Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Truth?

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 3:06:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So i'm listening to a commercial on the radio and it said that a species goes extinct every 20 minutes. That works out to 504 species going extinct a week, or 26,208 per year. I generally don't believe everything that i read or hear, but is this possible? I tend to think that there are statistics that are creative, and in general work against a cause because they are so easily disprovable.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 3:07:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If that is true then evolution better hurry up and increase the out put rate of new species.
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 3:08:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 3:07:12 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
If that is true then evolution better hurry up and increase the out put rate of new species.

Nah, the only factor that could influence that is God, and he tends to be fairly inefficient.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 3:27:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Such statistics are usually based upon logging areas. Average species per area vs. area logged + variable undiscovered species amount.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 6:12:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 3:27:09 PM, Puck wrote:
Such statistics are usually based upon logging areas. Average species per area vs. area logged + variable undiscovered species amount.

Isn't that basically called lying?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 6:42:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 6:12:33 PM, jharry wrote:
At 8/13/2010 3:27:09 PM, Puck wrote:
Such statistics are usually based upon logging areas. Average species per area vs. area logged + variable undiscovered species amount.

Isn't that basically called lying?

its an estimate based on the best of our current knowledge. most are probably obscure species of beetle anyways :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 7:47:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 6:12:33 PM, jharry wrote:
At 8/13/2010 3:27:09 PM, Puck wrote:
Such statistics are usually based upon logging areas. Average species per area vs. area logged + variable undiscovered species amount.

Isn't that basically called lying?

Its not lying. No one is saying that these numbers are exact.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2010 9:09:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 7:47:44 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 8/13/2010 6:12:33 PM, jharry wrote:
At 8/13/2010 3:27:09 PM, Puck wrote:
Such statistics are usually based upon logging areas. Average species per area vs. area logged + variable undiscovered species amount.

Isn't that basically called lying?

Its not lying. No one is saying that these numbers are exact.

Ok, maybe misleading then. I think someone did the math and it don't add up, unless you only do the study in a specific area where there are hundreds of thousands of incests. The way it is stated it doesn't give that info leading a person to assume they are talking about everywhere, Ive heard the thing too.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 7:43:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 7:47:44 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 8/13/2010 6:12:33 PM, jharry wrote:
At 8/13/2010 3:27:09 PM, Puck wrote:
Such statistics are usually based upon logging areas. Average species per area vs. area logged + variable undiscovered species amount.

Isn't that basically called lying?

Its not lying. No one is saying that these numbers are exact.

Of course it's lying. Intentionally misleading people for a desired goal. This sort of marketing I understand.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2010 6:51:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 9:09:26 PM, jharry wrote:
At 8/13/2010 7:47:44 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 8/13/2010 6:12:33 PM, jharry wrote:
At 8/13/2010 3:27:09 PM, Puck wrote:
Such statistics are usually based upon logging areas. Average species per area vs. area logged + variable undiscovered species amount.

Isn't that basically called lying?

Its not lying. No one is saying that these numbers are exact.

Ok, maybe misleading then. I think someone did the math and it don't add up, unless you only do the study in a specific area where there are hundreds of thousands of incests. The way it is stated it doesn't give that info leading a person to assume they are talking about everywhere, Ive heard the thing too.

....
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2010 7:19:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/16/2010 6:46:27 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
did you know that 63% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot?

LOL.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2010 7:23:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yes, we are killing off species at an impressive rate. But you shouldn't be overly concerned, because scientific data is no longer what we base science off of. We now are only concerned with polling.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2010 7:27:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/16/2010 7:23:36 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Yes, we are killing off species at an impressive rate. But you shouldn't be overly concerned, because scientific data is no longer what we base science off of. We now are only concerned with polling.

We should be concerned but not to the "OMG 20 SPECIES A DAY!!! OMG WTF!!" just you know try and presearve the earth as much as possible, and don't needlessly kill anything.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2010 7:30:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 3:07:12 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
If that is true then evolution better hurry up and increase the out put rate of new species.

You see? Our friend here has already found a replacement for science - religion!

God put all these resources here for the people to use. Just use them up, ignore the non-believers, and give 10% of your paycheck to your Church. When they are just about to run out and the toxics build up in the environment, God will replace them for us, and make more animals [1].

1) www.sarahpalin.com
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2010 7:32:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/16/2010 7:27:07 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/16/2010 7:23:36 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Yes, we are killing off species at an impressive rate. But you shouldn't be overly concerned, because scientific data is no longer what we base science off of. We now are only concerned with polling.

We should be concerned but not to the "OMG 20 SPECIES A DAY!!! OMG WTF!!" just you know try and presearve the earth as much as possible, and don't needlessly kill anything.

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard. God put the animals here for us to eat. They have no other real purpose. If your donating to your church like you should be, then God can afford to put more animals out there for us to eat. Your probably going to hell anyway so I wouldn't even bother.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2010 7:36:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/16/2010 7:32:12 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
At 8/16/2010 7:27:07 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/16/2010 7:23:36 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Yes, we are killing off species at an impressive rate. But you shouldn't be overly concerned, because scientific data is no longer what we base science off of. We now are only concerned with polling.

We should be concerned but not to the "OMG 20 SPECIES A DAY!!! OMG WTF!!" just you know try and presearve the earth as much as possible, and don't needlessly kill anything.

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard. God put the animals here for us to eat. They have no other real purpose. If your donating to your church like you should be, then God can afford to put more animals out there for us to eat. Your probably going to hell anyway so I wouldn't even bother.

Are you serious? And no the animals came first, god made humans cause he got bored with pretty much peaceful creatures staying in their place and not destroying the world he spent 6 whole days making.

I'm talking about those that hunt for antlers or decoration. Those that go for fur. Those that kill just for "fun" that is something mentally screwed up with that person. I have no problem with eating meat as long as the meat comes from somewhere that cares about the well being of the live animals. Definately against veal
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2010 9:33:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 3:06:00 PM, innomen wrote:
So i'm listening to a commercial on the radio and it said that a species goes extinct every 20 minutes. That works out to 504 species going extinct a week, or 26,208 per year. I generally don't believe everything that i read or hear, but is this possible? I tend to think that there are statistics that are creative, and in general work against a cause because they are so easily disprovable.:

Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t! recently debunked all that nonsense. I highly doubt that species go extinct every 20 minutes. That's an absurd figure. Even if they did, there is a reason for it, and not all of it is anthropogenically caused.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2010 1:21:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/18/2010 9:33:02 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t! recently debunked all that nonsense. I highly doubt that species go extinct every 20 minutes. That's an absurd figure. Even if they did, there is a reason for it, and not all of it is anthropogenically caused.

That show is awesome! I agree with your assessment. Furthermore, that the figure seems contrived (probably from extrapolated data and fuzzy math.) Also, who says it's all anthropogenic? And even if it is: so what? I think it's something like 94% (or more) of all species that ever lived are now extinct...of which almost ALL had NOTHING to do with humans.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2010 1:54:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Do they only make episodes against saving animals? Oh and about the endangered species act not completely supporting it. Sure parts of it but when it gets too restrictive then yeah thats wrong. Don't go out of your way to kill endangered species even if you don't know they are endangered thats about as much of that as I support. (just saying I don't want people to yell at me for just writing the first sentence.)
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2010 5:25:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/18/2010 1:21:36 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/18/2010 9:33:02 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t! recently debunked all that nonsense. I highly doubt that species go extinct every 20 minutes. That's an absurd figure. Even if they did, there is a reason for it, and not all of it is anthropogenically caused.

That show is awesome! I agree with your assessment. Furthermore, that the figure seems contrived (probably from extrapolated data and fuzzy math.) Also, who says it's all anthropogenic? And even if it is: so what? I think it's something like 94% (or more) of all species that ever lived are now extinct...of which almost ALL had NOTHING to do with humans.

so what? we depend on functioning ecosystems to feed ourselves and to breathe... granted those 500 species of beetles we lost yesterday will probably not have much of an impact (exaggeration, duh) but if we throw things far enough out of balance we will kill ourselves off (or almost) like the many many ecological disasters of the past, only worldwide.

so species loss is not IN ITSELF worth whining over, but ecological disaster is, and dramatic species loss makes that more likely. that said, not all ecological change is bad, so the panic is probably unwarranted, at least at this point.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2010 5:29:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/18/2010 5:25:12 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/18/2010 1:21:36 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/18/2010 9:33:02 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t! recently debunked all that nonsense. I highly doubt that species go extinct every 20 minutes. That's an absurd figure. Even if they did, there is a reason for it, and not all of it is anthropogenically caused.

That show is awesome! I agree with your assessment. Furthermore, that the figure seems contrived (probably from extrapolated data and fuzzy math.) Also, who says it's all anthropogenic? And even if it is: so what? I think it's something like 94% (or more) of all species that ever lived are now extinct...of which almost ALL had NOTHING to do with humans.

so what? we depend on functioning ecosystems to feed ourselves and to breathe... granted those 500 species of beetles we lost yesterday will probably not have much of an impact (exaggeration, duh) but if we throw things far enough out of balance we will kill ourselves off (or almost) like the many many ecological disasters of the past, only worldwide.

so species loss is not IN ITSELF worth whining over, but ecological disaster is, and dramatic species loss makes that more likely. that said, not all ecological change is bad, so the panic is probably unwarranted, at least at this point.

Again, I share your POV, but your smarter.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 4:10:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 3:06:00 PM, innomen wrote:
So i'm listening to a commercial on the radio and it said that a species goes extinct every 20 minutes. That works out to 504 species going extinct a week, or 26,208 per year. I generally don't believe everything that i read or hear, but is this possible? I tend to think that there are statistics that are creative, and in general work against a cause because they are so easily disprovable.

I call bullsh1t purely due to the poor mathematics used to calculate the yearly figure.

At one species per 20 minutes, you actually have 26,280 a year, not 26,208.

3 x 24 x 365 = 26,280

Or, in a leap year:

3 x 24 x 364 = 26,208

They should then have taken the average as follows:

((26,280 x 3) + 26,208)/4 = 26,262

They clearly went:

3 x 24 x 7 x 52 = 26,208

But there are not 52 perfect weeks in a regular year. You may think it's a small mistake, but it's very basic stuff and massive fail, and I don't trust anybody throwing numbers around they don't know how to use.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 6:22:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/19/2010 4:10:09 AM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 8/13/2010 3:06:00 PM, innomen wrote:
So i'm listening to a commercial on the radio and it said that a species goes extinct every 20 minutes. That works out to 504 species going extinct a week, or 26,208 per year. I generally don't believe everything that i read or hear, but is this possible? I tend to think that there are statistics that are creative, and in general work against a cause because they are so easily disprovable.

I call bullsh1t purely due to the poor mathematics used to calculate the yearly figure.

At one species per 20 minutes, you actually have 26,280 a year, not 26,208.

3 x 24 x 365 = 26,280

Or, in a leap year:

3 x 24 x 364 = 26,208

They should then have taken the average as follows:

((26,280 x 3) + 26,208)/4 = 26,262

They clearly went:

3 x 24 x 7 x 52 = 26,208

But there are not 52 perfect weeks in a regular year. You may think it's a small mistake, but it's very basic stuff and massive fail, and I don't trust anybody throwing numbers around they don't know how to use.

i'd say it's probably innomen's maths you're criticising there :)
signature
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 7:26:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
so species loss is not IN ITSELF worth whining over, but ecological disaster is, and dramatic species loss makes that more likely. that said, not all ecological change is bad, so the panic is probably unwarranted, at least at this point.:

That's how I view it too. Unfortunately, it has been so politicized that one needs to carefully sift through the detritus to know what is actual and what is, well, bullsh*t.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2010 9:06:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/18/2010 5:25:12 PM, belle wrote:
so what? we depend on functioning ecosystems to feed ourselves and to breathe...
And how has our ability to feed ourselves or breathe been impacted? Answer: it hasn't.

...granted those 500 species of beetles we lost yesterday will probably not have much of an impact (exaggeration, duh) but if we throw things far enough out of balance we will kill ourselves off (or almost) like the many many ecological disasters of the past, only worldwide.
So you admit that there isn't "much of an impact," so what's your point? You're making it seem as if the only choices are (a) the sky is falling or (b) try to destroy nature at all costs.

so species loss is not IN ITSELF worth whining over, but ecological disaster is, and dramatic species loss makes that more likely.
Perhaps, but what's "dramatic species loss" and who get's to define it? Clearly it's not 500 species a day figure, so what is it?

...that said, not all ecological change is bad, so the panic is probably unwarranted, at least at this point.
I fully agree. I think sometimes, we give ourselves (humans) too much credit. Believe me: if mother nature doesn't want us here, we're done!

At 8/19/2010 4:10:09 AM, leet4A1 wrote:
I call bullsh1t purely due to the poor mathematics used to calculate the yearly figure.
Clearly you didn't check your math very well either. Leap years are longer than non-leap years by one day, so leap years are 366 days not 364. Additionally, it's 1 in 4 years that's a leap year, not 3 in 4 like you math suggests. So...

(365 days/year X 24 hrs/day X 60 min/hrs) / 20 species/min = 26,280 species/year
(366 days/year X 24 hrs/day X 60 min/hrs) / 20 species/min = 26,352 species/year
((26,280 X 3) + 26,352) / 4 = 26,298 species/year (average)

And I would personally just state it as "almost 26,300 species a year."

Anyways, it's total & utter BS.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 6:23:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/13/2010 3:06:00 PM, innomen wrote:
So i'm listening to a commercial on the radio and it said that a species goes extinct every 20 minutes. That works out to 504 species going extinct a week, or 26,208 per year. I generally don't believe everything that i read or hear, but is this possible?

There are about 1.8 million named species of animals, but here may be 50 million or more total species. http://hypertextbook.com... A major area of uncertainty is with tropical insects, or so the reference says. The number of species of plants is put at 300,000 to 400,000.

So if about 25,000 go extinct per year, then all the named species plants and animals would be gone in less than 100 years. That's not plausible. The Penn and Teller clip notes that 9 of the 1500 or so species listed as endangered by the EPA have gone extinct in about 40 years. The list include species from all over the world.

An interesting question is how many new species are being created. A number of new species have been observed as having evolved. This is easiest to identify in plants, it seems because the plants tend to hang around in one spot. But if a genetic mutation produced a new species of tropical insect, it's unlikely anyone would notice.