Notices
Results 1 to 51 of 51
Like Tree15Likes
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By scoobydoo1
  • 2 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By scoobydoo1
  • 1 Post By stander-j
  • 2 Post By Neverfly
  • 2 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By LuciDreaming

Thread: Evolution of animals

  1. #1 Evolution of animals 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    5
    Why are australian animals so different to Europian ones? [linked with evolution]


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Another homework question. I've already helped you with one question, this is starting to smack of laziness.lack of study on yiur part. Post your answer first and we'll see if we can help. Getting answers to your homework here you won't learn much if anything.
    true..
    ok what i think is:
    australian animals look different because of their environment. their fur would be thinner due to warmer temperature, their ears would be bigger and other features. but what i dont get is how did a similar species evolve to be a kangaroo.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    australia's animals are very old
    by the time nature found a better solution
    australia had become isolated drifting away from antarctica
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Why are australian animals so different to Europian ones?
    Different climates, ecological areas and locations will cause different things to ADAPT to its own environment to which it is living.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    If this is both evolution and homework, I suggest you start your reading about Australian animals with the monotremes (echidnas and platypus) and move on from there.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Anti-Pseudoscience Some's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    44
    How dare u ask such a question, are u heretic

    A most striking factor for consideration is the existence of numerous marsupial and placental mammals that are virtually identical to one another with the exception of the distinctions in their reproductive systems.

    Convergent evolution basically says that two or more unrelated organisms evolved to have very similar characteristics independently. Not only does is this 'explanation' a cop-out, but it also undermines the whole principle of the similarity argument:

    Firstly, it is irrational to claim that convergent evolution sufficiently explains all similarities in unrelated organisms (take the eye for instance which supposedly arose 30 different times!).

    Secondly, it invalidates the similarity argument: if some similarities in unrelated organisms arose by convergent evolution, how do we know that other similarities in related organisms didn’t arise by convergent evolution? (Common ancestry is not needed anymore)

    Details
    Men are four: He who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool--shun him; He who knows not and knows he knows not, he is simple--teach him; He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep--wake him; He who knows and knows he knows, hi is wise--follow him!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Some View Post
    How dare u ask such a question, are u heretic

    A most striking factor for consideration is the existence of numerous marsupial and placental mammals that are virtually identical to one another with the exception of the distinctions in their reproductive systems.

    Convergent evolution basically says that two or more unrelated organisms evolved to have very similar characteristics independently. Not only does is this 'explanation' a cop-out, but it also undermines the whole principle of the similarity argument:

    Firstly, it is irrational to claim that convergent evolution sufficiently explains all similarities in unrelated organisms (take the eye for instance which supposedly arose 30 different times!).

    Secondly, it invalidates the similarity argument: if some similarities in unrelated organisms arose by convergent evolution, how do we know that other similarities in related organisms didn’t arise by convergent evolution? (Common ancestry is not needed anymore)

    Details
    None of this crap is on topic and it is a show of Some's ignorance that he thought that it was on topic.

    It's an anti-evolution driven load of hooey.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Some View Post
    A most striking factor for consideration is the existence of numerous marsupial and placental mammals that are virtually identical to one another with the exception of the distinctions in their reproductive systems.
    so uhm ... not THAT identical after all ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Distinctions in their reproductive systems? Minor matters really.

    Mammals who have pouches? Details, details.

    Egg producers who suckle their young? Who notices once they're fully grown?

    All looks identical to me unless you get picky about details. Snort. Sneer.
    Strange and Neverfly like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by sciencemad View Post
    Why are australian animals so different to Europian ones? [linked with evolution]
    You might want to read up on the Wallace Line ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Some View Post
    How dare u ask such a question, are u heretic
    There is nothing wrong with asking questions. It is making ignorant assertions (in Crackpot Font'n'Colors TM) that annoys.

    it is irrational[/B] to claim that convergent evolution sufficiently explains all similarities in unrelated organisms
    It is not irrational. It is based on evidence. Ignoring the evidence in favor of personal incredulity and myth is irrational.

    it invalidates the similarity argument: if some similarities in unrelated organisms arose by convergent evolution, how do we know that other similarities in related organisms[/I] didn’t arise by convergent evolution[/B]?
    Duh. Because they are related. Now wipe that drool of your chin.

    Of course, I'm sure there are examples of convergent evolution in related species ... can't think of any right now. But that does absolutely nothing to contradict the direct evidence for inheritance, diversity, selection and evolution.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Convergent evolution is valid and has examples, true-e.g. Shark and dolphin- but that is not the topic here.
    Some implied that the claim is that the marsupials are a product of convergent evolution with mammals. This Is False.
    They are not a product of convergent evolution but of divergent evolution. They share a common ancestor with mammals.
    exchemist likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Somes signature should be "The above is not to be taken as fact. It's something I've made up about something I don't understand."
    I'll add that in, later.

    Ohhh... you mean the member named "Some." I wish he'd change his name...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Some implied that the claim is that the marsupials are a product of convergent evolution with mammals. This Is False.
    They are not a product of convergent evolution but of divergent evolution. They share a common ancestor with mammals.
    True.

    I think what he might have been alluding to, in his typically jumbled and misinformed way, is the fact that there are marsupial equivalents of non-marsupial mammals; i.e. animals that have evolved to fill the same ecological niche (herbivore, predator, etc).

    To which, once again, I can only say: well, duh. That is what evolution does: it fills available niches to exploit resources that aren't being exploited by others.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Some implied that the claim is that the marsupials are a product of convergent evolution with mammals. This Is False.
    They are not a product of convergent evolution but of divergent evolution. They share a common ancestor with mammals.
    True.

    I think what he might have been alluding to, in his typically jumbled and misinformed way, is the fact that there are marsupial equivalents of non-marsupial mammals; i.e. animals that have evolved to fill the same ecological niche (herbivore, predator, etc).

    To which, once again, I can only say: well, duh. That is what evolution does: it fills available niches to exploit resources that aren't being exploited by others.
    Please bear with me as I go slightly off-topic for a question. Where do homo sapiens stand in terms of their ecological niche? I may be making a blanket statement here but, most modern human societies do not seem overly concerned with conservation of their environment in view of what I've surmised to be almost parasitic.

    I hope this doesn't cause the thread to deviate from it's original topic, but I am curious.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    most modern human societies do not seem overly concerned with conservation of their environment in view of what I've surmised to be almost parasitic.
    Every mammal would be called that if they were in our numbers and smarts. The basic behavior trait is to look out for self. Build a dam. Dig a burrow...
    With our numbers and technology, the effect of our basic animal behavior is grossly magnified, is all.
    Ascended and mvb like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic
    With homo sapiens playing the part of the vessel, ferrying bacteria from destination to destination, and perhaps one day to the stars? Sure, that would give meaning to people frequently asking about the meaning of Life. We are evolving to bring our bacteria overlords to new planets where they might thrive.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic
    Heh, you aren't saying human beings have a symbiotic relationship with the land, are you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic
    So your saying that the generally accepted definition of symbiosis, which includes parasitism, has been changed at some point in the last year?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    aminals evolved cuz God told them if they didnt theyd be sorry


    Edit: I just realized I inadvertently said something stupid. Not sure how this happened, but there has been such an influx of stupid lately, I think it may be contagious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic
    Like, don't confuse men with humans?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic
    So your saying that the generally accepted definition of symbiosis, which includes parasitism, has been changed at some point in the last year?
    I think it's one of those words where people quarrel over the meaning. Some think it should only refer to mutualistic relationships, while others think it should collectively refer to all three. The Oxford Dictionary treads eggshells with a diplomatic stance. I'll never understand why people form camps over the definition of a word, who cares... It's just a god-damned word.
    sculptor likes this.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Because clear definitions are much better than vague definitions.
    stander-j and sculptor like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    symbiotic = mutually beneficial
    paracitic on the other hand doesn't

    land?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Because clear definitions are much better than vague definitions.
    That was my sentiment. I don't understand why a definition can't simply be decided - it's just a word. There ought to be a Word Committee that just sits there all day - debating the definitions of a word and ultimately deciding what it will mean.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    symbiotic = mutually beneficial
    paracitic on the other hand doesn't

    land?
    Per only ONE selected definition, which is contested by large segment of the biology community
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    swap = for indicates?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    symbiotic = mutually beneficial
    paracitic on the other hand doesn't

    land?
    Per only ONE selected definition, which is contested by large segment of the biology community
    Stander-J, I see your point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    swap = for indicates?
    HUH? This makes no sense at all
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    jeez dad
    following the freaking bouncing ball
    instead of
    symbiotic = mutually beneficial
    paracitic on the other hand doesn't

    symbiotic indicates mutually beneficial
    paracitic on the other hand doesn't

    ......................
    pour me 'nuther whiskey
    ..................
    how many of you younger folks don't understand the reference "follow the bouncing ball"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    jeez dad
    following the freaking bouncing ball
    instead of
    symbiotic = mutually beneficial
    paracitic on the other hand doesn't

    symbiotic indicates mutually beneficial
    paracitic on the other hand doesn't

    ......................
    pour me 'nuther whiskey
    As is Have already pointed out, per ONE definition that is contested, and your second post was just gibberish so how was I to know that is what you were saying?

    If you would stop posting in the ridiculous lyrics and communicate like the educated person you claim to be then that WOULDNT have happened.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    ok
    lets work on the contested definition
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    ok
    lets work on the contested definition
    Symbiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWhat is it that you want to work on exactly?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    ok
    lets work on the contested definition
    Symbiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWhat is it that you want to work on exactly?
    whatever it was that you guys think i got wrong
    remember that i left the academy well over a generation ago

    back then
    symbiosis/symbiotic meant mutually beneficial
    has that changed?
    .............
    I'm old. but i ain't to old to learn
    ........
    from your link symbiotic can now mean parasitic(for some--who are these "others" ?)
    jeez
    wowie zowie
    curiouser and curiouser
    clarity disolves
    .............
    or, are the wiki folks totally freaking insane?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    I would suggest first taking a look at the wiki page I linked you to, and start using regular English sentences ad grammar.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    and then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    There are two words available. I don't see why it's agreeable they mean the same thing. I would vote for symbiotic as mutually beneficial and parasitic as not mutually beneficial as that is how they are commonly used, anyway. It makes more sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    and then?
    Really? Your not that ignorant. if you have questions after reading the article then ask them here
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    There are two words available. I don't see why it's agreeable they mean the same thing. I would vote for symbiotic as mutually beneficial and parasitic as not mutually beneficial as that is how they are commonly used, anyway. It makes more sense.
    And what do you do for the situations where its neither beneficial or parasitic for one of the parties? its much more complex then "this or that"
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    And what do you do for the situations where its neither beneficial or parasitic for one of the parties? its much more complex then "this or that"
    Make up a new word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    And what do you do for the situations where its neither beneficial or parasitic for one of the parties? its much more complex then "this or that"
    Make up a new word.
    If only it was that easy
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    And what do you do for the situations where its neither beneficial or parasitic for one of the parties? its much more complex then "this or that"
    Make up a new word.
    If only it was that easy
    indeed - even a symbiotic relationship is a bit like the stalemate in the cold war : as soon as it becomes convenient for one of the parties to break the pact they do

    remember also that even cases of commensalism are not always as innocuous : e.g. even when an epiphyte merely uses a tree as a support, the sheer quantity of epiphytes can utlmately assist in bringing the tree down
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Moderator Comment: This is a discussion forum and therefore, on the face of it, anything that promotes discussion must be a good thing. An alternate view is that some discussion is of little or no value. I lean to the latter viewpoint.

    Now in this thread there has been an extensive exchange of almost zero value generated by the intransigent behaviour of Sculptor who, despite many requests and recommendations over a long period of time, continues to use a faux artistic approach to grammar, communication and posting in general. My personal view is that this detracts rather than contributes to the quality of this forum. I am asking Sculptor for the last time to correct this annoying and anti-social abberation. Sculptor, if you choose not to make that change I shall be urging my fellow mods to agree to permanently ban you.
    Strange and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Moderator Comment: This is a discussion forum and therefore, on the face of it, anything that promotes discussion must be a good thing. An alternate view is that some discussion is of little or no value. I lean to the latter viewpoint.
    I offer my apologies if I have contributed to the off-topic'ness of the thread.

    I had merely wanted to know where/how our species stand in terms of the boundaries of our ecological niche, and as Neverfly has clarified; our numbers and environment manipulation capabilities amplified what I/we considered to be parasitic behavior when viewed alongside that which is exhibited by other animals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Moderator Comment: This is a discussion forum and therefore, on the face of it, anything that promotes discussion must be a good thing. An alternate view is that some discussion is of little or no value. I lean to the latter viewpoint.
    I offer my apologies if I have contributed to the off-topic'ness of the thread.
    You have absolutely nothing to apologise for. Threads often move away from the original topic and this can be productive and interesting. In this instance some of the responses seeking to correct or understand Sculptor were only necessary because of his self-indulgent posting style.

    I am not sure of the extent to which this annoys or frustrates other members. It sure as hell has pissed me off for a considerable time. I have reported my moderator comment post in order to raise the issue with the rest of the mod team. In the meantime I hope that Sculptor will consider out of politness alone to ditch the affectations.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    I offer my apologies if I have contributed to the off-topic'ness of the thread.
    Off topic'ness is not a word. Get it Right!
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    I had merely wanted to know where/how our species stand in terms of the boundaries of our ecological niche, and as Neverfly has clarified; our numbers and environment manipulation capabilities amplified what I/we considered to be parasitic behavior when viewed alongside that which is exhibited by other animals.
    Amplified is exactly how I see it and I believe it's so much a part of us that only a severe drop in human population and consumption demand will have any realistic effect. I realize a lot of people are more optimistic and hope that humans can learn. Others are political and don't want to advocate the sad reality.
    I am not so optimistic; I believe we follow more programming than rational thought and the more you examine the general population trends as opposed to individual communication, the more apparent it seems.
    That it is so fundamentally similar not just to modern mammals but very likely not so modern ones suggests an ancient and deeply evolved sense of self importance. The behavior traits cover such a broad spectrum of animals that the pattern may be as old as life itself. Especially if you consider us to be colonies of single celled life communally using the larger being to feed, reproduce and ensure safety- it appears very deeply engrained, indeed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    do not confuse parasitic with symbiotic
    Heh, you aren't saying human beings have a symbiotic relationship with the land, are you?
    At first,
    symbiotic relationship with the land
    rather confused me.
    Contemplating the relationship humans have with dirt, and thinking of dirt as rather inert.
    As I have pondered, I think I see your point, and herein, I perceive that Paleo's inclusion of parasitic within symbiotic has merit. Though I do feel more comfortable having the 2 words mutually exclusive, I can readilly see that at times, humans do seem to have been parasitic of the land, using up the nutreants in the soil, and leaving a parched wasteland in their unconcerned/(ignorant?) use of the resource.

    Yeh, sometimes, in the give and take of the discussions, we do tend to wander off the main topic into eddies of inconsequence.
    In contemplating why I often use a style that seems to bug some others, I think that what I am doing, is switching away from dissertation mode and more into the banter of conversational mode. It was never meant to be artsy fartsy or antisocial, quite the opposite actually. I had thought it a light hearted effort to share knowledge in a less serious way.
    Long ago, and far away, I had had enough of being in command of others, and sought to reformulate my psyche as an individual instead of as a leader responsible for the actions and safety of others. Most of my dreams atleast, are now free of the anxiety of command and control, and, as part of this change, I have revisited many dreams of my youth.------off topic---In most of the dreamtime, I am younger than the guy in the mirror

    The good thing about being banned, Is that I would invest my time elsewhere. The bad thing is that I would miss all of your knowledge and this thing that ofttimes feels like a front porch community of interests and like loves' of knowledge. People will do what people will do, and I don't want to be in control of anyone but me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Moderator Comment: This is a discussion forum and therefore, on the face of it, anything that promotes discussion must be a good thing. An alternate view is that some discussion is of little or no value. I lean to the latter viewpoint.

    Now in this thread there has been an extensive exchange of almost zero value generated by the intransigent behaviour of Sculptor who, despite many requests and recommendations over a long period of time, continues to use a faux artistic approach to grammar, communication and posting in general. My personal view is that this detracts rather than contributes to the quality of this forum. I am asking Sculptor for the last time to correct this annoying and anti-social abberation. Sculptor, if you choose not to make that change I shall be urging my fellow mods to agree to permanently ban you.

    Wowie Zowie! That's a tad rad, dad.
    Jeez, I had no idea
    But if I had I wouldn't know where to put it.

    ........................................

    I had a buddy so many years ago that was a contractor. Ran a construction crew.
    I stopped by on his project, a downtown highrise, when I noticed he had a full grown chimpanzee on his crew.
    No kiddin a chimp, not a man that looked like a chimp but
    an ape.
    He was usin a jackhammer, hard hat on his head.
    jeez louise you ever see a chimp makin an honest livin?
    Just goes to show
    You can't judge a book by its cover.
    He didn't quite have the catcalls down though,
    he only whistled when dudes with beards walked by.

    .........................................

    We were in our twenties and smokin funny things.
    Who'd a thunk it
    32 years later, I'm still sitting here posting altered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    lol
    (point taken)

    back on topic:
    When did placental mammals split from marsupials?
    Surely while south america and australia were still connected to antarctica?
    Last edited by sculptor; June 14th, 2013 at 08:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by sciencemad View Post
    Why are australian animals so different to Europian ones? [linked with evolution]
    This guy will help you Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and BBC Two - Bill Bailey's Jungle Hero, Wallace in Borneo, Bill?s Jungle Hero: Alfred Russel Wallace

    Enjoy.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Are we animals?
    By Effervescent in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2013, 01:19 AM
  2. Animals and Evolution
    By Alec Bing in forum Links
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 27th, 2013, 02:05 AM
  3. Why don't we see many animals mass murdering other animals?
    By noSkillz in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2010, 04:46 PM
  4. Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 1st, 2009, 11:45 AM
  5. Name of those animals?
    By lifter in forum Biology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: July 17th, 2008, 06:06 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

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