Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
GO take a dump in your hat!
..
Great display of your intelligence and scientific acumen right here
Someone needs anger management counseling
And someone needs to stop trying to play better than others in a web forum..
It doesn't work that way. Jellyfish are not "before" anything.And if we use your structure of the "evolutionary tree of life" (which BTW I don't agree with), then jellyfish would come before both octopus AND human.
So the conclusion is obvious...evolution had to occur at least twice from pre-jellyfish (who have FOUR eyes) and produced the exact same result of two eyes, two ears and one mouth, heart, kidney, anus, etc.
Says the person that doesn't back up anything he claims to be true and support any of his logic with peer reviewed scientific sources. And who thinks posting some long winded rant on a message board means that's enough to debunk scientifically supported claims from experts in the field, without any experimentation or data to back it up.
Call me a fraud all you want, my diplomas hanging on my wall, my current job, my peer reviewed first author papers speak for itself.
NOw, let me go cry myself to sleep now because some internet child says' I'm a fraud
I bold-faced the telling parts...... Ladies and Gentlemen Exhibit A....
Yes, Exhibit A that Gsuck is nothing more than an annoying troll not even clever enough to put forth an interesting insult.
I bold-faced the telling parts...... Ladies and Gentlemen Exhibit A....
Yes, Exhibit A that Gsuck is nothing more than an annoying troll not even clever enough to put forth an interesting insult.
AWWW you gonna cry again? Dude I don't care what you do or say as long as you don't try and dictate what people can and cannot talk about. Try that and I will take exception to your sorry punk azz. And try it while you claim some superiority over another and I will definitely take exception to you.
Argue on merit, logic, and reason for once. Don't go and hide behind peer review like a punk. Any fool can copy and paste what others write. just like any fool can pretend he's a scientist on a web forum. its called anonymity, and it makes some people turn into morons...
Yes, Exhibit A that Gsuck is nothing more than an annoying troll not even clever enough to put forth an interesting insult.
AWWW you gonna cry again? Dude I don't care what you do or say as long as you don't try and dictate what people can and cannot talk about. Try that and I will take exception to your sorry punk azz. And try it while you claim some superiority over another and I will definitely take exception to you.
Argue on merit, logic, and reason for once. Don't go and hide behind peer review like a punk. Any fool can copy and paste what others write. just like any fool can pretend he's a scientist on a web forum. its called anonymity, and it makes some people turn into morons...
Umm, so that's your excuse for being a moron and calling everybody douchebag and moron? Again, all this bullshit you spout fit you to a tee.
Now, sorry to ruin your trolling, but I'm done responding to you, you are just so pathetic. Now, go ahead and get the last word like the loser you are
An increasingly evident effect of the excess CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere.
An Ominous Warning on the Effects of Ocean Acidification by Carl Zimmer: Yale Environment 360
Effects of Ocean Acidification
A new study says the seas are acidifying ten times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred. And, the study concludes, current changes in ocean chemistry due to the burning of fossil fuels may portend a new wave of die-offs.
by carl zimmer
The JOIDES Resolution looks like a bizarre hybrid of an oil rig and a cargo ship. It is, in fact, a research vessel that ocean scientists use to dig up sediment from the sea floor. In 2003, on a voyage to the southeastern Atlantic, scientists aboard the JOIDES Resolution brought up a particularly striking haul.
They had drilled down into sediment that had formed on the sea floor over the course of millions of years. The oldest sediment in the drill was white. It had been formed by the calcium carbonate shells of single-celled organisms — the same kind of material that makes up the White Cliffs of Dover. But when the scientists examined the sediment that had formed 55 million years ago, the color changed in a geological blink of an eye.
“In the middle of this white sediment, there’s this big plug of red clay,” says Andy Ridgwell, an earth scientist at the University of Bristol.
In other words, the vast clouds of shelled creatures in the deep oceans had virtually disappeared. Many scientists now agree that this change was caused by a drastic drop of the ocean’s pH level. The seawater became so corrosive that it ate away at the shells, along with other species with calcium carbonate in their bodies. It took hundreds of thousands of years for the oceans to recover from this crisis, and for the sea floor to turn from red back to white.
The clay that the crew of the JOIDES Resolution dredged up may be an ominous warning of what the future has in store. By spewing carbon dioxide into the air, we are now once again making the oceans more acidic.
Today, Ridgwell and Daniela Schmidt, also of the University of Bristol, are publishing a study in the journal Natural Geoscience, comparing what happened in the oceans 55 million years ago to what the oceans are Storing CO2 in the oceans comes at a steep cost: It changes the chemistry of seawater.experiencing today. Their research supports what other researchers have long suspected: The acidification of the ocean today is bigger and faster than anything geologists can find in the fossil record over the past 65 million years. Indeed, its speed and strength — Ridgwell estimate that current ocean acidification is taking place at ten times the rate that preceded the mass extinction 55 million years ago — may spell doom for many marine species, particularly ones that live in the deep ocean.
When the base of the food chain is adversely affected, what happens to the rest of the chain?
Ecosystems under threat from ocean acidification
ScienceDaily (Mar. 31, 2010) — Acidification of the oceans as a result of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide could have significant effects on marine ecosystems, according to Michael Maguire presenting at the Society for General Microbiology's spring meeting in Edinburgh.
Postgraduate researcher Mr Maguire, together with colleagues at Newcastle University, performed experiments in which they simulated ocean acidification as predicted by current trends of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The group found that the decrease in ocean pH (increased acidity) resulted in a sharp decline of a biogeochemically important group of bacteria known as the Marine Roseobacter clade. "This is the first time that a highly important bacterial group has been observed to decline in significant numbers with only a modest decrease in pH," said Mr Maguire.
Old socks, you post crap like this and you know I am going to call you on it....
First its nonsense.... And here is the real science on it....
Real science bit #1: 550 million years ago in the Cambrian era there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today. And the Cambrian era is the time in which calcite corals and similar lifeforms first achieved algal symbiosis.
Real science bit #2: 175 million years ago in the Jurassic era there was also 20 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and at this time the Aragonite corals came into being. So we have two points in history which had greater CO2 in the atmosphere and at both points we find coral life forms developing rather than dying off...... So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane....
Real science bit #3: The oceans already have 70 times the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere. Even if by some freak occurrence all of the CO2 we emit unnaturally were to go straight into the ocean (an impossibility) it would only raise the CO2 concentrations by 1%. Not exactly the scary horror stories you are telling now is it...
Real science bit #4: CO2 is the 7th largest particle in the oceans by volume that could in theory effect the PH balance. Meaning there are 6 other elements before CO2 which could in theory do the same to the PH. In practice this means the likelihood of CO2 actually causing oceans acidification is minuscule at best even IF the theory is correct. If you want to be real technical on it CO2 would not alter the PH at all but rather buffer other elements which could possibly make some impact on the PH balance. Those impacts are minuscule given the depth and scope of the entire thing.
Real science bit #5: The ocean rides over vast amounts of alkali. We are talking vast amounts of alkali stone, rock and soil which the oceans stir up and roll over 24/7... Alkali is the acid stopper in case you weren't aware.
All of this garbage is theoretical crap all designed to scare you... Its about as much to do with real science as the Pope has to do with Las Vegas nightlife...
oh please ask me for my evidence again..... LOL, I love it when you try and play climatologist to save your azz....
AWWW you gonna cry again? Dude I don't care what you do or say as long as you don't try and dictate what people can and cannot talk about. Try that and I will take exception to your sorry punk azz. And try it while you claim some superiority over another and I will definitely take exception to you.
Argue on merit, logic, and reason for once. Don't go and hide behind peer review like a punk. Any fool can copy and paste what others write. just like any fool can pretend he's a scientist on a web forum. its called anonymity, and it makes some people turn into morons...
An increasingly evident effect of the excess CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere.
An Ominous Warning on the Effects of Ocean Acidification by Carl Zimmer: Yale Environment 360
Effects of Ocean Acidification
A new study says the seas are acidifying ten times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred. And, the study concludes, current changes in ocean chemistry due to the burning of fossil fuels may portend a new wave of die-offs.
by carl zimmer
The JOIDES Resolution looks like a bizarre hybrid of an oil rig and a cargo ship. It is, in fact, a research vessel that ocean scientists use to dig up sediment from the sea floor. In 2003, on a voyage to the southeastern Atlantic, scientists aboard the JOIDES Resolution brought up a particularly striking haul.
They had drilled down into sediment that had formed on the sea floor over the course of millions of years. The oldest sediment in the drill was white. It had been formed by the calcium carbonate shells of single-celled organisms the same kind of material that makes up the White Cliffs of Dover. But when the scientists examined the sediment that had formed 55 million years ago, the color changed in a geological blink of an eye.
In the middle of this white sediment, theres this big plug of red clay, says Andy Ridgwell, an earth scientist at the University of Bristol.
In other words, the vast clouds of shelled creatures in the deep oceans had virtually disappeared. Many scientists now agree that this change was caused by a drastic drop of the oceans pH level. The seawater became so corrosive that it ate away at the shells, along with other species with calcium carbonate in their bodies. It took hundreds of thousands of years for the oceans to recover from this crisis, and for the sea floor to turn from red back to white.
The clay that the crew of the JOIDES Resolution dredged up may be an ominous warning of what the future has in store. By spewing carbon dioxide into the air, we are now once again making the oceans more acidic.
Today, Ridgwell and Daniela Schmidt, also of the University of Bristol, are publishing a study in the journal Natural Geoscience, comparing what happened in the oceans 55 million years ago to what the oceans are Storing CO2 in the oceans comes at a steep cost: It changes the chemistry of seawater.experiencing today. Their research supports what other researchers have long suspected: The acidification of the ocean today is bigger and faster than anything geologists can find in the fossil record over the past 65 million years. Indeed, its speed and strength Ridgwell estimate that current ocean acidification is taking place at ten times the rate that preceded the mass extinction 55 million years ago may spell doom for many marine species, particularly ones that live in the deep ocean.
When the base of the food chain is adversely affected, what happens to the rest of the chain?
Ecosystems under threat from ocean acidification
ScienceDaily (Mar. 31, 2010) Acidification of the oceans as a result of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide could have significant effects on marine ecosystems, according to Michael Maguire presenting at the Society for General Microbiology's spring meeting in Edinburgh.
Postgraduate researcher Mr Maguire, together with colleagues at Newcastle University, performed experiments in which they simulated ocean acidification as predicted by current trends of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The group found that the decrease in ocean pH (increased acidity) resulted in a sharp decline of a biogeochemically important group of bacteria known as the Marine Roseobacter clade. "This is the first time that a highly important bacterial group has been observed to decline in significant numbers with only a modest decrease in pH," said Mr Maguire.
Old Rocks links have peer reviewed science to back it up.
Gsuck's initial response (with no data to back it up):
Old socks, you post crap like this and you know I am going to call you on it....
First its nonsense.... And here is the real science on it....
Real science bit #1: 550 million years ago in the Cambrian era there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today. And the Cambrian era is the time in which calcite corals and similar lifeforms first achieved algal symbiosis.
Real science bit #2: 175 million years ago in the Jurassic era there was also 20 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and at this time the Aragonite corals came into being. So we have two points in history which had greater CO2 in the atmosphere and at both points we find coral life forms developing rather than dying off...... So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane....
Real science bit #3: The oceans already have 70 times the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere. Even if by some freak occurrence all of the CO2 we emit unnaturally were to go straight into the ocean (an impossibility) it would only raise the CO2 concentrations by 1%. Not exactly the scary horror stories you are telling now is it...
Real science bit #4: CO2 is the 7th largest particle in the oceans by volume that could in theory effect the PH balance. Meaning there are 6 other elements before CO2 which could in theory do the same to the PH. In practice this means the likelihood of CO2 actually causing oceans acidification is minuscule at best even IF the theory is correct. If you want to be real technical on it CO2 would not alter the PH at all but rather buffer other elements which could possibly make some impact on the PH balance. Those impacts are minuscule given the depth and scope of the entire thing.
Real science bit #5: The ocean rides over vast amounts of alkali. We are talking vast amounts of alkali stone, rock and soil which the oceans stir up and roll over 24/7... Alkali is the acid stopper in case you weren't aware.
All of this garbage is theoretical crap all designed to scare you... Its about as much to do with real science as the Pope has to do with Las Vegas nightlife...
oh please ask me for my evidence again..... LOL, I love it when you try and play climatologist to save your azz....
Gsucks whine in this thread
AWWW you gonna cry again? Dude I don't care what you do or say as long as you don't try and dictate what people can and cannot talk about. Try that and I will take exception to your sorry punk azz. And try it while you claim some superiority over another and I will definitely take exception to you.
Argue on merit, logic, and reason for once. Don't go and hide behind peer review like a punk. Any fool can copy and paste what others write. just like any fool can pretend he's a scientist on a web forum. its called anonymity, and it makes some people turn into morons...
Um, peer reviewed evidence is the only thing that counts, actual data and evidence, not bullshit arguments without anything to back it up. And you claim to know more than me about science and then claim I hide behind the peer review, which is the actual data, which in science, is what determines what's factual and what is just a hypothesis.
"The prosecution rests its case that Gsuck is guilty of trolling"
We've abandoned that concept, since the development of genome sequencing. Ancestry is now determined by genetic differences, as natural selection ultimately acts upon DNA. Genes control anatomy in non-obvious ways.You are missing my point...shouldn't all animals with what we would consider "classic" animal traits...two eyes, two ears, one mouth, heart, pulmonary system, digestive system, circulatory system etc...share one common ancestor that first evolved these traits...just like all hominids share one common ancestor?
Cute monkeys?
We've abandoned that concept, since the development of genome sequencing. Ancestry is now determined by genetic differences, as natural selection ultimately acts upon DNA. Genes control anatomy in non-obvious ways.You are missing my point...shouldn't all animals with what we would consider "classic" animal traits...two eyes, two ears, one mouth, heart, pulmonary system, digestive system, circulatory system etc...share one common ancestor that first evolved these traits...just like all hominids share one common ancestor?
Further, what you label "classic" animals traits are classic only to the ancient Greeks. Modern "common traits" include things like glycolysis, mitochondria, and nucleii.
Sea sponges are organ-less animals.
Again, its NOT IMPOSSIBLE. And in fact there are many traits in animals believed to evolve independently. probability does not mean shit when you account for the trillions and trillions of events, over such a long period of time.
Again, its NOT IMPOSSIBLE. And in fact there are many traits in animals believed to evolve independently. probability does not mean shit when you account for the trillions and trillions of events, over such a long period of time.
Impossible BECAUSE of the trillions and trillions of events Gregg.
With trillions and trillions of events the probability of each animal species reaching the same basic structure DIMINISHES...it is the fact that there are trillions of RANDOM variables that reduces the probability of congruent or even similar results to zero.
Convergent evolutionEnvironmental circumstances that require similar developmental or structural alterations for the purposes of adaptation can lead to convergent evolution even though the species differ in descent.
In evolutionary biology, convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches
An example of convergent evolution is the similar nature of the flight/wings of insects, birds, pterosaurs, and bats.
Again, its NOT IMPOSSIBLE. And in fact there are many traits in animals believed to evolve independently. probability does not mean shit when you account for the trillions and trillions of events, over such a long period of time.
Impossible BECAUSE of the trillions and trillions of events Gregg.
With trillions and trillions of events the probability of each animal species reaching the same basic structure DIMINISHES...it is the fact that there are trillions of RANDOM variables that reduces the probability of congruent or even similar results to zero.
No it does not, just means they were both in environmental conditions where that trait was beneficial to their survival
Making up words to prove your case? I'm trying to take you seriously.Either they all got reached what I termed as "classic traits" from a common ancestor...which would be logical but the facts prove that that was not the case...
Says who?OR they separately aquirred the exact same basic structure through the completely random evolutionary process, which is impossible.
Were you bad at math?Impossible BECAUSE of the trillions and trillions of events Gregg.
With trillions and trillions of events the probability of each animal species reaching the same basic structure DIMINISHES...it is the fact that there are trillions of RANDOM variables that reduces the probability of congruent or even similar results to zero.
