Next we would need to know how much their genome changed, itās possible there have never been any heat handling mutations at all, that they could tolerate those changes from day one. Same goes for crocodiles. Animal life is under no threat. 99 percent or more, donāt know the exact percent, of all
life on earth has already gone extinct, other animals and animal adaptations simply fill their niches. Unless we turn into Venus or something. Why do we especially care if itās bonobos or chimps filling the jungle primate niche?
The ozone layer hysteria was real, and solved by stopping the use of ozone damaging chemicals.
Whatā¦you think it reverted on its own?
Now do a cost comparison of fixing the two problems.
I was simply correcting the posterās utter error of assuming the ozone hysteria was āfakeā.
Which speaks to her ability to judge things
Ah, I thought you were talking about the 250M event. Regardless, I donāt know how you can discern even 10,000 year increments, let alone 200 year increments in that graph. The x axis is scaled in the millions. How do you know what the time scale is for the 90 or 55M events? Do you squint really hard to get it down to hundreds of years intervals? Do you have access to the data? Iām just not seeing how it is possible.
1 Like
On my phone, I can zoom into that graph and a 50M year increments is about an inch across. If we try to discern a 500 year range, that translates into a 500/50,000,000 or a hundred thousandths of an inch. Does anyone seriously think they can squint that hard?
Way warmer times in their past and they still managed to birth boys. lol
1 Like
I will admit to those points but as I said there is also no evidence any temperature adaptive mutations occurred in the species, in which case it doesnāt matter how long it took to change.
Oh and there isnāt anything sacred about any particular species on a geologic time scale. We donāt miss or mourn some long extinct species. Itās just being sentimental. Species die off, new ones replace them, life goes on. Take polar bears, they are virtually the same as other bears with minor adaptations. If they died off because it got too warm grizzlies would fill that biome instead.
Iām not sure what evidence of ātemperature adaptive mutationsā would look like.
Your point is valid but we will lose diversity.
How so? We lose diversity by destroying habitat, not by the temperature going up two degrees, might be a temporary drop but it would equal out. Cutting down a forest or overfishing the ocean are different stories.
Did you miss my coral link?
Didnāt you just use the extinction of polar bears and them being replaced by grizzlies?
That isnāt a reduction in genetic diversity. They are essentially the same, which is why they can mate and produce offspring. Like the difference between a german shepherd and a collie.
I donāt know. If polar bears and collies ceased to exist I would interpret that as less diversity no matter what your genetic (āessentiallyā?) argument.
Than you are talking appearances, not genetics. The genetics arenāt different enough to matter.
Why should anyone care if the niche is occupied by a Polar bear or a pizzlie bear? Outside of aesthetics. All polar bears are is grizzlies with white fur and some behavioral differences located in a different biome. Either way the bear niche is occupied.
