Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction is 'under way'

[Animavore]

The fucking delusion of right-wing dopes. One minute they're denying climate change. Next they're coming up with kooky solutions to solve a problem they don't believe exists...

We just need to stop pumping CO2 into the fucking air you twits.

[Alan B]

Mars? Yeah. It has poisonous soil. So that's a good start!

Hunt for life on Mars just got harder: Toxic chemical in martian soil is burning away any evidence of living organisms on red planet

Daily Mail - the Science Paper

Make our own planet is safe for habitation first before we visit other planets - if ever we get that far...

The Prime Directive (substitute 'other species' for 'other civilisations') should begin at home before we even consider jumping orff to other planets.

What's that old saying? "Charity begins at home?"

[Tyrannical]

Out with the old, in with the new lol
But mass extinctions are usually followed by a burst of biodiversity.

[mistermack]

Out with the old, in with the new lol
But mass extinctions are usually followed by a burst of biodiversity.

Not really.
If you call biodiversity a diversity of forms and shapes, then that might be accurate. But I would class biodiversity as a diversity of genetic material, and mass extinctions reduce that kind of diversity.

It's like the Galapagos. You get a profusion of finches. It looks diverse, but they are all genetically very close.
That's what you get after mass extinctions. A great loss of genetic diversity, followed by what's left filling in the voids.

[pErvinalia]

Biodiversity has a specific definition.

And in any case, saying you get a burst of biodiversity after mass extinctions is like telling us that water is wet. Of course you get a burst. When you are starting at a relative zero point.

[Alan B]

This biodiversity will then take millions of years to develop into the multitude of connected species of the proportions we have today - with no memory of what caused the mass extinction in the first place - us.

[mistermack]

Biodiversity has a specific definition.

And in any case, saying you get a burst of biodiversity after mass extinctions is like telling us that water is wet. Of course you get a burst. When you are starting at a relative zero point.

That post displays an amazing level of ignorance. You really are game to spout something, even when you know nothing.
I suppose you get points for being keen, if nothing else.

[Hermit]

Biodiversity



Looks to me like there were periods of accelerated diversification following each mass extinction event.

[mistermack]

You call that a specific definition?
In any case, if you start your measurement immediately AFTER a mass extinction, you are of course giving a completely false picture of what has happened.

Unless you also say that biodiversity is massively negatively affected by the same event.

It's like saying that severe injuries are the spur to a burst of healing. Amazing, Einstein !!

[Hermit]

You call that a specific definition?
In any case, if you start your measurement immediately AFTER a mass extinction, you are of course giving a completely false picture of what has happened.

Unless you also say that biodiversity is massively negatively affected by the same event.

It's like saying that severe injuries are the spur to a burst of healing. Amazing, Einstein !!

No, I don't call that a specific definition. In fact, I never touched on the matter of definition at all. There are three of them, and I'm not in the mood to discuss definitions just now. All I wanted to show was that there was a relatively short period of accelerated increase of biodiversity after each mass extinction. It's plain to see, don't you think?

[mistermack]

It's plain to see, don't you think?

No.

The graph clearly equates the "number of genera" directly with biodiversity.
The title below, on the wiki page, is more cautious. It says "Apparent marine fossil diversity during the Phanerozoic", apparent being the important word.
The presence of fossils is more a result of numbers than proof of diversity.
The fossils that they find after the extinction event might, and probably did, exist before, only in smaller numbers.

Lacking a "specific definition" of biodiversity, I'm happy with my own, which is mainly equivalent to genetic diversity, with some input from the shapes and form of life-forms.
Extinction events will obviously result in a loss of genetic information. That is eventually reversed by a long period of evolution involving new mutations, which is a slow process.

[pErvinalia]

Biodiversity has a specific definition.

And in any case, saying you get a burst of biodiversity after mass extinctions is like telling us that water is wet. Of course you get a burst. When you are starting at a relative zero point.

That post displays an amazing level of ignorance. You really are game to spout something, even when you know nothing.
I suppose you get points for being keen, if nothing else.

That post displays an amazing level of ignorance. You really are game to spout something, even when you know nothing.
I suppose you get points for being keen, if nothing else.

[pErvinalia]

For the terminally ignorant - http://www.amnh.org/explore/curriculum- ... ity-index/

[laklak]

Cockroaches and Keith Richards, that's about all that will be left.

[Hermit]

It's plain to see, don't you think?

No.

The graph clearly equates the "number of genera" directly with biodiversity.

Which is consistent with one of the three ways, variation at the genetic level, biodiversity can be measured.

The title below, on the wiki page, is more cautious. It says "Apparent marine fossil diversity during the Phanerozoic", apparent being the important word.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Apparent means clearly visible or understood; obvious. It can also mean seeming real or true, but not necessarily so, but either way you cannot conclude that the graph is rubbish. On the contrary, it means "in so far as we can tell from the evidence we have, this graph represents what we know about marine fossil diversity" Fossil evidence being what it is, new discoveries are made all the time, but I do not anticipate a significant change in the chart as a result of them. Researchers are just understandably cognisant of the fact that more evidence may show up.