Click me first.
I know a few people, especially laymen, that are going to have a conniption over this. The fact of the matter is that it is relatively unexciting and shouldn't be a shock to anyone.
Dinosaurs are an exceptionally diverse group, especially when one properly includes Aves, as they should, into the mix. They are at least as diverse as mammals, I would think, and mammals don't typically use venom at all. There are few that have or had venom, but it's not a typical thing like it is in Eureptilia, where snakes (obviously), monitors and even bearded dragons have some form of venom. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see most Eureptilians with venom of some sort- it would certainly explain the docility of their insect prey shortly after capture.
With such diversity within Dinosauria, it's definitely not a shock that one or probably more dinosaurs developed venom. It makes sense for a relatively diminutive dinosaur such as this to upgrade it's arsenal to create a niche for itself. The question in my mind is whether or not it also used the grooves to channel bacteria to a live animal, in the same way komodo dragons do today, if they hunted larger prey (which is entirely possible depending on the strength of the venom) or if they merely used it to subdue some upstart mammal with something to prove, thereby removing the need for a more robust skull and jaw system. Guess there's not many ways of proving that though. Oh well.
In conclusion, I hope anyone reading this is done with the excitement and awe of being shocked by nature. That boat sailed long ago for me and it should have for you as well.
Update: I was talking to a theropod expert and asked about this paper. He remains a bit skeptical and is very good at what he does, so I'm waiting to get my greasy hands on a pdf of the actual paper for further updates. In the meantime:
"They could be teeth that have slipped out of their sockets. All theropod teeth have grooves in the sides: of the roots" - Dr. Awesome
also
"Except for blood grooves along the serrations. They would make sense exapted for venom delivery, among the "wuss"-type theropods." -Dr. Awesome
"Archosaurs seem to suck at having chemical factories in their mouths, and lepidosaurs are good at it. Are there any lizards with bacteria incorporated into glands? It seems more likely that their salivary glands go crazy, and occasionally start making nasty stuff that natural selection promulgates." -Dr. Awesome
"Well actually, if a komodo dragon doesn't have access to rotting flesh it doesn't gain access to the bacterial bite. Komodos are the only ones I know of that actually harness it effectively, or at all. As far as I know the bacteria just kind of hang around the surfaces of the mouth but it IS facilitated for somehow- I'm not clear on how, but they do seem to have gone evolutionarily out of their way to help the situation." -Mr. Steve
Looks like I'm a jackass, after a short internet search
However, the point about venom in komodos is true, as is the fact that they do have exceptionally filthy mouths. I wouldn't be shocked if that comes into play somehow, as I do think some of the wounds they inflict become gangrenous rather rapidly. Other varanoids are venomous, including the famous Heloderms- but on the other extreme of the squamate family tree, Agamids have been shown to have some type of venom. Sphenodonts, I think, are too basal to be involved in any common ancestry involving venom.
Well, both points are very good, so I must wait for the paper to see...I will update again once I've read it, or have more data, but I'm fairly sure squamates are too far removed from archosauria to really be a fair comparison.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Turtles: they aren't true reptiles.
I'm just going to jump right into this. Firstly: Testudines are anapsids. Anyone who lumps them in with Eureptilia is a total moron. They lack the Diapsid condition and are clearly holdovers from the ancient Anapsida. I see absolutely no reason to assume they are diapsids that simply closed their temporal fenestrae- it is, in my rather humble palaeontological opinion, silly to assume they have those origins. I've been demonstrated to be wrong before, so it'd be cool if that happened, but I am highly skeptical. I lean heavily on Procolophonid ancestry for testudines simple because the skulls look so shockingly similar and they are a lot more similar, as far as I can tell, than any of the other proposed groups for testudine ancestry. Keep in mind I'm not alone in this opinion, so it's not like I'm blowing smoke on this.
So I bring this up as a bit of background to my upcoming diatribe on testudines themselves. Honestly, this group is fucked up. A toothless beak, jaw muscles that insert on the INSIDE of their damn skulls (as opposed to the outside like other "higher" verts), a shoulder girdle that develops originally outside of the rib cage and then, ontogonetically, rotates INSIDE the ribs, dermal bone connecting the ribs on top and bottom, an uncanny ability to slide the neck, head and limbs inside the rib cage and of course the ability to poop out their tail (hah).
This group may be fucked up but it is also a bit of a mystery. Until the recent discovery in China, the first turtles in the fossil record were quite literally already turtles and the only hints at their origin came from similarities in other groups. We didn't even know if they were aquatic or terrestrial in origin or if the plastron or carapace evolved first! Well, at least we have Odontochelys, or "toothed turtle" to look at. That name alone should be a big hint that it is a turtle with teeth- showing just how plesiomorphic it is (as if having only a plastron wasn't enough to tell you that).
The relative timing and process, at least as far as I am aware, of the shoulder girdle moving inside the ribcage is a bit of a mystery, though genetics, which are not my field, will likely tell a bit about the process and probably already has. The problem with this group is that even with Odontochelys, we still don't know where the hell they came from.
To compare to other reptiles, we have limbed snakes that betray their true location within the squamates- snuggled in with monitors and mosasaurs and not near Amphisbaenia. We know where the eureptilian tree shakes out, more or less, as we do with lissamphibia (though it does look like caecillians are more close to microsaurs, an ancient amphibian group. While we are on that topic, amphibian is a hideous waste basket term much like reptile. The amphibians today may be old, but they aren't the same thing as ones from the Devonian. If we are using that logic, then pretty much every tetrapod is an amphibian. Lissamphibia may be the most similar to that group, but that doesn't mean they are the same.
So what becomes of our turtley pals? Well, they aren't getting their due credit as a truely ancient survivor that is likely one of, if not the, oldest relatively unchanged tetrapod group on the planet. It saddens me to some extent that they are so callously lumped in with lizards under the generic "reptile" umbrella when birds are so much closer to being true reptiles than testudines are.
So I bring this up as a bit of background to my upcoming diatribe on testudines themselves. Honestly, this group is fucked up. A toothless beak, jaw muscles that insert on the INSIDE of their damn skulls (as opposed to the outside like other "higher" verts), a shoulder girdle that develops originally outside of the rib cage and then, ontogonetically, rotates INSIDE the ribs, dermal bone connecting the ribs on top and bottom, an uncanny ability to slide the neck, head and limbs inside the rib cage and of course the ability to poop out their tail (hah).
This group may be fucked up but it is also a bit of a mystery. Until the recent discovery in China, the first turtles in the fossil record were quite literally already turtles and the only hints at their origin came from similarities in other groups. We didn't even know if they were aquatic or terrestrial in origin or if the plastron or carapace evolved first! Well, at least we have Odontochelys, or "toothed turtle" to look at. That name alone should be a big hint that it is a turtle with teeth- showing just how plesiomorphic it is (as if having only a plastron wasn't enough to tell you that).
The relative timing and process, at least as far as I am aware, of the shoulder girdle moving inside the ribcage is a bit of a mystery, though genetics, which are not my field, will likely tell a bit about the process and probably already has. The problem with this group is that even with Odontochelys, we still don't know where the hell they came from.
To compare to other reptiles, we have limbed snakes that betray their true location within the squamates- snuggled in with monitors and mosasaurs and not near Amphisbaenia. We know where the eureptilian tree shakes out, more or less, as we do with lissamphibia (though it does look like caecillians are more close to microsaurs, an ancient amphibian group. While we are on that topic, amphibian is a hideous waste basket term much like reptile. The amphibians today may be old, but they aren't the same thing as ones from the Devonian. If we are using that logic, then pretty much every tetrapod is an amphibian. Lissamphibia may be the most similar to that group, but that doesn't mean they are the same.
So what becomes of our turtley pals? Well, they aren't getting their due credit as a truely ancient survivor that is likely one of, if not the, oldest relatively unchanged tetrapod group on the planet. It saddens me to some extent that they are so callously lumped in with lizards under the generic "reptile" umbrella when birds are so much closer to being true reptiles than testudines are.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Prayer Doesn't Have a Prayer.
Today I seemed to have hit a hotspot with someone I knew. The topic of prayer was brought up and I simply provided this reference. I was innundated, in reply, with two stories. One of these stories involved a body part healing itself (and we're not talking regrowing amputated limbs or something) and the other was a third hand story about soldiers in Africa not attacking when poised to do just that. The conclusion that was reached by this zealotrous individual was that prayer in both cases was, without doubt, the cause of the favorable outcome.
I responded, as I tend to, with a volley of savage arguements. I was not rude, I was not offensive. Well, I guess I was offensive, because said individuals wife 'unfriended' me on Facebook. I guess when cornered, the best option is to hold your hands over your ears and run away. Once again, I can use one of my favorite terms: Intellectual Cowardace. If you believe in something without any doubt, there is clearly a reason...but in light of the arguements provided, it looks like those reasons aren't enough to even try to defend.
My first move, which is an obvious one to those that know me, was to attack the analogical evidence provided as an absolute proof. Analogical evidence is not the same as empirical evidence. A comprehensive study conducted over a decade holds far more ground than a statement like "I got better because I prayed". Personal stories are a nice addition to empirical evidence and should be taken at face value. Personal stories, as I pointed out, have zero repeatability ot confirmability. If our society were to believe, as this type of person does with this kind of thing, I promise we would have alot of good ol' witch burnings going on to this day. Remember, it is belief like this that is the sole cause of the dark ages, procrastinating the forward progession of thought and society for hundreds of years. It's different, they'll say, because it's the word of their God. Well fuck right off and show me why it's right.
Anyways, back to the topic. It is intellectually irresponsible to say "I prayed and therefore it worked" with any certainty when you have zero point of reference for what would or could have happened if you didn't pray in the first place. Also, this could have been a "one-of" coincidental outcome in the first place (though people such as this believe god remains hidden by using coincidence, I'd again ask them to qualify this in a proper way). Repeatability comes into play here: If the exact same situation were to happen over dozens of trials, with and without prayer, would the same outcome happen? I think most certainly yes, but the test would be an elegant demonstration of the block headedness of various individuals. Without these trials, there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure, so it is completely unreasonable and unfair to say with such certainty that it is the direct cause of you the outcome. I would suggest they are discrete, mutually exclusive events UNTIL demonstrated to have a connection.
One thing prayer is good for is my dear friend the placebo effect. If you think something will work, even if it's a sugar pill, it will likely have some effect similar to what it is supposed to have, at least for a while. Pharmaceutical companies compensate and allow for this in their tests the world over. So thinking prayer will help will automatically have an impact. It is interested and rather amusing to point out that in the abovementioned test, the group that was prayed for but not told about it did the worst, statistically speaking, for survivability and health. Purely a coincidence, but there is little way to reconcile this if you don't believe in coincidence...unless you want to play the classic religion card of cherry picking what you want to apply and what you don't, which is hypocritical at best.
Speaking from a purely theological perspective, why is this person so certain that they prayer even worked? Assuming there is a god and that he meets the criteria that is assumed by these people, why does the apparently success of a prayer automatically mean it was a success? What makes these people so certain that their god, with a horrible track record for not granting prayer requests, not only acknowledged their prayer but intervened and helped. What is to say the god didn't completely ignore the prayer and help anyways, thus rendering the prayer completely useless. How can it be demonstrated that the healing, for example, wasn't just healing with no supernatural interference? There is simply no way of objectively testing the above, so it is assinine to assume things. Though, to be fair, this group of people has a rich and rather prideful history of stacking assumptions upon assumption.
After all these completely reasonable arguements, the reaction was to flee like a coward. I do not understand these people, they are so very, very irresponible with their minds.
I responded, as I tend to, with a volley of savage arguements. I was not rude, I was not offensive. Well, I guess I was offensive, because said individuals wife 'unfriended' me on Facebook. I guess when cornered, the best option is to hold your hands over your ears and run away. Once again, I can use one of my favorite terms: Intellectual Cowardace. If you believe in something without any doubt, there is clearly a reason...but in light of the arguements provided, it looks like those reasons aren't enough to even try to defend.
My first move, which is an obvious one to those that know me, was to attack the analogical evidence provided as an absolute proof. Analogical evidence is not the same as empirical evidence. A comprehensive study conducted over a decade holds far more ground than a statement like "I got better because I prayed". Personal stories are a nice addition to empirical evidence and should be taken at face value. Personal stories, as I pointed out, have zero repeatability ot confirmability. If our society were to believe, as this type of person does with this kind of thing, I promise we would have alot of good ol' witch burnings going on to this day. Remember, it is belief like this that is the sole cause of the dark ages, procrastinating the forward progession of thought and society for hundreds of years. It's different, they'll say, because it's the word of their God. Well fuck right off and show me why it's right.
Anyways, back to the topic. It is intellectually irresponsible to say "I prayed and therefore it worked" with any certainty when you have zero point of reference for what would or could have happened if you didn't pray in the first place. Also, this could have been a "one-of" coincidental outcome in the first place (though people such as this believe god remains hidden by using coincidence, I'd again ask them to qualify this in a proper way). Repeatability comes into play here: If the exact same situation were to happen over dozens of trials, with and without prayer, would the same outcome happen? I think most certainly yes, but the test would be an elegant demonstration of the block headedness of various individuals. Without these trials, there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure, so it is completely unreasonable and unfair to say with such certainty that it is the direct cause of you the outcome. I would suggest they are discrete, mutually exclusive events UNTIL demonstrated to have a connection.
One thing prayer is good for is my dear friend the placebo effect. If you think something will work, even if it's a sugar pill, it will likely have some effect similar to what it is supposed to have, at least for a while. Pharmaceutical companies compensate and allow for this in their tests the world over. So thinking prayer will help will automatically have an impact. It is interested and rather amusing to point out that in the abovementioned test, the group that was prayed for but not told about it did the worst, statistically speaking, for survivability and health. Purely a coincidence, but there is little way to reconcile this if you don't believe in coincidence...unless you want to play the classic religion card of cherry picking what you want to apply and what you don't, which is hypocritical at best.
Speaking from a purely theological perspective, why is this person so certain that they prayer even worked? Assuming there is a god and that he meets the criteria that is assumed by these people, why does the apparently success of a prayer automatically mean it was a success? What makes these people so certain that their god, with a horrible track record for not granting prayer requests, not only acknowledged their prayer but intervened and helped. What is to say the god didn't completely ignore the prayer and help anyways, thus rendering the prayer completely useless. How can it be demonstrated that the healing, for example, wasn't just healing with no supernatural interference? There is simply no way of objectively testing the above, so it is assinine to assume things. Though, to be fair, this group of people has a rich and rather prideful history of stacking assumptions upon assumption.
After all these completely reasonable arguements, the reaction was to flee like a coward. I do not understand these people, they are so very, very irresponible with their minds.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
It is time to fumigate the vaginae
I am watching a show called "Paranormal State". This show is so fucking stupid, "testing" groundbreaking techniques like strobe lights increasing a psychics abilities or ordering a spirit to leave the house. I am furious with how stupid people are.
Lets just back up a second here. The title of this post may seem outrageously inappropriate and misplaced. However, let me assure you, it's not. The topic here is something called Hysteria. Hyster, as a prefix, means vagina. In olden days, they would cure hysteria by fumigating the vagina, sadly most hysteria in these women couldn't be cured and the fumigation killed them. So I suggest that we fumigate the vagina of Ryan Buell and ESPECIALLY of Chip Coffee, their son of a bitch psychic that needs to STOP.
I am a psychic too, here's the technique: make a general statement like "I am sensing that someone is unhappy". If anyone affected by their "haunting" says they are upset, then he's right. If nobody speaks up, it's clearly the spirit channelling through him. You continue on this way, undemonstratably, until you reach the terminus of things and have to finally say "Well this spirit is pissed off and here is a generic reason". This reason usually is that someone is infringing on their house. Everyone flips out and uses their instruments that have never once been demonstrated to be linked to something that has never once been demonstrated to actually exist. In other words, if there is a temperature shift, it is like a fucking draft. Grow the fuck up and stop being hysterical. Honestly people feed off each others stupidity until it becomes a form of mass hysteria.
FUCK FUCK FUCK I want to slam my head into a wall Pachycephalosaur style. This isn't the only vaginal fumigation that needs to occur. Anyone who speaks in tongues, sees demons, believes in ANYTHING that has nonobservable evidence (cryptozoologists, the ball is in your court now). I will admit that cryptozoologists DO have their purpose: Looking for now extinct species to confirm they exist, or searching for animals like Okapi johnstoni. Okay, I will not diverge from the nonscience anymore I promise.
I find it appropriate how the word nonscience looks and especially sounds so much like nonsense. I have personally observed people singing to Jesus about Jesus (narcisistic gods are a definate, but that's another post) with their hands over their heads and then, out of nowhere, some person flips out and runs around rubbing his head. Okay, I can kind of see this behaviour being appropriate if you are 5 and getting your first power wheels. THESE ARE FULLY GROWN ADULTS.
Here is a hot tip, Ryan Buell and especially the cast of "Ghost Hunters": Using various instruments ending with the suffix meter doesn't make it science, it makes you retarded. Holding an Electrometer over a clock radio and observing the spike doesn't mean that you are seeing a ghost communicate with you.
Speaking of which, ghost communication (and God communication, for that matter). If they are so desperate to communicate for whatever reason, WHAT BETTER TIME THAN WHEN PEOPLE ARE THERE TO FUCKING RECORD IT. It's like my post about repeatability in your claim- yes, I understand that animals and etc won't preform at will. Maybe your ghost is shy! Well, how about you don't shoot the episode and then leave. How about you live in the damn house and wait for something to happen? How about that, you sensationalist pricks?
Also, and this is a major pet peeve of mine: If you have an idea, it is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis at best, but in the case of the topic discussed it is usually stupid as shit. This is the reason why people say "Evolution is just a theory so its not for sure".
If only my skull and spine were built for ramming.
Hysteria folks, this is ALL hysteria. Mass hysteria, singular hysteria it doesn't matter. They are all a bunch of vaginae and they all need to be fumigated. The case that most of the fumigated vaginae end up on the short end of the life stick, in this case, is awesome. So we see that vaginal fumigation needs to happen again to quell this mass outbreak of hysteria.
Lets just back up a second here. The title of this post may seem outrageously inappropriate and misplaced. However, let me assure you, it's not. The topic here is something called Hysteria. Hyster, as a prefix, means vagina. In olden days, they would cure hysteria by fumigating the vagina, sadly most hysteria in these women couldn't be cured and the fumigation killed them. So I suggest that we fumigate the vagina of Ryan Buell and ESPECIALLY of Chip Coffee, their son of a bitch psychic that needs to STOP.
I am a psychic too, here's the technique: make a general statement like "I am sensing that someone is unhappy". If anyone affected by their "haunting" says they are upset, then he's right. If nobody speaks up, it's clearly the spirit channelling through him. You continue on this way, undemonstratably, until you reach the terminus of things and have to finally say "Well this spirit is pissed off and here is a generic reason". This reason usually is that someone is infringing on their house. Everyone flips out and uses their instruments that have never once been demonstrated to be linked to something that has never once been demonstrated to actually exist. In other words, if there is a temperature shift, it is like a fucking draft. Grow the fuck up and stop being hysterical. Honestly people feed off each others stupidity until it becomes a form of mass hysteria.
FUCK FUCK FUCK I want to slam my head into a wall Pachycephalosaur style. This isn't the only vaginal fumigation that needs to occur. Anyone who speaks in tongues, sees demons, believes in ANYTHING that has nonobservable evidence (cryptozoologists, the ball is in your court now). I will admit that cryptozoologists DO have their purpose: Looking for now extinct species to confirm they exist, or searching for animals like Okapi johnstoni. Okay, I will not diverge from the nonscience anymore I promise.
I find it appropriate how the word nonscience looks and especially sounds so much like nonsense. I have personally observed people singing to Jesus about Jesus (narcisistic gods are a definate, but that's another post) with their hands over their heads and then, out of nowhere, some person flips out and runs around rubbing his head. Okay, I can kind of see this behaviour being appropriate if you are 5 and getting your first power wheels. THESE ARE FULLY GROWN ADULTS.
Here is a hot tip, Ryan Buell and especially the cast of "Ghost Hunters": Using various instruments ending with the suffix meter doesn't make it science, it makes you retarded. Holding an Electrometer over a clock radio and observing the spike doesn't mean that you are seeing a ghost communicate with you.
Speaking of which, ghost communication (and God communication, for that matter). If they are so desperate to communicate for whatever reason, WHAT BETTER TIME THAN WHEN PEOPLE ARE THERE TO FUCKING RECORD IT. It's like my post about repeatability in your claim- yes, I understand that animals and etc won't preform at will. Maybe your ghost is shy! Well, how about you don't shoot the episode and then leave. How about you live in the damn house and wait for something to happen? How about that, you sensationalist pricks?
Also, and this is a major pet peeve of mine: If you have an idea, it is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis at best, but in the case of the topic discussed it is usually stupid as shit. This is the reason why people say "Evolution is just a theory so its not for sure".
If only my skull and spine were built for ramming.
Hysteria folks, this is ALL hysteria. Mass hysteria, singular hysteria it doesn't matter. They are all a bunch of vaginae and they all need to be fumigated. The case that most of the fumigated vaginae end up on the short end of the life stick, in this case, is awesome. So we see that vaginal fumigation needs to happen again to quell this mass outbreak of hysteria.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Climate Change: Please shut the fuck up
Everyone is flipping out about climate change. From rednecks claiming "you retard global warming can't happen" to hippies claiming "no but our emissions are killing our babies", everyone is really starting to piss me off with this. In light of the emergency climate change bullshit summit, and on the heels of a relatively recent polar bear conference, I have come to one conclusion:
THE WORLD NEEDS TO CALM THE FUCK DOWN
I know writing that in all capitals is pretty much the last thing I should do to get everyone to stop freaking out, but it seems that it's all I can do to get the attention of people. After all, I don't have the millions of dollars that producers had to churn out "The Day After Tomorrow", which successfully sensationalized an otherwise mundane change in the Earths climate.
Here is a smidge of info a common simpleton wouldn't know: The climate has changed in the past and it will change again in the future. Just be glad we don't have to deal with the bullshit from a supercontinent like Pangaea or Rodinia. I am willing to say, flat out, that climate change is happening. I am not qualified to make a call one way or the other about carbon dioxide emissions OTHER THAN the observed greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. No, I don't mean a runaway stupid effect, I mean a casual effect that does happen. So really I am on the fence about this subject- Yes it is happening but no I don't give a rats ass, as its not a catastrophe (well, it is for my contemporaries) in the long term. By long term I do mean millions of years AT LEAST. With that scale in mind, obviously this climate shift will be a drop in the bucket.
So, what do we stand to lose from this climate change? Well, obviously the ecologists will lose their love child the polar bears. Good riddance. It's not like the polar bear brings anything specifically unique or even moderately interesting to the world. Hell, if they bite it, it won't be long before grizzlies start moving in on their territory. Actually, it as already happening- there are, as far as I know, two instances of hybridization between the two great Ursa species and definate sightings of grizzlies infringing on the territory of polar bears.
Other than some hyperspecialized species, the amphibians will take a big hit. Lissamphibia is a pretty sturdy group though, I'm pretty sure they will make it as a whole, but less adaptable members or those unfortunate enough to have chosen an unstable region, won't make it. I'm sure some reptiles will bite it, same with some hyperspecialized mammals. One recurring theme here is that if you hyperspecialize, and therefore become a super success in a particular niche environment, you are pretty much fucked in the long run. I've harped on it before, just ask Platybelodon. Generalists will continue to survive, animals that live off a single food source will continue to fail (that means you, Ailuropoda) in these scenarios. By the way, I do like to place blame on an animal for its evolutionary background- not because I feel it's correct, but because I like to heap scorn upon things.
Realistically what will happen out of all this is that global cycles will be more extreme. So the highs and lows of temperature will likely be worse and storms will probably be more violent. However, there are exceptions- I'm positive that in certain areas some volatile weather will simmer down a bit.
Overall, I do have one suggestion to everyone: WAIT AND SEE. If it's not one catastrophe it's another and personally I'm sick of it. Can we all just relax and observe instead of predict, based on virtually nothing, and end up with our foot in our mouth? By our, I do mean humanity as a whole excluding me because I actually have unlocked the secret to breathing through my nose.
THE WORLD NEEDS TO CALM THE FUCK DOWN
I know writing that in all capitals is pretty much the last thing I should do to get everyone to stop freaking out, but it seems that it's all I can do to get the attention of people. After all, I don't have the millions of dollars that producers had to churn out "The Day After Tomorrow", which successfully sensationalized an otherwise mundane change in the Earths climate.
Here is a smidge of info a common simpleton wouldn't know: The climate has changed in the past and it will change again in the future. Just be glad we don't have to deal with the bullshit from a supercontinent like Pangaea or Rodinia. I am willing to say, flat out, that climate change is happening. I am not qualified to make a call one way or the other about carbon dioxide emissions OTHER THAN the observed greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. No, I don't mean a runaway stupid effect, I mean a casual effect that does happen. So really I am on the fence about this subject- Yes it is happening but no I don't give a rats ass, as its not a catastrophe (well, it is for my contemporaries) in the long term. By long term I do mean millions of years AT LEAST. With that scale in mind, obviously this climate shift will be a drop in the bucket.
So, what do we stand to lose from this climate change? Well, obviously the ecologists will lose their love child the polar bears. Good riddance. It's not like the polar bear brings anything specifically unique or even moderately interesting to the world. Hell, if they bite it, it won't be long before grizzlies start moving in on their territory. Actually, it as already happening- there are, as far as I know, two instances of hybridization between the two great Ursa species and definate sightings of grizzlies infringing on the territory of polar bears.
Other than some hyperspecialized species, the amphibians will take a big hit. Lissamphibia is a pretty sturdy group though, I'm pretty sure they will make it as a whole, but less adaptable members or those unfortunate enough to have chosen an unstable region, won't make it. I'm sure some reptiles will bite it, same with some hyperspecialized mammals. One recurring theme here is that if you hyperspecialize, and therefore become a super success in a particular niche environment, you are pretty much fucked in the long run. I've harped on it before, just ask Platybelodon. Generalists will continue to survive, animals that live off a single food source will continue to fail (that means you, Ailuropoda) in these scenarios. By the way, I do like to place blame on an animal for its evolutionary background- not because I feel it's correct, but because I like to heap scorn upon things.
Realistically what will happen out of all this is that global cycles will be more extreme. So the highs and lows of temperature will likely be worse and storms will probably be more violent. However, there are exceptions- I'm positive that in certain areas some volatile weather will simmer down a bit.
Overall, I do have one suggestion to everyone: WAIT AND SEE. If it's not one catastrophe it's another and personally I'm sick of it. Can we all just relax and observe instead of predict, based on virtually nothing, and end up with our foot in our mouth? By our, I do mean humanity as a whole excluding me because I actually have unlocked the secret to breathing through my nose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)