What's new
By:
TerraForums - Carnivorous Plant Community

Welcome to TerraForums — a long-running carnivorous plant community established in 2001. Register for free to join the conversation, ask questions, and connect with growers from around the world.

War on squirrels!

Share this page

Status
Not open for further replies.
like you have a bunch of fish and BANG! out pops a salamander or something?

this topic does not need to be locked, everyone is being civil, although a few are being upset.

thank you fyre, some people need to realize this and stop being so militant about religion.
 
why do you say that?
well... I think that if there's available habitats or food sources or whatever, yes, species evolve faster (like when plants began to grow on land) but like today that nature is so finely tuned, I believe they're evolving VERY slowly. almost any mutation you could have will be bad.
edit: that doesn't mean ALL mutations are bad. there are actually a few examples of good mutations in humans.... it also depends on the environment you're in.
Some people in italy (I think) have a mutation that makes them umm.... well, they're not hurt by cholesterol as much.
and many people have sickle celled aneimia in africa because malaria is less able to attack if you have that mutation... and since there's so much malaria there, the "healthy" people (without anemia) die and the "sick" ones live.
another edit (darn... I edit too much!): I don't think this topic should be locked either. this is fun
smile.gif
 
why did i say what? i was replying to grim's post.
it's not as simple as he makes it sound
smile.gif
 
no no no... I was also replying to grim's post :P
I know... it's NEVER that simple. people like to believe life is black and white but it's not! there are 1000 shades of gray in between.
aldough I think he meant that species usually suddenly evolve really fast and then they slow down for a whilte.... then BAM they evolve fast ...etc.
right?
 
To combine squirrels and religion, my wife told me this story from her church experience growing up. A woman incharge of the a womens organization of her local congregation in Plano, Texas had a squirrel problem in her back yard. She solved the problem by shooting them with a 22 caliber rifle. When she brough up this subject in church circles people would ask, "What if you miss?". You see, Plano is a rich, highly populated area, and people there are concerned about their life and property. She would always answer the question, "Don't worry, I never miss."
 
while we're on the topic of species and such, what would you consider humans? i've always been afraid to ask because i figured someone would label me a racist (hey i'm gay so why would i be racist?)

would you consider modern humans (homo sapiens) to have species? for example, would you consider africans to be the original? would you consider caucasians, asians, etc etc a "subspecies"?

or have have we bred beyond the point of that? it's a mixed up world...

i've been pondering that question forever but i've been afraid to ask
laugh.gif
 
actually, homo sapiens would be neandarthals or however you spell it we are/were homo sapiens sapiens. a subspecies of neandarthals LOL.... aldough since they're extinct now, I guess we're now only homo sapiens? or are we still homo sapiens sapiens?
I WOULD consider different races as subspecies. after all, a subspecies is:
"groupings or populations within a species that are distinguishable by morphological characteristics or, sometimes, by physiological or behavioural traits. "
I'd say humans are distinguishable by morphological characteristics and physiological and behavioral traits...
but I've never heard of a subspecies of humans so I guess people don't want to create more racism by dividing humans into subspecies.
 
i thought nerandertals were homo neandertalis ( i probably butchered that spelling lol)

i didn't know they we are a subspecies to homo neandertalis (or whatever they are called). i really don't think we should be because we are quite physically and mentally different.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]i really don't think we should be because we are quite physically and mentally different.
Click to expand...
eeeh... that doesn't make sense :P
anyway, ugh... I hate taxonomy :P
so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification was popular through the 1970's and 80's, although many authors today have returned to the previous two-species hypothesis. Either way, Neanderthals represent a very close evolutionary relative of modern humans.
from: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm
 
it makes sense to me lol. they were extremely muscular, short, squatty, didn't use as much of their brain as we do (we only use like 10 percent right?) their jaw and bone strusture was different, heavier.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]we only use like 10 percent right
Click to expand...
AHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wrong!!!!!
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Someone  
has taken most of your brain away and you probably didn't even know it. Well, not taken your brain away, exactly, but decided that you don't use it. It's the old myth heard time and again about how people use only ten percent of their brains. While for the people who repeat that myth, it's probably true, the rest of us happily use all of our brains.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO!!! HA HA HA!!! (note I didn't say it... THEY did!)
 
woah boy was i wrong!

i didn't think it made any sense to have all that extra goop in our heads!
 
While for the people who repeat that myth, it's probably true, the rest of us happily use all of our brains.

HA HA HA!!!!! that's just way too hilarious!!!! I LOVE that sentence (not that I think it's true with you or anything...)
 
Evolution on a grand scale has lots of proof and i s considerd the norm.

Like.. its now known some carnivorus Dinosaurs had fethers, incuding a close releteve of t-rex. its now suspected velocarapter had fethers and with the archyopteryx find it is now a accepted fact that birds evolved from dinasaurs. So Dinos didnt go without leaving any desendants after all.
 
and some people think that dinosaurs (at least some of them) might have been warm blooded.
crocodiles have a sort of warm bloodyness to them. They sort of heat themselves by contracting their muscles. Pythons also do that sort of. They "shiver" when they're incubating their eggs. they're good mommys
biggrin.gif

it's interesting how two of the most "primitive" animals (NOT lower!!!!) have a warm bloodyness to them... maybe ectotherms evolved from endotherms.... not the other way around. (I'm talking about reptiles... ofcourse bacteria are ectotherms and so on)
edit: besides the amnsmoex find (LOL... sp?), birds also have scales on their feet, feathers and scales are made up of the same thing (keratin... as are nails, hair, and even skin has some keratin... oh, and rhino horns which are made up of tightly compacted hairs)
so anyway, many birds also have vestigial (useless) wing claws. I've seen them in chickens.
hoatzins also have wing claws but they use them as young'uns to climb branches and other stuff b/c they can't fly yet.
wanna know more about feathers?
http://www.earthlife.net/birds/feathers.html
nature' so amazing... what you can learn from a "simple" thing like feathers...
 
uh i already know all that i was just generalizing...???

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]it's interesting how two of the most "primitive" animals (NOT lower!!!!) have a warm bloodyness to them... maybe ectotherms evolved from endotherms.... not the other way around. (I'm talking about reptiles... ofcourse bacteria are ectotherms and so on)
Click to expand...

no warm bloodedness there
fish-> anphibians-> reptiles (dinasaurs may hae been their own class)
 
I was talking to all those who might have thought there wasn't enough evidence... and how I'm I supposed to know what you know or don't know?
well... there's warm bloodyness in fish... great white sharks do something that resembles warm bloodyness... don't they? they're also very "primitive".
but I doubt that either sharks or their close ancestors evolved into reptiles so FINE! you win.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top