|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
I get your point sixties, but we can hardly compare a 400mil investment with a sneaker shop.
P.S. that is not even remotely how extinction of a species takes place. Erm, not that it's related to the OP but can you expand on that? Sure, take dinosaurs for example, they were perfectly adapted to their surroundings, it was an unpredictable event which caused their extinction. These are things one can not plan for. Tigers for example too, perfectly adapted to their natural environment, over hunting is not something they can plan for or adapt to. These are unpredictable events out of their control. Unpredictable variables. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what we could be avoiding. By upgrading at a smaller scale we are less prone to suffer the consequences of unpredictable events in the market or football world or at least minimize the negative effects. 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are extinct, focusing on a mass extinction event that killed the dinosaurs doesn't accurately represent causes for extinction for obvious reasons. Tigers are becoming extinct because of three main reasons: habitat loss, poaching and population fragmentation. Two of those reasons are caused by man and so again Tiger extinction isn't an accurate representation. I think you'll find the vast majority of extinctions are due to competition with other species, that is the struggle to survive in an enviorment with limited resources. Tigers and Dinosaurs may very well have been perfectly adapted to their surroundings, but what you're failing to consider is the number of extinctions possibly caused by those species on other species that were not as perfectly adapted to their shared surroundings. So to conclude, you're incorrect to suggest that sixties' extinction analogy was wrong. What's all this post about? Is LFC going towards extinction or something?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 5,205
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 5,205 |
According to some it may as well be 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,543
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,543 |
Ha, yeah there's an asteroid expected to hit Anfield in 2017.. hadn't you heard? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 23,084
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 23,084 |
I get your point sixties, but we can hardly compare a 400mil investment with a sneaker shop.
P.S. that is not even remotely how extinction of a species takes place. Erm, not that it's related to the OP but can you expand on that? Sure, take dinosaurs for example, they were perfectly adapted to their surroundings, it was an unpredictable event which caused their extinction. These are things one can not plan for. Tigers for example too, perfectly adapted to their natural environment, over hunting is not something they can plan for or adapt to. These are unpredictable events out of their control. Unpredictable variables. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what we could be avoiding. By upgrading at a smaller scale we are less prone to suffer the consequences of unpredictable events in the market or football world or at least minimize the negative effects. 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are extinct, focusing on a mass extinction event that killed the dinosaurs doesn't accurately represent causes for extinction for obvious reasons. Tigers are becoming extinct because of three main reasons: habitat loss, poaching and population fragmentation. Two of those reasons are caused by man and so again Tiger extinction isn't an accurate representation. I think you'll find the vast majority of extinctions are due to competition with other species, that is the struggle to survive in an enviorment with limited resources. Tigers and Dinosaurs may very well have been perfectly adapted to their surroundings, but what you're failing to consider is the number of extinctions possibly caused by those species on other species that were not as perfectly adapted to their shared surroundings. So to conclude, you're incorrect to suggest that sixties' extinction analogy was wrong. Bloody Chinese 
That job interview was going so well until I realized I was fukked up on acid in the middle of a cornfield naked and talking to a scarecrow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
I get your point sixties, but we can hardly compare a 400mil investment with a sneaker shop.
P.S. that is not even remotely how extinction of a species takes place. Erm, not that it's related to the OP but can you expand on that? Sure, take dinosaurs for example, they were perfectly adapted to their surroundings, it was an unpredictable event which caused their extinction. These are things one can not plan for. Tigers for example too, perfectly adapted to their natural environment, over hunting is not something they can plan for or adapt to. These are unpredictable events out of their control. Unpredictable variables. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what we could be avoiding. By upgrading at a smaller scale we are less prone to suffer the consequences of unpredictable events in the market or football world or at least minimize the negative effects. 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are extinct, focusing on a mass extinction event that killed the dinosaurs doesn't accurately represent causes for extinction for obvious reasons. Tigers are becoming extinct because of three main reasons: habitat loss, poaching and population fragmentation. Two of those reasons are caused by man and so again Tiger extinction isn't an accurate representation. I think you'll find the vast majority of extinctions are due to competition with other species, that is the struggle to survive in an enviorment with limited resources. Tigers and Dinosaurs may very well have been perfectly adapted to their surroundings, but what you're failing to consider is the number of extinctions possibly caused by those species on other species that were not as perfectly adapted to their shared surroundings. So to conclude, you're incorrect to suggest that sixties' extinction analogy was wrong. You are mistaken KotK. Firstly the three reasons you list as to why Tigers are becoming extinct are all caused by man, not only two of them. Their habitat loss is mainly due to anthropogenic causes. The process of extinction involves many factors, such as weather, habitat loss, environmental toxins, disease, and shrinking population dynamics. These factors can be analyzed to predict extinction risks and rates for endangered species. I gave dinosaurs and tigers simply as examples, surely you do not expect me to give a precise explanation as to how each and every species which has gone extinct has done so. Especially as we are losing about 10000 species every year. However, all science points to the direction that humans are the main cause. Unlike the mass extinction events of geological history, the current extinction challenge is one for which a single species - ours - appears to be almost wholly responsible. Now, if you would like to give me just one example of a species which went extinct due to it's failure to evolve and adapt to its natural environment, i will gladly listen. However, this is my profession, environmental engineering and conservation, and I believe you will struggle to name a single species that went extinct due to failing to adapt. Also, back to the STanley, you are assuming Anfield could never be expanded, you have no proof whatsoever and therefor are arguing with everyone based on no more than a hunch. That assumption of yours carries no more weight than the assumption which Vish is making, so reffering to him as Spock and trying to be patronizing and insult him is really not very classy. It portays you to be an insecure individual who has to try and belittle others to make himself seem bigger. You are working off an assumption, Vish has another asumption, they differ...you disagree, fine, move on.
Last edited by Ninja Skrtel; 30/08/14 05:08 PM.
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,543
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,543 |
Of course I didn't expect you to list the reason behind every single extinction but you chose without doubt the most outrageous and extreme of examples in the event that caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. In regards to Tigers, their habitat loss is mainly due to environmental pollution caused by humans but not only, which is why I stated two reasons rather than three.
You claimed that not adapting to survive is not related in any way to extinction, which is categorically and unquestionably incorrect.
I'll admit that I've been drinking for two days straight and as a physicist, biology and biodiversity are not my fields but do you really expect me to name a species that went extinct due to it's failure to evolve and adapt to its natural environment? Considering that there are currently 8.7 million unique species on the planet today and that's 0.01% of all species in the history of the planet, there's undoubtedly absolutely millions of such species and the number of species made extinct by human influence would be absolutely insignificant in comparison. However, for the purpose of discussion how about the Burgess Shale Fauna for example?
As a physicist, I look at such topics from an extremely comprehensive perspective, after all the planet is 4.5 billion years old, it seems to me we're both looking at this topic from entirely disparate angles.
Anyhow, this discussion would probably be more fitting in the thread for things that don't deserve their own threads so I'll leave it there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
Of course I didn't expect you to list the reason behind every single extinction but you chose without doubt the most outrageous and extreme of examples in the event that caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. In regards to Tigers, their habitat loss is mainly due to environmental pollution caused by humans but not only, which is why I stated two reasons rather than three.
You claimed that not adapting to survive is not related in any way to extinction, which is categorically and unquestionably incorrect.
I'll admit that I've been drinking for two days straight and as a physicist, biology and biodiversity are not my fields but do you really expect me to name a species that went extinct due to it's failure to evolve and adapt to its natural environment? Considering that there are currently 8.7 million unique species on the planet today and that's 0.01% of all species in the history of the planet, there's undoubtedly absolutely millions of such species and the number of species made extinct by human influence would be absolutely insignificant in comparison. However, for the purpose of discussion how about the Burgess Shale Fauna for example?
As a physicist, I look at such topics from an extremely comprehensive perspective, after all the planet is 4.5 billion years old, it seems to me we're both looking at this topic from entirely disparate angles.
Anyhow, this discussion would probably be more fitting in the thread for things that don't deserve their own threads so I'll leave it there. . Indeed, this is a topic i would enjoy discussing with you in the non football section. I am a bit busy at the moment but will get back toyou
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
As far as the Burgess shale fauna is concerned, there is actually no proof that they went extinct. One theory suggests they did whilst another points out the similarities to some of today's species, for example arthropoda or annelida.
Related to the Burgess Shale fauna is the even better collection of animals in the Chengjiang Fauna of China, also in the Cambrian but earlier—about 525 mya. Here we see clear representatives of echinoderms, arthropods, annelids, sponges, and even what seems to be a chordate.
The Burgess Shale fauna did disappear from the fossil record about 505 mya. Maybe they suddenly went extinct, or perhaps they lived on but just weren’t preserved, since many of them were soft bodied and wouldn’t have fossilized easily.
Take note of the fact it says "suddenly" which would again point towards an unpredictable event, a once off or once in a millennia kind of event.
I can see why you can say the dinosaur example is extreme, but the tiger example is perfectly viable and just as rational as any other. The habitat loss is resulting from humans and human development. Climate can be a cause but again, humans have sped up global warming and are responsible for the extreme climatological events. It is humans who are a cause if their habitat loss, direct or indirect.
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 11,128
1st Team Regular
|
|
1st Team Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 11,128 |
And there was me thinking this was a footy forum.
|
|
|
|
|
