backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by mmatis.. on Jul 15 at 8:02 AM

Certain species need more time to adapt to drastic temperature changes, such as the climate change over the next 100 years

Evolution is losing in the race against climate change, which could lead to the extinction of certain species. 

University of Arizona researchers -- led by John J. Wiens, a professor in UA's department of ecology and evolutionary biology in the College of Science -- have found that climate change is outpacing evolution, and that some species may not be able to adapt to the warming of certain locations over the next century. 

In fact, the study discovered that many vertebrate species -- ranging from mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians -- adapt to different climates at a rate of only 1 degree Celsius per million years. The problem is that global temperatures are going to increase by about 4 degrees by 2100, meaning that evolution is too slow to keep pace with climate change -- and species would have to evolve about 10,000 times faster than they have in the past to adapt to the expected climate change over the next century. 

The team figured this out by studying phylogenies, which are evolutionary family trees. They studied 17 families over major groups of terrestrial vertebrates, and placed them alongside climatic "niche" data of each species. With climatic data like temperature highs/lows, annual precipitation and annual mean temperature, the team estimated how fast climatic niches evolve with the different species. 


"Basically, we figured out how much species changed in their climatic niche on a given branch, and if we know how old a species is, we can estimate how quickly the climatic niche changes over time," said Wiens. "For most sister species, we found that they evolved to live in habitats with an average temperature difference of only about 1 or 2 degrees Celsius over the course of one to a few million years.

"We then compared the rates of change over time in the past to projections for what climatic conditions are going to be like in 2100 and looked at how different these rates are. If the rates were similar, it would suggest there is a potential for species to evolve quickly enough to be able to survive, but in most cases, we found those rates to be different by about 10,000-fold or more."

So what are species to do if they can't adapt fast enough? The team said some could move to other locations that are cooler, but warned that this isn't an option for all species. Hence, some could become endangered or even extinct by 2100. 

This study was published in Ecology Letters.

Source: Science Daily



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

less then that
By max_payne on 7/10/2013 4:58:28 PM , Rating: 3
That strange that this site is supposed to related to technology and scientific discussions and every time there is an article about scientific researches on the future of our planet, so many think it's all bull. No faith at all on scientific research. It's naive to think that 7 billion people on this planet (and counting), a lot of them burning 90 millions barrels of oil A DAY have no effect on the ecological system. Actually we are going to get to 4 deg. a lot quicker the 2100. But the biggest reason for species extinction will be the massive habitat destruction going on around the world due to ever increasing population take over, pollution and exploding consumerism.




RE: less then that
By Gondor on 7/10/2013 5:10:36 PM , Rating: 1
... and ? This article is about evolution and species being (un)able to adapt. If humans are able to burn that much oil in a day, it is ebcause of evolution. If dinosaurs are dead because they failed to adapt, it's because of evolution. Evolution, the answer to everything ... including treehugger whining.

There have been far bigger temperature swings in the past and most species managed to adapt, and those which did not adapt, are not extinct. I wonder what makers the treehuggers think they would fail to adapt just in this one single case.


RE: less then that
By rs2 on 7/10/2013 11:18:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If humans are able to burn that much oil in a day, it is ebcause of evolution.


Holy misuse-of-concept Batman!


RE: less then that
By maugrimtr on 7/11/2013 10:54:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There have been far bigger temperature swings in the past and most species managed to adapt, and those which did not adapt, are not extinct.


Talk about ignorance and stupidity...

The dinosaurs were made extinct (along with a lot of life in that era) due to climate change. The changes arose from volcanic activity and a meteor stike on the planet was the straw that broke their backs. Life cannot adapt to rapid climate change. It destroyed the dominance of reptiles (with the exception of birds!) and gave mammals the upper hand for the next 65 million years.

But why stop there? Colombian mammoths, woolly rhinos, giant sloths and many other mega mammals across North America and Eurasia were made extinct due to climate change (due to ice age cycles - big mammals were herbivores and their habitats depended on the ice sheet - more water stuck in ice sheets meant less precipitation (i.e. snow) and more tough grassland below the ice belts). It's now known that Humans were not responsible for their extinction (ice age ended, temps rose, and snow became common killing their habitats) though they surely helped it along as megafauna populations shrank.

You're also forgetting something very important. Humans.

We've survived multiple ice ages and were continually at threat of extinction until we finally broke out of Africa, slowly spread across the planet, and were greeted with the end of an Ice Age and given a perfect climate (for us at least).


RE: less then that
By TheJian on 7/11/2013 1:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
Your whole statement proves climate change due to humans is bunk. The earth has been through this crap over and over long before we had anything to do with it.

Even al gore doesn't believe this junk, he's just realized tons of us are dumb enough to believe him so why not make a billion off the fools? We need to stop wasting money trying to combat something we have no control over. This is worse than fighting the war on drugs (which will never be won either).


RE: less then that
By BifurcatedBoat on 7/11/2013 3:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
He's saying that we're evolved, natural creatures, so everything we do is a result of a natural process as well.


RE: less then that
By rs2 on 7/11/2013 7:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
I understand what he's saying. Doesn't change that fact that it's wrong and a subversion of what evolution actually is.


RE: less then that
By Paj on 7/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: less then that
By saganhill on 7/11/2013 10:03:05 AM , Rating: 2
And you wonder why creationist get laughed at.


RE: less then that
By rdhood on 7/10/2013 5:12:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But the biggest reason for species extinction will be the massive habitat destruction going on around the world due to ever increasing population take over, pollution and exploding consumerism.


This. Habitat destruction is the real killer. 99% of the fauna in Africa has died in the last 100 years. Nearly all of north Africa has turned to desert in the last 2000 years. How can Africa be brought into the 21st century without killing off 99% of the remaining 1%? How can South America be brought into the 21st century without decimating that Amazon jungle? I could go on, but burning fossil fuels is a minor player in species extinction compared to habitat destruction.

But the world would rather cripple the economies of first world energy users than tell third world countries to NOT destroy and pollute their natural flora/fauna. When parts of Africa and South America are denuded and polluted like China, then we will all be in trouble, and climate change won't be the culprit.


RE: less then that
By Camikazi on 7/10/2013 5:33:45 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe 99% of what has died has been in the last 100 years but not 99% of all has died in the last 100 since if you check Google Earth you can see that Africa is more than 50% covered in green plants. BTW if we end up killing ourselves because of pollution then we all die the world will eventually regen itself and life will continue and maybe another smarter life form will take over. We are not big enough to actually kill a planet that has survived disasters, on a regular basis, on scales so massive that we can't even think of them.


RE: less then that
By freedom4556 on 7/10/2013 7:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
This. I think it is the pinnacle of arrogance to think that humanity could irreparably damage the Earth. We may render it uninhabitable to humans, but that problem solves itself. Earth will be fine; after all, it's been through worse.


RE: less then that
By Paj on 7/11/13, Rating: 0
RE: less then that
By laviathan05 on 7/11/2013 9:42:13 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think you understand the definition of arrogance.


RE: less then that
By ClownPuncher on 7/11/2013 12:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
It rhymes with ignorance, and that is all I need to know!


RE: less then that
By BifurcatedBoat on 7/11/2013 3:44:32 PM , Rating: 3
It depends on your definition of damage.

When people talk about the balance of nature, all they're talking about is the balance that we're used to. But there's nothing delicate about it.

More than 99.9% of species that have ever lived are now extinct - and that was the case even before humans got here. What remains is simply what was able to survive.

We could tip the balance for a little while, but some form of life would rise from our ashes, just as we opportunistically were able to after the fall of the dinosaurs.


RE: less then that
By Ammohunt on 7/11/2013 1:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think its that humanity actually thinks they can "fix" a perceived broken climate armed with the tiny amount of understanding they have of the earths climate.

I guess if we all went back to chucking spears at animals and wearing a patch of cloth over our garbage then all the environmentalists would be happy. We don't live on tatoonie 70%+ of the earth is covered in water. Worst case warmer atmosphere leads to more clouds(water being the most effective greenhouse gas) which leads to more of the suns energy reflected back into space = eventual ice age.


RE: less then that
By rdhood on 7/11/2013 8:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you check Google Earth you can see that Africa is more than 50% covered in green plants. B


I was talking fauna (ANIMALS). Try reading.


RE: less then that
By Reclaimer77 on 7/10/2013 9:54:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This. Habitat destruction is the real killer. 99% of the fauna in Africa has died in the last 100 years. Nearly all of north Africa has turned to desert in the last 2000 years.


Uhh virtually none of which has been caused by man.


RE: less then that
By Skywalker123 on 7/11/13, Rating: 0
RE: less then that
By Reclaimer77 on 7/11/2013 1:50:37 AM , Rating: 2
Let me get this straight. You're blaming man for Africa transforming from an oasis to a desert? Which was a process that began far far before the Industrial Revolution. And has been one repeated in other continents and regions dating back before modern man even existed.

Yup I'm totally in idiot mode lol.


RE: less then that
By rdhood on 7/11/2013 8:47:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Let me get this straight. You're blaming man for Africa transforming from an oasis to a desert? Which was a process that began far far before the Industrial Revolution. And has been one repeated in other continents and regions dating back before modern man even existed. Yup I'm totally in idiot mode lol.


Yes, you are a total idiot (lol).

NO ONE blamed man for any of this. The point was simply that habitat loss is a bigger killer than climate change.


RE: less then that
By jmarchel on 7/11/2013 8:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
You are completely right. Sahara is a very recent creation roughly thousands of years old. However the desert was created by plate tektonics and is suspencted to heavily influence first human civilizations at Nile delta not the other way around. And BTW 99% of all species were extinct before primates evolved. In fact very few species last very long.


RE: less then that
By rdhood on 7/11/2013 8:45:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Uhh virtually none of which has been caused by man.


Hey, asshole, I did not attribute the loss of habitat to man. I simply stated habitat loss is a bigger threat than any amount of "climate change"


RE: less then that
By bah12 on 7/11/2013 11:07:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
But the world would rather cripple the economies of first world energy users than tell third world countries to NOT destroy and pollute their natural flora/fauna.
Hey dipshit, yes you did. Well rather you strongly implied it. Your implication being that the 3rd world countries are destroying their flora/fauna.


RE: less then that
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/2013 1:23:45 AM , Rating: 1
Hey, asshole, you DID!

quote:
But the world would rather cripple the economies of first world energy users than tell third world countries to NOT destroy and pollute their natural flora/fauna.


RE: less then that
By nafhan on 7/11/2013 12:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the world would rather cripple the economies of first world energy users
A point no one wants to hear. Honestly, you know who doesn't care about climate change or the environment or species going extinct? People struggling to feed their families. Help people and you WILL help the environment. It's one of the things I like about the Gates foundation, that last statement was essentially a paraphrase of one of the reasons they do what they do.

You'll never get the environment to be priority number 1 for most people, but if we can get to a point where, say, food and shelter and disease are somewhat under control for most people, pollution will go down because it something most people care about even if it's not their first priority.


RE: less then that
By TSS on 7/11/2013 7:00:14 AM , Rating: 3
Well i don't know about the rest but personally i'm a great poponent of science. Actual, real science verified by the Experimental method. Not Doublethink "science".

Just think about this: Climate Change. It wasn't always Climate Change. It started as Global Cooling. In the 70's "scientists" claimed there was a great danger of slipping into another ice age. Which worked until the mid 70's when the earth started warming again.

Lo and behold suddenly, Global Warming took hold. I might've only seen footage from the 70's but i lived through the 90's and subsequently Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth to remember the words Global Warming being bantered around enough.

However, that started to change a few years after that very same movie was released. After alot of attention and money had gone into real climate science and the movie was being debunked more and more... suddenly, Climate Change appeared. And, over a period of 3-4 short years, Climate Change had completly replaced Global Warming. This very website is proof of how it was once global warming, and of the coming change:

http://www.dailytech.com/Last+25+Years+Warmest+on+...
http://www.dailytech.com/Japan+Plans+to+Pump+CO2+U...
http://www.dailytech.com/Hansen+Now+Claims+NOAA+Si...

And with a cherry ontop, this one litteraly says
quote:
climate change(global warming)

http://www.dailytech.com/Ground+Based+Astronomy+Wo...

I love science. I really do. That's why it breaks my heart each time these discussions flare up because there's always somebody who defends these kinds of articles. I always have to say:

"Yes, i agree the climate can change. Yes, i agree humans can have an impact on the planet. Yes, i agree humans can cause warming. Yes, i agree humans can cause polution. Yes, i agree to the terms and conditions".

So by the time i arrive at "It's not airborne plantfood that changes global temperatures!", i'll already look like a fool, going against so much i previously agreed with (which is the propaganda). If i don't agree with it from the start, i'll look like a fool from the start as i'd be denying some very basic facts that at one time, went unspoken because they're so fricking obvious.

This all isn't science. It's Agreecenomics. You get people to agree with you so many times that by the time they have a different oppinion they'll look like a fool.

All it takes for somebody who doesn't know anything to belive the other guy, is for you to look like a fool.

Once you can no longer tell which is the real science and which is the pseudo science, it's better to reject it all. Real science is verified by the experimental method, even if you deny the previous results running the same experiment again will give you exactly the same results. You can always recover real scientific fact. Pseudo science, not so much, as the outcome depends on the input. Global warming when the earth is cooling? Unbelievable. Climate change when the earth is cooling? Believable.

Keep that in mind as i reply to your post:
No, i don't think it's all bull. I do have faith in real scientific research. Of course we have an effect on the ecological system. 4 degrees in 2100 isn't gonna happen (though i understand you exadurate). Yes, i agree habitat destruction is a much bigger problem, along with conventional polution (chemicals) and our consuming desires.

None of that had any bearing on the correctness of the article. In fact you assume the article is correct, scoff at anybody who doesn't think so (no faith huh?), then continue on the moral high ground completly ignoring the problems you just scoffed people at for ignoring! And you got rated up to 5 for it. (I should mention here i don't actually have faith in scientific research, science doesn't need faith as it's provable. But i doubt you can still make that distinction, so just go with yes).

Double think my friend, double think. When you've come that far, it's better to burn it all down and see what can take the heat.


Speculative and alarmist nonsense
By Tony Swash on 7/10/2013 6:50:52 PM , Rating: 4
Here we go again. Super alarming 'what if' scenarios based on ultra pessimistic theorising.

Alarm about accelerating and human caused extinctions has been a hallmark feature of green alarmist propaganda for decades. There are constant references to the large and accelerating numbers of species that are being driven to extinction by human activity. The only problem is that it's not true. Here are the known facts about extinction.

The vast bulk of extinctions are of species that live in relatively small numbers in very restricted areas on islands. Almost all those extinctions were the result of the introduction of alien exotic species by early explorers and thus the rate of extinction has been declining since a peak period associated with the period of global exploration and empire building after 1500.

Since 1500 only 61 species of mammals have gone extinct. Of those 61 species 58 were island species. Even including the peak period during the age of global expansion the rates of extinction of mammals on the large continental land masses has been remarkable low. Of the 4,428 known mammal species (Red List 2004) living in Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, South America, and Antarctica, only three mammals have gone extinct in the last 500 years. These were the Bluebuck antelope, South Africa; the Algerian gazelle, Algeria; and the Omilteme cottontail rabbit, Mexico.

Since 1500 only 129 species of birds have gone extinct. Of the 128 extinct bird species, 123 of them were island extinctions. Of the 8,971 known continental bird species (Red List 2004), only 6 have gone extinct in the last 500 years.

What can we conclude from this record of extinctions?

1) When European species met isolated local species, a number of the local species died. The Australian and island species were extremely vulnerable to pressure from imported humans, mammals, birds, plants, and diseases. 95% of all recorded bird and mammal extinctions are island or Australian species.

2) When the European species arrived, Australia and most islands had been separated from the continents for forty million years or so. The initial introduction of European species into island habitats was a one-time event. While alien species will always a problem for islands, this massive onslaught of the first coming of the European species will never be repeated — there are no places left with forty million years of isolation.

3) Total habitat destruction drove one bird to extinction.

4) While habitat reduction has been claimed as contributing (in an unknown degree) to three continental bird extinctions, to date no continental mammal or bird has been seen to go extinct due to habitat reduction alone.

It is also worth pointing out that during the last five hundred years we have seen the earth's climate pass through the coldest period (The Little Ice Age) since the last ice age. No species are known to have been driven to extinction by that severe climate event. All the earth's species have survived through the last ice age when temperatures dropped by far more than the (ludicrously alarmist) 4 degrees of warming that is being projected in the Arizona study. None were driven to extinction during the last ice age.

The warm interglacial before this one, before the last ice age, was significantly warmer than the current interglacial climate by several degrees for several thousand years. All the earth's species currently alive today survived that warming episode which was warmer than the one projected by the Arizona study.

There is ample evidence from the ice core studies that have reconstructed the recent climate past with a fine grain of detail that many big climate shifts, bigger than the one projected in the Arizona study, have happened very quickly, sometimes in periods of just decades. The Younger Dryas period of rapid cooling, which led to a very cool period between approximately 12,800 and 11,500 years ago, is one such rapid climate shift as are the numerous Heinrich events during the last ice age. All the species alive today survived those big and rapid climate shifts.

There is absolutely no evidence that previous big and rapid shifts in climate have driven species to extinction in the past or that it will in the future.




RE: Speculative and alarmist nonsense
By drycrust3 on 7/11/2013 3:20:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is absolutely no evidence that previous big and rapid shifts in climate have driven species to extinction in the past or that it will in the future.

You forgot about the effects of massive volcanic eruptions, and the sudden climate changes that can ensue, such as what killed the mammoths.
As an aside, it is very common for people to take animals from one climate to another, and it is very common for them to adapt quite happily to their new climate. That change in climate is far faster than the predicted changes they expect with their global warming models. I really think this guy is underestimating the ability of animals to adapt to climate change. I'm also unconvinced about the accuracy of their models. Why not tell us what the temperatures will be in August. If they can't get those right then maybe their models aren't that good.


RE: Speculative and alarmist nonsense
By Tony Swash on 7/11/2013 4:45:52 AM , Rating: 3
The last couple of concluding sentences in my comment were poorly drafted and did not express clearly what I meant to say. Here is a better version.

The current ecosystem of species on earth have in recent climate history, the past 200,000 years, passed through many very large climate shifts where the temperature has gone up and down by far more than 4 degrees. Many of those climate shifts have been very sudden, some happening in the space of less than 100 years. During that 200,000 years of shifting climate there have only been two periods when species went extinct, in both cases only very small numbers of species went extinct.

One was the extinction of the mega-fauna shortly after the end of the last ice age and the other was associated with expansion of humans traffic across the planet after the year 1500. The extinction of the mega-fauna (including mammoths) may have had a climate component, in that shifting climates can stress vulnerable species, but it's primary cause was the spread of humans, during the first human planetary migration, who hunted those stressed species to extinction. That was a one off event. The wave of extinctions associated with the period of exploration and empire building after 1500 was almost wholly caused by the introduction of new species into geographically isolated habitats. That too was a one off event.

There are almost no extinctions in the last 200,000 years that were caused by the loss of habitat, including the loss of habitat caused by many violent climate shifts. It's possible thta volcanic irruptions may have driven some unknown island species to extinction in the last 200,000 years but no continental species were driven to extinction by volcanic activity.

I therefore find it inherently implausible that a shift of 4 degrees in the next 100 years will drive many, or indeed any, species into extinction.

I also find the notion that the climate will warm by 4 degrees in the next hundred years implausible, but that is another argument all together.


By drycrust3 on 7/12/2013 1:18:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I therefore find it inherently implausible that a shift of 4 degrees in the next 100 years will drive many, or indeed any, species into extinction.

Totally agree with this.


Bull*#$@e
By Helbore on 7/10/2013 6:57:11 PM , Rating: 3
Evolution can't lose against climate change. A core factor of evolution is the ability to adapt - or not. 99% of all species to have existed on Earth are extinct. They all died out because of a failure to adapt to a change in their environment.

That's the whole point. Species that can adapt, will adapt. Those that can't keep pace, die out. Those that mostly can't keep pace will have their weaker members killed off, leaving only those that could take it, leading to a new, stronger species that can take the change.

If anyone thinks climate change will result in some mass extinction that will render all life dead, they're morons. Just look at viruses and bacteria. We are ACTIVELY trying to wipe them out, putting all our effort into slaughtering the little buggers until they just don't exist to infect us anymore. This isn't some accidently "possible extinction" due to us maybe, possibly making the planet hotter. This is us trying to destroy the little gits intentionally.

What happens? The bastards only go and mutate and start becoming immune to our attacks. Damned evolution fights back even when you try to outsmart it.

Now whilst some people will argue that we're not talking about bacteria, but more advanced life, I'd again point out - 99% failure rate for life on Earth to date. Life dies, species fail. That's the way it goes. If a species were to beat that and continue on forever, THAT would actually be newsworthy. Its only the fact that most of us view the life on Earth through our tiny, narrow perspective that the death of species seems like a massive change. It actually isn't. It's quite normal.

Now agian, you might argue that this doesn't matter and as intelligent life, we should be striving to preserve the current status quo, if only for our own benefit. Ok, whilst the point may have merit (but is quite easily arguable from a scientific standpoint), we can still dismiss this idea that "evolution is losing."

Evolution does not lose. It is a process. If that process results in a mass extinction, that is NOT evolution losing. That's just evolution.




RE: Bull*#$@e
By ClownPuncher on 7/11/2013 1:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, but what about the CHILDREN?


Alternate title suggestions
By Duwelon on 7/10/13, Rating: 0
RE: Alternate title suggestions
By Jeffk464 on 7/10/2013 3:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong to assume someone who accepts evolution is an atheist. Its like saying everyone who believes in God is a Christian. But just label junk science as what it is, all science that doesn't support your beliefs.


RE: Alternate title suggestions
By karielash on 7/10/2013 4:09:37 PM , Rating: 1


Yeah... what's evolution huh.... it's just based on observation and facts... no magic people or miracles... boring.


Huh?
By maevinj on 7/10/2013 2:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
So Darwin's theory is right? Survival of the fittest.
I guess this Tiffany wrote this article to balance out all the Jason Mick articles.




What to do?
By japlha on 7/10/2013 2:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what are species to do if they can't adapt fast enough?

They go extinct.

Evolution isn't about a race though. Things just happen and a species either adapts to its environment and reproduces or it goes extinct.




By heerohawwah on 7/11/2013 5:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
Rate of change verses rate of adaptation? Why is it that no evolutionist has ever calculated a minimum or actual rate of genetic change needed to maintain an organism or explain the current 'evolved' state of life on our planet? The answer is simple, because its blatantly obvious that ‘evolution’ has never taken place… ever. In fact the current rate of genetic decay, the rate at which DNA is corrupted in species with each successive generation, vastly exceeds any possible rate of evolution, especially given the time scales evolutionist use. (x millions of years) DNA is by far the most advanced technology known to exist, a 3-dimensional storage medium; encrypted, built in error checking, even redundancy with sexual reproduction; And yet everything we know about DNA, ecosystems and life on earth prove rather conclusively that the genetic code of every single organism includes any ability to adapt, and it’s been there from day one. That is to say, that the DNA of every creature on the planet contains a certain amount of diversity which allows it and its offspring to adapt and live in different environments. A wolf for example can survive in many different climates because its DNA gives it the ability to adapt, but another dog, say a pure-bred shih tzu, cannot survive in the wild because its DNA has been stripped (through breeding) of its genetic diversity needed to adapt. In the same way things like cancer, myopia, and hereditary illnesses are all on the increase primarily due to the laws of physics and what we call scientific law; In particular the laws of thermodynamics, which states that everything in existence is in a state of decay. Recently the BBC reported on a few scientific studies which concluded that the human race was actually getting ‘dumber’ over time…Which according to scientific law must be true. The human brain is created by our DNA and is an extremely complex, complicated piece of technology, with every successive generation more and more errors in our DNA occur and result more errors in the manufacturing of the human brain occur and lower our intelligence.
Evolution as an idea should have died with Darwin, a religious belief whose ability to create and drive racism and indoctrination is sadly…. quite astonishing. Another topic in itself, but suffice to say no one outside the ‘evolution’ camp would be surprised by this article.




Then we all should be dead.
By ironargonaut on 7/11/2013 7:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the North Atlantic, sediments accumulated since the end of the last ice age, nearly 12,000 years ago, show regular increases in the amount of coarse sediment grains deposited from icebergs melting in the now open ocean, indicating a series of 1-2°C (2-4°F) cooling events recurring every 1,500 years or so

Bond et al., 1997

How changes of 1-2C over decadel and century spans don't cause massive species extinctions but supposed variations of 1C over a million years did? I offer the little ice age and the medeival warm period as examples of 1C climate change which did not cause mass species extinctions.




By mmatis on 7/15/2013 8:02:35 AM , Rating: 2
the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/23/warm_perio...
The Warmist whackos might want to explain how these species survived back when Greenland actually WAS green, and the farmsteads that are only now showing up UNDERNEATH the glaciers there were ACTUALLY IN USE.

But then when you're a Commie, all you gotta do is lie frequently enough and loudly enough, and everyone has GOTTA believe!




By majeh on 7/10/2013 3:42:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So what are species to do if they can't adapt fast enough? The team said some could move to other locations that are cooler, but warned that this isn't an option for all species.


...or they can just claim that this all happened "through no fault of their own" and demand our almighty government for another taxpayer-funded bailout. Sweet.




By hifiaudio2 on 7/10/2013 5:05:47 PM , Rating: 1
There are some lottery numbers I need from the man who knows what temperatures will be in 100 years.

I wonder if he or any of his group were part of the research teams that told us we would all be freezing in the early 80s?




Nonsense
By jmarchel on 7/11/2013 8:39:02 AM , Rating: 1
I hate to break it to the author, but the evolution is not loosing the race. The species that are not fit to adopt to rapidly changing climate are loosing the race which is perfectly OK with the evolution theory.




It's Always Entertaining...
By mmatis on 7/11/2013 8:51:52 AM , Rating: 1
to check this site to see who's still sucking the Global Warming and Eco-whack teat.




business as usual
By freedom4556 on 7/10/13, Rating: -1
RE: business as usual
By arazok on 7/10/2013 3:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
It’s hard to argue that an extinction of a species isn’t a bad thing. In general, we want to prevent it and it’s a true shame considering once gone, you can never get it back (for now at least).

On the other hand, unless it’s a species that humans are somehow dependent on, I’m in favor of not shooting ourselves in the foot to prevent it.

For example, I’m ok with us burning some serious cash on saving the honey bee. I’m not ok with burning serious cash to save the Kakapo.


RE: business as usual
By Mitch101 on 7/10/2013 3:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
RE: business as usual
By Yojimbo on 7/10/2013 4:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see why one should have to argue that the extinction of a species isn't a bad thing until one has heard arguments of why it is a bad thing. It seems we already are aware that the way evolution works is not "everything stays in its nice friendly place, even though conditions change, and current systems/species persist, but adapt." That's the Mendel-Darwin-Disney evolution theory, and evidence seems to suggest it's wrong.


RE: business as usual
By Shig on 7/10/2013 4:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
I know people will call BS on this, but really look at what is being done in modern genomics. Extinction is becoming a solvable problem. We may not be able to get the EXACT animal back, but something really close is possible once you sequence the genome and epigenetic profiles of large groups of the animal.

Once you understand genetics to a certain level, you can start reprogramming evolution.

Blasphemy and such.


RE: business as usual
By arazok on 7/10/2013 5:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
The technology itself is interesting, but probably impractical at best, and useless at worst.

These species went extinct for a reason. Now you bring it back….and do what? Release it in to the wild so it can go extinct again?

It sounds like this stuff will be only good for research. Bring back a dinosaur, study it, then make some really kick ass boots out of the thing.

Perhaps there will be a day when we can bank dead species and reintroduce them as the environment cycles back in their favor, but that seems like quite a.


RE: business as usual
By zozzlhandler on 7/10/2013 5:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on what you mean by serious cash. It is worthwhile to save any species (including the kakapo - how many readers even know what this is?) because every species is a wonderful laboratory of biochemistry. For instance, how much would we know about blood types if we had made the rhesus monkey extinct before Rh factors were discovered?

I regard this as a different argument than trying to prevent climate change. That is a whole 'nother story.


RE: business as usual
By Shig on 7/10/2013 5:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
Once you have enough genetic information you'll be able to design entire ecosystems from scratch. Plants, animals, bacteria, etc etc.

It has to do with climate change because it has terraforming implications. For example, bee populations are getting hammered and the world would look awful without bees. Everyone likes flowers and pretty plants.


RE: business as usual
By Tony Swash on 7/10/2013 7:11:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It’s hard to argue that an extinction of a species isn’t a bad thing.


I agree but it's hard when confronted by a species like the Great Panda that only eats bamboo, a plant with almost no nutritional content, and which doesn't want to have sex, that perhaps that is one of nature's sillier experiments that has just run it's course.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki