SiameseSam

Is rainfall the only factor that you would define a desert by?

how dry do you think an area has to be to be considered a desert?

How do you know eyes that look black arent just very dark brown?

True, but the amount of rainfall needed for cold areas to support vegetation is lower than in warm areas. Thats why tundra is classified by some scientists as seperate from desert. Rainfall isnt the only thing that defines desert. Iceland and Hawaii are two examples of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color It says 0% of the world population has black eyes.

How do you know that's true? It could just be a matter of perspective that animals have less diverse facial structures than humans do. I remember reading a study that said animals can tell each other apart better than telling humans apart.

Do you think tundra is desert? I personally dont think it is, because having no trees doesnt make it a desert, and because the vegetation and soil looks nothing like a desert.

The North Pole isnt even a landmass. How can it be a desert? Also, some scientists dont classify as tundra as desert.

What does that have to do with what I said about deserts?

The traditional definition of a desert is an area that has below a certain level of rainfall, but I say that definition isnt clear enough. While most of Antarctica is cold and frozen (considered a desert continent), beneath the snow, it looks barren like a desert (McMurdo valley photos are the perfect example of this.). Many sources classify tundra as desert because of low rainfall, but that doesnt make that much sense either. Low rainfall of tundra doesnt make the vegetation look barren like in Arizona. Tundras are full of green grass and moss-they are far more moist than the ground and vegetation of most low rainfall areas.. Because of that, some scientific sources classify tundra as seperate from desert, because of how the amount of low rainfall effecting its vegetation differs from how low rainfall affects vegitation in other areas. Amount of rainfall that affects vegetation depends on temperature, and tundra is very cold. Another example is-the Okanagan region of Canada, while being dry, has far more lush vegitation than a desert, but some consider it to be a desert because of its low rainfall, despite simply being shrub steppe.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrub-steppe Also, there are certain areas that dont have low rainfall, but the rainfall affects soil moisture and vegitation in ways very similar to a desert, like the Highlands of Iceland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlands_of_Iceland), and the Kau Desert of Hawaii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka%CA%BB%C5%AB_Desert). Do you think those regions fit the definition of a desert? Other areas in which there is low rainfall and a desertlike appearence, some dont classify them as being "true deserts" because they dont fall under a certain level of rainfall. Examples of this would include regions in Spain and Washington State, like the Tabernas region of Spain, and the Channeled Scrublands of Eastern WA.

Various sources and map of animal historic ranges Ive read say that red wolves inhabited the Northeast (the sources mention mainly NY and Pennslyvyania, but some also mention Maine), but other sources mention that gray wolves (specifically Lyacon-the eastern subspecies that lives in Canada today) lived in those regions. Its possible they both lived in the same area, but I dont see enough evidence to support that. I believe gray wolves, and some other extinct undocumented subspecies, inhabited the northeast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_wolf A scientist pointed out that Pennslyvanias wolves looked different from the wolves of the southeast, and looked more like Canadian wolves. http://www.defenders.org/publications/wolf_reintroduction_feasibility_in_adirondack_park.pdf It doesnt let me copy and paste, so Ill just paraphrase some of what it said. It said NY had a rare wolf subspecies that was "black bulky and rare", and most commonly a grey wolf with "short reddish hairs in the summer". While the florida black wolf was a dark subspecies of red wolf, I dont think red wolves were bulkier than gray ones. That article says the wolves of NY were occidentalis, which makes no sense, because theres no DNA evidence to back it up, and all wolf subspecies maps I view dont show them living that east. I guess scientists just speculated and guested they were Northwestern wolves, because they looked similar. Other sources point to red wolves living as far north as PA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_wolf

The Bible doesnt say God punishes the innocent. It says quite the opposite. Ezekiel 18:20 http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/18-20.htm

Would you call his eyes brown or black?

Some studies say that theres no such thing as black eyes, and that "black" eyes are only dark brown eyes. Do you agree or disagree with that? I personally disagree, because some people who say their eyes are brown, have eyes that appear to be black.

I recently had a conversation with a friend about this topic, and he said he thinks animals have just as much different faces as humans do, but people dont see it that way because they dont see them often-for the same reason people say certain ethnic groups look alike. Do you agree or disagree?