Skip to comments.Species Discovered This Millennium
Posted on 01/29/2008 11:51:20 PM PST by Exton1
9 July, 2007
Adventurers exploring a cave on an island in the Indian Ocean have discovered the most complete and well-preserved dodo skeleton ever found, scientists reported yesterday.
Researchers say the find would likely yield the first useful samples of the extinct, flightless birds DNA.
Get all the details from the original article at National Geographic Online.
The anthropic principle itself is like a fractal equation . The more temperature measurements they take, the warmer it gets
...and just when they think they have all the stars counted, they build a bigger telescope
A new species discovered this millennium (or was it last millennium?): moonbat.
Your logic seems a bit bizarre. Are you arguing that *even if* humans drive species extinct that the previously unknown biodiversity makes up for it?
No I am saying, and the facts support it, that we are not driving species to extinction. 99.99% of all species that have ever lived on the earth have gone extinct on their own. But just as one species goes, another is created to take its place. Life is not static, but life survives. The left has gone out of its way to put every species but man first. Does it really make sense to stop a $20 million hospital project because someone found a nine rare flies? Or stop a dam because of some little fish, or stop building homes for an owl? We could not destroy all the species of the world if we wanted to. Life always finds away to survive.
No I am saying, and the facts support it, that we are not driving species to extinction. 99.99% of all species that have ever lived on the earth have gone extinct on their own. But just as one species goes, another is created to take its place. Life is not static, but life survives. The left has gone out of its way to put every species but man first. Does it really make sense to stop a $20 million hospital project because someone found a nine rare flies? Or stop a dam because of some little fish, or stop building homes for an owl? We could not destroy all the species of the world if we wanted to. Life always finds away to survive.No the facts don't support it. Humanity has been driving species to extinction for millenia(know what the megafauna were?). Humanity is wiping out species at a record pace and that is indisputable.
“Humanity is wiping out species at a record pace and that is indisputable.”
Out of curiosity- what pace would that be?
And what if we do harvest the tuna into extinction? Seems like an awful small part of my diet to be concerned about. (And last I checked, I was a part of the food chain as well.)
Now if you mean to tell me we are going to run out of fish in general, I might listen some more. But as it stands more squid in the world just tells me that there is going to be an overpopulation and nature will adjust for them. More birds and turtles will move in to eat them. A crowded system is an abundance of food that hasn’t been exploited yet.
I have to ask though;
What does the mega fauna have to do with anything right now? Megafauna were by and large animals acclimated to a world in an ice age. We still have large cats and elephants. Mammoths died. Did you hear about this, http://www.exn.ca/mammoth/Cloning.cfm ?
Oh look, humans bringing a species BACK!
I challenge you to tell me of any other animal whose actions would ever lead to this outcome.
Wake up and enjoy being human.
The one thing that really bugs me about the anthrocentrism of the "environmental" crowd is the arrogance they display when they separate human actions from nature's actions. They claim that since nature is infallable, those species that went extinct before mankind was dominant were supposed to go. Those species that mankind has driven to extinction were supposed to stay though, because man is evil and not a force of nature.ding ding ding. "environmentalism" isn't liberal at all, it's *reactionary*, desperately trying to hang onto the present at the expense of the future.
Guess what? Man's an animal. We (collectively) are no different than any other animal. Even ants in large populations can alter their surrounding environments, driving larger species from their previous territory or wiping out native populations.
Eventually we will be replaced. Right now though, we are the end-all.
And if extinction is *natural* then anything we construct will also, defacto be *natural* as it is in our nature to do so.
Your “citation” harkens to “global climate change.”
Part of *conservative* dogma is conservation. Thus the term (and why TR ran as a Republican) but conservation is not something we should take to the extent of ruining our economy over it. The most efficient choices will filter to the top “naturally” and any problems will right themselves.
Japan is over-fishing it’s oceans? They are a developed country. They know the economic problems that come when your supply runs out. Their companies have been warned. If they overfish, that means no more money. And trust me, money influences more about policy than any emotional out pouring.
“The previous poster argued that humans don’t really have an effect on biodiversity. I pointed out the megafauna were eliminated by human encroachment. “
No, they were eliminated by a combination of hunting, disease, and lack of food to live on. Of the three, none of those could have been helped by human interaction. Or would you have prefered that Man stayed in it’s tribes, achieving a neutral population growth for thousands of years?
Being delicious is not a survival trait.
New Genus! Australian Truffles!
Ooooooohhhhh!!!! I know what I'm having for dinner!
Well that depends. If you are delicious to humans, it is... at least it is for chickens, beef, pigs, and various fish stocks, as well as tons of different vegetables and fruits ;).
.... when wild beef roamed the country....
Beef, you know, along with beer, bovines are also proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.