, blah, blah...everything will be fine in the end."

Right.

Here's the deal with humans and what we've done to our planet:

Earth is a closed system (let's leave out the ocassional influx of minute amounts of material from asteroids and meteors/meteorites). Whatever elements were here in the past (in my argument, I'll be focusing on carbon) are here in the present.

At one time, carbon was very abundant in the atmosphere....present in levels toxic to life as we know it today. Photosynthesis evolved in our oceans and marine microorganisms began to bind it into their tissues and reproduce. Plants evolved and further contributed to the binding of atmospheric carbon. This binding sucked out huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, lowering the atmospheric temp. and, through photosynthesis, produced huge amounts of oxygen, making life on the surface kind of peachy. To make matters even better on the surface, the huge numbers of plants that evolved hundreds of millions years ago became bound into sediments forming coal and oil. So, that ancient carbon was removed from the system for what could have been forever...more on that later.

Okay, yeah, that same life, plants included, added a lot of carbon to the atmosphere. However, the tendancy was to bind more than produced. Now, you had addtions to atmospheric carbon through outgassing and other geological events. That all served to keep the whole thing going. You also had the oceans and bodies of water themselves holding onto and outgassing carbon on a regular basis. So, it's not like carbon levels were being rapidly reduced by the life on earth. But there was a balance.

That balance, however, was based on the carbon that remained in the atmospere and surface level carbon. The fossilized stuff didn't factor into this new picture. During the majority of earth's geolical history, after the huge oil and coal deposits were formed, climate swings were primarily based on the earth's tilt, tectonic shifts and any other non-human-related inputs of carbon and other greenhouse gasses to the system. Those additions were very slow and change, in both directions, happened over vast periods of time.

Then, humans figure out how to burn things. Ok, not terrible. Plants are burned, new ones grow...kind of carbon neutral (not really since our numbers were growing and we were raising farm animals which equals more gaseous carbon, but not a devastating increase, either). Then, the discovery of coal...not so good. Ancient carbon (and soot, let's not forget that) is being returned to a system that once had lower carbon levels. Then, the industrial revolution followed, better medicines, lower death rates and the discovery of oil. Basically, more people, more innovation, fewer plants = more carbon.

Well, now the earth has a problem. Human beings are exploding in population, belching ancient carbon back into the system at tremendous rates, in huges quantities. In our greed for space, we're removing and burning huge tracks of old-growth forests and releasing their stored carbon back to the atmosphere. In addtion, the carbon that we're releasing is raising atmospheric temps, which raises water temps. Water, when warm, doesn't hold on to gasses very well. Ever leave a cup of soda out on a warm day? What happens? It goes flat pretty quick. So, the world's oceans outgas carbon at a greater rate. Not good. You now have three carbon sinks releasing their carbon into the atmosphere at much higher rates with no new sinks for it to get absorbed into. So, what happens? Welcome back ancient atmosphere.

Anyone who looks at what we've been doing to the carbon cycle over the last few hundred years should be able to see pretty quickly that we're on track to turning the world back the way it was around the time before all that ancient carbon got locked up in the form of coal and crude. The sad part is, without a way to rapidly lock up all the ancient carbon we've released, we'll probally never be able to fix the problem. We've created a positive feedback loop. More carbon + fewer sinks leads to higher temps which leads to more carbon. Our other activities aren't helping things, either. Paved parking lots, concrete cities and farming really are combining with all the negative effects of releasing more carbon to really screw us all.

So, enjoy it while you can, folks. I think we've pretty much set ourselves on a one way trip towards extinction. We're not so great and powerful that we can survive for long on an earth with broken systems. We still need food. Our food needs food and so on, and so on. We almost certainly won't be able to sustain our numbers for long with the trends in the natural world going the way they are.

So whats the solution?

[Wannabe29]

So whats the solution?

You figure out the answer to that one, you'll be the most important person in the world.

[manhorsedog]

90% of the worlds shark population gone in 20 years due to lack of education and ignorance.

What do you think will happen when you take the biggest predatory creature away from one of if not the most important thing on earth?

Why do fish school? why is anything in the ocean the way it is.... im guessing sharks have the most to do with this considering they are one of the oceans oldest and most aggressive species.

[Caesra]

So whats the solution?

Nukes...didn't you know? :lmao:

[alton]

90% of the worlds shark population gone in 20 years due to lack of education and ignorance.

What do you think will happen when you take the biggest predatory creature away from one of if not the most important thing on earth?

Why do fish school? why is anything in the ocean the way it is.... im guessing sharks have the most to do with this considering they are one of the oceans oldest and most aggressive species.

15 years ago I could catch and keep 3 sharks, starting around 10 years ago they moved the limit to 1. So where are they going? Someone once said there are thousands of sharks on the beach, so many that if swimmers could see them, thet would not swim. So since the limits are way down for fishermen, how would they go extinct in 20 years if we are harvestng 66% less than 15 years ago? Sharks are not the only preditor in the ocean, Sailfish and Dolphins do more to school fish than sharks.

[jbannick18]

Most sharks taste good and compete with humans for food. So I guess if you can convience people to stop eating fish to feed more sharks I will agree with you? The taking of shark fins and throwing the rest away is plain stupid and wastefull. Nothing beats fried Mako.


This has to be the stupidest thing I've read today. Sharks would not even come close to touching the number of fish humans consume.

[elegance coral]

No one is disputing the fact that the population is growing and is having an ever increasing impact on the planet. MY argument was against the original OP's post that a massive die off is coming. They can NOT prove that anymore than I can disprove it.

http://www.earthsendangered.com/list.asp

No one needs to prove a massive die off is coming. It's here right now. It's taking place every day.


They claim the current recession in the reefs is man caused and I can see where some of it is, but they can not prove that it all is.

Why does it matter who's fault it is?

Then they make these claims that we must do something NOW, without knowing what the future holds!

Extinction is forever. We know there are species headed for extinction. If we wait to see what the future holds, it will be to late to act, if the species is gone. The time to act is before the animals are extinct.



I believe we must be good stewards of the earth and take every chance we can to save/conserve it. BUT we must not take knee jerk reactions to what some scientist claim. If we do, sometimes we wind up in a bigger mess than we started with.


No one is suggesting we take "knee jerk reactions". The evidence that something must be done, is overwhelming.

Whats your proposed solution EC?


There is only one solution, IMHO. Stop making babies. Unfortunately, our society will never do this. We will continue on our path until Nature brings our population back down to a manageable level.


As Caesra posted, anyone that believes/preaches that we are destroying the planet with global warming but still gets online with a computer made with oil, delivered by a ship/plane/truck that uses oil and consumes electricty made with fossil fuels should lead by example and remove oil from their lives as much as possible or it makes their argument less credible. Do your part to save the reef's!


It doesn't matter what I, or anyone else does to help with this problem, as long as there are people that refuse to admit there is a problem. As they say, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. We all have a problem, if we want to admit it or not. Even if I lived in a cave, feeding on mushrooms and insects, it wouldn't help the problem if the rest of the world stuck their head in the sand and refused to see the problem.

[gabew]

OK, we had "mid evil warm period" between 500 and 1100 ad, did this kill all the coral? Was it man made? We all know the answers to that. And I don't believe we've had an increase in global temp in 10 years. (I can't find the study on it, most only go to 2000)

Ok so here is a graph that goes past 2000. Also it shows your nice little natal "med evil warm period" that just proves how mother nature changes the temperature all the time. This is data. No crazy fake government funded scientific guess, this is fact as to what did happen. Now lets try and make and guess what might just happen in the next few years based on this data. I don't think you need to be a scientist to figure this out.
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g353/chill_reefs_55/tempgraph.png

[csmfish]

View Post
Well I look at this whole thread and think about the gulf oil spill that we had here in my home state. The ocean is a miraculous machine and it will take care of itself no matter what humans will do to it. Everyone "speculated" that the oil spill would be have a disastrous affect on our gulf for many years to come. I walk down to the beach now and don't see a single drop of oil anywhere and haven't in over a year.

If the ocean is going through changes, I'm sure it's something that it can handle and people need to quit thinking that humans have such a large impact on the earth.

Great point!

Are you serious? Fact is, with or without global warming, we are polluting our world to the brink of parts dying off. Nobody cares because everyone thinks someone will solve the problem. When you can not eat the sea creatures due to mercury poison, cattle n chickens get some nasty disease followed by drowts that produce no crops, the mass extinction will be man after many miserable years of slow selective death.

I dont see one animal in the kingdom that pollutes, other than man. So smart we are absolutely stupid and clueless.

[orcus]

So, enjoy it while you can, folks. I think we've pretty much set ourselves on a one way trip towards extinction.

Help, save me Jeebus!

Good post. I still like to think that we'll start making sense before we're all doomed, but who knows. Parts of Europe are really starting to see significant use of solar and wind. We need $10 gas quick, and people in the developing world need incentive to limit population growth.

If it were just a technology problem, I honestly think we'd be ok. Politics and greed are what will doom us.

[redneckgearhead]

http://www.earthsendangered.com/list.asp

No one needs to prove a massive die off is coming. It's here right now. It's taking place every day.




Why does it matter who's fault it is?



Extinction is forever. We know there are species headed for extinction. If we wait to see what the future holds, it will be to late to act, if the species is gone. The time to act is before the animals are extinct.






No one is suggesting we take "knee jerk reactions". The evidence that something must be done, is overwhelming.




There is only one solution, IMHO. Stop making babies. Unfortunately, our society will never do this. We will continue on our path until Nature brings our population back down to a manageable level.





It doesn't matter what I, or anyone else does to help with this problem, as long as there are people that refuse to admit there is a problem. As they say, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. We all have a problem, if we want to admit it or not. Even if I lived in a cave, feeding on mushrooms and insects, it wouldn't help the problem if the rest of the world stuck their head in the sand and refused to see the problem.

So whats your answer to this problem? If we don't know "who's" fault it is then how do we know how to fix it?

[redneckgearhead]

Ok so here is a graph that goes past 2000. Also it shows your nice little natal "med evil warm period" that just proves how mother nature changes the temperature all the time. This is data. No crazy fake government funded scientific guess, this is fact as to what did happen. Now lets try and make and guess what might just happen in the next few years based on this data. I don't think you need to be a scientist to figure this out.
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g353/chill_reefs_55/tempgraph.png

Where did you get that chart, and whats with the black line on the end?

[Dashin89]

Will life adapt to new conditions, yes. Will life on the planet continue, yes. Are humans solely responsible for the current rapid, and drastic climate change, YES. This is the first time in history that a single species has rapidly, and radically changed the composition of earth's atmosphere. The planet is trying to adapt. This is leading to the oceans absorbing huge amounts of carbon and lowering the ph, glaciers retreating, ice caps melting, etc. Have there been massive swings in climate in the past, yes. BUT, our species may not be adapted to handle them. Remember we have not been around that long.

[Dashin89]

So whats your answer to this problem? If we don't know "who's" fault it is then how do we know how to fix it?


The most alarming possibility is this, it may be too late to fix it. We will just have to find a way to deal with it. Extensive damage has already been done, and we are just beginning to see the results.

[ousnakebyte]

This has to be the stupidest thing I've read today. Sharks would not even come close to touching the number of fish humans consume.

No kidding... Amazingly enough, this is one of the arguements the Japanese use to justify continued whaling. "Whales compete with humans for fish, so we should continue whaling."

That "logic" is simply laughable.


15 years ago I could catch and keep 3 sharks, starting around 10 years ago they moved the limit to 1. So where are they going? Someone once said there are thousands of sharks on the beach, so many that if swimmers could see them, thet would not swim. So since the limits are way down for fishermen, how would they go extinct in 20 years if we are harvestng 66% less than 15 years ago? Sharks are not the only preditor in the ocean, Sailfish and Dolphins do more to school fish than sharks.

YOUR catch limits may have changed but the rest of the world's limits haven't.



So whats your answer to this problem? If we don't know "who's" fault it is then how do we know how to fix it?

Assuming this is not a rhetorical question... I'll bite.

When talking reefs - start with alleviating as many of the localized stressors as possible - land-based sources of pollution, sedimentation and runoff; reduce total fish catches and harvesting of top predators, etc., etc.

All that is good to do, and we should be doing it. But, these are all treating the symptoms of a larger problem that has already been identified - human overpopulation (multiple sources cited for comparison):

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/images/ExtinctionAndPopulation_102609.jpg

http://www.sustainablescale.org/images/uploaded/Population/World%20Population%20Growth%20to%202050.JPG

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/images/39popgrowth.gif



A few lighthearted ones, with a human interest undertone:

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/population_growth.jpg

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/stork.jpg


EC, above, already pointed it out:
There is only one solution, IMHO. Stop making babies. Unfortunately, our society will never do this. We will continue on our path until Nature brings our population back down to a manageable level.



At the risk of being labeled an "extremist," I'll second that. We need to willingly reduce our current population explosion. Everything else is treating symptoms of a larger, out-of-control, problem. But, yes, symptoms need to be treated too.

And you think reefs and corals have it bad. Google and read up on the current amphibian extinction crisis. So many frogs are already extinct, it's simply amazing...

Cheers
Mike

[elegance coral]

So whats your answer to this problem? If we don't know "who's" fault it is then how do we know how to fix it?

Like I said, we need to stop making babies. We must implement some form of population control, or mother nature will do it for us. This isn't a new problem for mankind. We have dealt with this problem many times throughout history. We just never learn from it. Just read up on what happened on Easter Island, or in Europe before the mass exodus to the new world, then compare it to what's taking place today on a global scale.

We don't need to know "who" is to blame for a problem in order to fix it. If someone keys my car, I can get it fixed without knowing who did it. We simply need to understand what the problem is, and the steps that need to be taken to correct it.

[gabew]

Where did you get that chart, and whats with the black line on the end?

http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

[James77]

So whats the solution?

The solution it would take is not going to happen anythime soon, at least not without a catastrophe kickstarting it. It would take such a massive, expensive change in the way we live our lives and out infrastructure to do it. Then....we get to try and get every other country...both developed and developing to screech to a halt and take a trun in that direction themsleves.

Honestly, if man is having as much impact on the global temperature that they claim, that is the least of our worries. Things like pollution, overfishing, disease, crowding, financial instabilty.....that will be our main problem. The Earth will suffer yes.....but give it a few million years of niot having us- a blink intime- and it will be like we were never here.

I am extremely skeptical about global warming due to conflicting data...plus-without turning political- the solutions suggested by our governemnt would be nothing but a fund raiser for them. There are agendas on both sides that are swaying the true facts that are coming out. We have people on one side cliaming the end of the world as we know it and hyped up scenarios to try and drive that home, with the other side sayin "nah, we are fine, the earth can take it! The reality lies somewhere in between.

[James77]

NoAll that is good to do, and we should be doing it. But, these are all treating the symptoms of a larger problem that has already been identified - human overpopulation (multiple sources cited for comparison):

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/images/ExtinctionAndPopulation_102609.jpg

http://www.sustainablescale.org/images/uploaded/Population/World%20Population%20Growth%20to%202050.JPG

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/images/39popgrowth.gif
And you think reefs and corals have it bad. Google and read up on the current amphibian extinction crisis. So many frogs are already extinct, it's simply amazing...

Cheers
Mike

Some scary graphs of the size of our population.....now picture its growth in the next few decades. Food supply problems, famine, disease....that is what is going to be the solution and correction to our over population. Same thing that happens to animlas when they overpopulate and max out their resources. Nature corrects it for them. Unfortunately, humans have the ability to take alot more life with them as it gets to that point. We will not blame oursleves, but each other and other countries.

[James77]

No one is suggesting we take "knee jerk reactions". The evidence that something must be done, is overwhelming.


I think we have done quite a bit as far as pollution control, emission control, sustainability, etc. But even with all that, we get hit with......


Stop making babies. Unfortunately, our society will never do this. We will continue on our path until Nature brings our population back down to a manageable level..

If pollution-per-person were cut by 50% right now, but the population quadruples.....we still have twice the pollution we had before. You are completely correct that the main source of the problem is our size. If we had a more steady and sustainable population...our measures over the last few decades would be having a substantial impact. Instead they are only slightly slowing the path we are on now.

I am all for population control....there is no need in this country for people to produce more than 3 or 4 kids. Yes, it is the free thing to do....but it is going to ruin us. We are not facing, as a noation, a lack of people. If anyhting the signs of too great a population are evident in almost every problem we face today form housing and food, to financial stability and things such as pollution and resources.

[redneckgearhead]

Originally Posted by alton View Post
15 years ago I could catch and keep 3 sharks, starting around 10 years ago they moved the limit to 1. So where are they going? Someone once said there are thousands of sharks on the beach, so many that if swimmers could see them, thet would not swim. So since the limits are way down for fishermen, how would they go extinct in 20 years if we are harvestng 66% less than 15 years ago? Sharks are not the only preditor in the ocean, Sailfish and Dolphins do more to school fish than sharks.The catch limits are usually based on the local population. So yea if your limits have been reduced, I would ASSUME that the local population is being reduced to a level that deems a limit reduction.

Like I said, we need to stop making babies. We must implement some form of population control, or mother nature will do it for us. This isn't a new problem for mankind. We have dealt with this problem many times throughout history. We just never learn from it. Just read up on what happened on Easter Island, or in Europe before the mass exodus to the new world, then compare it to what's taking place today on a global scale.

We don't need to know "who" is to blame for a problem in order to fix it. If someone keys my car, I can get it fixed without knowing who did it. We simply need to understand what the problem is, and the steps that need to be taken to correct it.
While I totally agree that we need to stop the population growth, we all know that is almost impossible. At least in this current era. Yes we do need to know "who" is to blame. (the term who is used, but what I mean is, is the problem the temp of the water, the pollutants, the PH, bacteria?) I know of the story of Easter Island and the plagues of Europe. And agree that those things will happen again, only much much worse. We have built up an immunity/treatment for most diseases but the one that gets us will be deadly and unseen before (my opinion only, based on only my observations) It will spread like mad across the globe because of our travel habits. But that may be a topic for another thread.
http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png
Thanks for the link, was an interesting site, although I remain skeptical about the cause. I have to say this has been an interesting thread, I'm glad it has remained civil, or at least became civil.

[redneckgearhead]

i am extremely skeptical about global warming due to conflicting data...plus-without turning political- the solutions suggested by our governemnt would be nothing but a fund raiser for them. There are agendas on both sides that are swaying the true facts that are coming out. We have people on one side cliaming the end of the world as we know it and hyped up scenarios to try and drive that home, with the other side sayin "nah, we are fine, the earth can take it! The reality lies somewhere in between.

+1^

[Wannabe29]

Help, save me Jeebus!

Good post. I still like to think that we'll start making sense before we're all doomed, but who knows. Parts of Europe are really starting to see significant use of solar and wind. We need $10 gas quick, and people in the developing world need incentive to limit population growth.

If it were just a technology problem, I honestly think we'd be ok. Politics and greed are what will doom us.

I disagree about the tech. not being the major problem. We're animals. We still have to obey some basic ecological principles, like carrying capacity. If we were as successful a species as we are without the technology, we would eventually find a balance in our habitat, as far as population numbers are concerned. Every animal does, one way or the other. Sure, there would be ecological problems. Species would be wiped out and habitat lost. But, life would adapt. That's a law of nature and, while it sucks, I have no problem with it. That's not to say that we shouldn't make every effort to preserve what life we can. After all, it does help us in the long-run to have diverse and intact ecosystems. But, it's natural to have some species loss as another dominates (Not in the numbers we've been seeing, though. That's just from our irresponsible actions).

We threw carbon emitting tech. into the mix. That tech. is having far-reaching impacts on areas of the global environment that we really would normally have never impacted. So, you say our tech. isn't the only problem. I say it is. The developed/developing world puts out the most carbon emissions. Those countries have the most tech. They use the vast majority of the fossil fuels that are extracted. Yet, their actions have the most impact on the rest of the world. Think about it, it's only the major population centers in developed/developing countries that put out the most emissions. Those population centers are hubs of industry and tech.

Look at this website: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52660 In a nutshell, it points out that the places seeing the most population growth are, in fact, producing the lowest per capita carbon emissions. Why? They're not developed nations. In fact, places seeing slowing or declining growth rates (the developed/developing world) are producing the most carbon. So, it's not the population. It's what the population emits.
Without the carbon, we would not be raising global temps. the way we have been. It's the tech. the population uses that is.

The only thing that would help us is to stop emitting more of the ancient carbon back into the system and start finding ways to bind the carbon we've emitted out of the system. Our population numbers would cause problems but, in the long run, those aren't irreversible problems. And, I'm sure we could use our big human brains to find a way to deal with feeding/housing large population numbers. The problems caused by the carbon are irreversible, however.

[Belmont31R]

I think we have done quite a bit as far as pollution control, emission control, sustainability, etc. But even with all that, we get hit with......



If pollution-per-person were cut by 50% right now, but the population quadruples.....we still have twice the pollution we had before. You are completely correct that the main source of the problem is our size. If we had a more steady and sustainable population...our measures over the last few decades would be having a substantial impact. Instead they are only slightly slowing the path we are on now.

I am all for population control....there is no need in this country for people to produce more than 3 or 4 kids. Yes, it is the free thing to do....but it is going to ruin us. We are not facing, as a noation, a lack of people. If anyhting the signs of too great a population are evident in almost every problem we face today form housing and food, to financial stability and things such as pollution and resources.





If you look at the charts posted above industrialized nations are not the problem when it comes to population growth. If you take the births in the US each year, and minus the deaths we have less than 1% growth a year. Its around 4 million births and 2.4 million deaths based on the quick research I did. With a population around 300 million 1% would be 3 million. Somewhere around half a percent growth a year is not unsustainable or killing the Earth.


The population booms are not in western countries....and just wait for something like the Spanish Flu to go through Asia.

[T Diddy]

We need $10 gas quick, and people in the developing world need incentive to limit population growth.


Really? I'd be happy to sell you some gas for $10/gallon. :debi: I suppose we should also be using our tax dollars to pay people in developing countries to NOT reproduce. :lmao:

[567234ta]

It's all fine and dandy to get up on a high horse and point out what everyone else is doing wrong, what is anyone here doing to help other then arguing and pointing out facts and theories that next year will be in the archives?

For instance, meat farming is one of the big polluters. Who is willing to stop eating it?

I think a more positive approach would reap better benefits. like maybe a title of a thread- What are you doing to help the oceans? subtitle-And some things you can do.
But carry on.:deadhorse1:

[Bilk]

Really? I'd be happy to sell you some gas for $10/gallon. :debi: I suppose we should also be using our tax dollars to pay people in developing countries to NOT reproduce. :lmao:
+1 here. I'll happily sell them my gas for that :)

I've been trying to avoid this thread, but maybe I lost my better judgement today :uhoh2: I've never understand why some people view the earth and it's inhabitant species as being static when the earth has changed/transformed and species have clearly evolved and or have become extinct since the formation of the planets in this solar system. I guess some people must think an awful lot of man's power and abilities to believe we can change the weather on a global scale - and that's for better or worse in terms of weather. Be conservative when practical. Be considerate of the environment and don't pollute. But to believe we as a species can cause global anything is not within reason AFAIK.

There are vast deserts where oceans once stood. There have been numerous events that have changed the physical surface and temperature of the earth and thus it's many climate regions. Species have mysteriously disappeared from the earth prior to man's intervention and even prior to man's existence. We have not one clue about where global weather patterns are heading on a basis that would be significant to make any determination or prognostication of the future. There are way too many variables beyond our understanding that can and will affect climate. Some that are not even present here on this planet.

Well I'll go back to my little micro climate and enjoy the sun as it's been absent for the better part of a week :)

[ousnakebyte]

I've never understand why some people view the earth and it's inhabitant species as being static when the earth has changed/transformed and species have clearly evolved and or have become extinct since the formation of the planets in this solar system.

There are vast deserts where oceans once stood. There have been numerous events that have changed the physical surface and temperature of the earth and thus it's many climate regions. Species have mysteriously disappeared from the earth prior to man's intervention and even prior to man's existence.

:headwally:

[jcolletteiii]

+1 here. I'll happily sell them my gas for that :)

But to believe we as a species can cause global anything is not within reason AFAIK.

There are vast deserts where oceans once stood. There have been numerous events that have changed the physical surface and temperature of the earth and thus it's many climate regions.

Yikes. All I can say is that I can't wait for Greenland to melt.

[Bilk]

:headwally:

Why do you reject science, geology, anthropology and history?

[ousnakebyte]

I've never understand why some people view the earth and it's inhabitant species as being static when the earth has changed/transformed and species have clearly evolved and or have become extinct since the formation of the planets in this solar system.

There are vast deserts where oceans once stood. There have been numerous events that have changed the physical surface and temperature of the earth and thus it's many climate regions. Species have mysteriously disappeared from the earth prior to man's intervention and even prior to man's existence.

Why do you reject science, geology, anthropology and history?

I don't.

I did that b/c NO ONE in this thread has stated that the Earth has been static for the last 4.5 billion years. I, and others in this thread, have said, ad nauseum, that yes, flora and fauna have gone extinct prior to humanity's existence.

There is a 7 billion difference today.


Cheers
Mike

[Bilk]

I don't.

I did that b/c NO ONE in this thread has stated that the Earth has been static for the last 4.5 billion years. I, and others in this thread, have said, ad nauseum, that yes, flora and fauna have gone extinct prior to humanity's existence.

There is a 7 billion difference today.


Cheers
Mike

Are you one who believes that global warming/climate change (I love this one), is anthropogenic?

[manhorsedog]

15 years ago I could catch and keep 3 sharks, starting around 10 years ago they moved the limit to 1. So where are they going? Someone once said there are thousands of sharks on the beach, so many that if swimmers could see them, thet would not swim. So since the limits are way down for fishermen, how would they go extinct in 20 years if we are harvestng 66% less than 15 years ago? Sharks are not the only preditor in the ocean, Sailfish and Dolphins do more to school fish than sharks.

Its called illegal fishing.

It is a HUGE deal but because they are sharks most people dont care that much. Because the demand is so high they will do anything to get them. Asian countries are the absolute worst about this and its because they are extremely superstitious. They think they will gain the sharks powers which are inaccurate to begin with.

The world is in a bad place and people refusing to think anything is wrong is a big problem. The world is bigger than what you see with your own eyes.

[manhorsedog]

I guess some people must think an awful lot of man's power and abilities to believe we can change the weather on a global scale - and that's for better or worse in terms of weather.

There are vast deserts where oceans once stood. There have been numerous events that have changed the physical surface and temperature of the earth and thus it's many climate regions. Species have mysteriously disappeared from the earth prior to man's intervention and even prior to man's existence. We have not one clue about where global weather patterns are heading on a basis that would be significant to make any determination or prognostication of the future. There are way too many variables beyond our understanding that can and will affect climate. Some that are not even present here on this planet.

Well I'll go back to my little micro climate and enjoy the sun as it's been absent for the better part of a week :)


yes i believe you should have avoided saying anything is this thread also. What you said is so ridiculous it frustrates me to think your probably not the only one that feels that way.

do you not think we know that the earth has "changed"? the fact that almost every person has air conditioning proves what you said is bs. :lmao:

[csmfish]

We know who's fault it is AND how to fix it, but, like said, man is stupid. Its the idea we HAVE to f*** like crazy and make more babies, make more products and keep growing a disease. Thats what were about, surviving like a plague, speaking of which....

Thats why we fight around the world, why all nationals hate each other. Its natures way of thinning out the heard to keep room on this planet. Thats why we have plagues, same reason, to thin out the crowd. I dont like war any better then the other, who likes or wants to die? Disease is on its way, were over due for a good ol fashion plague, is fact. Fact is, like said, mother nature will find a way to thin us out one way or another. I have been watching war clips all weekend, and, some say we have been around since 400 years killing the world off. Fact is, after killings millions in WW-I and WW-II, its only taken us about 50 years to over populate to our point of todays earth destruction. AMAZING!!

Global warming is the last of our issues, get off that rant. If we could stop using fossil fuels, to , uhm, clean the air, global warming will take care of itself. I would be willing to bet if every single human left the earth for a year and came back, the earth would be, minus global warming, 65% healed. 2-3 years and it would be 90% pristine, so, yes, the earth is self healing, but, I doubt that scenario is about to happen anytime soon.

[Bilk]

yes i believe you should have avoided saying anything is this thread also. What you said is so ridiculous it frustrates me to think your probably not the only one that feels that way.

do you not think we know that the earth has "changed"? the fact that almost every person has air conditioning proves what you said is bs. :lmao:

Very accurate and coherent comeback. "Almost every person has air conditioning". Really? I'd be willing to bet you're probably off by about 90 percent. Try again.

[ousnakebyte]

Are you one who believes that global warming/climate change (I love this one), is anthropogenic?

[Dripping sarcasm]Oh no, not at all. Those people are all just left-wing, ultra liberal nutjobs looking to control as many people's lives as possible.[/Dripping sarcasm]

[ousnakebyte]

It's all fine and dandy to get up on a high horse and point out what everyone else is doing wrong, what is anyone here doing to help other then arguing and pointing out facts and theories that next year will be in the archives?

For instance, meat farming is one of the big polluters. Who is willing to stop eating it?


There are many things you can do to promote healthy oceans, and you don't need to live next to the coast to do it. Look at one of the biggest stressors on the oceans - overfishing and destructive fishing practices. The Monterey Bay Aquarium has an excellent research facility, and they promote eating for healthy oceans. I follow guidelines like these as much as I possibly can:

Monterey Bay Seafood Watch List (http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/sfw_recommendations.aspx?c=ln) (there are iPhone apps and pocket guides available)

After educating myself on the depletion of wild stocks, I avoid things like Chilean Sea Bass, any and all shark, Atlantic Cod, and various others on the Avoid (Red) List. I strictly refuse to buy farmed salmon - yes, sometimes wild caught is better than farmed.

And, I cannot remember the last time I ate shrimp. Farmed shrimp from Indonesia, Thailand, etc. is one of the worst stressors on SE Asian coral reefs - they plow up the mangroves to farm the shrimp.

I stay on the green, but the yellow list is the one I was most confused about - should I eat it or no? Someone gave me a good explanation once - think of it as the weddings and funerals list: eat things on the yellow section about as many times a year as you would attend a wedding and/or a funeral.

The difficult part about this is that when you are at a restaurant, you often - almost always, really - have to ask where the fish, shrimp, lobster, whatever comes from. And, many people are uncomfortable doing that, but you have to work past it.

The other difficulty is that the distributor is required to tell you where the stock comes from and whether it is farmed or wild caught, but they do not have to tell you HOW it was caught if it is wild. This is important b/c the method of fishing is as vital as where it comes from. Longlining and trawling produce soooooooo much bycatch that is horribly wasteful.

So, you can help promote healthy oceans by choosing your foods with an educated eye.


And, yes... meat farming is a very heavy polluter. As with the seafood choices above, I have chosen to cut out almost all meat (mammals, really) out of my diet. This, oddly enough, has had a positive impact on my cholesterol levels. I try to only eat/buy free range chicken and eggs.

But, this is a personal choice, and I am not telling anyone to do as I am.

Cheers
Mike

[Caesra]

+1 here. I'll happily sell them my gas for that :)

I've been trying to avoid this thread, but maybe I lost my better judgement today :uhoh2: I've never understand why some people view the earth and it's inhabitant species as being static when the earth has changed/transformed and species have clearly evolved and or have become extinct since the formation of the planets in this solar system.

Well said, well said. I have been avoiding this topic too..as much as I can...I seem to keep comming back and reading...and adding my own stupid comments...but I just can't resist.

As was mentioned from an advocate of a closed system...I 100% agree...limited resources, closed system....eventually the planet wins...not pidly lil humans that think we are the center of the universe.

We live, we die, if we are stupid, we become extinct..story told...next!!!

I just imagine the dinosaurs...meteor comes...stuff becomes more rare that they NEED, not want, and all the suddent they run around..where's my food where is my food....now certainly some scientist in the dinosaur era raised the concern that they were eating faster than the earth could produce, temperatures were rising, and they were all going to become extinct....someone suggested birth control, another suggested eating less, another said they should move....hell....just imagine mom saying to pop, where is the bacon? "Blurp, I ate it all"...

Story told.

Guess what, the system is still closed, and it will go on, rising temps or not. You choose if we are part of the story..be responsible....ignore the media and politicians and make some good choices because they are right, not because they are cheap and not because you got scared watching the 10PM news. Do it because you should. Skip the family vacation, find a nice sunny day and find a good board game your kids created with a pencil an paper, grab some veggies out of the garden you grew. Sounds like a much better way of dealing with the situation than yelling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!

This story can go on and on, how many people have wrote their senators demanding that fuel cells be the next gen cars, instead of 'hybrids'...probably not one.... It is a 60 year old technology that would destroy the entire energy industry and there is not much chance it would ever happen....why? politics..money...the very thing most people spend their entire lives trying to acquire.

No one, including the critiques in this thread are running around like Thoreau trying to enjoy what is already here.

[manhorsedog]

Very accurate and coherent comeback. "Almost every person has air conditioning". Really? I'd be willing to bet you're probably off by about 90 percent. Try again.


I could say the same about what you said, I didn't feel like it deserved a real response. Obviously not everybody has air conditioning but I forgot when people are clueless they take everything literally because they have nothing worth a damn to say.

The truth is you have no clue, most of us don't but denying the fact that humans can have a huge impact on the environment is just silly. I still don't feel I need to take anymore of my time to explain it to somebody who probably won't understand anyway but when you see people that wanna help just get out of the way because your "opinion" does nobody any good.

[manhorsedog]

Do you guys understand what evolving is about? Do you understand technology? Think about what we could do 100 years ago and think about today. Do you think people are going to stop learning, stop creating ect.... Do you think the current system we live in is really going to last?

Think ahead!!!! The past already happened so let it be, the future is the only thing worth thinking about.

[Blom]

Whew, getting pretty heated in here. Which in itself proves a point, im pretty sure (not certian) that no one in here has ever been approached by Universities, Non-for profits, or Governments around the world for their overwhelming understanding view of the natural systems of this planet. And no one has knocked on my door thats for sure too. But talk and debate is great, but no need to be hostile. Im going to pass on the topic on here but I wish all good luck on the topic. Oh I wanted to add one thing for the people who would like to see solutions brought forward. I will keep it in the reef hobby. I agree with the large population comments on this topic, which in turn leads to a large energy demand. Effeciency in out tanks could be increased through the use of some simple and cheap methods, and some simple and not so cheap methods.

1. Plan the location of the tank in your house based on temp. Eg. if you had a hot upsatirs in the summer you may be able to get by without a chiller if you had your tank downstairs.

2. Insulate your stand/sump area. It will help with heat transfer and have the added bonus of sound dampening

3. LED lights take a whole lot less energy to run, which helps the bank account in the long term, even if the fixture doesnt in the short term.

Sorry for any spelling errors, tablets are not overly great to type on and im skipping the spell check for bed.

[Reefahholic]

No disrespect, but speaking about evolution, why did we all quit evolving?

Why are there huge gaps in the fossil record? If we did evolve, shouldn't we expect to see simple life forms evolve into more complex life forms? We don't see that.

[Caesra]

[QUOTE=Reefahholic;18947830]No disrespect, but speaking about evolution, why did we all quit evolving?
QUOTE]

We are, and it is easiest noticed in the height increases from generation to generation, 150 years ago, the average height was almost a foot shorter.

[Reefahholic]

[QUOTE=Reefahholic;18947830]No disrespect, but speaking about evolution, why did we all quit evolving?
QUOTE]

We are, and it is easiest noticed in the height increases from generation to generation, 150 years ago, the average height was almost a foot shorter.

So because people grow different heights today, that supports evolution? We are still human. We are not more complex. We aren't different people because of height differences.

I thought evolution was something changing into a different or more complex life form.

[T Diddy]

[QUOTE=Caesra;18947885]

So because people grow different heights today, that supports evolution? We are still human. We are not more complex. We aren't different people because of height differences.

I thought evolution was something changing into a different or more complex life form.

not necessarily more complex...evolution is due to mutations in DNA. Most mutations are detrimental to the survival of an organism. Sometimes though, a mutation results in a benefit to the organism. The mutation may allow an organism to move faster, or camouflage itself, tolerate certain environmental changes better, or to more easily attract a mate among other things.

[Reefahholic]

I don't see any evidence of evolution.

You don't see any 1/2 species running around anywhere or any animals with a leg, face, tail, foot, etc of some other animal.

What is being described is adaptation "within" a species.

[Reefahholic]

There are many types of dogs, but they're still dogs.

[T Diddy]

the dog thing is a result of selective breeding over many generations...not evolution.

a good example of evolution that you can easily recognize are antibiotic resistant bacteria...the type of "superbug" that may eventually take care of the previously mentioned population problem.

[Reefahholic]

So bacteria is our only current evidence of evolution? I don't believe bacteria supports evolution at all.

Why did humans and animals quit evolving and when did this happened?

[Belmont31R]

We know who's fault it is AND how to fix it, but, like said, man is stupid. Its the idea we HAVE to f*** like crazy and make more babies, make more products and keep growing a disease. Thats what were about, surviving like a plague, speaking of which....

Thats why we fight around the world, why all nationals hate each other. Its natures way of thinning out the heard to keep room on this planet. Thats why we have plagues, same reason, to thin out the crowd. I dont like war any better then the other, who likes or wants to die? Disease is on its way, were over due for a good ol fashion plague, is fact. Fact is, like said, mother nature will find a way to thin us out one way or another. I have been watching war clips all weekend, and, some say we have been around since 400 years killing the world off. Fact is, after killings millions in WW-I and WW-II, its only taken us about 50 years to over populate to our point of todays earth destruction. AMAZING!!

Global warming is the last of our issues, get off that rant. If we could stop using fossil fuels, to , uhm, clean the air, global warming will take care of itself. I would be willing to bet if every single human left the earth for a year and came back, the earth would be, minus global warming, 65% healed. 2-3 years and it would be 90% pristine, so, yes, the earth is self healing, but, I doubt that scenario is about to happen anytime soon.



So what are you still doing here, and I love when people whine about using oil when they are typing on a keyboard made from it.

[Banjo]

Thanks for posting the articles. It's sad.

[T Diddy]

there is a ton of evidence for it. I thought that the bacteria would be a good example...evolution by deffinition is change over time. This very thread has evolved. :hmm1: A genetic mutation may or may not be expressed. Most of the DNA within cells are junk so to speak. For evolution (as you understand it) to take place, the genetic mutation must first be expressed, and then passed on to offspring. If I had been born with 5 arms and a lemur tail, I'd be a pretty amazing guy, but would probably have some trouble finding a date, and would never have a chance to pass on my mutated DNA...therefore no evolution.

[Belmont31R]

So bacteria is our only current evidence of evolution? I don't believe bacteria supports evolution at all.

Why did humans and animals quit evolving and when did this happened?





No one said animals and humans stopped evolving.


If you don't think bacteria evolving to resist anti-biotics is evolution then you probably wont take any evidence presented as actually being evolution.


But if you want another example some research has been done about people who live in the Andes, and why they have up to twice the typical human lung capacity. You can also take people such as Eskimos, expose their hand to the cold air, and their skin temperature will not fall nearly as much as someone like me who doesn't have the same ancestry of generations in extremely cold climates. My skin temperature would fall much more rapidly.

[Reefahholic]

Evolution is not defined as "change over time."

What other evidence do you see that we have?

If there is a ton, please list 5 examples.

[Reefahholic]

No one said animals and humans stopped evolving.


If you don't think bacteria evolving to resist anti-biotics is evolution then you probably wont take any evidence presented as actually being evolution.


But if you want another example some research has been done about people who live in the Andes, and why they have up to twice the typical human lung capacity. You can also take people such as Eskimos, expose their hand to the cold air, and their skin temperature will not fall nearly as much as someone like me who doesn't have the same ancestry of generations in extremely cold climates. My skin temperature would fall much more rapidly.

I've never seen a 1/2 species running around.

Again, what is being described is adaptation within a species.

[T Diddy]

you likely won't see a half species either...that's not evolution, simply genetic engineering in a lab.

perhaps a google search of genetic drift, natural selection, gene flow, etc. is in order

[ousnakebyte]

O...M...G... NOW we have to explain evolution by natural selection...?

I... just... can't... go... on...

http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg507_990_600.jpg

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060810-evolution_big.jpg

http://timoelliott.com/blog/WindowsLiveWriter/BadDecisionsBlameDarwin_9BA2/belief%20in%20evolution_2.gif

http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/texas-evolution.jpg?w=376&h=274

Cheers
Mike

[ousnakebyte]

Crap... double post. Why are the servers busy at 6:30am on a Sunday...?

Anyway... I hate that the graph title says, "Belief" in evolution, but... oh well.

Cheers
Mike

[elegance coral]

http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/texas-evolution.jpg?w=376&h=274


That is just scary. Don't they teach this stuff in school?????:reading:

Folks.......... Evolution can not be intelligently argued against. It is fact. T Rex did not just pop into existence out of nowhere.:crazy1:

About the gaps in the fossil record.... Just check out the fossil record of whales. http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

[ousnakebyte]

That is just scary. Don't they teach this stuff in school?????:reading:

Folks.......... Evolution can not be intelligently argued against. It is fact. T Rex did not just pop into existence out of nowhere.:crazy1:

You can get the "truth" here:

Yup, this place REALLY exists (http://creationmuseum.org/about/)

And, here is a preview of one of the "exhibits":

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0819-creation-museum/8503176-1-eng-US/0819-creation-museum_full_600.jpg


I wonder if she is a supporter:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KB0TLgcNesU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Cheers
Mike

[dlp211]

Evidence of Evolution:

Several new species of Anolis lizards were observed to have evolved from an original population.(Gingerich, 1983)

Croatian lizards developed new, functional organs known as cecal valves to help digest a new plant diet.(Herral 2008)

A unicellular strain of algae was observed to evolve multicellularity in an experiment. (Boraas et al., 1998)

In a controlled laboratory, beneficial mutations in yeast increased genetic information. (Brown et al. 1998)

Genetic Evidence of Evolution:

Humans share many degraded genes which used to work, but no longer do, with other animals: evidence of a long, natural past. (Nishikimi et al. 1992)

Humans share many almost identical genetic errors with other primates: evidence of our common ancestry. (Capozzi et al. 2009)

Evidence of Evolution beyond these. Radiometric Dating and the Fossil record both align.


Evolution is a fact just like gravity is a fact. The theories of these two phenomena however are not set in stone, however this does not mean that they are some fantastical idea dreamed up by scientists. Understand that when we talk about the theory of something that we are talking about the mechanism for which it occurs.

Understanding the scientific process is important in order to understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory has stood not only the test of time, but is peer reviewed and has yet to be proven false through any experimentation whatsoever. Not to make this a religious argument, but a book saying "it just ain't so" does not hold weight in science.

And to be clear, evolution happens on two levels, micro and macro. On the micro level, these are usually adaptations, on the macro level, these are usually a new species. Just looking at **** sapiens, we have degraded vision, shrinking jaw lines, loss of use of the appendix, shrinking phalanges, growing brain cavity, growing height, growing weight. These things can all be attributed to our environment in the way of medicine and food management.

[elegance coral]

No disrespect, but speaking about evolution, why did we all quit evolving?

We haven't stopped evolving. Each generation is slightly different than the one that came before it. Evolution is a slow and never ending process.


Why are there huge gaps in the fossil record?

Because fossilization is very rare. Think about it. If you took a chicken out of your freezer and placed it in your yard, what are the odds of it becoming a fossil? Your odds would be better at hitting the lottery. On top of that, we have to find the few fossils that do get preserved. With most of them being buried under many feet of earth, they are very hard to find. Despite the astronomical odds that hinder this type of research, scientists have made great strides in closing these gaps. We have a much better understanding of the evolution of life on this planet today, than we did when Darwin wrote his paper on the origins of species.

If we did evolve, shouldn't we expect to see simple life forms evolve into more complex life forms? We don't see that.

Life evolves in both directions. More, and less, complex. The process of becoming more complex is.....well.....more complex. We wouldn't expect to see much of this in the 150 years we've been studying evolution. The process of changing a portion of an animals body that they already possess is much easier, and can take place in a much shorter period of time. We have many examples of this. One is the Kakapo from New Zealand. It's a parrot that has (or had) no natural predators on the island, so it didn't need to fly. It's wings shrunk, the large breast muscles used for flight shrunk, and it grew to be the heaviest parrot on the planet. It's relatives on the mainland still have large wings, breast muscles, and are light enough to fly.

[elegance coral]

[QUOTE=Caesra;18947885]

So because people grow different heights today, that supports evolution?

Absolutely.

We are still human. We are not more complex. We aren't different people because of height differences.

We are different. We can see that the human body has changed in a very short period of time. If our species is fortunate enough to survive for the next 3 million years, we will continue to change, and we will not look like we do today.


I thought evolution was something changing into a different or more complex life form.

If height isn't a change, at what point would you consider an animal to have changed?

[kybreos]

Please don't confuse evolution with adaptation! It's only evolution if it's a new species, last I heard the people in the Andes are still **** sapien. There is nothing wrong with being environmentally friendly but be real too. A single large volcanic eruption can spew more "green house gasses" than humans have in an entire century combined. To think we as humans can permanently damage the earth beyond repair and that we have forced a dramatic change in the climate of the planet is egotistical. Just look at chernobl(sp) nature took it back already its covered in forest again and over time it will hide and repair the damage we caused. I'm still going to recycle and not be wasteful of resources but don't tell me my SUV is killing the great barrier reef!!

[redneckgearhead]

Wow, from decimation of the reefs to evolution. Do I believe in evolution? I think the evidence is overwhelming in favor of it. Do I believe we evolved from apes, now that's a "horse of a different color" It seems there is no "smoking gun" evidence but there seems to be a lot of indicators towards it. Have we evolved as a species? We live longer and we are much much larger in size. But I believe much of that is due to a much better diet and modern medicine. But would that be considered evolution, or adaption. But are they not the same? To evolve is to adapt right? There would be no need to evolve if we didn't need to adapt.

[dlp211]

Please don't confuse evolution with adaptation! It's only evolution if it's a new species, last I heard the people in the Andes are still **** sapien. There is nothing wrong with being environmentally friendly but be real too. A single large volcanic eruption can spew more "green house gasses" than humans have in an entire century combined. To think we as humans can permanently damage the earth beyond repair and that we have forced a dramatic change in the climate of the planet is egotistical. Just look at chernobl(sp) nature took it back already its covered in forest again and over time it will hide and repair the damage we caused. I'm still going to recycle and not be wasteful of resources but don't tell me my SUV is killing the great barrier reef!!

Please don't confuse the dictionary definition of evolution with the scientific one. Evolution is not about species changing from one to another, nor is it gradual. It has to do with the alleles of the gene pool from generation to generation. It is very demostrable.

About the volcano thing, false.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

And you are right in a sense, we will not cause the earth to fall into complete disrepair, the earth will evolve, the question is whether we will be there to see it happen. To believe that we can not have any impact on the environment in which we live though is egotistical. Every creature has an impact, but there needs to be balance and currently, humans have not been balanced do to technological and medical advances.

[muttley000]

I have spent some time trying to figure out how to comment in this thread without getting myself in trouble.

We are the top predator, we have evolved into that position. Should we rape and plunder the earth, not in my opinion. Should we regress back to the stone ages, I'm not willing to. Will some species meet there demise because of our rise to the top, yep. Is this process going to continue long after man is gone, yep.

JMO, Matt

[elegance coral]

I don't see any evidence of evolution.

You have to look for it. Many people don't want to see the evidence of evolution, so they don't look for it. Darwin didn't want to see the evidence of evolution either. He had a very hard time dealing with the facts that were before him. If you take the time to look at the facts, evolution is undeniable.



You don't see any 1/2 species running around anywhere or any animals with a leg, face, tail, foot, etc of some other animal.

And you won't. That's not how evolution works. We see species as they are today. They are all somewhere between what they once were, and what they will become, but they don't steal characteristics of other species to do it.


What is being described is adaptation "within" a species.

Which is evolution.

[James77]

I don't see any evidence of evolution.
You don't see any 1/2 species running around anywhere or any animals with a leg, face, tail, foot, etc of some other animal.
What is being described is adaptation "within" a species.

This has to be the most ridiculous argument against evolution.Of course you do not see mixed animal parts on aninals :lolspin: Do you think evolution happens overnight, or over the course of a decade or two or century? It takes millions of years to happen. 1 million years of ourselves would have tens of thousands of generations of offspring.


What other evidence do you see that we have?
If there is a ton, please list 5 examples.

What other evidence? How about every single plant and animal( including us) around us. They did not magically appear overnight. How life started on the planet is up for debate and I have my own thoughts on it....but there is no arguing what this Earth was 4-5 billion years ago. There is no denying that there have been countless different animals coming to and leaving this planet over the course of hundreds of millions and billions of years. There is no denying that there have been many previous mass extinctions on this planet over the last billion years......yet new animals happen. Not overnight, but over the course of what amounts to thousands upon thousands of our lifetimes. Of course you will not see it right in front of your eyes.
The face of this planet has changed drastically through erosion, tectonic movements, and volcanic actions. Throw in weather and climate changes, and deserts have come and gone, sea beds have been pushed to the tops of mountains, islands formed from nowhere in the sea and inhabited with life. None of it happened over the course of your or my life, or even our human existence....yet it happened. We are talkin incomprehensible amounts of time that this has been going on.....our existence is a blip in this Earths history.

Evolution is not defined as "change over time."


From Wikipedia:
"Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms"

It is species changing and adapting over time to their enviroments.

There are many types of dogs, but they're still dogs.

Dogs were manipulated by us through selective breeding to produce what you see today....actually pretty good proof of just how much a species can change over the course of a short time. Give it millions of years, albeit not as drastic in a short time, and you would see some interesting things.

So bacteria is our only current evidence of evolution? I don't believe bacteria supports evolution at all.
Why did humans and animals quit evolving and when did this happened?

Bacteria is a great example for people who seem to only be able to see in the moment. They look over the course of their short lifetimes and say..." bah! I have not seen any signs of evolution!!" So when you give examples of rapidly changing and evolving species....they answer with "Bacteira? thats no proof!". Is it that hard to believe that something within a species can change enough over several thousand years to produce something completely different?

Bacteria changes rapidly enough to show some proof of it. Animals and Humans have NOT stopped evolving.....one only need to look back at our ancestors to see what we have come from. That did not happen over 100 or 1000 years, did it? If you cannot see the similarities between us and primates, and just how close we are to being them, and not accept that as proof of something changing into something else, IDK what to say.

[dlp211]

Wow, from decimation of the reefs to evolution. Do I believe in evolution? I think the evidence is overwhelming in favor of it. Do I believe we evolved from apes, now that's a "horse of a different color" It seems there is no "smoking gun" evidence but there seems to be a lot of indicators towards it. Have we evolved as a species? We live longer and we are much much larger in size. But I believe much of that is due to a much better diet and modern medicine. But would that be considered evolution, or adaption. But are they not the same? To evolve is to adapt right? There would be no need to evolve if we didn't need to adapt.

Well we didn't evolve from modern apes, that is for sure. It is better to say that apes and humans share a common ancestor and when I say common ancestor, I am not talking about the previous species that we evolved from. I am talking possibly 10, 20, 30, maybe 100 species ago. Humans have evolved from their own line or species that shares a common ancestor with modern apes.

Diet, medicine, and technology are better described as environmental factors and so yes, shrinking jaw lines due to prepared food, taller and heavier do to nutrition and diet(both good and bad), longer lives, the loss of function of the appendix, etc. etc. are all evolutionary traits.

You know why black people are vulnerable to sickle cell? Sickle Cell prevents malaria, and while it will kill you eventually, it allows you to make it past puberty and into reproduction. Just another example of evolution.

And to be clear adaptation is evolution. Adaptation is one of the fundamental principles of evolution.

[James77]

Because fossilization is very rare. Think about it. If you took a chicken out of your freezer and placed it in your yard, what are the odds of it becoming a fossil? Your odds would be better at hitting the lottery.

The one I grilled the other night came out tough enough to be considered a fossil.....does that count? :)

[T Diddy]

The one I grilled the other night came out tough enough to be considered a fossil.....does that count? :)

snickerol...then LOL out loud!!

[elegance coral]

Please don't confuse evolution with adaptation!

There shouldn't be any confusion here. Evolution is an organism "adapting" to its niche in the environment.

It's only evolution if it's a new species,

That's simply wrong. At what point does an organism stop being one species and become another? Evolution is not an animal going to sleep as one species and waking up as another. It is a very slow process, of many very small changes, over a very long period of time. We don't have a line in the sand that shows when an animal has changed species, and therefore evolution has taken place. Evolution takes place every day, one tiny little change at a time.

[jenglish]

The term species is a social construct. How much a species adapts before it is considered a sub-species or a separate species is somewhat subjective. We think of wolves and coyotes as separate species, but they hybridize with fertile offspring.



Humans and animals have not stopped evolving, but it takes time for them to change enough for speciation, as we define it typically. Humans now have lost some of the drive to change through our adaptability. If there was a substantial barrier to gene flow again such as a colony on another planet we may see speciation within humans. But we are so good at adapting through learning that even then we may see only minor adaptation. But adaptation and speciation are really only quantitatively different and not qualitatively different.

[manhorsedog]

Technology! This is evolution, it is not restricted to humans. Technology enables us to evolve, we live longer, run faster ect.....

where do you think man started? no weapons not a lot of food no medicine and so on. Technology made them weapons so they could eat more, tools to build shelter. I mean we can bs all day about this but how can you not see that? The more technology evolves the more humans can its not a guess its a fact.

[T Diddy]

Yeah and stuff!!

Coming back to the original thread topic, all of these anthropogenic and natural factors (accepted or not) are believed to be changing our environment. In the case of a niche organism, specifically suited for life in a given place (reef organisms), rapid environmental change is bad. Yes adaptation to changes in environment will eventually lead to new species OVER TIME...EVOLUTION! If the change in environmental condition happens abruptly, there may not be enough time to adapt...EXTINCTION!

Did you guys see what I just did there?

:beer:

[jcolletteiii]

"Jelle Bijma, of the Alfred Wegener Institute, said the seas faced a "deadly trio" of threats of higher temperatures, acidification and lack of oxygen, known as anoxia, that had featured in several past mass extinctions." - from article OP posted.

Any of the people arguing that the article is based on BS/alarmism/confabrication/or that reefs and oceans can handle the change... any of you willing to turn your temperature up a few degrees, acidify your water (lower pH by not dosing any alk supplements) and seal the top of your tank up with plastic and duct tape (to increase CO2)? How would those 'environmental changes' effect your reef?

[ousnakebyte]

Yeah and stuff!!

Coming back to the original thread topic, all of these anthropogenic and natural factors (accepted or not) are believed to be changing our environment. In the case of a niche organism, specifically suited for life in a given place (reef organisms), rapid environmental change is bad. Yes adaptation to changes in environment will eventually lead to new species OVER TIME...EVOLUTION! If the change in environmental condition happens abruptly, there may not be enough time to adapt...EXTINCTION!

Did you guys see what I just did there?

:beer:

Well done sir... well done. I salute you with one of these as well - :beer:

Cheers
Mike

[manhorsedog]

"Jelle Bijma, of the Alfred Wegener Institute, said the seas faced a "deadly trio" of threats of higher temperatures, acidification and lack of oxygen, known as anoxia, that had featured in several past mass extinctions." - from article OP posted.

Any of the people arguing that the article is based on BS/alarmism/confabrication/or that reefs and oceans can handle the change... any of you willing to turn your temperature up a few degrees, acidify your water (lower pH by not dosing any alk supplements) and seal the top of your tank up with plastic and duct tape (to increase CO2)? How would those 'environmental changes' effect your reef?


its funny you say that, me and my friends always refer to ourselves as saltwater aquariums.

[Reefahholic]

Evolution is simply not fact! Period....

Just add 10,000,000,000, years and it makes it happen/believable. Lol

Funny how they found carbon 14 in dimonds and "70 million year old dinosaur bones", which proves that we have a young earth. However, no matter what evidence comes against evolution, many will turn a blind eye. Why do you ask? Because if we do have a young earth, it supports the flood, bible, and the fact that God created all things. Which many people don't want to believe because "it puts a damper on their lifestyle." They don't want to believe there is a God who created. It's so logical and explained so simply in Gensis.

I think intelligent design is seen everywhere we look. Look at ur REEF TANK, the colors, fish, corals, etc. It's intelligent design that is beautiful and we try so hard to have a piece of that ocean in our living rooms, yet it functions perfectly in the natural.

Our country was founded on God and we have gotton away from that. Look at our money, "in God we trust." Our pledge of allegance. "One nation, under God."

I've worked in some big hospitals, and currently work at a big hospital that is a level 2 Trama. I see and encounter many people who are dying or extremly sick- circling the drain so to speak. I have run across evolutionist, agnostics, and athiests who spent their entire lifes trying to disprove God or simply didn't believe in anything beyond what they could see. But, when their on a ventilator/ life support, their life flashes before their eyes. Things seem to get very real and all of a sudden, they're open minded again. They are desprate for anything that will help, and the families even more so. I have offered to pray with them and tears have burst into their eyes, and people begin to weep. Some of whom were healed instantly and others that made full recoveries. One guy had nothing but daughters who kept notebooks, folders, spreed sheets of vitals, medication times, dosage amounts, ur name, etc. This guy was dying, and was healed 30 minutes after I finished a prayer for him and his family. Not because anything I had done, but that God used me to pray with him and his family. They all believed and were so thankful that God had healed their dad, uncle, brother, etc. It was truely a miracle.

Guys the bottom line is- I love you all! I enjoy reefing! I hope you don't get upset with my response to evolution. In the end, we all have different beliefs and opinions. I just wanted to share mine. This will be my last reply on this good debate.

I hope we can get back to reef talk and leave this interesting topic behind. I will not respond after this because I feel it will only make this post go 100+ pages, and possibly drive a wedge between us fellow reefers. That is surely not my intentions here.

So again, love you guys! Happy reefing..

Deepest Regards,

Jared

[Bilk]

"Jelle Bijma, of the Alfred Wegener Institute, said the seas faced a "deadly trio" of threats of higher temperatures, acidification and lack of oxygen, known as anoxia, that had featured in several past mass extinctions." - from article OP posted.

Any of the people arguing that the article is based on BS/alarmism/confabrication/or that reefs and oceans can handle the change... any of you willing to turn your temperature up a few degrees, acidify your water (lower pH by not dosing any alk supplements) and seal the top of your tank up with plastic and duct tape (to increase CO2)? How would those 'environmental changes' effect your reef?
Well if these events did indeed occur in the past, man obviously had nothing to do with them. It also appears there was an inevitability to them because of some x factor we have yet to understand. Given that, unfortunately it seems there's little we can do to alter the course.

[T Diddy]

Evolution is simply not fact! Period....

Just add 10,000,000,000, years and it makes it happen/believable. Lol

Funny how they found carbon 14 in dimonds and "70 million year old dinosaur bones", which proves that we have a young earth. However, no matter what evidence comes against evolution, many will turn a blind eye. Why do you ask? Because if we do have a young earth, it supports the flood, bible, and the fact that God created all things. Which many people don't want to believe because "it puts a damper on their lifestyle." They don't want to believe there is a God who created. It's so logical and explained so simply in Gensis.

I think intelligent design is seen everywhere we look. Look at ur REEF TANK, the colors, fish, corals, etc. It's intelligent design that is beautiful and we try so hard to have a piece of that ocean in our living rooms, yet it functions perfectly in the natural.

Our country was founded on God and we have gotton away from that. Look at our money, "in God we trust." Our pledge of allegance. "One nation, under God."

I've worked in some big hospitals, and currently work at a big hospital that is a level 2 Trama. I see and encounter many people who are dying or extremly sick- circling the drain so to speak. I have run across evolutionist, agnostics, and athiests who spent their entire lifes trying to disprove God or simply didn't believe in anything beyond what they could see. But, when their on a ventilator/ life support, their life flashes before their eyes. Things seem to get very real and all of a sudden, they're open minded again. They are desprate for anything that will help, and the families even more so. I have offered to pray with them and tears have burst into their eyes, and people begin to weep. Some of whom were healed instantly and others that made full recoveries. One guy had nothing but daughters who kept notebooks, folders, spreed sheets of vitals, medication times, dosage amounts, ur name, etc. This guy was dying, and was healed 30 minutes after I finished a pray for him and his family. Not because anything I had done, but that God used me to pray with him and his family. They all believed and were so thankful that God had healed their dad, uncle, brother, etc. I was truely a miracle.

Guys the bottom line is- I love you all! I enjoy reefing! I hope you don't get upset with my response to evolution. In the end, we all have different beliefs and opinions. I just wanted to share mine. This will be my last reply on this good debate.

I hope we can get back to reef talk and leave this interesting topic behind. I will not respond after this because I feel it will only make this post go 100+ pages, and possibly drive a wedge between us fellow reefers. That is surely not my intentions here.

So again, love you guys! Happy reefing..

Deepest Regards,

Jared

I'm suprised this thread hasn't been closed yet, but we are well on our way now. Just so you know, I don't think religion and science are mutually exclusive. ;)

Happy Reefing back at ya!!

[muttley000]

Evolution is simply not fact! Period....

Just add 10,000,000,000, years and it makes it happen/believable. Lol

Funny how they found carbon 14 in dimonds and "70 million year old dinosaur bones", which proves that we have a young earth. However, no matter what evidence comes against evolution, many will turn a blind eye. Why do you ask? Because if we do have a young earth, it supports the flood, bible, and the fact that God created all things. Which many people don't want to believe because "it puts a damper on their lifestyle." They don't want to believe there is a God who created. It's so logical and explained so simply in Gensis.

I think intelligent design is seen everywhere we look. Look at ur REEF TANK, the colors, fish, corals, etc. It's intelligent design that is beautiful and we try so hard to have a piece of that ocean in our living rooms, yet it functions perfectly in the natural.

Our country was founded on God and we have gotton away from that. Look at our money, "in God we trust." Our pledge of allegance. "One nation, under God."

I've worked in some big hospitals, and currently work at a big hospital that is a level 2 Trama. I see and encounter many people who are dying or extremly sick- circling the drain so to speak. I have run across evolutionist, agnostics, and athiests who spent their entire lifes trying to disprove God or simply didn't believe in anything beyond what they could see. But, when their on a ventilator/ life support, their life flashes before their eyes. Things seem to get very real and all of a sudden, they're open minded again. They are desprate for anything that will help, and the families even more so. I have offered to pray with them and tears have burst into their eyes, and people begin to weep. Some of whom were healed instantly and others that made full recoveries. One guy had nothing but daughters who kept notebooks, folders, spreed sheets of vitals, medication times, dosage amounts, ur name, etc. This guy was dying, and was healed 30 minutes after I finished a prayer for him and his family. Not because anything I had done, but that God used me to pray with him and his family. They all believed and were so thankful that God had healed their dad, uncle, brother, etc. It was truely a miracle.

Guys the bottom line is- I love you all! I enjoy reefing! I hope you don't get upset with my response to evolution. In the end, we all have different beliefs and opinions. I just wanted to share mine. This will be my last reply on this good debate.

I hope we can get back to reef talk and leave this interesting topic behind. I will not respond after this because I feel it will only make this post go 100+ pages, and possibly drive a wedge between us fellow reefers. That is surely not my intentions here.

So again, love you guys! Happy reefing..

Deepest Regards,

Jared

Jared,
I don't think everyone believes evolution excludes intelligent design. However anyone believes this ball got rolling, survival of the fittest is pretty hard to argue. In fact it would take a pretty darn (insert adjective here, I'll use "all knowing") mind to put a system in place that could deal with one of it's organism's running amok. While this is not my personal belief, I think it allows both theories to coexist

[Bilk]

Jared no offense taken. I don't believe evolution and intelligent design need to be mutually exclusive. Now both sides will call me nuts lol

Actually read some thoughts about what some scientists and especially astronauts think of the concept of God. I find it very interesting.

Evolution is simply not fact! Period....

Just add 10,000,000,000, years and it makes it happen/believable. Lol

Funny how they found carbon 14 in dimonds and "70 million year old dinosaur bones", which proves that we have a young earth. However, no matter what evidence comes against evolution, many will turn a blind eye. Why do you ask? Because if we do have a young earth, it supports the flood, bible, and the fact that God created all things. Which many people don't want to believe because "it puts a damper on their lifestyle." They don't want to believe there is a God who created. It's so logical and explained so simply in Gensis.

I think intelligent design is seen everywhere we look. Look at ur REEF TANK, the colors, fish, corals, etc. It's intelligent design that is beautiful and we try so hard to have a piece of that ocean in our living rooms, yet it functions perfectly in the natural.

Our country was founded on God and we have gotton away from that. Look at our money, "in God we trust." Our pledge of allegance. "One nation, under God."

I've worked in some big hospitals, and currently work at a big hospital that is a level 2 Trama. I see and encounter many people who are dying or extremly sick- circling the drain so to speak. I have run across evolutionist, agnostics, and athiests who spent their entire lifes trying to disprove God or simply didn't believe in anything beyond what they could see. But, when their on a ventilator/ life support, their life flashes before their eyes. Things seem to get very real and all of a sudden, they're open minded again. They are desprate for anything that will help, and the families even more so. I have offered to pray with them and tears have burst into their eyes, and people begin to weep. Some of whom were healed instantly and others that made full recoveries. One guy had nothing but daughters who kept notebooks, folders, spreed sheets of vitals, medication times, dosage amounts, ur name, etc. This guy was dying, and was healed 30 minutes after I finished a prayer for him and his family. Not because anything I had done, but that God used me to pray with him and his family. They all believed and were so thankful that God had healed their dad, uncle, brother, etc. It was truely a miracle.

Guys the bottom line is- I love you all! I enjoy reefing! I hope you don't get upset with my response to evolution. In the end, we all have different beliefs and opinions. I just wanted to share mine. This will be my last reply on this good debate.

I hope we can get back to reef talk and leave this interesting topic behind. I will not respond after this because I feel it will only make this post go 100+ pages, and possibly drive a wedge between us fellow reefers. That is surely not my intentions here.

So again, love you guys! Happy reefing..

Deepest Regards,

Jared

[csmfish]

So what are you still doing here, and I love when people whine about using oil when they are typing on a keyboard made from it.

Uhm, because i am bred into this place called USA and living on the side of the highway in a grass hut is illegal :worried:

If your talking anout me, I am not complaining about using oil. We need it to get from point A to point B. he day they come out with a cost effective electric car that gives the same mileage, has as many refill stations available, I will be the first in line. In fact, if they make a car 30% cheaper that that runs on anything but oil, I will buy that and have two cars. One for commute and one for long distance and hauling.

[dlp211]

Evolution is simply not fact! Period....

Just add 10,000,000,000, years and it makes it happen/believable. Lol

Funny how they found carbon 14 in dimonds and "70 million year old dinosaur bones", which proves that we have a young earth. However, no matter what evidence comes against evolution, many will turn a blind eye. Why do you ask? Because if we do have a young earth, it supports the flood, bible, and the fact that God created all things. Which many people don't want to believe because "it puts a damper on their lifestyle." They don't want to believe there is a God who created. It's so logical and explained so simply in Gensis.

LOL....what?



I think intelligent design is seen everywhere we look. Look at ur REEF TANK, the colors, fish, corals, etc. It's intelligent design that is beautiful and we try so hard to have a piece of that ocean in our living rooms, yet it functions perfectly in the natural.



Intelligent Design has been struck down by the courts in the US as being nothing more then a rebranding of creationism. To call creationism by any other name is disingenuous.

That being said, not a single shred of scientific evidence supports creationism.



Our country was founded on God and we have gotton away from that. Look at our money, "in God we trust." Our pledge of allegance. "One nation, under God."



Patently false. "One nation under god" was added in 1954 by congress after being petitioned by the Knights of Columbus. Also "In God We Trust" was added to some coinage beginning in 1864 and paper currency in 1957. It was adopted as our motto in 1956.

Many of the founding fathers were deists. I know this is hard for many people to believe, but they did not believe in a God that intervened, simply one that created the universe and the course that it took would be determined by those things inside the universe.

Our government is based completely on the idea that we do not incorporate religion into it and government doesn't incorporate itself into religion.


I've worked in some big hospitals, and currently work at a big hospital that is a level 2 Trama. I see and encounter many people who are dying or extremly sick- circling the drain so to speak. I have run across evolutionist, agnostics, and athiests who spent their entire lifes trying to disprove God or simply didn't believe in anything beyond what they could see. But, when their on a ventilator/ life support, their life flashes before their eyes. Things seem to get very real and all of a sudden, they're open minded again. They are desprate for anything that will help, and the families even more so. I have offered to pray with them and tears have burst into their eyes, and people begin to weep. Some of whom were healed instantly and others that made full recoveries. One guy had nothing but daughters who kept notebooks, folders, spreed sheets of vitals, medication times, dosage amounts, ur name, etc. This guy was dying, and was healed 30 minutes after I finished a prayer for him and his family. Not because anything I had done, but that God used me to pray with him and his family. They all believed and were so thankful that God had healed their dad, uncle, brother, etc. It was truely a miracle.



Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. You probably believe that Darwin denied evolution and accepted God on his deathbed. Let me help you out here, that is a made up story.



Guys the bottom line is- I love you all! I enjoy reefing! I hope you don't get upset with my response to evolution. In the end, we all have different beliefs and opinions. I just wanted to share mine. This will be my last reply on this good debate.


I am not upset with your response, I am upset with your complete lack of open mindedness. I once listened to a sermon from a religious leader. I forget what denomination, but he made the most compelling argument I have ever heard for believing in evolution and reconciling it with a maker. I will paraphrase as I am not as an eloquent speaker:

To deny evolution and science is to deny the wonderment that God gave to man. It is more reasonable to believe that God is such an amazing maker that he did not just create us but rather he planted the seeds billions of years ago to give us everything that we have today. From our oceans to our mountains, to the beauty of nature and the ability to live off the land. For us to have the oil and natural gas to drive our technology forward.

At this point I would also point out that God gave man free will. To believe that Man cannot destroy the planet is to deny that we have free will. This planet is a gift to us, and we should be doing everything possible to perserve it.



I hope we can get back to reef talk and leave this interesting topic behind. I will not respond after this because I feel it will only make this post go 100+ pages, and possibly drive a wedge between us fellow reefers. That is surely not my intentions here.

So again, love you guys! Happy reefing..

Deepest Regards,

Jared

[jcolletteiii]

At this point I would also point out that God gave man free will. To believe that Man cannot destroy the planet is to deny that we have free will. This planet is a gift to us, and we should be doing everything possible to perserve it.

Logic is something taught in schools where science is also taught.

IBTL.

[redneckgearhead]

Uhm, because i am bred into this place called USA and living on the side of the highway in a grass hut is illegal :worried:

If your talking anout me, I am not complaining about using oil. We need it to get from point A to point B. he day they come out with a cost effective electric car that gives the same mileage, has as many refill stations available, I will be the first in line. In fact, if they make a car 30% cheaper that that runs on anything but oil, I will buy that and have two cars. One for commute and one for long distance and hauling.

While it might be illegal to live in a grass hut on the side of the highway, it is not illegal to live in a grass hut on your own property.

He was pointing out the obvious hipocrisy of the global warming crowd claiming that oil is the "enemy" of the earth but still live in a huge mansion on the west coast. If you claim that burning of fossil fuels is creating global warming, killing the planet, but insist on consuming those same fossil fuels then you lose some crediblity.

And you do realize that electric cars charged in most of the nation are charged with electricity created by burning fossil fuels and you are just moving the "carbon" from your exhaust of the car to the exhaust of the electric plant.

[James77]

Evolution is simply not fact! Period....

Just add 10,000,000,000, years and it makes it happen/believable. Lol

Funny how they found carbon 14 in dimonds and "70 million year old dinosaur bones", which proves that we have a young earth. However, no matter what evidence comes against evolution, many will turn a blind eye.


Alot more has been done to prove evolution than just adding 70 million years. I will not turn a blind eye to any logical idea that has at least some proof standing behind it.

We do not have a young Earth, it is 4.55 billion years old. Dinosaurs did not live alongside man, there was 65 million years separating us.

Which many people don't want to believe because "it puts a damper on their lifestyle." They don't want to believe there is a God who created. It's so logical and explained so simply in Gensis.
Jared

Its not that it dampers my lifestyle, there is just no proof that I can take seriously given for supporting it. You are calling fact a book that was written and revised ~2000 years by men who knew squat about the world we are in. The Earth was flat to them, and the stars revolved around us.

I think intelligent design is seen everywhere we look. Look at ur REEF TANK, the colors, fish, corals, etc. It's intelligent design that is beautiful and we try so hard to have a piece of that ocean in our living rooms, yet it functions perfectly in the natural.


Something may be behind it all.....life, the universe, etc. But the life we see in front of our eyes was not placed here as it is. It has evolved into being. That is why there are so many similarities between all life. Species is a lable given by us, and it means nothing really. All life is related to eah other....hence why bones, blood, hair, eyes, are all so similar.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Many of the things we find beautiful serve a purpose with that color. It was not placed here to entertain us.


Guys the bottom line is- I love you all! I enjoy reefing! I hope you don't get upset with my response to evolution. In the end, we all have different beliefs and opinions. I just wanted to share mine. This will be my last reply on this good debate.


Not upset with your response, and I respect your views.....so long as mine are respected. Differing opionions have been around forever, and sharing them with other hobbyists is fine, so long as we all hold nothing against each other. I am not :).

[James77]

Uhm, because i am bred into this place called USA and living on the side of the highway in a grass hut is illegal :worried:

If your talking anout me, I am not complaining about using oil. We need it to get from point A to point B. he day they come out with a cost effective electric car that gives the same mileage, has as many refill stations available, I will be the first in line. In fact, if they make a car 30% cheaper that that runs on anything but oil, I will buy that and have two cars. One for commute and one for long distance and hauling.

You can live in Eco housing, you can give up technology and live green. Electric cars are pretty much a feel good thing at this point, there energy needs to come from somewhere, right now coal burning plants. Unless they come from truly renewable sources, electric cars produce pollution....but out of sight out of mind for some people.

[jcolletteiii]

Evolution is simply not fact! Period....

Funny how they found carbon 14 in dimonds and "70 million year old dinosaur bones", which proves that we have a young earth.
Jared

Do you actually do any research on things that you're told?

There is only ONE WAY 14C can get into a diamond. Cosmic rays smash into atoms in the upper atmosphere making free neutrons. When one of those smashes into a nitrogen atom (inside of teh diamond from inclusions or impurities), it gets captured by the nucleus, but as an effect (think: = and opposite reaction), a proton goes whizzing off. This rxn instantaneously changes the 14N (7n, 7p) into 14C (8n, 6p). Diamonds did not form 1200 years ago. Do your homework.

[jcolletteiii]

You can live in Eco housing, you can give up technology and live green. Electric cars are pretty much a feel good thing at this point, there energy needs to come from somewhere, right now coal burning plants. Unless they come from truly renewable sources, electric cars produce pollution....but out of sight out of mind for some people.

We make a lot of our electrons here in SoCal from renewables - mainly wind and solar. Have seen solar charging stations in parking lots here in CA - pretty awesome. NY has a nice new wind farm upstate, and now that Cape Wind is FINALLY cleared to move ahead, MA is following suit. If you have your own photovoltaics on your roof, an E car is an awesome alternative. The transition to renewables is underway - however, third world economies will no doubt continue to be based on carbon. Can't blame them though - it's cheaper than the alternative, and if we blamed them, we'd be a bunch of hypocrites. It's not realistic to expect them to pay for technology they can't afford to help us fix the mess we've caused.

[redneckgearhead]

I don't know about anyone else but I am loving this thread!

[Blom]

Could this be visual proof of evolution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9tlCFgjM4M

Starts at 20 sec and lasts for a few minutes

[jcolletteiii]

Could this be visual proof of evolution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9tlCFgjM4M

Starts at 20 sec and lasts for a few minutes

NOPE!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GlfI8n8nses/TEnfpjZTzaI/AAAAAAAAAEE/zwz_aTVhdxg/s1600/ostrich+head+in+sand+sign.gif

[ludiNano]

IBTL. Hehe. I need to bite my tongue. I'll just say I'm w/ James...

[James77]

I really don't think the mods mind discussions like this, so long as we don't start hurling insults at each other and keep it fairly civil. Yes, it's not 100% reef talk, but an interesting debate nontheless.

[elegance coral]

If you study animals at all, you'll find evolution everywhere. You simply can't avoid it. Nothing works without evolution. Just look at white tail deer. In the norther states they're huge. They need mass to maintain heat. As you move south through the states, the deer shrink. Smaller size enables them to dissipate heat faster. Here in central Florida we have very small deer compared to those in Maine. Move down to the Florida Keys, and the deer look like dogs with antlers. This is clear adaptation to the environment. Adaptation and evolution are one in the same. The northern deer have evolved to have a larger mass, and the southern deer have evolved to have a smaller mass. The animals are not interchangeable. If you released a Key deer in Main, it would freeze to death. If you released a deer from Maine in the Keys, it would either starve or die of heat stroke.

[Bilk]

You can live in Eco housing, you can give up technology and live green. Electric cars are pretty much a feel good thing at this point, there energy needs to come from somewhere, right now coal burning plants. Unless they come from truly renewable sources, electric cars produce pollution....but out of sight out of mind for some people.
I agree. It seems some want to "be green" until it's inconvenient.

[Caesra]

There are actually quite a few occurances in nature that contradict the concepts of evolution, at least in the fashion that most describe. As some people are saying, do your homework, there is some pretty convincing evidence that evolution is a very broken theory....right up there with the whole big bang concept...it is fundamentally broken.

What is ironic, is many people who blast the Intelligent Design theory most often are not applying the same side set of rules to both theories. Even Einstien, the one who set many of our new concepts in motion, stated that his theories demandedthe existance of a God. He just didn't believe in a personal God. Those who hound on evolution as some contradiction, look into Darwin, you will find he wrestled with the concept of God quite severly because of a personal loss in his life, not because he didn't believe in the existance of a God. Again, he didn't struggle with the concept of a God, he struggled with the concept of a personal God. People who bash one side or the other need to take some time and actually read and stop repeating what others say.

I too agree science (the desire to understand the uknown) and God (the creator of the unknown) are very much synchronous.

[redneckgearhead]

There are actually quite a few occurances in nature that contradict the concepts of evolution, at least in the fashion that most describe. As some people are saying, do your homework, there is some pretty convincing evidence that evolution is a very broken theory....right up there with the whole big bang concept...it is fundamentally broken.

What is ironic, is many people who blast the Intelligent Design theory most often are not applying the same side set of rules to both theories. Even Einstien, the one who set many of our new concepts in motion, stated that his theories demandedthe existance of a God. He just didn't believe in a personal God. Those who hound on evolution as some contradiction, look into Darwin, you will find he wrestled with the concept of God quite severly because of a personal loss in his life, not because he didn't believe in the existance of a God. Again, he didn't struggle with the concept of a God, he struggled with the concept of a personal God. People who bash one side or the other need to take some time and actually read and stop repeating what others say.

I too agree science (the desire to understand the uknown) and God (the creator of the unknown) are very much synchronous.

Can you name a few of those occurances? Id like to research it more.

I have been told by a very religious man that the "big bang" didn't happen because God created the universe. My question to him was, "Could God not have created the universe with an explosion or a big bang?" and I was told by an atheist that the "big bang" created the universe and there was no god. My question to him was "What was here the second before the "big bang"? Both men looked at me with the "deer in headlights" look. My point with both of these men is we must keep an open mind and think outside the box.

[elegance coral]

There is a huge difference between evolution and the big bang. Even the theoretical physicists that support the big bang, admit there are some major problems with their theory. It is just the best explanation they have come up with to date. There are scientists all over the world spending billions of dollars trying to answer those questions created by the big bang theory. There are even scientists with alternative theories.

Evolution is completely different. There are no "occurrences in nature that contradict the concepts of evolution". Not one.

[redneckgearhead]

There is a huge difference between evolution and the big bang. Even the theoretical physicists that support the big bang, admit there are some major problems with their theory. It is just the best explanation they have come up with to date. There are scientists all over the world spending billions of dollars trying to answer those questions created by the big bang theory. There are even scientists with alternative theories.

Evolution is completely different. There are no "occurrences in nature that contradict the concepts of evolution". Not one.

Yea I understand there is a huge difference between the two. I was just pointing out there are competing ideas. With giant holes in both, and we should be open to other arguments.

Wow, that is a bold statement to make.

[Luiz Rocha]

Wow... Amusing thread, I am surprised I only found it now. Some thoughts:

Science is based on data and facts, religion is based on personal experience and belief. As long as you keep that in mind (and maintain both separately) they are compatible. In other words, everyone can believe in whatever they want based on their personal experiences, but science does not require belief.

It is amazing how quickly the defenders of intelligent design (or whatever you want to call it) poke non-existing wholes in theories like evolution or the big bang, but do not accept (or require) scientific explanations for their own theories. One weight, two measures. Here is an example, the entire rationale behind the intelligent design theory is that complex life-forms cannot "appear by chance". That implies that everything needs a creator. But when we ask what created the creator they say that this is an exception and that's it. But they use the exact same argument to falsify the big bang by asking what was before the big bang. If scientists cannot ask who created the creator, creationists cannot ask what came before the big bang. Unfortunately creationist's minds are not that logic.

[KafudaFish]

If you study animals at all, you'll find evolution everywhere. You simply can't avoid it. Nothing works without evolution. Just look at white tail deer. In the norther states they're huge. They need mass to maintain heat. As you move south through the states, the deer shrink. Smaller size enables them to dissipate heat faster. Here in central Florida we have very small deer compared to those in Maine. Move down to the Florida Keys, and the deer look like dogs with antlers. This is clear adaptation to the environment. Adaptation and evolution are one in the same. The northern deer have evolved to have a larger mass, and the southern deer have evolved to have a smaller mass. The animals are not interchangeable. If you released a Key deer in Main, it would freeze to death. If you released a deer from Maine in the Keys, it would either starve or die of heat stroke.

Bergmann's rule.

[Caesra]

There is a huge difference between evolution and the big bang. Even the theoretical physicists that support the big bang, admit there are some major problems with their theory. It is just the best explanation they have come up with to date. There are scientists all over the world spending billions of dollars trying to answer those questions created by the big bang theory. There are even scientists with alternative theories.

Evolution is completely different. There are no "occurrences in nature that contradict the concepts of evolution". Not one.

This is the type of thing I speak of, and I don't want to dig down into details, if you really want to see opposing views, they are very readily available. Evolution is based entirely on unprovable assumptions. The same as the creation theory. The assumptions cannot be proven and science in itself contradicts the reasonable possability that these fundamental assumptions can be true.

If evolution is so fact, then why are there mutliple drastically different theories on the topic, and why are all of the root, unproovable, assumptions left to 'faith'.

There are countless animals in the world that contradict the entire notion of evolution. Google it if you would like more info. There is an entire video series on the topic as well, forget the name.

Please don't get me wrong, I do beleive we change, or if you will 'evolve', but I don't beleive that this world randomly occurred out some molecule. Too me that would take a much larger leap of faith....The statistical possability alone is astronomical.

[Caesra]

Wow... Amusing thread, I am surprised I only found it now. Some thoughts:

Science is based on data and fact.

Science laws are based on provable fact, theories are based on unproven ideas and assumptions. Evolution does not fall into the category of fact.

It is amazing how quickly the defenders of intelligent design (or whatever you want to call it) poke non-existing wholes in theories like evolution or the big bang, but do not accept (or require) scientific explanations for their own theories.

Actually I am always very interested in science, always have been. I do not poke wholes in these theories, any more than I question my beleifs. I challenge them daily, repeatedly and unforgivingly. Failure to do so would do nothing other than let my faith be a useless idea.

There is an outstanding article about the logic behind both creationism and evolution. I couldn't find it, I might try again tonight. It does an oustanding job of showing (with logic, the fundametal tool of science)...that neither creationism or evolution has an up on the other. They both require the same level of faith.

[Caesra]

Bergmann's rule.

This speaks to adaptation, not evolution...very different beasts. It is a far stretch to go from height changes to goo turning into a bird.

[Luiz Rocha]

Science laws are based on provable fact, theories are based on unproven ideas and assumptions. Evolution does not fall into the category of fact.

That is the common popular misconception. The "popular definition" of theory is that it is a collection of unproved ideas. Here is the definition of scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. Those explanations become "scientific theories", and that is what evolution and gravity are, scientific theories. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.

[redneckgearhead]

Wow... Amusing thread, I am surprised I only found it now. Some thoughts:

Science is based on data and facts, religion is based on personal experience and belief. As long as you keep that in mind (and maintain both separately) they are compatible. In other words, everyone can believe in whatever they want based on their personal experiences, but science does not require belief.

It is amazing how quickly the defenders of intelligent design (or whatever you want to call it) poke non-existing wholes in theories like evolution or the big bang, but do not accept (or require) scientific explanations for their own theories. One weight, two measures. Here is an example, the entire rationale behind the intelligent design theory is that complex life-forms cannot "appear by chance". That implies that everything needs a creator. But when we ask what created the creator they say that this is an exception and that's it. But they use the exact same argument to falsify the big bang by asking what was before the big bang. If scientists cannot ask who created the creator, creationists cannot ask what came before the big bang. Unfortunately creationist's minds are not that logic.

Who or what created the creator? A point I hadn't considered!

[T Diddy]

This speaks to adaptation, not evolution...very different beasts. It is a far stretch to go from height changes to goo turning into a bird.

LOL...I assure you, no tall people will turn into birds...not over a few generations anyway :headwalls:

[Caesra]

That is the common popular misconception. The "popular definition" of theory is that it is a collection of unproved ideas. Here is the definition of scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. Those explanations become "scientific theories", and that is what evolution and gravity are, scientific theories. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.

And no one thought this one would be busted...http://www.universetoday.com/48753/flat-earth-theory/

It was plainly obvious the earth was flat. you could even see the boats fall off the edge of the earth and never return.

[Luiz Rocha]

And no one thought this one would be busted...http://www.universetoday.com/48753/flat-earth-theory/

It was plainly obvious the earth was flat. you could even see the boats fall off the edge of the earth and never return.

Flat earth has never been a scientific theory.

[Luiz Rocha]

Can you name a few of those occurances? Id like to research it more.

I have been told by a very religious man that the "big bang" didn't happen because God created the universe. My question to him was, "Could God not have created the universe with an explosion or a big bang?" and I was told by an atheist that the "big bang" created the universe and there was no god. My question to him was "What was here the second before the "big bang"? Both men looked at me with the "deer in headlights" look. My point with both of these men is we must keep an open mind and think outside the box.

Yes, yes, totally agree, but think about how both of those men would go about to answer your question. The religious one would ask more time to pray, the scientist would ask more time to gather data (and money for better experiments :beer: ).

[jcolletteiii]

There are actually quite a few occurances in nature that contradict the concepts of evolution, at least in the fashion that most describe. As some people are saying, do your homework, there is some pretty convincing evidence that evolution is a very broken theory....right up there with the whole big bang concept...it is fundamentally broken.



PLease, cite specific examples - I'll try and explain them to you.

[Caesra]

PLease, cite specific examples - I'll try and explain them to you.

The most famous is the giraffe.

This is one take on the arguement....where the arguement is made that fossil records do not support evolution...and points out darwins point of view on this, which is not very scientific. This focuses on the long neck development.
http://creation.com/the-giraffes-neck-icon-of-evolution-or-icon-of-creation

If you want to dig into it alot more, you can dig much more into the details of anatomy surrounding the girraffe and the complexity of developing a long neck and the ramifications to it's body.

here is a simple arguement
http://www.creationism.org/articles/giraffes_en.htm

The giraffe is one of 100s of examples where the rules that govern the theories of evolution break down.

I am just pulling random links, not using these as my proof, just showing that there are alot of very valid arguements against it. There are lots of other animals that are even more convincing, but the giraffe is the most popular example.

to add to it, the good old standing case of regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now this one is a 'law'..not even a theory...it is an unquestionable law =)

A quick blurp...you can find many othe references
http://www.icr.org/article/does-entropy-contradict-evolution/

No need to try to prove or disprove anything, as most who have taken time to look into both sides of this discussion know, this is a HUGE conversations with many valid points on both sides. We can all enjoy our reefs no matter what we believe =).

[Caesra]

Flat earth has never been a scientific theory.

You are probably right, it was consider a well known fact.

It may sound ludicrous now, but back then again, what will people think of us 2000 years from now.

[KafudaFish]

Bergmann's rule.

This speaks to adaptation, not evolution...very different beasts. It is a far stretch to go from height changes to goo turning into a bird.

:debi:

I was simply providing Elegance with the name of the rule that he was using for his discussion.


Adaptation is an evolutionary process and it falls under natural selection which is one of the mechanisms of evolution.

[T Diddy]

Anybody notice that mapn4reef, the OP, hasn't posted anything since page 1???

I think he'd be proud at how far this has come

[dlp211]

There are actually quite a few occurances in nature that contradict the concepts of evolution, at least in the fashion that most describe. As some people are saying, do your homework, there is some pretty convincing evidence that evolution is a very broken theory....right up there with the whole big bang concept...it is fundamentally broken.

Citation needed. If you look back, when I wanted to prove evolution with observable facts, I cited some sources, please return the courtesy instead of saying "Google it".


What is ironic, is many people who blast the Intelligent Design theory most often are not applying the same side set of rules to both theories. Even Einstien, the one who set many of our new concepts in motion, stated that his theories demandedthe existance of a God. He just didn't believe in a personal God. Those who hound on evolution as some contradiction, look into Darwin, you will find he wrestled with the concept of God quite severly because of a personal loss in his life, not because he didn't believe in the existance of a God. Again, he didn't struggle with the concept of a God, he struggled with the concept of a personal God. People who bash one side or the other need to take some time and actually read and stop repeating what others say.

It is important to understand what Einstein was talking about when he refers to God and/or the Heavens. He spoke not of a creator, but uses it as a substitute for the Universe. I will point out here that Darwin and Einstein were better scientists and were agnostic to the ultimate idea of a God.


This is the type of thing I speak of, and I don't want to dig down into details, if you really want to see opposing views, they are very readily available. Evolution is based entirely on unprovable assumptions. The same as the creation theory. The assumptions cannot be proven and science in itself contradicts the reasonable possability that these fundamental assumptions can be true.

Evolution makes no assumptions. Evolution is a fact, the mechanism of evolution is a theory. At this point it is important to recognize the difference between the layman use of a theory and a scientific theory. A scientific theory is based on Reproducible facts and evidence gathered through observation and experimentation. Evolution is not a debate in Biology, it is the underlying principal of it.


If evolution is so fact, then why are there mutliple drastically different theories on the topic, and why are all of the root, unproovable, assumptions left to 'faith'.

Such as? Once again, Evolution is a fact, it is as real as gravity. The theory of evolution, which I again will point out is talking about the mechanism for which evolution occurs. There are not drastically different theories, however there are different hypothesis within said theory which are constantly be observed and experimented against to further solidify the mechanism for which evolution occurs.


There are countless animals in the world that contradict the entire notion of evolution. Google it if you would like more info. There is an entire video series on the topic as well, forget the name.

Such as?


Please don't get me wrong, I do beleive we change, or if you will 'evolve', but I don't beleive that this world randomly occurred out some molecule. Too me that would take a much larger leap of faith....The statistical possability alone is astronomical.

So you believe that we change which is an admission of evolution, and you then believe that there is a maker who kicked us all off as we are today without the technology, but can't believe that said maker couldn't have created us by planting tiny bacterium on a planet knowing that the billions of years of decay and weather would allow us to use the earth to further our civilization. Some examples of these would be coal, oil, gold, diamonds, silver, basically every other precious metal.


Science laws are based on provable fact, theories are based on unproven ideas and assumptions. Evolution does not fall into the category of fact.

False, scientific theories are provable, reproducible, and observable. If you were so inclined you could take all the experimentation and observation that has been put on paper that would fill warehouses; I'll repeat this again, WAREHOUSEs.



Actually I am always very interested in science, always have been. I do not poke wholes in these theories, any more than I question my beleifs. I challenge them daily, repeatedly and unforgivingly. Failure to do so would do nothing other than let my faith be a useless idea.

There is an outstanding article about the logic behind both creationism and evolution. I couldn't find it, I might try again tonight. It does an oustanding job of showing (with logic, the fundametal tool of science)...that neither creationism or evolution has an up on the other. They both require the same level of faith.

For someone who is so interested in science, you sure lack a grasp or some of the most fundamental principals of Science, most notably the scientific process.

This speaks to adaptation, not evolution...very different beasts. It is a far stretch to go from height changes to goo turning into a bird.

Evolution occurs in micro and macro events. Height, weight, lung capacity, sickle cell anemia, are all forms of evolution. Evolution also doesn't always occur to make the species stronger, see our new battle with obesity, poor vision, shrinking jaw lines.

To understand evolution, one must not think in lifetimes or even generations. We are talking 10's of millions of years. Just take the time to contemplate what 10's of millions of years are in time, I still struggle to wrap my mind around such large swaths of time.

[Luiz Rocha]

You are probably right, it was consider a well known fact.

It may sound ludicrous now, but back then again, what will people think of us 2000 years from now.

As I said, scientific theory is based on fact and data, what we call empirical evidence. Flat earth has never been a scientific theory, no matter how many people believed on it.

Now, with your giraffe post you just convinced me that this thread is going nowhere. For every "evidence against evolution" that you post (and what you posted is not evidence against evolution), I could post 1,000 against creationism. But I am sure that wouldn't change your mind because you are confusing scientific fact with religious belief.

The explanation for the Giraffe having a long neck is pretty simple. The ones that had short necks died. If you don't think a Giraffe can evolve from an ancestor with a short neck just look at what man has made with the wolf (aka dog) in a few thousand years of selection (aka evolution). Afterall, how can a Bulldog come from a Wolf? If Bulldogs had a selective advantage (survived better), nature could have done exactly what men did (transform wolves into bulldogs) in no time.

[dlp211]

The most famous is the giraffe.

This is one take on the arguement....where the arguement is made that fossil records do not support evolution...and points out darwins point of view on this, which is not very scientific. This focuses on the long neck development.
http://creation.com/the-giraffes-neck-icon-of-evolution-or-icon-of-creation

If you want to dig into it alot more, you can dig much more into the details of anatomy surrounding the girraffe and the complexity of developing a long neck and the ramifications to it's body.

here is a simple arguement
http://www.creationism.org/articles/giraffes_en.htm

The giraffe is one of 100s of examples where the rules that govern the theories of evolution break down.

I am just pulling random links, not using these as my proof, just showing that there are alot of very valid arguements against it. There are lots of other animals that are even more convincing, but the giraffe is the most popular example.

to add to it, the good old standing case of regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now this one is a 'law'..not even a theory...it is an unquestionable law =)

A quick blurp...you can find many othe references
http://www.icr.org/article/does-entropy-contradict-evolution/

No need to try to prove or disprove anything, as most who have taken time to look into both sides of this discussion know, this is a HUGE conversations with many valid points on both sides. We can all enjoy our reefs no matter what we believe =).


I only clicked on the last link and low and behold what did I find. Henry Morris, Ph.D. Wow a Ph.D, so he's a doctor so he must know what he is talking about. Let's see what his Ph.D in....Hydraulic Engineering.

He is also credited with the entire creationist concept. I am sorry, but as a amateur scientist, his amusing writing is just that....amusing. We can sit here all day and hypothesize why the Giraffe evolved a long neck, what we will not do is deny that the giraffe does in fact have a fossil record dating 75 million years old showing its evolution from a smaller animal to the ginormous animal it is today.

Just because we can not explain why something evolved this way does not disprove evolution. The fact that we can see the evolution is all that matters.

[redneckgearhead]

I am sitting here thinking about this and a question comes to mind. The Bible states that Adam and Eve where the first people on earth and we all came from them. So if we do not evolve then wouldn't we all look alike? We wouldn't have different races, correct?

[Luiz Rocha]

Anybody notice that mapn4reef, the OP, hasn't posted anything since page 1???

I think he'd be proud at how far this has come

Haha, true, amazing turn this thread has taken. Over and out, and for the science guys out there, you cannot convince religious people by using logical arguments, trust me on this one. The best is to just accept that some people believe in what their personal experiences tell them to, end of story.

Again for the science guys, if you want to blow your mind, read about the evolution of religion. Religious belief itself may be an evolutionary trait that was advantageous back when humanity roamed the earth in clans killing each other...

[KafudaFish]

I claim this page!

I am sitting here thinking about this and a question comes to mind. The Bible states that Adam and Eve where the first people on earth and we all came from them. So if we do not evolve then wouldn't we all look alike? We wouldn't have different races, correct?

I bet there is a rule for that too.

[Luiz Rocha]

I am sitting here thinking about this and a question comes to mind. The Bible states that Adam and Eve where the first people on earth and we all came from them. So if we do not evolve then wouldn't we all look alike? We wouldn't have different races, correct?

Haha, I can't get away from this thread. You have to go even shallower than that. Why is the Adam and Eve story correct and not the Hindu cyclical universe? Or the Aborigenal dream universe? I could go on forever.

[dlp211]

I am sitting here thinking about this and a question comes to mind. The Bible states that Adam and Eve where the first people on earth and we all came from them. So if we do not evolve then wouldn't we all look alike? We wouldn't have different races, correct?

Once again...logic. Just like my point that God gave man free will, so the believe that we can not destroy the earth or ourselves is deny that we have free will.

I'm not going to tell anyone what they can and can not believe in their personal lives, however, when we talk about what is accepted fact and what needs to be taught to our society, it is important that we distinguish between belief, and provable, repeatable, observable, peer reviewed science.

[redneckgearhead]

Haha, true, amazing turn this thread has taken. Over and out, and for the science guys out there, you cannot convince religious people by using logical arguments, trust me on this one. The best is to just accept that some people believe in what their personal experiences tell them to, end of story.

Again for the science guys, if you want to blow your mind, read about the evolution of religion. Religious belief itself may be an evolutionary trait that was advantageous back when humanity roamed the earth in clans killing each other...

And it gave them an explanation for the unexplainable. They had to explain a lot of things that they did not have the technology or knowledge to explain.

[dlp211]

Haha, true, amazing turn this thread has taken. Over and out, and for the science guys out there, you cannot convince religious people by using logical arguments, trust me on this one. The best is to just accept that some people believe in what their personal experiences tell them to, end of story.

Again for the science guys, if you want to blow your mind, read about the evolution of religion. Religious belief itself may be an evolutionary trait that was advantageous back when humanity roamed the earth in clans killing each other...

I agree somewhat, but I feel that it is extremely important to ensure that there is rational, logical discourse so that when some youngling comes along and reads this thread they are able to challenge themselves to at least incorporate science into their belief system.

Science has driven society forward in exponential amounts in just the last half millennia and in America there is a huge war on science and learning.

[jcolletteiii]

The most famous is the giraffe.

This is one take on the arguement....where the arguement is made that fossil records do not support evolution...and points out darwins point of view on this, which is not very scientific. This focuses on the long neck development.
http://creation.com/the-giraffes-neck-icon-of-evolution-or-icon-of-creation

If you want to dig into it alot more, you can dig much more into the details of anatomy surrounding the girraffe and the complexity of developing a long neck and the ramifications to it's body.

here is a simple arguement
http://www.creationism.org/articles/giraffes_en.htm

The giraffe is one of 100s of examples where the rules that govern the theories of evolution break down.

I am just pulling random links, not using these as my proof, just showing that there are alot of very valid arguements against it. There are lots of other animals that are even more convincing, but the giraffe is the most popular example.

to add to it, the good old standing case of regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now this one is a 'law'..not even a theory...it is an unquestionable law =)

A quick blurp...you can find many othe references
http://www.icr.org/article/does-entropy-contradict-evolution/

No need to try to prove or disprove anything, as most who have taken time to look into both sides of this discussion know, this is a HUGE conversations with many valid points on both sides. We can all enjoy our reefs no matter what we believe =).

You cannot argue against evolution by citing a creationist blog. If you have any scientific studies you'd like to discuss on evolution, by all means, please cite away. I will not discuss blog entries made by non-scientists. These are simply propaganda aimed at people with a high degree of religiosity.

Here's some food for mental mastication. Why do most vertebrates share modified versions of many of the same bones? Why do many legless animals retain vestigial limb and pelvis bones? If not from being derived from animals that had those structures (presumably used for walking), then why?

Please, if you have anything to say on evolution that is not based on propaganda, I'd love to discuss this with you.

[Luiz Rocha]

I agree somewhat, but I feel that it is extremely important to ensure that there is rational, logical discourse so that when some youngling comes along and reads this thread they are able to challenge themselves to at least incorporate science into their belief system.


Very true, I keep thinking that the discussion is just between us and forget the fact that many other people will be reading this. So, pretty clear we cannot convince Caesra, but our arguments might make sense to other readers that are in the fence :D

[Caesra]

Just because we can not explain why something evolved this way does not disprove evolution.

The very foundation of faith. Just because you can't prove it does not deny it's existance.

[jenglish]

When looking at two theories as to why things are a certain way, I lean towards the one that doesn't rely on magic! ;)

[jcolletteiii]

You know what, actually, I will bite. Giraffe necks can be readily explained by natural selectin. I can think of two selective pressures off the top of my head, either of which could explain the lengthening of the giraffe's neck.

1) feeding pressure - if the giraffe is in competition for food resources with other animals, and the lower leaves of its favorite food tree are stripped bare routinely by it's competitors, that would lead to selective pressure favoring individuals with longer necks (a LITTLE AT A TIME, mind you). Alleles responsible for longer necks (and/or longer limbs) would be favored among the population, the frequency of these alleles increased in each generation, ultimately leading to a genetic sweep, or the 'tall neck' allele completely displacing the 'short neck' allele in the genes of the entire population.

2) sexual selection. Giraffes use a really wacky form of competition for females during breeding. They stand still and whack each other with their necks and the horny little nubbins on top of their heads (if I recall correctly, they are horn, not bone). In this case, longer, more robust necks would be favored by sexual selection over puny, wimpy necks, because the big-necked giraffes get all the ladies. Thus, small-necked giraffes have NO fitness at all (because they get no chance to pass their genes on to the next generation), and their alleles for neck length are quickly removed from the gene pool of the population. Now, this is the exact same process (on a natural basis) that has been used to alter dogs into their respective breeds. Giraffes are doing it by themselves to themselves by selecting for individuals with the traits that they find attractive, or that increase reproductive fitness. But again, I reiterate, it is the same mechanism as artificially selecting for a cocker spaniel, just on a natural scale. The frequency of a particular allele is increased in the population until the other version of that allele is replaced.

[dlp211]

The very foundation of faith. Just because you can't prove it does not deny it's existance.




What are you talking about. I said we don't need to understand why the giraffe evolved a long neck, just that it in FACT happened. There are no leaps of faith being made here.

[Luiz Rocha]

The very foundation of faith. Just because you can't prove it does not deny it's existance.

That is completely different. There is plenty of evidence that living organisms evolve. We do know, as a fact, that the ancestor of a Giraffe had a short neck, and we know that, through natural selection over evolutionary time that neck elongated. That is evolution. There is no need to know why the neck is long, whichever reason it is, evolution is behind it. Even if there is no reason for the neck to be long, evolution was responsible for its development in a long time scale. Evolution does not require a reason for everything, survival of the fittest is what it is: a mutation happens, if it helps the species (or is does nothing, aka is "neutral"), the animal that carries it survives; if it is a deleterious mutation, the animal dies.

Now, about one thing you are correct, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. From a purely scientific point of view, the problem with creationism (and intelligent design) is not that it requires faith, it is that not a single shred of scientific evidence supports it. There is not a single scientific experiment that can be designed to test creationism. Therefore it is not, and can never be a scientific theory. It is a religious explanation of the existence of the Earth, that is all. If, because of your personal experiences, you chose to believe in creationism, by all means do it, it's a personal choice.

Intelligent design as a whole is even worse than creationism I think, because it relies on what science cannot explain (or absence of evidence).

[T Diddy]

We should all have faith in SOMETHING, given that we are the only animals on Earth capable of it. If mapn4reef were here, he might ask what will reinhabit the reefs should environmental changes kill off a bunch of organisms in that type of ecosystem. Will they be dead forever, or reinhabited by new organisms making use of a new niche. I have faith that he will return and steer us back from the brink of thread closure.

[T Diddy]

...and why have no scientologists chimed in? :spin3:

[Caesra]

I am not going to attempt to respond to most of the posts, simply because it is clear they did not actually read what was posted. The personal attacks can be kept, i have not attacked anyone and certainly do not feel that I should be either.

My argument is simple, there are many holes in the theory of evolution, a great many holes, so therefore the notion that it fact (adaptation and evolution are not the same thing), is just plain false. These holes are not disputable, and those who maintain that the holes are just unexplained are doing the same exact thing as a creationist does.

I am often amazed at the number of people who follow scientific beliefs, but then when confronted with a logical breakdown of their citings, that they resort to the equivalant argument of a person who believes in a God.

In regards to notions that theologians have no logic is just silly. Just because somone has taken the time to draft an article and post it on a creationist site doesn't make them an idiot. Logic is logic, no matter who uses and has no relevance to scientific methods.

The simple reality is, if you want to have a conversation regarding creationism vs evolution, you have to be willing to apply the same rules. To me, and I have a very logical mind, even if it is too small for this discussion, that looks at the 'magic' of evolution, which contradicts itself as a far greater leap of faith than my beliefs, which I find to be very provable in my daily life.

[jcolletteiii]

We should all have faith in SOMETHING, given that we are the only animals on Earth capable of it. If mapn4reef were here, he might ask what will reinhabit the reefs should environmental changes kill off a bunch of organisms in that type of ecosystem. Will they be dead forever, or reinhabited by new organisms making use of a new niche. I have faith that he will return and steer us back from the brink of thread closure.

Reefs have been around for a LOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG time. They will likely be around after we wipe them out again. Here's the thing though. Reefs of the Cambrian (~543 - 480 Mya) were dominated by archaeocyathids - weird double-walled, calcitic, vase-shaped organisms allied to sponges. Reefs in the Ordovician started to get a bit more 'normal' with corals and brachiopods and trilobites and other arthropods (my area of study). However, these corals were really different than the ones around now. Tabulates and rugose corals - calcitic, not aragonite - sadly, wiped out in the end Permian mass extinction. Aragonitic scleractinians (modern corals) evolved to fill the niche vacated by the tabulates and rugosids during the Mesozoic. However, reefs in the mesozoic were dominated by gigantic bivalves - rudists, not corals.

So... after we kill off the sclearctinians, another reef-builder will undoubtably take their place.

[jcolletteiii]

I am not going to attempt to respond to most of the posts, simply because it is clear they did not actually read what was posted. The personal attacks can be kept, i have not attacked anyone and certainly do not feel that I should be either.

My argument is simple, there are many holes in the theory of evolution, a great many holes, so therefore the notion that it fact (adaptation and evolution are not the same thing), is just plain false. These holes are not disputable, and those who maintain that the holes are just unexplained are doing the same exact thing as a creationist does.

I am often amazed at the number of people who follow scientific beliefs, but then when confronted with a logical breakdown of their citings, that they resort to the equivalant argument of a person who believes in a God.

In regards to notions that theologians have no logic is just silly. Just because somone has taken the time to draft an article and post it on a creationist site doesn't make them an idiot. Logic is logic, no matter who uses and has no relevance to scientific methods.

The simple reality is, if you want to have a conversation regarding creationism vs evolution, you have to be willing to apply the same rules. To me, and I have a very logical mind, even if it is too small for this discussion, that looks at the 'magic' of evolution, which contradicts itself as a far greater leap of faith than my beliefs, which I find to be very provable in my daily life.

I did not attack you, nor, do I believe anyone has. I am attempting to conduct a FACT-based debate with you. You have presented no actual evidence to support your 'simple' argument, simply citing creationist propaganda. You are correct about one thing though, evolution and adaptation are not the same thing. Adaptation is a process that leads to evolution - I don't think this was ever disputed herein. I hoe we can continue our discussion - I sincerely enjoy it.

[Luiz Rocha]

I am often amazed at the number of people who follow scientific beliefs, but then when confronted with a logical breakdown of their citings, that they resort to the equivalant argument of a person who believes in a God.

In regards to notions that theologians have no logic is just silly. Just because somone has taken the time to draft an article and post it on a creationist site doesn't make them an idiot. Logic is logic, no matter who uses and has no relevance to scientific methods.

The simple reality is, if you want to have a conversation regarding creationism vs evolution, you have to be willing to apply the same rules. To me, and I have a very logical mind, even if it is too small for this discussion, that looks at the 'magic' of evolution, which contradicts itself as a far greater leap of faith than my beliefs, which I find to be very provable in my daily life.

Alright, what I meant by theologians having no logic was to say that their arguments are not based on testable hypotheses.

As for your first paragraph above, no scientist follows "scientific beliefs". There are no "scientific beliefs". Science requires data, pure and simple.

Evolution and creationism cannot and should not be debated under the same rules because they are not the same thing. Evolution is science, creationism is religious belief. I am 100% sure that you would agree with me that I won't find evidence for evolution in the Bible. Similarly, there is no scientific evidence for creationism because it is not testable under a scientific context. So how can you debate those things using the same rules?

[Luiz Rocha]

So... after we kill off the sclearctinians, another reef-builder will undoubtably take their place.

Coming back to the original topic, +1 here, totally agree. Earth is resilient and went through many disturbances during it's 5 billion year history. What ****** me off is that my grandkids won't see the same reefs that I saw.

[Uncle Salty 05]

The only reason people take what scientists say with a grain of salt is because:

1) they cannot understand the technical background behind the conclusions reached;

2) they do not want to believe the results becasue they are counter to a particular agenda;

3) they have been systematically trained to be skeptical of science by people who try to distribute non-science in the guise of science, or to otherwise try to disprove scientific hypotheses and theories by NON-SCIENTIFIC MEANS (often due to number 2, above).

Oh, and there WILL BE another ice age, rest assured of that; and global warming is the cause of anthropogenically-caused climate change. So as not to confuse followers of this thread who might think you have some first-hand knowledge of any of thee things you are discussing, in the future it might be good to start your posts with "I BELIEVE". JUST IMO on that one, though; IME in all of the previous.

The reasons people take what scientists say with a grain of salt is because the number of theories that have been disproven is nearly infinite.
The world is flat and the sun revolves around it for example.
Anthropogenically-caused climate change is another fine example. If CO2 is causing the Earth to warm why isn't it also causing plants to grow at much higher rates? They do respire CO2 correct?
If human beings and burning fossil fuels are causing global warming, why are Mars and the other planets warming at exactly the same rate?
Since you are a paleontologist perhaps you could explain why dinosaurs went extinct but creatures like the horseshoe crab have remained virtually unchanged for eons.
Yes, scientist do guess, in fact that is all they do. They may be educated guesses but the ARE guesses just the same.
I am out of time or I could go on much longer.

[Dave1NC]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out and believe me I am no rocket scientist.

A attended a seminar called ocean acidification. Chris Jury was the speaker. He wrote this thesis on the topic. Man created this mess and now man must try to figure out a way to lessen the blow for lack of a better phase.

Here are some comments from Chris after his lecture.

QUOTE=Chris Jury;74681]Thanks for the kind words guys :D

Literally since I gave that lecture, a couple of really important studies have JUST come out. And when I say JUST came out, I mean one was published a couple of days ago, another was published online (not yet in print) earlier this morning.

The first, Moy et al., 2009, has demonstrated that calcification in planktonic foraminifera in the Southern Ocean is 30-35% lower today than it was during the preindustrial period. We could easily see about 0 calcification in these organisms in a few decades without cuts in CO2 production. What that would mean for oceanic ecosystems is hard to say at this point, but suffice it to say this is not good news.

The other study, Silverman et al. 2009, suggests that given ocean acidification alone coral reefs almost everywhere are likely to be dissolving/eroding faster than they grow (i.e., net erosion) by the time atmospheric CO2 reaches ~750 ppm, which we could easily hit by about the year 2070. However, if you factor in the effects of a modest increase in temperature (~ 1 C, which reduces summer-time coral growth rates) and factor in reduced coral abundance due to bleaching most reefs will be eroding faster than they grow by the time atmospheric CO2 reaches ~560 ppm. We are on track to see that in about the year 2050.

There's a boat load of earlier work that I didn't get into very specifically (we could have spent the entire weekend just on that ;) ), but suffice it to say that the future for coral reefs and most other oceanic ecosystems doesn't look very bright without changing our trajectory very quickly.

If we really get our act together within the next few years (i.e., < 10 yrs) we could conceivably keep atmospheric CO2 at or below ~450 ppm and thereby avoid most really serious impacts (perhaps not all). If we don't start revamping our energy technology in a big way within the next few years, it's nearly inconceivable that we'll stay below ~560 ppm CO2. If or when we get there, we're likely already going to be seeing really serious impacts in many systems. As above, most of the world's reefs may well be eroding faster than growing at that point. As above, we'll be there in about 40 yrs on our current path. Many of us will see that; our children and grandchildren certainly will.

Chris

p.s. Very cool work by Dr. Fine et al. He presented some of those results this past summer at the 11th ICRS. I absolutely ate it up :D[/QUOTE]

[Luiz Rocha]

1. The reasons people take what scientists say with a grain of salt is because the number of theories that have been disproven is nearly infinite. The world is flat and the sun revolves around it for example.

2. Anthropogenically-caused climate change is another fine example. If CO2 is causing the Earth to warm why isn't it also causing plants to grow at much higher rates? They do respire CO2 correct?

3. If human beings and burning fossil fuels are causing global warming, why are Mars and the other planets warming at exactly the same rate?

4. Since you are a paleontologist perhaps you could explain why dinosaurs went extinct but creatures like the horseshoe crab have remained virtually unchanged for eons.

5. Yes, scientist do guess, in fact that is all they do. They may be educated guesses but the ARE guesses just the same. I am out of time or I could go on much longer.

Oh dear, how do you debate this? Alright, I will try, I broke down your questions in numbers for easy replies.

1. Those were never scientific theories, see my post above stating the difference between a scientific theory and the popular understanding of what a "theory" is.

2. If you have a reef at home you know (or should know) that plants don't depend on CO2 to grow. They depend on nutrients (like nitrogen and phosphate) and sun light. You can increase CO2 in the atmosphere (or water) by a million, it won't change the growth rate of plants. The only thing that will make plants grow faster is if you give them more nutrients or more sun.

3. You got me on that one, show me where is the evidence for long term warming in Mars. I can actually show you temperature readings for the last 100 years and beyond that show a temperature increase on Earth.

4. The requirements of a horseshoe crab are completely different than those of a dinosaur, it is entirely possible for an event to wipe out animals in one ecosystem and leave the other alone. To give you an example close to home, if there was nuclear war humans would nearly go extinct but cockroaches would survive without any problem.

5. Evolution and gravity are much more than "educated guesses". You should read about them when you have time.

[dlp211]

The reasons people take what scientists say with a grain of salt is because the number of theories that have been disproven is nearly infinite.
The world is flat and the sun revolves around it for example.

Two ideas that were not, nor ever called, scientific facts. In fact is was science that disproved both of these despite the personal ramifications these discoveries had for their discoverers.

This also brings me to the point that this is the beauty with science. Science continues to look for the best answer, not just an answer.


Anthropogenically-caused climate change is another fine example. If CO2 is causing the Earth to warm why isn't it also causing plants to grow at much higher rates? They do respire CO2 correct?

If I placed a human in an increased oxygen zone, would we expect them to grow larger, they do respire oxygen.

Plants evolved to saturate themselves in the available CO2, just because we put a ton of CO2 into the air(among other pollutants) does not mean that plants will evolve in the same time period. Evolution takes 10's of millions of years.


If human beings and burning fossil fuels are causing global warming, why are Mars and the other planets warming at exactly the same rate?

Citation needed.


Since you are a paleontologist perhaps you could explain why dinosaurs went extinct but creatures like the horseshoe crab have remained virtually unchanged for eons.
Yes, scientist do guess, in fact that is all they do. They may be educated guesses but the ARE guesses just the same.
I am out of time or I could go on much longer.

Dinos went extinct and horseshoe crabs didn't because the environmental impact that destroyed the dinosaurs didn't have the same impact on the crabs.

Scientists don't guess. They see something, the hypothesize a reason for what is happening, and then test to see if their hypothesis is false. After this has been done through multiple observations and experiments, it is peer reviewed, revised, and tested over and over, it may one day be accepted as scientific theory. As soon as something is disproven, scientists move on.

[jenglish]

I am not going to attempt to respond to most of the posts, simply because it is clear they did not actually read what was posted. The personal attacks can be kept, i have not attacked anyone and certainly do not feel that I should be either.

My argument is simple, there are many holes in the theory of evolution, a great many holes, so therefore the notion that it fact (adaptation and evolution are not the same thing), is just plain false. These holes are not disputable, and those who maintain that the holes are just unexplained are doing the same exact thing as a creationist does.

I am often amazed at the number of people who follow scientific beliefs, but then when confronted with a logical breakdown of their citings, that they resort to the equivalant argument of a person who believes in a God.

In regards to notions that theologians have no logic is just silly. Just because somone has taken the time to draft an article and post it on a creationist site doesn't make them an idiot. Logic is logic, no matter who uses and has no relevance to scientific methods.

The simple reality is, if you want to have a conversation regarding creationism vs evolution, you have to be willing to apply the same rules. To me, and I have a very logical mind, even if it is too small for this discussion, that looks at the 'magic' of evolution, which contradicts itself as a far greater leap of faith than my beliefs, which I find to be very provable in my daily life.

If every time you find a hole in something, you plug a pre-made answer (God musta done it!) then you don't look for the real answers. Most of the things touted as "holes" in the theory of evolution, are only touted on creationist websites and are dismissed by those actually working in the field. If we started poking holes in creationism the holes would be legion, depending on which version we look at. New Earth creationism for instance is nearly impossible to defend. So we get things like intelligent design that will then point to a giraffe (http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm another explanation... not necesarily truth with a capital T... but an idea not involving magic) or to a banana, or a flagella they think is irreducibly complex. Again, most of these can be explained. It is constantly looking for any area that is not yet adequately explained and exclaiming that it proves creationism.

I could go on but I can probably just go tell it to a rock and get the same outcome. :deadhorse:

[jcolletteiii]

The reasons people take what scientists say with a grain of salt is because the number of theories that have been disproven is nearly infinite.
The world is flat and the sun revolves around it for example.
Anthropogenically-caused climate change is another fine example. If CO2 is causing the Earth to warm why isn't it also causing plants to grow at much higher rates? They do respire CO2 correct?
If human beings and burning fossil fuels are causing global warming, why are Mars and the other planets warming at exactly the same rate?
Since you are a paleontologist perhaps you could explain why dinosaurs went extinct but creatures like the horseshoe crab have remained virtually unchanged for eons.
Yes, scientist do guess, in fact that is all they do. They may be educated guesses but the ARE guesses just the same.
I am out of time or I could go on much longer.


Sorry, but you are misinformed. Neither of the examples you cited were ever a scientific 'theory' (again, the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is an important distinction - you should really know this fundamental difference before trying to engage in an argument). Both of your examples were dogma -they were beliefs.

As for plants, I am no paleobotanist, but I would imagine plant growth is more dictated by growing season in their respective climate than strictly the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. I would think a good way to test this would be to look at stomata density - the pores on the underside of leaves that allow plants to exchange gas with the atmosphere. One might expect stomatal densities to decrease with increasing [CO2] if a plant's growth is governed by its climate (and nutrient availability as others have said and light). But again, I'm no paleobotanist - but from first principles, that's my guess.

I'd be interested to see evidence that suggests other planets are warming at a rate similar to the Earth, since we don't have an extensive temperature record on any of the planets (that I am aware of) other than Mars, and that cannot go back much beyond the mid to late 70's at the earliest.

As for dinosaurs -vs- arthropods (but there are things that have been alive FAR longer than arthropods, essentially unchanged - Google inarticulate brachiopods, stromatolites, tardigrades, blue-green algae, onychophoran...). Specialist versus generalist. Many arthropods are omnivores or detritovores and can thus feed on a myriad of different food sources. I use Limulus polyphemus as an analog in my research ALL the time. Limulus is an omnivore - it can eat many different things, so it has options when searching for food resources. It is also cold blooded, so its body uses food much more slowly than large active creatures - adults can go up to a year without eating.

Dinos on the other hand, were large, and lived on land. They were already in decline when the bolide hit off the Yucatan - probably brought about by environmental changes that were resulting from the eruption ofthe Deccan traps - A HUGE, MASSIVE volcanic eruption (all of today's volcanic activity combined is an order of magnitude less than this event). So, teh impactor blocked out the light, which killed the plants (even though they had lots of CO2), which killed the herbivores, which killed the carnivores. However, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, plants, fungi, fish, protists, algea, and bacteria all survived, so there had to be SOMETHING to eat, just not enough for the big guys.

However, in the oceans, there are entire ecosystems based on energy not derived from the sun, but from chemical energy. Things eat bacteria. And as we know that there had to be at least some plants or algae living during this time, there was some food available for the generalist. So generalists did okay - they certainly fared better than the large specialist, most of which were killed off.

[jenglish]

2. If you have a reef at home you know (or should know) that plants don't depend on CO2 to grow. They depend on nutrients (like nitrogen and phosphate) and sun light. You can increase CO2 in the atmosphere (or water) by a million, it won't change the growth rate of plants. The only thing that will make plants grow faster is if you give them more nutrients or more sun.



This is the only point I wanted to address, nutrients, energy and the CO2 to use that energy are all limiting factors. If we gave them more sun but not more nutrients then they would hit nutrients as a limiting factor.


Not disagreeing with you overall but I have seen light increased without an increase in CO2 in a planted tank and I didn't get better growth. I got a system out of balance :)

[jcolletteiii]

Since you are a paleontologist perhaps you could explain why dinosaurs went extinct but creatures like the horseshoe crab have remained virtually unchanged for eons.


Technically, even this statement is incorrect (although I know you really mean the big scary ones). Most systematists now consider the class Avialae (birdies) as representing a living clade of the Dinosauria that made it through the K-T. Just thought I'd throw that in there. Think about this the next time you're eating chicken!

[Luiz Rocha]

Not disagreeing with you overall but I have seen light increased without an increase in CO2 in a planted tank and I didn't get better growth. I got a system out of balance :)

Just a misunderstanding, plants do need CO2 to grow, but that is usually readily available (except in a tank for example). Nutrients, sun and water (for terrestrial plants) are usually much more limiting.

[James77]

I'm not going to tell anyone what they can and can not believe in their personal lives, however, when we talk about what is accepted fact and what needs to be taught to our society, it is important that we distinguish between belief, and provable, repeatable, observable, peer reviewed science.


Could not be said any better than this.

[jcolletteiii]

You know this peaves me a bit. Let me explain why with an analogy.

If there was a particular topic that was posted here on RC, say for example, someone asking for help as to the cause of their Acroporas failure to thrive. All parameters of this hypothetical person are in check. I think this is an adequate analogy because many consider reef keeping a science of sorts - you make observations, form hypotheses based on your observations, and attempt to adjust parameters based on your hypotheses, right? So, getting back to my example, say someone asked why their Acroporas were in decline. Would any of you, as fello reefers, offer an answer if you knew nothing about Acropora firsthand? You had never kept Acropora, you were not interested in Acropora, you knew nothing about the environmental preference, biology, feeding, or any other requirements of Acropora, other than heresay. Would you still go ahead and offer your opinion to the hypothetical reefer asking why their Acroporas were dying - knowing that the cause was not parametric (lighting fine, PO4, NO2, NO3, pH, temp all checked and confirmed as being correct? If your answer is no, then why are you doing essentially the same thing here?

We get it. Evolution doesn't jive with your dogma. However, do you really think you should offer your opinion on a matter that has stood up to being systematically and overwhelmingly documented and tested over the last 150 years without having any real knowledge of the underlying science? Seems like you may be letting your karma run over your dogma.

[elegance coral]

I was raised by a southern Baptist preacher's daughter so I have a great deal of respect for you and your belief. Please don't take anything I say personally.


This is the type of thing I speak of, and I don't want to dig down into details, if you really want to see opposing views, they are very readily available.

"opposing views" are readily available, but none of them are based on science or fact.

Evolution is based entirely on unprovable assumptions.

This is simply not true. We are filling the gaps in the fossil record so fast it's hard to keep up. Not long ago, evolution told us that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs, but we didn't have the fossil record to prove it. We knew there had to be a transitional animal with traits of both modern birds and dinosaurs, because evolution tells us there was. We have found that missing link. We now have fossils, quite a few actually, of dinosaurs with feathers. We even have fossils that have a dinosaur like head with teeth, a long tail, and feathered wings. We knew they existed before we found them. Simply because evolution told us there were there. The fossil record of wales is so complete that it simply can not be denied. Evidence of evolution is everywhere. It is undeniable. Making that fact fit in with ones faith, is a personal issue.

If evolution is so fact, then why are there mutliple drastically different theories on the topic,

There aren't. Evolution is such a simple concept that there aren't "multiple drastically different theories". I've been studying nature all my life, and I have never read, or heard of, someone in this field having a theory different than evolution.

and why are all of the root, unproovable, assumptions left to 'faith'.

I honestly don't know what "root, unprovable, assumptions" you're talking about.

There are countless animals in the world that contradict the entire notion of evolution.

I'm sorry but there are no animals that contradict the notion of evolution.


Please don't get me wrong, I do beleive we change, or if you will 'evolve',

That's all there is to evolution. Some people try to give evolution a bad name and make up all kinds of wild accusations. It's simply animals changing as their environment changes. They only have two choices. Change as their environment changes, or die.

but I don't beleive that this world randomly occurred out some molecule.

Evolution doesn't say that it did.

[elegance coral]

There has been some misunderstanding as to what evolution is, and links provided to articles that make outrageous claims as to what evolution is. To help clear the air, here is a copy of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html

[ousnakebyte]

Man, I just couldn't go on.

dlp211, EC, Luiz, jcolletteiii, James.... wow... you guys are SPARTANS! (no, not the cheerleaders...). You have all done a fabulous job of trying to, ya know... My compliments anyway.

Well, this is what we are up against (this is from Scientific American 2002):


http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/v6i8g11.jpg


The "E" word is avoided... :rolleyes:

And... ahhh, my home state from whence I came. Always pushing the boundaries of staying on the cutting edge.

Cheers
Mike

[James77]

Thanks Mike.

It is just so painful and uncomfortable to sit around and watch people put their personal beliefs up against science and all that it has done and proven. I am all for personal beliefs- and they have a place and definite use, but as has already been said, people really need to be able to use some logic. I like and agree with the common moral rules and teachings that are common to most every personal belief. Yes, it is a very sensitive area for most, but the things we now know about our surrounding are just so blatantly obvious. Even just the beliefs of the 'ol world being flat are laughable to anyone. Now people use that and try to claim that belief was science. It was not. That was based in the complete and total ignorance of our species at the time. Even our current knowledge is not that old, but we are able to look at things at an atomic level and have telescopes that can see billions of years into the past. Alot has changed.

My biggest pet peeve is the age of this Earth. I really cannot understand how anyone can say this Earth is 5 or 6000 years old and keep a straight face. When confronted with past aminals such as dinosaurs, I have even heard people defend them as dragons...since dragons have been mentioned in past writings. Then things like continental drift....I've never waded that deep into a conversation with someone as far as these personal beliefs, but I can only imagine the answer for that one. Ocean sandbeds and fossils have been found high in mountains.....how did that happen? The Earths land mass was all once connected, which is provable...even the shapes match. That stuff cannot happen over thousands of years, that is obvious just by observing these things over our lifetimes.

Referring back to the original topic....yes, humans have the ability to alter and destroy this planet through a variety of ways. I am again not 100% sold on warming and it being the complete fault of us and carbon dioxide. It is an area tainted by peoples and government agendas. However, we have most definitely tainted and ruined areas of this planet, the sea, and wiped species of animals right off the face of this Earth, forever. The Earth will survive...just "not as we know it". I really don't see us changing drastic enough in any of our bad habits overnight unless there is a visible disaster that is caused by us, that affects us right now. It is the nature of us. But we will find a way to survive...if we have gone too far, then our time is up on this planet. Extinctions of top animals has happened countless times.....

[T Diddy]

Or they are just moving....

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/69060/title/Corals_moving_north

The article above makes me think that ocean temps rising might not destroy the reef, just broaden its horizons. There are relatively few places where tropical reefs occur. If more of the ocean is tropical, then we'll just have more reefs! :D

Maybe my little not-so-tropical Gray's Reef off the coast of Georgia will someday be even cooler than it already is!

:uzi:

[paraletho]

+1 T Diddy. I work in Fisheries Mgmt. Founder species are having reproductive issues due to warming. As long as there is not a barrier that prevents it they will relocate to a cooler zone. Corals will probably do even better than fish due to the nature of their reproductive cycle. True some species will not make it through the change but that is how it works. if the warming continues too long Southern Flounder,Summer Flounder,Plaice may just be replaced in their niche by tropical flatfish. It is a very successful design.

[Luiz Rocha]

It is a very successful design.

Haha, here we go again. I would say it is the result of 500 million years of evolution, not design.

Yes, as many have already said, reefs as a habitat will remain. The problem is that the current change is WAY FASTER than what we have seen before, and we will lose many species in the process. I guess some people are just ok with that, but personally I would not like to be the species to blame for so many extinctions. :(

[Luiz Rocha]

50 million years old damselfish from the Monte Bolca formation in Italy:
http://www.sail-world.com/photos/Alt_420Palaeopomacentrus20orphae20fossil.jpg

Back then, the Mediterranean was warm, much wider, and called Tethys. Note the dark spot on the back portion of the dorsal fin (similar to what damselfishes have today). This is an exceptionally well-preserved fossil of the species Palaeopomacentrus orphae, extinct a long time ago.

[mapn4reef]

50 million years old damselfish from the Monte Bolca formation in Italy:
extinct a long time ago.

"50 million years old," how do we mere humans know (really know) this? Long time ago...no doubt...

[dlp211]

"50 million years old," how do we mere humans know (really know) this? Long time ago...no doubt...

Carbon dating which is about 95-99% accurate, but even if it was only 80% accurate it would still give something that is 50 million years old a 40-60 million year old window.

There is also the geological timeline which is also very accurate, albeit, not as accurate as carbon dating, but there is one thing that is very glaring obvious. The geological timeline and carbon dating match.

It is through these two methods that paleontologists are able to discover more and more fossils as they have a better idea of how deep and in what strata they will find certain fossils.

[T Diddy]

"50 million years old," how do we mere humans know (really know) this? Long time ago...no doubt...

radioactive dating




...where have you been???!!! Your innocent little thread has gotten out of hand, come full circle at least twice, and...well, welcome back! :dance:

[elegance coral]

The most famous is the giraffe.

This is one take on the arguement....where the arguement is made that fossil records do not support evolution...and points out darwins point of view on this, which is not very scientific. This focuses on the long neck development.
http://creation.com/the-giraffes-neck-icon-of-evolution-or-icon-of-creation

If you want to dig into it alot more, you can dig much more into the details of anatomy surrounding the girraffe and the complexity of developing a long neck and the ramifications to it's body.

The giraffe is one of 100s of examples where the rules that govern the theories of evolution break down.

Okay.... If the most famous case to debunk evolution is the giraffe, and the article above is typical of the "evidence" used, there's a huge problem. Lets take a look at this "evidence".

This is a quote from the article where the author is quoting Darwin.
"Darwin himself wrote ‘… it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe."

The author got this quote from Darwin's Origin of Species, at the end of this paragraph.

"The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much elongated neck, fore-legs, head and tongue, has its whole frame beautifully adapted for browsing on the higher branches of trees. It can thus obtain food beyond the reach of the other Ungulata or hoofed animals inhabiting the same country; and this must be a great advantage to it during dearths.... So under nature with the nascent giraffe the individuals which were the highest browsers, and were able during dearth to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved; for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food.... Those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects will have been the most liable to perish.... By this process long-continued, which exactly corresponds with what I have called unconscious selection by man, combined no doubt in a most important manner with the inherited effects of the increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe." (Darwin 1872, pp. 177ff.)

For some reason, right after the author quoted Darwin, he goes on to put what Darwin said into his own words, with this.
"He speculated that four-legged animals with longer and longer necks would be capable of reaching higher leaves and vegetation. Thus, during droughts, they would be more likely to survive and pass on this characteristic....." That's not what Darwin said.


The author bases much of this article on his interpretation of what Darwin said. He goes on to use the word "drought" at least 5 more time. Darwin didn't use the word "drought". He used the word "dearths". Here you can find the definition of "dearth". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dearths Here's the definition for those that don't want to click the link. "1. A scarce supply; a lack" "2. Shortage of food; famine"

Darwin wasn't talking about water. He was talking about food. Giraffes don't need a long neck to reach higher supplies of water. They need long necks to reach higher supplies of food.

In the next section of the article the author starts out with this.

"If the giraffe’s neck elongated over long periods of time, then we should see evidence of this in the fossil record, with numerous transitional forms progressively getting longer"

Anyone that knows this subject well enough to write a meaningful article, knows this is not true. The author is either naive, or he is deliberately attempting to deceiving the reader. Fossils are very rare. Finding the fossils to piece together a complete history of a single species is even rarer. We have fossils that show us the history of groups of animals, like dinosaurs, birds, and whales. These are not individule species. No one in this field would expect to see a detailed fossil record of a single species.

Then the author says this.

"In other words, the fossil record reveals that giraffes have always possessed long necks."

No it does not. I see this as more deliberate deception. The absence of evidence does not reveal that giraffes have always possessed long necks. The fossil record is incomplete. We can't come to any conclusion based solely on the fossil record.

Then there's this.

" If giraffe survival depended on being able to reach higher and higher leaves during a drought, then giraffes would have died out a long time ago with the death of the females and young giraffes."

More deliberate deception. I can't even believe they wrote this. For starters, young giraffes don't need to find food. They suckle from their mother until they are large, and mature, enough to find food on their own. At this point, the young giraffe, and it's mother, are likely shorter than the Father, but they will still be taller than many of the other herbivores in the area. They are still able to reach food that is not accessible to most of their competition. There is no reason to think that young and female giraffes should die because they are shorter than the males. This is absurd.


Here's more deliberate deception.

"Also, giraffes live with shorter tree browsers such as gazelles, impalas, elands and gerenuks. All of these animals have successfully survived periods of drought with much shorter necks."

Anyone that knows anything about evolution, knows this is precisely why giraffes would evolve a long neck. Multiple herbivores can live side by side, without competition, by feeding in slightly different ways, or on different plants. Some animals feed on grass, others on small bushed, and giraffes feed on high branches.

It's truly sad that such a site would stoop to using lies and deceit like this.

[mapn4reef]

radioactive dating




...where have you been???!!! Your innocent little thread has gotten out of hand, come full circle at least twice, and...well, welcome back! :dance:

Yeah, wow, surprised it ended up such an involved discussion... I've read plenty on radioactive dating and Carbon 14... I've found several studies determining both are only capable of aging to the thousands of years, not millions, one study determined 40,000 which was the oldest report I read.

Anyway, not to get too much into the theory and/or science of this. My question still stands...how do you....and the rest of us know for certain this to be the truth...is it becasue what we read in college, what a professor taught us...what we hear in the media, read in journals and books...all this is merely something written by man, (and I realize a bunch of math is behind a lot of this), but I really just want to keep it very simple. How does someone know what they think they know is the truth...it comes down to maybe a formed belief somewhere along our education of this world...it really comes down to where individuals place their faith...placing it in man made theories, maybe not a wise choice...hmmm, something to ponder. (note: I do believe adaptation more so than evolution...)

[Luiz Rocha]

Anyway, not to get too much into the theory and/or science of this. My question still stands...how do you....and the rest of us know for certain this to be the truth...(note: I do believe adaptation more so than evolution...)

The answer to your question is written in the question. You don't want to get into the science of this, that's why you don't "believe" it.

Adaptation=evolution, you cannot "believe" one and not the other. But if you really wanted to understand it you would read about it and accept it instead of "believing" it. Science requires no faith, just understanding.

[csmfish]

While it might be illegal to live in a grass hut on the side of the highway, it is not illegal to live in a grass hut on your own property.

He was pointing out the obvious hipocrisy of the global warming crowd claiming that oil is the "enemy" of the earth but still live in a huge mansion on the west coast. If you claim that burning of fossil fuels is creating global warming, killing the planet, but insist on consuming those same fossil fuels then you lose some crediblity.

And you do realize that electric cars charged in most of the nation are charged with electricity created by burning fossil fuels and you are just moving the "carbon" from your exhaust of the car to the exhaust of the electric plant.

Have you seen the price of property in FFX? I need 3 people for that venture, or a loan <hands hand out to REDNECKGEARHEAD>

I dont even mind using oil and resources IF you give back and or dispose of properly, but, most dont, especially factories that pollute.

True, have to make electricity somehow, but, if it takes $3 to charge the car, that has to be less resources than my $60 ......... or is the $75 now? fill up.



You can live in Eco housing, you can give up technology and live green. Electric cars are pretty much a feel good thing at this point, there energy needs to come from somewhere, right now coal burning plants. Unless they come from truly renewable sources, electric cars produce pollution....but out of sight out of mind for some people.

Again, see above, but, living in a eco house wouldnt bother me as long as it was cool in the summer and warm in the winter. I am not picky like that.



50 million years old damselfish from the Monte Bolca formation in Italy:


Back then, the Mediterranean was warm, much wider, and called Tethys. Note the dark spot on the back portion of the dorsal fin (similar to what damselfishes have today). This is an exceptionally well-preserved fossil of the species Palaeopomacentrus orphae, extinct a long time ago.

To those that dont quite get it, there is a difference between evolution happening over a million years and 3/4 of the earths population just dieing off over a 20 year span. WTFrak? How about I throw you on Mars and yell EVELUTION, B**TCH! Lets see how your adaption/evolution theory works then :D Same difference :wave:

[ousnakebyte]

I've read plenty on radioactive dating and Carbon 14... I've found several studies determining both are only capable of aging to the thousands of years, not millions, one study determined 40,000 which was the oldest report I read.

Anyway, not to get too much into the theory and/or science of this. My question still stands...how do you....and the rest of us know for certain this to be the truth...is it becasue what we read in college, what a professor taught us...what we hear in the media, read in journals and books...all this is merely something written by man, (and I realize a bunch of math is behind a lot of this), but I really just want to keep it very simple. How does someone know what they think they know is the truth...it comes down to maybe a formed belief somewhere along our education of this world...it really comes down to where individuals place their faith...placing it in man made theories, maybe not a wise choice...hmmm, something to ponder. (note: I do believe adaptation more so than evolution...)

Hmmm.... let's see... now, what did I do with that map? I can't seem to remember where Tennessee fit in with... Oh, yeah... here it is:

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/v6i8g11.jpg



...all this is merely something written by man,

So is the Bible and every other religious text out there, albeit in heavily edited versions from their originals. Lost in translation, anyone?


Cheers
Mike

[paraletho]

Haha, here we go again. I would say it is the result of 500 million years of evolution, not design.

Yes, as many have already said, reefs as a habitat will remain. The problem is that the current change is WAY FASTER than what we have seen before, and we will lose many species in the process. I guess some people are just ok with that, but personally I would not like to be the species to blame for so many extinctions. :(

By design I mean natures design I am not a proponent of intelligent design. Maybe a better choice of words would be morphological adaptation. All in all it comes back to human footprint whether we are talking fossil fuels or nutrient overload. I'm not volunteering to leave/check out. Are you? I would bet there are about 7 billion people who could care less about what we are discussing they are just hunting for sumthing to eat

[Afishperson]

I think that this stuff is really terrible
But really there is nothing we can do about it exept stop it ourselves
Some folks are just never going to be changed and theese people are the bulk of society
I'm an Aussie so I know alot about the beach

[Afishperson]

I've also heard that the japaneese are responsible for most ocean extinctions
If you are Japanese do not be offended, I understand that japanese have been fishing for a very long time and Iam not a racist but the worlds fish populations are dwindling and very soon if we don't all stop the sea will have no edible fish left

[T Diddy]

self assist for...

[T Diddy]

10 extinct pages!!!!!

[redneckgearhead]

10 extinct pages!!!!!
no no no, 1 page that has evolved 10 times! LOL

[Luiz Rocha]

I've also heard that the japaneese are responsible for most ocean extinctions
If you are Japanese do not be offended, I understand that japanese have been fishing for a very long time and Iam not a racist but the worlds fish populations are dwindling and very soon if we don't all stop the sea will have no edible fish left

You heard wrong, humanity is responsible for extinctions, not the Japanese. Really easy to blame others... There are threatened (and extinct) animals in all corners of the world.

We don't need to all stop, all that is needed is responsible, sustainable fisheries practices. More efficient (and less polluting) ways to produce energy would be nice too. Unfortunately, sustainable and efficient are not always the most profitable ways, and that is where the problem is.

[T Diddy]

that's the problem...7 billion people hungry for energy and food is unsustainable.

[James77]

Unfortunately, sustainable and efficient are not always the most profitable ways, and that is where the problem is.

They are also not the cheapest ways, another part of the problem. Given the choice, most in this country would not go for something a bit more expensive if it meant it was less harm to the enviroment or food grown sustainably.

[redneckgearhead]

They are also not the cheapest ways, another part of the problem. Given the choice, most in this country would not go for something a bit more expensive if it meant it was less harm to the enviroment or food grown sustainably.

And unfortunately we are an "out of sight out of mind" society. We seem to only address problems when they are unavoidable and right in front of our face!

[csmfish]

I've also heard that the japaneese are responsible for most ocean extinctions
If you are Japanese do not be offended, I understand that japanese have been fishing for a very long time and Iam not a racist but the worlds fish populations are dwindling and very soon if we don't all stop the sea will have no edible fish left


They are not the only ones, just at the forefront. I mean, really, they have a restaurant that sells a tasting of like 7 different penises, really??? And anything a normal American will not eat, ear's, fins, wieners, snake tongue or whatever is considered to make you hump like rabbits, so, they kill anything and everything, crazy!



no no no, 1 page that has evolved 10 times! LOL

Correct! This is still going, not dead, aka, extinction



that's the problem...7 billion people hungry for energy and food is unsustainable.

Odd thing is, you can go to a lot of third world countries and get food for pennies on the dollar compared to here. I am still scratching my head trying to figure that one out.

[redneckgearhead]

Odd thing is, you can go to a lot of third world countries and get food for pennies on the dollar compared to here. I am still scratching my head trying to figure that one out.

I would venture to guess, its the cost of living difference. Here everyone that touches the food charges a lot more and we have FDA that mandates certain things must be done, adding to the cost.

[Luiz Rocha]

Odd thing is, you can go to a lot of third world countries and get food for pennies on the dollar compared to here. I am still scratching my head trying to figure that one out.

Simple, their salaries are also pennies on the dollar compared to here.

[dlp211]

I would venture to guess, its the cost of living difference. Here everyone that touches the food charges a lot more and we have FDA that mandates certain things must be done, adding to the cost.

This, Third World Countries don't pay a minimum wage to their farm workers, the food is not handled in guidelines outlined by the FDA, there is no trucking the food from the midlands to the coasts, no costs of refrigeration and no middlemen trying to make a profit.

This does not mean we have a bad system, I trust American food way more then I trust third world country food.

[alton]

Now that we are on food, we give away so much food to other countries. Also our food is taxed so heavily in this country. Before you get ready to post think about it, everyone who touches food from the seed to your store pays taxes on labor, propery taxes, fuel taxes, if a business makes a profit he pays even more taxes, and insurance. Also in other countries food is susidized so much that our farmers can't compete on the world market for some of the food. Oats comes to mind, when I was a kid many of our farmer grew oats in the winter here in the south. Today some countries subsidize there farmers 90% so it is cheaper to buy it from across the Atlantic. The good thing is we can still grow chickens better and faster than anyone else in the world.

[dlp211]

Now that we are on food, we give away so much food to other countries. Also our food is taxed so heavily in this country. Before you get ready to post think about it, everyone who touches food from the seed to your store pays taxes on labor, propery taxes, fuel taxes, if a business makes a profit he pays even more taxes, and insurance. Also in other countries food is susidized so much that our farmers can't compete on the world market for some of the food. Oats comes to mind, when I was a kid many of our farmer grew oats in the winter here in the south. Today some countries subsidize there farmers 90% so it is cheaper to buy it from across the Atlantic. The good thing is we can still grow chickens better and faster than anyone else in the world.

<rant>

Really, you don't think that food is taxed the same way in every other first world country. Last time I checked the fuel taxes in Europe were through the roof. Same goes for labor, profits, etc.

And are you really going to say that we don't subsidize our Argo business. You know why we don't put real sugar into everything...I will give you a hint...corn lobby.

I am not here to argue politics, but if you want all the things that come with a first world country then you have to pay for those things. I personally enjoy knowing that my food doesn't have a virus or bacteria on it that is going to kill me and my family.

</end rant>

[T Diddy]

what's funny is that a great deal of the food we eat in America comes from those 2nd and 3rd world countries. It costs a lot to ship perishables from South America

[James77]

Also in other countries food is susidized so much that our farmers can't compete on the world market for some of the food.

Dlp already touched on it, but..... US spends about $20 Billion subsidizing farmers in America. Mostly corn, but also cotton, peanuts, wheat, soybeans and a couple others.

[jenglish]

Then you get into silly subsudies for ethanol. We grow corn, which requires a tremendous amount of energy to produce, to try and make fuel. It takes massive nitrogen injections, tires on tractors and combines, diesel fuel to plant, harvest and transport, etc, etc, etc. We get very little energy out of ethanol after we take out all the energy we put into making it. If you make it from grass or fodder it may make sense but not out of corn. That's not getting into water usage issues. Plus ethanol still puts out exhaust. It was one of those ideas that seemed smart if you didn't dig too deep that caught momentum. Oh, plus all that corn effects food costs, especially for cattle and hog producers.

My family was always in corn, and did well with ethanol. But friends I knew in livestock had real trouble with feed costs.

[jenglish]

Though I will say that for some the subsidies help to offset massive property taxes... but I can't go too far down that road w/o getting political.

[eznet2u]

Wow...Just...Wow.

I can't believe this thread made it to 240+ posts without being closed.

Amazing.

[redneckgearhead]

Wow...Just...Wow.

I can't believe this thread made it to 240+ posts without being closed.

Amazing.

Yea, I'm kind of surprised myself but most people have been very civil. I have enjoyed this thread. It has made me think outside my normal little bubble. I rarely get to be part of a debate where so many intelligent people are involved.

[elegance coral]

I think this should be thread of the month.

[eznet2u]

Yea, I'm kind of surprised myself but most people have been very civil.
What surprises me the most, is that this thread has everything that would normally shut down a thread.
There are veiled political and religious statements throughout the thread.

Good luck.
:wave:

[Luiz Rocha]

What surprises me the most, is that this thread has everything that would normally shut down a thread.
There are veiled political and religious statements throughout the thread.

Good luck.
:wave:

I see religious but not political. The thing is though, nobody is pushing a religious (or political) agenda, merely discussing a controversial topic.

[ADreef]

Yeah, wow, surprised it ended up such an involved discussion... I've read plenty on radioactive dating and Carbon 14... I've found several studies determining both are only capable of aging to the thousands of years, not millions, one study determined 40,000 which was the oldest report I read.

Anyway, not to get too much into the theory and/or science of this. My question still stands...how do you....and the rest of us know for certain this to be the truth...is it becasue what we read in college, what a professor taught us...what we hear in the media, read in journals and books...all this is merely something written by man, (and I realize a bunch of math is behind a lot of this), but I really just want to keep it very simple. How does someone know what they think they know is the truth...it comes down to maybe a formed belief somewhere along our education of this world...it really comes down to where individuals place their faith...placing it in man made theories, maybe not a wise choice...hmmm, something to ponder. (note: I do believe adaptation more so than evolution...)


Yes, carbon dating doesn't date too far back. There are, however, many other types of radiometric dating. You can find info in many places including here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Different types are used for different age ranges.

Yes of course, science journals, books, etc. are written by men, just like the bible. The big difference is that scientists don't just say, "this is the way things are, period." They say something like, "this is our explanation of this observable phenomenon, and this is our evidence to support our explanation." Or something to that effect. If new evidence is found later that expands on or contradicts their earlier explanation/theory, then that explanation/theory will be modified or changed.

I was raised Catholic and went to church and Sunday school every week when I was younger. But, I decided I would much rather place my "faith" (I hesitate to even use that word when speaking about science) in theories that are supported by physical evidence.

it really comes down to where individuals place their faith...placing it in man made theories, maybe not a wise choice...[hmmm, something to ponder.

Hmmmm, modern medicine is entirely based on man-made theories. If you or someone in your family were gravely ill, would you consider trusting your doctor to be a wise choice? That's something to ponder.

[Belmont31R]

Then you get into silly subsudies for ethanol. We grow corn, which requires a tremendous amount of energy to produce, to try and make fuel. It takes massive nitrogen injections, tires on tractors and combines, diesel fuel to plant, harvest and transport, etc, etc, etc. We get very little energy out of ethanol after we take out all the energy we put into making it. If you make it from grass or fodder it may make sense but not out of corn. That's not getting into water usage issues. Plus ethanol still puts out exhaust. It was one of those ideas that seemed smart if you didn't dig too deep that caught momentum. Oh, plus all that corn effects food costs, especially for cattle and hog producers.

My family was always in corn, and did well with ethanol. But friends I knew in livestock had real trouble with feed costs.



Ethanol lowers MPG and eats up fuel lines in older vehicles, boat engines, and small engines like lawn mowers.


The fact we are using it in our gasoline is insane.

[Luiz Rocha]

Ethanol lowers MPG and eats up fuel lines in older vehicles, boat engines, and small engines like lawn mowers.

The fact we are using it in our gasoline is insane.

The justification for ethanol is that it does not come from oil, so it decreases dependency on foreign suppliers. Ethanol is what allowed Brazil to be completely independent from foreign oil. But they produce ethanol from Sugar Cane there, and that is much more efficient than producing it from corn as already mentioned.

So, the insanity is not putting ethanol in the gasoline, the insanity is having almost everything running on gasoline in the first place.

[ADreef]

The fact we are using it in our gasoline is insane.

Also insane is the fact that our govt is subsidizing people to turn a major food crop into fuel for cars.