bombus

SOC says more than that. It appears you are trying to change SOC to avoid falsification.

Like what?

Quite a bit of vitriol in your comments, too. Are you sure it is her misunderstandig and not yours? After all, she is a paleontologist.

But well deserved The review has taken many things out of context and in many cases she just seems to have completely misunderstood what is actually being said, to the point of thinking M. Boulter is saying the opposite of what he is actually saying. She also misunderstands the tone of the book, taking offence when none is intended, and some of her statements just show how she doesn't undertand the 'big concept' at all.

Again, more ad hominem. The reviewer is quite prominent also. Did you read her bio? But, of course, the question isn't Boulter's standing, but the ideas. Ironically,the reviewer comments that Boulter spends most of the book using ad hominem on other people. Is that true?

Well she is an Associate Professor, which isn't a real professor at all. M. Boulter has been the Secretary of the International Organisation of Paleobiology for over twenty years. He is also the Chair the UK Governments Biodiversity Steering group. Having met him on numerous occasions, I know him to be a modest, honest and very (very!) clever scientist, not the unscholarly, boastful, anti US data-thief Ms. Walker seems to portray. I'm sure if she met him she'd feel quite ashamed!

This paper says SOC may be correlated with the origin of species, but not in extinction: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1690677

 

I really can't see how SOC can be "down to" as in the answer to everything within evolutionary biology. Nor can it explain the gradual decline in dino species: they already WERE "organized" as organisms.

I don't get what you're trying to say? All the SOC 'theory' is saying is that evolution, radiation and extinction follow power law principles, like just about everything else. That would make sense to me.

FYI, here is a rather scathing review of Boulter's book: http://palaeo-electronica.org/2003_2/books/extinc.htm

 

It's plain from deep sea cores that the KT impact did wipe out many species, especially plankton. Destruction of that many species certainly disrupted the ecosystem and that, in turn, caused the extinction of other species.

 

The argument is whether dinos were in decline and would have gone extinct without the KT event. That is very dicey and, ultimately, untestable. Since the meteor DID hit, how can you test an alternate future that never happened? All I can do is note that there was a decline in the number of species and a "minor" extinction event at the end of the Triassic. The suborder Dinosauria came thru that and then re-diversified in the Cretaceous. An alternative hypothesis is that this pattern would have repeated. Again, it too is untestable for the same reasons.

 

It's a fun argument, but since we can never get the data to settle it, I refuse to get too serious about the argument.

That's possibly the poorest, most inaccurate, twisted and plain unfair review of a book I have ever read! I reckon she's just envious because she didn't think of it. Half the things she complains about are due to her lack of understanding of what is actually being said. I felt quite upset reading it! What vitriol!

Unlike her, Professor Boulter is one of the most prominent and well respected Palobiologists there is.

Also, he doesn't dispute that a bolide hit the Earth at all, he justs suggests it was a final nail the coffin.

It's actually a great book, and well worth reading.

Have you ever read any of Ian Bank's 'culture' novels?

 

That is a future society which is truely communist. They have AIs as an integral part of their society and are technologically advanced enough to be able to have whatever goods they want. The AIs do all the administrative work. In such a society capitalism doesn't work, because you can have whatever you want and there is no need for money. Their only problem is boredom (which is actually quite central to the books). (And with regards to sex, their society is very open and sex is something that they do at the drop of a hat - even often changing their sex for pleasure.)

 

So, in some ways, communism is the ultimate goal of society.

Yup, you have hit the nail on the head. Once scarcity is abolished money/income/wealth become meaningless. So if you like cleaning windows you would be no worse off than a brain surgeon.

and of course if anyone wants to experience such truly in real life all you have to do is join the military!

Whaddya mean? They were the best years of my life!

The from each part is equally important, one doesn't work without the other. Marx was working on the assumption that when everyone went "yay! communism!" that everyone would be contributing and no-one would be lazy, he never suggested that it was a good system without workers who urm, worked.

Yes, I'd agree. Humans are still to 'selfish' for communism to really work today. However, there's nothing wrong in having high hopes! I also think it should be noted that Marx never intended for communism to be rolled out now. He merely said that it was a stage that humans would eventually reach once we had got through capitalism, followed by socialism.

Trouble is, he didn't predict ecological destruction getting in the way!

Robert Bakker, for one, doesn't think the meteor was the primary cause of dino extinction, but merely provided the icing on the cake. His position is controversial, but respected.

 

Professor Michael Boulter says the same thing. His research suggests it's all down to 'self organized criticality'. I think he might very well be right.

Can't lose what's not your goal.

 

The goal is not to free Iraq or kill some terrorists, the goal is to create a stronghold in the Middle East and control it as we wish, or to our benefits. We are succeeding in that, slowly slowly and step by step.

Khomeinism and Bin Ladenism will fall to Big Evil Satan "America," by there wordings.

 

Those who say there is no "war on terrorism," or there's no war even, need to re-think more about the issue. Those 3000+ death toll for the American troops in Iraq is not an illusion to criticize or a game to play, and their blood will not go in vain. Their blood will bleed from the teeth of the terrorists when their leaders rot in spider-holes, just like any other filthy dictators.

 

cheers

Woah! Way 2 go!

However, I think our actions in Iraq will do exactly the opposite. I think it more likely it's to create a 'forever war' so that the arms industries can make loadsa money - but hey, that's a different thread!

Being pack animals may the reason behind dogs' heart appetites. It's a standard treatment with vets if a dog has seriously lost its appetite to put it in with a group of other dogs as this encourages them to join the scramlbe for the dinner bowls.

 

I've got four dogs and meal times are very short indeed.....

Good theory there. I think its far more likely than mine!

Lots of people still say 'an historic occassion'. Right or wrong?

The Assyrians and Babylonians didn't build large structures in stone, they used mud-brick construction. The pyramids were the first large scale stone constructions in the world.

Fair point, I should have left them out!

The 4th Dynasty Egyptians did not have the wheel, pulleys ar rollers, they used skids with oil poured in front to ease friction. (A method still used in the time of Ramses the Great.

Maybe it was more efficient than rollers once you had a smooth surface. I'm sure they knew how to use rollers, I mean they knew that in neolithic cultures.

Bombus, just so that my meaning is clear. I view the mystery of the Pyramids as something similar to to the mystery of a good magic trick. It leaves you sitting there wondering, "How the hell did they do that?".

OK, you're not talking about space aliens!

Bottom line, both the "One Large Ramp" and the "Spiral Ramp" theories have been shown to be completely unworkable, so we are left with "How the hell did they do it?"

I'm not sure these ideas are unworkable. I have seen a TV program where they built a small pyramid using 'ancient' techniques, and the conclusion was that the same techniques would work equally well with larger pyramids. Also, they are pyramidal for a reason - they are the simplest large constructions to build. I bet there's a lot of effort done by the 'loonies' to debunk simple methods of construction.

As to the Sphinx, I watch with great interest as the various Geologists form ranks and try to destroy each other. I must admit, I'm rather surprised by the mainstream Egyptologists and their unthinking defence of current theories, considering that they have absolutely no evidence to support their ideas.

Agreed!

I think Kennedy said something similar:

"Ask not what America can do for you, but what you can do for America"

Something like that anyway...

I think the point is that you can't have a war against 'terror' or 'terrorism', especially if your actions create more terrorists! We could, perhaps, be engaged in guerilla war with Al Quaeda, but that's really not the same as 'war on terror'. Like John Edwards said, its just a bumper sticker.

OK.

 

Can we agree that the key part of 'loss of habitat' is the word loss.

 

In other words, loss of habitat occurs when one or more vital ecological supports are removed. For example : if a bird species suffers loss of the trees that supply fruit for food, and goes extinct - that is loss of habitat. Of course, it could be other vital factors that are lost - not just food.

 

The alternative drivers of species extinction, by contrast, come from adding an inimical element, such as an extra predator.

Some introduced species drive native species extinct by being more successful in exploiting the same food resource, thus leaving the natives with no food. As far as the native species is concerned that is essentially the same as cutting down the trees that produce the food. Thusly, it has the same effect as your narrow definition of habitat loss.

...and I think that you are stonewalling anything that disagrees with what you think, and cherry-picking examples.

 

I cannot possibly be "quibbling" about definitions, since I have been making the valid and REAL point that the ecological definition of habitat loss is a somewhat subjective term.

 

You need to start taking notice of what is being said, or this thread will just be locked as a waste of time.

Indeed! Well said.

Some of the latest scientific estimates show that on average, humans have approx 175 new mutations per diploid genome per generation.

 

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297

 

That means that although we may be still similar enough to our parents species to be considered as members of their species, we carry new mutations and new recombinations ( reshuffling of genes ) of existing mutations that potentially could start a new species.

 

Therefore each one of us is potentially a bridge between two different species.

Through evolutionary history, the point where one species becomes another is often pretty arbitrary. This is even true of higher taxons. Mammals, for example, are separated by paleontologists from mammal-like reptiles by the dentary squamosal jaw articulation. This 'line in the sand' was, I think, more-or-less made-up.

SkepticLance,

I could write a book saying how guns have never killed anyone, and are therefore not at all dangerous.

I could show that no-one has ever been killed by a gun. They have not even been killed by bullets. Furthermore, people who have been shot and subsequently died did not even die from blood loss, nor the damage sustained by the bullet. No, because in every case they died due to lack of oxygen to the brain.

Obviously, this would be a ridiculous thing to argue, but Lomburg is pretty much using the same type of argument.

His interpretation of the stats is meaningless, useless rubbish.

If the bolide impact theory is to believed, the subsequent 'nuclear winter' would have 'killed' most of the plants, all the large herbivores, and all the large meat-eaters.

Smaller dinosaurs may have survived on seeds and carcasses, but may have been partially warm blooded, so required both higher levels of food than true reptiles as well as sunshine.

The reptiles survived because they do not require much food (being cold blooded) AND can go into torpor for long periods.

The birds survived because thry are completely warm-blooded, and insulated with feathers, and highly mobile, and small (so could survive on seeds, carrion, etc).

The dinosaurs, being neither truly warm-blooded or truly cold-blooded, died out.

That's my guess...

The above two quotes are argument by definition modification. If we go down that path, we might as well alter the definition to say that all human over hunting, alien introductions, pollution, etc are all just habitat destruction, and therefore all extinctions are due to habitat destruction by definition.

Indeed! Now maybe you are beginning to understand why Lomburg and his pointless ideas can be ignored.

Uh, wt_ are you talking about? (by the way mods you gave me a penalty for that................)

 

Scotland - Airport attack

 

England - Car bombs

 

Edwards doesn't believe there is a global terror war.

How can you fight 'terror'? How can you fight 'terrorism', which is an abstract noun? It's not a War as it doesn't meet the definition of a war. It's the same as saying War on Want. or War on Drugs. Its just stupid sloganeering.

bombus

 

We are talking about extinction of species. When the last individual of that species is dead, the species is extinct.

 

Yes, but global extinction of a species requires lots of localised extinctions

 

I am not sure how relevent localised extinctions are. Even in pristine environments where human impact is minimal, there are always a few species that are low in number.

 

Yes, but for a species to persist there are usually enough individuals to retain a healthy gene pool, unless the species is very resistant to inbreeding.

 

As an example, red squirrels are extinct throughout most of the UK.

 

In Wales we have a few scattered and isolated populations hanging on in coniferous woodlands. These are not viable in the long term, however, as they are small and in time will become too inbred and die off. Also, if these forests were felled the species would go extinct from Wales.

 

They are in the position they are due to habitat loss (essentially) as grey squirrels have stolen their former habitat.

and you have just restated the mistery of pyramid construction. Somebody always comes up with a way they could have done it, and then someone else shows that they couldn't have done it that way etc. etc.

 

currently the ramp idea is the most popular one however this thread was started to explore another newer option which seems to be credible.

I think I disagree. If I arrive at your house you might not know whether I arrived by bus, car, taxi, bicycle, or walked, however it is not much of a "mystery", and I am sure you wouldn't jump to the conclusion that I arrived by micro-lite, hovercraft, helicopter, flying saucer or teleportation.

This "mystery" applies equally to all the other buildings/civilisations I mentioned, not just the pyramids.

To me the only mystery to me is why people think it's such a profound mystery:-)!

It's not as interesting as the Sphinx, which may actually be 10,000 years old as it appears to be weathered by rain...

It isn't a vote.

 

Well, it kinda is...

 

This is a far different argument than your initial reaction, and in fact corresponds more or less to my opinion. See how much more productive it is when you don't leap to conclusions about the people you're speaking with?

 

It's not a far different argument. I said that DDT was harmful to the environment, you said it was not. The reason why it is harmful is because it is persistent, and is thusly prone to biomagnification along food chains

 

However, at least we more or less agree on this issue now!

This gets us back to projecting human emotions onto animals. What you are doing is projecting the human idea of "freedom" onto animals. It's invalid. Since we can't communicate with the animals, how do you know the wild animal has a "better" life? Just for starters, it goes hungry more often. It is more susceptible to weather -- being cold and wet when it rains or snows.

 

As we did in the thread "vetinary drugs", do we also project natural animal behavior onto humans -- such as rat males eating their own offspring? If animals are supposed to live how we do, shouldn't we live the way they do?

Our human emotions didn't emerge from nothing, so applying emotions to certain animals seems as logical as applying emotions to other humans that are not me. Obviously they are likely to be less complex than higher primates, but are still valid, and it would be silly IMHO to ignore them.

Re: Better Life - well I did say 'some farming practices' or something like that. Obviously, a beef cow in a field can have a pretty good life, but an intensively raised pig lives an awful life.

Re: Human behaviour - it is a lot more natural than most people realise...

bombus, what exactly is the traditional method for hauling 10 ton blocks 600 feet into the air?

 

also the paramids weren't built by slaves, recent evidence indicates that they were merely farmers who found work building the pyramids during the off season where there was little to do on a farm.

Beware of thinking that it's a near impossible feat. The blue stones at stonehenge were transported hundreds of miles by neolithic man, and they were far less advanced than the Egyptians!

There are a number of methods that could have been employed and we don't know exactly which one they used - but that's not the same as saying 'we don't know how they built the pyramids".

Probably, huge ramps going right around the pyramid were used with logs and ropes and plenty of manpower. It would have been very similar to how the Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, and Babylonians built stuff.

You are probably right about them being farmers rather than slaves, but the joke about plenty of whips wouldn't have worked!

However, the point that Lomborg made was that loss of habitat was not a major cause of extinctions. He did not say it was unimportant in itself.

 

Lomborg is indeed saying that most human related extinctions are not due to habitat loss. I do not believe this can be said to be widely accepted. I have read numerous conservation articles, and have encountered the statement many times that habitat loss is a prime cause of extinctions in the world today. Since most current extinctions tend to be ascribed to human activity, that meets your definition.

Habitat loss is certainly the prime cause of localised extinctions. Many localised extinctions lead eventually to global extinction, unless conservationists intervene. There also are thought to be many, many species going extinct now that have never even been recorded (such as in tropical rainforests). Habitat loss is probably the most major threat to species on Earth today, especially if you include invasive species as a form of habitat loss, and may actually be the main cause of extinction now.

Lomburg seems to be twisting the evidence, or even deliberately misuderstanding it if he is saying that "loss of habitat is not a major cause of extinctions".

He seems to be separating local extinctions and global extinctions, when actually they are usually the same thing in the long run.

Also, at what point does hunting become the reason for extinction in Lomburgs opinion? If habitat loss reduces a population of millions to a handful of individuals, which are then hunted to extinction, is it really fair/accurate to say that hunting caused the extinction just because it was the last nail in the coffin?