Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Species Discovered This Millennium
world press ^ | 2007 | Unk

Posted on 01/29/2008 11:51:20 PM PST by Exton1

Liberals say we are destroying the planet and destroying species. Yet, just about everyday something new is discovered. Maybe this earth is bigger than we think. Discovery

New Tribe Spotted in Peruvian Amazon!

Found: Giant Lobster Species!

New Genus! Australian Truffles!

New Species of Orchid Flirts With Wasps

Squid Body + Octopus Legs = New Species?

What’ll They Do Next- Revive the Dodo? uh..no- really?

9 July, 2007

dodo.jpgFrom an article by
Kate Ravilious
National Geographic News
July 3, 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 bird’s DNA.

Get all the details from the original article at National Geographic Online.

No Comments » | All Articles, Birds, Paleontology, Unusual Nature | Permalink

 


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: discovery; earth; godsgravesglyphs; species

1 posted on 01/29/2008 11:51:21 PM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Exton1

The anthropic principle itself is like a fractal equation . The more temperature measurements they take, the warmer it gets


2 posted on 01/30/2008 12:01:45 AM PST by KTM rider ( SCOTUS '08 it's more than the oval office this time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exton1

...and just when they think they have all the stars counted, they build a bigger telescope


3 posted on 01/30/2008 12:03:26 AM PST by KTM rider ( SCOTUS '08 it's more than the oval office this time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exton1

A new species discovered this millennium (or was it last millennium?): moonbat.

4 posted on 01/30/2008 12:14:39 AM PST by rabscuttle385 (Admin Moderator for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exton1

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?


5 posted on 01/30/2008 12:25:48 AM PST by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

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.


6 posted on 01/30/2008 1:39:25 AM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Exton1
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.

That said, you're right on your second point. The Japanese are emptying the oceans(say goodbye to tuna in the next 20 years, maybe 10) but squid and jellyfish are taking over for the depleted stocks.

There is a good question to ask though, how much can humans poop in their own bed before they make the world unlivable *to themselves*? This is the important question. Conservatism needs to understand and address this issue.
7 posted on 01/30/2008 1:59:54 AM PST by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

“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.


8 posted on 01/30/2008 2:31:02 AM PST by MacDorcha (Do you feel that you can place full trust in your obsevations of the physical world?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
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.

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.
9 posted on 01/30/2008 3:26:10 AM PST by Renderofveils (My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft music. - Nabokov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
Google "6th great extinction event" and get back to me.

It doesn't particularly matter, squid and jellyfish are quickly replacing the biomass taken by overfishing. Americans aren't particular fish eaters, but the British and the Japanese tend to care a great deal. Tuna is a delicacy, Squid is not.

Squid are *not* overpopulating. They're replacing the niches previously occupied by fish. It's evolution in action.

The megafauna have a *huge* deal to do with the present. The previous poster argued that humans don't really have an effect on biodiversity. I pointed out the megafauna were eliminated by human encroachment.

Who cares if humans bring species back? The human extinction event is *natural*, it will certainly change the earth drastically(conservative dogma doesn't seem to get this) but that is the way the cookie crumbles. As we both agree, new species will arise to take over for any vacant niches. Eventually, sooner or later, we will be replaced as well.
10 posted on 01/30/2008 4:25:38 AM PST by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Renderofveils
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.

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.
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.
11 posted on 01/30/2008 4:26:55 AM PST by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

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.


12 posted on 01/30/2008 4:44:12 AM PST by MacDorcha (Do you feel that you can place full trust in your obsevations of the physical world?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Renderofveils

BTTT!


13 posted on 01/30/2008 4:45:23 AM PST by MacDorcha (Do you feel that you can place full trust in your obsevations of the physical world?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

“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?


14 posted on 01/30/2008 5:10:37 AM PST by MacDorcha (Do you feel that you can place full trust in your obsevations of the physical world?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EarthBound

Being delicious is not a survival trait.


15 posted on 01/30/2008 5:11:57 AM PST by MacDorcha (Do you feel that you can place full trust in your obsevations of the physical world?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Exton1
Found: Giant Lobster Species!

New Genus! Australian Truffles!

Ooooooohhhhh!!!! I know what I'm having for dinner!

Mark

16 posted on 01/30/2008 5:22:23 AM PST by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha

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 ;).


17 posted on 01/30/2008 5:22:25 AM PST by EarthBound (Ex Deo,gratia. Ex astris,scientia (Time to get behind Mitt. RIP Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EarthBound

Touche!


18 posted on 01/30/2008 5:27:05 AM PST by MacDorcha (Do you feel that you can place full trust in your obsevations of the physical world?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EarthBound

.... when wild beef roamed the country....


19 posted on 01/30/2008 5:27:49 AM PST by MacDorcha (Do you feel that you can place full trust in your obsevations of the physical world?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha

Beef, you know, along with beer, bovines are also proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.


20 posted on 01/30/2008 5:29:41 AM PST by EarthBound (Ex Deo,gratia. Ex astris,scientia (Time to get behind Mitt. RIP Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EarthBound

Cows rule. We get beef, milk, and butter from them. Those three things with beer make vegetables edible!


21 posted on 01/30/2008 5:35:14 AM PST by MacDorcha (Do you feel that you can place full trust in your obsevations of the physical world?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
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?
You don't *get it*. I'm not arguing from an environmentalists perspective, my view --if it can be characterized-- is "inevitablist".

So I don't feel guilty or care, except for a mild curiosity, that they're extinct. I care far more about knee-jerk reactions that obscure the real issues involved.
22 posted on 01/30/2008 5:51:44 AM PST by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
Again you don't get it. My judgements are value-neutral.

Also you're assuming that individual fisherman are rational actors on the macro level, they're not. They have more pressing issues to worry about, mortgages etc...

Again I don't care per se that it's happening. What I care about is the incredibly naive view that some conservatives take in order to avoid validating the views of environmentalists.
23 posted on 01/30/2008 5:56:31 AM PST by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

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.


I see you have drunk the kool aid.............human beings are bad and must be removed.


24 posted on 01/30/2008 6:51:42 AM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
I see you have drunk the kool aid.............human beings are bad and must be removed.
You're projecting. The central problem is that, deep down, most "conservatives" actually agree with liberals that extinctions are "bad". They aren't.
25 posted on 01/30/2008 7:01:19 AM PST by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

I’m not sure who’s taking a naive view, but I am sure that using terms like “alarming rate” on a subject involving 100’s of millions of species in the entire duration of this plante’s existance is a little far fetched.

“Un precedented” seems a little “blame humanity first” too.

And a few individual fisherman aren’t the one’s I’m talkng about. The people who buy the fish are the ones who keep them in business. Those are companies with a real vested interest to keep such things going- much more so than about a quick buck right now. It makes more economic sense to limit and drive up the price of commodities than it does to destroy the source via over cultivation.


26 posted on 01/30/2008 9:08:53 AM PST by MacDorcha (Do you feel that you can place full trust in your obsevations of the physical world?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Exton1
Life always finds away to survive

Did you catch that History Channel special last week entitled "Life After People?" Interesting.

27 posted on 01/30/2008 11:15:58 AM PST by stanz (Those who don't believe in evolution should go jump off the flat edge of the Earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Vom Willemstad K-9

ping


28 posted on 01/30/2008 1:57:04 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
Tuna is a delicacy, Squid is not.

One man's fish bait is another man's calamari.

29 posted on 01/30/2008 2:01:33 PM PST by CholeraJoe ("A dead whale or a stove boat!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Note: this topic is from 1/29/2008.

Blast from the Past.

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


30 posted on 05/28/2009 12:45:31 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson