geoguy

Very interesting stuff. And yes, its obvious that I don't really know much about evolution, which is why I posted this.

 

 

 

You know, I never quite understood that until now. I guess its because the schools focus a lot more on the controversy of it rather than what it actually is or means

 

But I do have more questions though. One thing I've been wondering was the diversity of dinosaur species that have been found across the planet. It seems to me that they were the same everywhere, no matter what continent you found them on. Did the various types of dinosaurs survive only on the geographical location where they had the best chance of survival? And also, did each individual kind only survive in one kind of environment but not another, much like the way that lions (a mammal) could only survive in the savannas of Africa.

Yes and no. We don't have fossil records of most (99.9%) ecologies from any period in the Mesozoic. We just don't know the ake up of most ecologies. The richest fossil records are from the Late Cretceous here in Alberta: good info from formations spanning 82mya to the K/T extinction 64 mya. In these formations there was very little variation among terrestrial vertebrates. Albertasaurus evolved into T Rex...Centrasaurus into Triceratops, etc. but these are just variations on a theme. The ecologies had a similar mix of large and small theropods, ceratopsians, hadrosaurs, ankylosaurs, etc. ...and similar non-dino vertebrates (crocs, turtles, chamsosaurs and so on). I've collected literally thousands of fossils from Late Cretaceouss site and even after a couple decades couldn't distinguish a hadrosaur vertebra or raptor tooth from 82mya from one 65mya without other info providing location, etc. Why the stability? The most likely reason is stable climate but no one knows for sure.

That's a 17million year span. In contrast, our present ecology here in Alberta is greatly different from that just ten thousand years ago. There were mammoths, cheetahs, etc. In 1/1000 of the span of time there has been more change than in the last several million years of dino ecology.

Re your lion example. Lions were in N. america until recently (as were cheetahs and a few other 'Savannah' animals). Here is an interesting fact. The fastest land animal in the world is the cheetah. The second fastest is the North American Pronghorn. Why did pronghorns evolve to run so fast if the only predators in their environmnet are relatively (to pronghorns) slow running wolves, coyotes, cougars and bears? The answer is because pronghorns evolved along with cheetahs in the Pleistocene in N. america. Cheetahs became extinct in N. america but pronghorns didn't. Pronghorns can outzip any predator today but have no real need to shift into high gear. It's a classic example of how we sometimes can't find the reason for a particular trait in the current ecology but the fossil record explains what seems at first glance to be a quirky evolutionary tangent.

When I think of "positive thinking", to me it reflects that fact that you should focus on the constructive, not the desctructive. I think everyone has to find a way of thinking that works for their personality. I like challanges, and when things look bad I can take as a personal challange to do what seems impossible at the time. At that point the darkness turns into an opportunity I just can't miss. I think it is by no means so simple that straight success is the best lesson. Sometimes bad things can be valuable too.

 

I think it makes sense. However, to kind of tell someone else "think positive" just doesn't work like that. I think the meaning of "positive thinking" is someone each one of us has to find out what it means, because the words themselves says almost nothing. I think there are some things that we have to do on our own. Other people can be inspiration and help but they can not do it for us.

 

But not all people are like me, so what works for me doesn't work for everyone.

 

/Fredrik

Good post. I like your use of the word 'challenge'. I also like to substitute this word for 'problem', etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel

 

good ol' wp

 

Even if the British boats where in Iranian waters, the treaties which govern such things, which Iran has agreed to state that the boats have sovereign immunity and all they can do is request that they leave their teritorial waters immediately.

Ya, sure. Just as Britain and the USA would do if the Iranian navy was in British waters after invading Ireland and including Britain in the same 'Axis of Evil'.

Tell you what: Dress up as an Iranian sailor,put an Iranian flag on your boat and sail into N.Y. Harbour. don't worry because you'll only be asked to leave.

The cult of Peak Oil. One recognizes groupies by 'the debate is closed'. All hail absolutism.

Can I just check on something?

Bush is saying he will veto a decision, made by the representatives of the US population, to withdraw the troops who are meant to be there to bring democracy.

According to that great American patriot Rumsfeld resistance in Iraq is "no more than a couple thousand malcontents and criminals".

He failed to mention they are ZOMBIES! Somehow those couple thousand don't stay dead.

were off track, but the antonym to free market is socialism. this will never fly in the US, i hope.

 

its not my objective to argue US government policy. i will tell you in my opinion the correct responses to 9-11, Afghanistan and that of UN defiance, Iraq were justified decisions. if Iraq becomes a viable, democracy in the mid-east, the US, Canada and all the UN Members will benefit. as to Iran, the issue gets to the ideology of the Clerical and National leaders. personally i feel the people of Iran are already to far along the freedom trail to turn back the clock to 1400 or whatever, nor do i think these people feel the end times are here. if wrong and any attacks by Iran are made on any Nation the US is in treaty with, i assure you affording will not be the issue.

You wanted Iraq. All yours. Enjoy. Have Iran for dessert. Enjoy. That's if you're not too filled up on Freedom Fries and Yellow Cake.

"There isn't a free market solution to everything."

Not national security or foreign policy. Iraq. The despised image of the USA, hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of dead and wounded American troops are the result of dependence of oil dependency from the Middle East.

When the American government weighs an attack on Iran (forget the right or wrong of it) a major variable is disruption of oil supplies and its impact on western economies. One would hope that western democracies, despite the boondoggle of Iraq, are making those decisions based on security and moral issues and not the impact on the price of a gallon of gas at the pump. We keep hearing some variation on American news of 'we can't afford to attack Iran'. This is not a good way to determine the security of the country.

Ah, forgot about roughage. Get a side salad with your human.

 

And, obviously, you'd have to be especially careful in sterilizing it.

 

The other thing I can think of would be if we need constant supplies of certain things which don't stay in our systems long, and would therefore be found in human bodies in too low quantities. My knowledge of biology is insufficient to evaluate the truth of that, or what those things might be. Vitamin C?

 

I can't really think of any other reason. I mean, I know the traditional Eskimo diet is basically 100% meat, and they're actually pretty healthy, so it does seem plausible, albeit kind of ridiculous.

No, the traditional Eskimo diet wasn't basically 100% meat. Far from it. There were times of the year when it was mostly meat.

you are missing the point. You can't open up a box at one end and drop in all the raw plastics, metal ore, etc. and expect a laptop computer to come out the other end. There are all typs of processes that go on...this is why you have blood, a liver, oxygen exchange, urine, heat and so on. An organism is a lot more than a meat producer.

My wife and I are both geologists in Alberta. I'm not in the energy sector but my wife is involved in the energy industry. Many of our friends are geologists, etc.

Peak oil? no friggin clue. anyone who claims to have some magic numbers ,etc. is doing hocus pocus. Google Alien abduction or Sasquach and you'll also get thousands of 'experts' with indisputable facts. Google 'Peak Oil'...the same.

Re: government involvement. It's a tough one but the government gets sidetracked into politically correct projects and pork barrels that don't amount to a hill of beans....windpower, solar...biodiesel and so on. These are pinpricks and don't address the issue. the USa needs a couple trillion dollar efort on the scale of an Vietnam or Iraqinam invasion.

What surprises me is that in the USA (are you American?) is that the government hasn't made 'greater' energy self-sufficiency the number one priority over the last couple decades. Numero Uno. With countries like Venezuela, Iran and the Arabs with the hands on the oil spigot they have you by the privates if push comes to shove. Mexico and especially Canada are reliable sources strategically but our oil and natural gas are going to be VERY expensive is supplies from elsewhere tighten.

A nickel a gallon? Try $2/gallon. That's what I'd suggest adding to a gallon for energy research. It's going to be an exta $2 soon and it's best to put that $2 into research and development within the USA now than into the pockets of Venezuelans, Iranians (and Albertans) a couple years from now.....and still not have any self-sufficiency. We're rolling in the dough up here. Billions coming into our province from oil and natural gas sales into the USA. No skin off our nose if the USA keeps down the same path with blinkers on regardless if Peak Oil or not is around the corner.

Specifically, human meat! It's made of exactly the same stuff we are, so it seems like it should have all the nutrients we need, in pretty much the right proportions.

 

Why am I wrong?

 

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Meat is also made out of the same stuff as a rabbit, hummingbird and an Elephant....none of which eat meat. A tree is not a wooden house and eating a human buttock doesn't turn it into a human eyeball....a chunk of iron ore is not a car and eating a human arm does not turn it into your big toe.

I guess everyone missed the point of my post.

 

Normal people who wanted to live the American dream are now getting screwed. Their "investment" in a home ended up costing them money through no action of their own.

Baloney. The part you leave out of the American Dream is hard working people who have brains and make their own fate. When they fall flat, they pull themselves up and keep on chugging. It's not 'give me, give me, I want, I want': boo hoo'

It's amazing that 99% of people don't have their houses foreclosed upon in such an evil system .

Sure there's 1% of stupid people. Go and wallow among them. Remember 'No payments until 2008! buy it NOW!'

Antarctica is different, a 'habitable' Mars would be much more popular and in my own opinion no easy agreement could be possible. I also think China might be the first to populate Mars. But the questions still remain...

????

The Antarctic is orders of magnitude more habitable than Mars. Not even in the same ballpark.

Good post ParanoiA.

The overwhelming majority of people do NOT have trouble making mortgage payments and do NOT lose their home. Are they all lucky? No, they aren't stupid.

Anyone with half a brain wouldn't buy a vehicle, take a vacation, rent a CD, spend 50cents on a pop BEFORE they put together a rainy day fund to meet unexpected changes in circumstances. On CNN last week there was a 'sob' story on a couple who were about to lose their 270 thousand dollar home because they couldn't meet the payments. In the backyard was a boat for heavens sakes. 10 to 1 inside the house there was a color TV that cost more than the $75 you can buy one for at Walmart.

I know lots of people with houses and they aren't losing them. They aren't stupid.

Some diseases that might seem 'maladaptive' are really evolutionarily neutral because they usually strike after an organism has ceased to reproduce. Evolutionary success isn't measured in lifespan, it's measured in number of reproducing offspring. If you have two women, one who lives to be 100 but has no children and another who dies at 50 of Alzheimer's but has 10 children, all of whom grow up to breed, then the latter woman is by far the more evolutionarily successful.

 

Armand Marie Leroi's Mutants explores this idea more fully, postulating that much of what we see as normal aging may simply be the combined results of genetic disorders that are 'evolutionarily invisible' due to the fact that they strike after spawning is imposible or no longer likely.

That is true for most organisms but with some caveats. Man, like many organisms... wolves, ants, termites, etc. is a social animal. The passing on of genetic material is not invested in the individual but in the group. It's a numbers games and percents. Non-offspring producing individuals in social organisms can be more successful if their genetic material is passed on through collective effort. In some primate societies...some large mammals (elephants, whales, dolphins) the older non-producing individuals still have a role in the collective raising of the gene pool. A spinster aunt has a stake in the genetic material of her nieces and nephews being passed on successfully....as does a matriach elephant in a herd of younger fertile cows. The sterile uncle still hunts for the nomdic tribe...the grandfather knows where to find water...the female cousins make mocassins for their hunting male cousins, and so on.

The lady who lives to 100 and has no children may not be all that less successful in passing on genetic material than the one who dies at 50 with 10 child-bearing offspring. The odds are the 100 year old in our western society has a stake in the successful raising of thousands of individuals that she never gave birth to (let alone knows). An unproductive mother in a modern society could very well be much more genetically successful than a very fertile one in a hunter-gatherer society.

What we call empathy, caring, altruism and so are the strategy of the 'selfish' gene.

The Dinosaurs were the dominant species on the planet for over 160 million years, and were wiped out about 65 million years ago. The one thing I was wondering was how they were able to evolve into such an enormous size in the first place. Another thing I want to know is if they influenced the evolution of other species, such as mammals. Did they also have any significant impact on the environment of the Earth too (much like the microbes did way back when)? One more thing I was wondering was why dinosaurs, or dinosaur-like creatures, did not evolve again?

Just to clarify that there are and have been organisms bigger than dinosaurs (Whales among the animalia and a host of trees of various classes among the flora.)

The large size of dinosaurs as terrestrial verterbates has been debated for decades. One theory that has had some legs is that various organisms are able to evolve quickly (in geologic time) along a certain course. With the larger genera of dinosaurs this was in physical size to compete with eachother. Among placental mammals it has been more who can evolve to reproduce quickly with large numbers of offspring (thus the success of rodents). 'Big' dinosaurs evolved larger size before the immediate competition could evolve brain size or reproduction advantage. As a ceratopsian (such as Triceratops) or hadrosauran dinosaur got bigger, so did the theropods who hunted them (such as T Rex)...an escalation of size. 'If' T Rex had the ability to develop brain size quicker, then he might not have had to rely on size but 'smarts'. 'If' Triceratops had been able to evolve higher reproductive rates then that may have been the route for more genetic success than evolving into a 'bigger' organism and emphasis on a higher % of offspring needing to reproduce.

I'll clarify. it isn't a positive to occupy the macro niches of an ecology anymore than the micro niches. Small rodents and insectivores and so on haven't been out competed by primates, carnivores, ungulates. Being 'big' (large mammals, dinosaurs) isn't 'dominating' an ecology. There is much more biodiversity and longevity of orders, classes and phyla of organisms as one moves towards 'small'.

A small lingulid brachiopod is more successful in it's niche than dinosaurs ever were. 'Successful' meaning a measurement of passing on more of its genetic material over hundreds of millions of years.

I'm a paleontologist and new to this forum.

just an aside: The concept of 'mutation' is always in flux. Some have proposed that 'mutation' has too often become equated with 'mistake' or 'accident'. In reality it's been postulated that mutations are more of an insurance policy. Part of natural selection itself is built in susceptability to mutations in genetic material to take advantage of niches when the arise. For example, a fish may lay 10,000 eggs and they need water temperature of a minimum of 18c to hatch. something quirky happens and temperatures only reach 17c and no offspring survive. BUT...a % of those 10,000 eggs were 'slightly' different...2 of the eggs were particular mutations and could hatch in 17c water temperature..99.999% of the genetic material continues through these offspring.

Of course it's all a numbers games. Odds as finely tuned as those in a casino. Thousands of slight mutations are going on all the time. Species have strategy for protection of genetic material from radiation, chemicals, etc. but not 100% protection and nor do they want 100% protection. The ever so slight manipulation (what is called 'damage') of genetic material is a strategy itself. It's a bit like a bunch of anti-aircraft guns shooting flak into the sky with the chance that one may hit its target. The overwhelming majority hit nothing but every so often one is successful....the random but not quite unplanned mutation.

I agree with some of the comments in the above postings.

As a paleontologist we look at complete ecosystems and not 'just the big guys'. Dinosaurs were no more dominant when they were around than many orders in other classes of other phyla. There were other orders of reptiles, amphibians, fish and so on that were quite successful before, during and after the Mesozoic.

Success from a biologic perspective is propogation of genes. Occupying the macro niche of 'big' isn't necessarily a sign of success. One could argue that it's a 'default' niche and that more is happening on a smaller scale. The most successful mammals to date are 'small ones'. Primates haven't evolved larger than the average rodent because it's an advantage but because rodents were more successful in filling their niche. 'Small' microbes, invertebrates of various phyla, fish and so on aren't 'relegated' to their niches because of some mammalian dominance in evolution. The dinosaurs were only a small part of the Earth's ecology while they were around.