i know i'm opening a can of worms, but what the hell, this should be fun eh?

 

what are your thoughts on this?

especially considering some of the very accurate predictions and demonstrations as shown by it's creators (James Lovelock & Lynn Margulis) about our own planet, mars, and even the Daisyworld...

 

{edit: this should be in Biology, but I fear this will angrify Sayonara )

Yeah, so putting it in evolution and morphology is obviously the way forward

 

If you're asking people what they think of something, you should probably summarise it and/or provide links to resources.

Yeah' date=' so putting it in evolution and morphology is obviously the way forward

 

If you're asking people what they think of something, you should probably summarise it and/or provide links to resources.[/quote']

 

Yup now I have to search.I cant find anything though:do you have any links Admiral?

Try gaia hypothesis, it's more spellingly correct.

Hey, I found it heres the site if anyone wants to know.This is like "in" (see i remembered Sayonara) the movie Final Fantasy (bad movie).

http://www.oceansonline.com/gaiaho.htm

 

It sounds very interseting.

Try gaia hypothesis, it's more spellingly correct.

You made a spelling error spellingly isnt a word.

Well, over time the terran organisms naturally grow rythmic and in their interrelations, "coordinated" if you will. But to extrapolate from this into the hypothesis that the Earth is "alive" is just silly IMHO. I don't see any point in this hypothesis. I could just as well claim that my car is "alive" because its pieces interact with each other and produce fascinating effects.

Tbh, 'Gaia' is for people who can't be bothered to study ecology.

interesting....

I don't really like telling Gaia advocates that because they tend to get a bit depressed when they realise that their wonderfully arcane theory is simply a complicated branch of biology with all the maths swapped out in favour of mysticism.

 

[edit]

 

Oh yeah, and we know Gaia is inherently flawed as a total explanation of the planet's workings because of the elimination of all oxygen-tolerant life hundreds of millions of years ago, which is the complete opposite of what Gaia theory predicts.

I don't really like telling Gaia advocates that because they tend to get a bit depressed when they realise that their wonderfully arcane theory is simply a complicated branch of biology with all the maths swapped out in favour of mysticism.

 

Mr. Filthy

 

[edit]

 

Oh yeah, and we know Gaia is inherently flawed as a total explanation of the planet's workings because of the elimination of all oxygen-tolerant life hundreds of millions of years ago, which is the complete opposite of what Gaia theory predicts.

 

agreed. but i must tell you, i was a bit disappointed at 1st by your previous post as i was hoping you give your reasons, but this definitely rectified the situation.

 

edit: i meant your post #8

Tbh, 'Gaia' is for people who can't be bothered to study ecology.

Or I would presume people that actually believe in things.

I don't see that you have identified two exclusive groups there.

I don't see that you have identified two exclusive groups there.

What do you mean?

"People who believe in things" could mean ecologists or Gaia hippies.

"People who believe in things" could mean ecologists or[/i'] Gaia hippies.

I know that was a bad example, I think everyone believes in things.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/24/0219227&mode=nested&tid=126&tid=134&tid=191

thanks for the linky