dimreepr

Which is exactly what happens with the big stuff: if you let it.

Ah, revenge the one true way to blind the world. Besides it’s more than easy to accept the wrong of others; when one takes natural karma into account. Very few are able to commit wrong, without knowing wrongdoing; after all a bully isn’t born but made. I’m an atheist; but some lessons of the bible are worth learning.

For me it’s a means to let go of all the tension and anger that’s built up in yourself through, the thoughtless and cruel actions of others, the retention of which can only hurt you; so the act of forgiveness is all about your wellbeing and not letting the wrongdoer of the hook, in terms of karma. Anyone else have an interpretation?

Aquatic mammals seem to be split into two major groups, the baleen and the toothed. The baleen feed on planktonic creatures and the toothed feed on larger marine creatures, such as fish, squid and the like. Plankton it would seem is a never ending supply of food in our oceans; given this and the reduced gravitational influence that water provides, the extra supply of food would encourage greater size, rather than greater population, as is the case on land. The toothed mammals tend towards intelligence rather than size as a means to maintain population.

Following on from iNow’s input, this, very interesting, story may throw some light on the subject; not only does Jason suffer from OCD but it began with PTSD, which would tally with the anxiety mentioned in the article.

Which disorder do you wish to discus? OCD, depression or schizophrenia?

I didn't make the assertion, I merely questioned it. If, however, we assume homoeostasis then what factors would encourage a species to grow larger? All I can think of would be sexual selection; for instance the mountain gorilla or elephant seal. In both cases the males grew much larger than the females, although the size of the female would regulate the maximum size of the males, without an external factor.

That’s certainly a possibility Mike, except: That would make it part of the predator/prey arms race, in this case as a predator. My question was in response to the assertion “I think it's a tendency for things to get bigger in stable situations.” and what you describe isn't a stable situation.

Why?

They grew to that size through predation i.e. the predator/prey arms race. The most likely predator would be a T-rex like animal that hunted in packs, similar to a wolf pack. This would indicate all but the largest and strongest would be in danger.

A deity that could understand everything would very soon realise, what’s the point without control? A deity that could control everything would not understand, what’s the point without understanding? A deity that could control and understand everything wouldn't start. Edit/ exchanged the word knowledge for the more appropriate word understanding.

Dehydrated food is a very big industry, what is it you want to know?

I would say pray for world peace and an end to poverty but all the god/s seem to be opposed to that idea, for some reason.

“Only religon can tell us the standards.” Maybe you should read, at least, some of this thread before making such an assertion.

I think it best I let Dr Krauss explain, here is a summary of his book and the link also contains the lecture on which the book is based.

I like Dr Krauss’ plausible hypothesis in ‘A Universe From Nothing’, in which he suggests the universe came about through a quantum fluctuation.

And?

So says a member with -87; it’s a matter of pride, for some, and a matter of indifference for others; guess which way round that works?

Wisdom is, understanding how we, and others, fit into this world (where we/others are in the bigger picture), understanding the likely consequence of a given action and understanding what matters and what to let go and accept. So wisdom is just another way to describe understanding. Intelligence allows one to solve a problem; wisdom/understanding allows one to pre-empt the problem.

A very nice example of direct dinosaur/mammal competitors. “avoid larger preditors” Maybe one way the mammals would have the upper hand in this scenario; they would recognise the predators, the dinosaurs would have no idea what to fear. I think kronosaurus would make an interesting foe for the killer whale, even more interesting if they too travelled in family units.

It was just a ponder and I wasn’t suggesting they couldn’t find a suitable area; just that it could be difficult. Plants are part of the predator/prey arms race which means some plants have developed resistance to grazing through various means, poisons included. In fairness we have no way of knowing how efficient their digestive systems were, it’s therefore reasonable to use elephants as a rough guide.

"they would need a vast amount of what they could eat" That's the important phrase in my previous post. So with that in mind: In a perfect world an elephant will eat 150lbs of food a day, in an imperfect world they can eat over 770lbs and consume as much as 200 litres of water a day; so if we conservatively estimate the difference in weight of 4/5 times, that would be a vast amount of food and water to find each and every day if conditions aren’t optimal and very substantial amount if they are, so where on the planet would they have to land to merely survive let alone thrive? Edit- Not forgetting a small herd would be needed to maintain a population and thus, sustainable.

I think maybe we should focus the discussion on animals that are similar in size and approximate dietary requirements. An animal such as the larger of the sauropods are unlikely to compete directly with cattle (other than accidentally treading on the odd cow/sheep), also they couldn’t possibly have modern predators, even insects. I’ve been pondering the likely fate of an animal of that size in our modern world; it strikes me that, whilst I have no reason think they couldn’t survive on flora of this era, they would need a vast amount of what they could eat, which clearly existed in their era but not very likely in ours and coupled with a need to be near enough a large amount of water would severely limit their chances.

No evidence: no concession.

I’m happy to concede this point, as my studies have been brief, if sufficient evidence exists; but specialisation does not necessarily mean exclusivity and symbiosis seems to be on a much more basic level than a mammal.