Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

The House Sparrow vanishing from downtown London is not a biodiversity crisis. It is weird, though. American cities have plenty of the little pests.

Gawd. Thought the post was about Paris Hilton, Madonna and the GOP.

/sorry I ever clicked

Today it is hedgehogs and dormice


Dinsdale!

Blade2567

it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.


As it bloody well should be.

This just in: Sometimes species go extinct

Blade2567: Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

Irregardless, people can still use it.

Blade2567: Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

nice try, but however you are incorrect wrong, in both origin and usage.

www.bartleby.com/Strunk_White/elements_of_style (new window)

Ok, so the rodent population is falling.
This is not a bad thing as people from the middle of the fourteenth century can attest.

/Breeding these in my basement. Planning on turning them loose into the wild in about 4 months.

Is "nutsize" actually one word now?

Are they just greenlighting anything; regardless of how weak the headline is?

Everybody panic.

/*yawn*

Xerxes99:

I'll see and raise you:

schattenteufel: Are they just greenlighting anything; irregardless of how weak the headline is?

FTFY

Your dog wants steak, regardless ...

"Me precioussssss."

Many of those species are preyed upon by domestic cats. Cue the cat lovers who will defend the slaughter of wild animals. I hope kitty gets eaten by a coyote or fox.

I liked the critter pics in the sidebar better than this article. Cute, yet horrifying.

/city girl
//nature makes me nervous

Hey, as long as the titmouse doesn't go extinct who cares about a few rodents?

Ugly critter thread...

I always heard environmentalists tell me that things evolve. Every time an opportunity arises for something to evolve, they have to spend tax cash to save the lazy animals. I say, if they are too lazy evolve to their new environment, they are unfit, and deserve to go extinct. Spending money to save them would be like allowing people to eat at McDonald's and then allowing them to be on my insurance carrier.

/doused the thread in gas before I came in

So these evolved?

I thought it was a zombie dog...

Malbar: All negative effects on any species anywhere are always the result of human interference, according to a handful of nutjobs. Someone needs to clue them into the little fact that the overwhelming majority of species that ever existed had already gone extinct long before humans even existed.

All species have a natural rate of extinction as evolution refines and redefines organisms according to environmental and genetic changes. During the first five periods of extinction, the rate of extinction was in balance with the rate of the creation of new species.

However, in the period of the 6th extinction, species are disappearing at a faster than normal rate. Pollution, the introduction of "exotic" species and destruction of habitat all contribute to this accelerated pace of extinction.

This time, it's different. And it's caused by humans, not by natural changes in the physical world. This is not a theory supported only by "nutjobs", but by almost anyone who studies biology.

/Now tell me that humans are "natural." Like an atomic bomb.

cryinoutloud: Now tell me that humans are "natural."

Humans are natural. Except for most of them in teh 'boobies' threads.
case closed.

cryinoutloud: Malbar: All negative effects on any species anywhere are always the result of human interference, according to a handful of nutjobs. Someone needs to clue them into the little fact that the overwhelming majority of species that ever existed had already gone extinct long before humans even existed.

All species have a natural rate of extinction as evolution refines and redefines organisms according to environmental and genetic changes. During the first five periods of extinction, the rate of extinction was in balance with the rate of the creation of new species.

However, in the period of the 6th extinction, species are disappearing at a faster than normal rate. Pollution, the introduction of "exotic" species and destruction of habitat all contribute to this accelerated pace of extinction.

This time, it's different. And it's caused by humans, not by natural changes in the physical world. This is not a theory supported only by "nutjobs", but by almost anyone who studies biology.

/Now tell me that humans are "natural." Like an atomic bomb.

oh, so I take it you were there for the first five? seriously? You are going to tell me that through the scientific process you can prove that species are dying faster now than ever before? You can form a hypothosis, conduct an experiment involving a control group and a variable group, and draw a conclusion with no ability to go back in time or into the future? That is possibly the most arrogant thing I have ever heard.
You are going to look pretty damned dumb in a few years when all this global warming thing is proven to be a money making scheme thought up by Al Gore and his ilk.

cryinoutloud: /Now tell me that humans are "natural." Like an atomic bomb.

So you think humans are unnatural?

Oh, I was worried this was about America.

cryinoutloud: Malbar:

This time, it's different. And it's caused by humans, not by natural changes in the physical world. This is not a theory supported only by "nutjobs", but by almost anyone who studies biology.


Like psychologists and the polygraph in the 50's?

Xerxes99: /Breeding these in my basement. Planning on turning them loose into the wild in about 4 months.

They'll need a natural predator to keep numbers in check. I introduce to you the RoidRover:

cryinoutloud: /Now tell me that humans are "natural." Like an atomic bomb.

Humans evolved here on earth. We are more "natural" than the cause of other extinction periods. Like Meteors for example.

The problem with environmentalists is that they have no faith in life or evolution.

Hozark: I always heard environmentalists tell me that things evolve. Every time an opportunity arises for something to evolve, they have to spend tax cash to save the lazy animals. I say, if they are too lazy evolve to their new environment, they are unfit, and deserve to go extinct...

Go compare the definitions of "evolution" and "adaptation," because you are confusing the former for the latter. As for decreasing biodiversity, we have tools called geology and ecology. One allows us to derive history, the other helps us understand the interrelatedness of species.

As for your global warming comment, 3/10. That hand has been played too many times.

If you're coming here to argue against widely accepted scientific theories, you should bring more to the fight.

Hozark: You can form a hypothosis, conduct an experiment involving a control group and a variable group, and draw a conclusion with no ability to go back in time or into the future?

Let me guess: your entire knowledge of how science works comes from your seventh grade science book.

EwokHunter: Irregardless, people can still use it.

It's a very useful word for identifying the user as a moran.

Nature will spring back after the human population drops off as it almost certainly will at some point in the future.

Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again. There will be growth in the spring!

cryinoutloud: All species have a natural rate of extinction as evolution refines and redefines organisms according to environmental and genetic changes. During the first five periods of extinction, the rate of extinction was in balance with the rate of the creation of new species.

The WHAT of new species?

/i was told there would be no religion on this test

saultydog: So you think humans are unnatural?

Some of you are.

So, are environmentalists determined to lose credibility as fast a man made global warming agitators?

Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again. There will be growth in the spring!

KarmicDisaster for President!!

cryinoutloud: Malbar: All negative effects on any species anywhere are always the result of human interference, according to a handful of nutjobs. Someone needs to clue them into the little fact that the overwhelming majority of species that ever existed had already gone extinct long before humans even existed.

All species have a natural rate of extinction as evolution refines and redefines organisms according to environmental and genetic changes. During the first five periods of extinction, the rate of extinction was in balance with the rate of the creation of new species.

However, in the period of the 6th extinction, species are disappearing at a faster than normal rate. Pollution, the introduction of "exotic" species and destruction of habitat all contribute to this accelerated pace of extinction.

This time, it's different. And it's caused by humans, not by natural changes in the physical world. This is not a theory supported only by "nutjobs", but by almost anyone who studies biology.

/Now tell me that humans are "natural." Like an atomic bomb.

Wow, it's bullshait with just a little flavoring of truth to try to get you to swallow the bullshait.

All species have a natural rate of extinction as evolution

WTF, over? Ever notice that we mark some odd places in pre-history based on things like The Great Dying. Otherwise know as the Permian-Triassic extinction. When life was damn near wiped out planet-wide by an unknown cause?

Or maybe your history classes only got so far as the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction which is when the Dinosaurs were wiped out?

Biodiversity on this planet ebbs and flows, but not really at a constant rate. Right now, we have an amazing amount of biodiversity on this planet. Even with humans killing off a number of species here and there, we are still well above the levels of biodiversity seen on this planet at any time in the past.

Pollution, the introduction of "exotic" species and destruction of habitat all contribute to this accelerated pace of extinction.

Ok, this is one of those true flavors. Yes, the introduction of outside species to an ecosystem can cause it to collapse, or more correctly to change drastically. Assuming the outsider has an evolutionary advantage over the native species (no matter how many sharks I put into the desert, they are not going to wipe out the coyotes). However, all this is, is a speed up of the natural process.

As an aside to this: I challenge you to present one area of the planet which has become a barren wasteland with no life on it at all, due to human influence. Even White Sands, New Mexico has a functioning ecosystem. Our effects on a area can change life there drastically, and even create a temporary wasteland, but we've not managed to create a lasting wasteland anywhere.

Barring direct human influence and astronomical effects (meteors, gamma rays, etc.) Species will evolve, improve and go extinct over time because either a local species develops an advantage which wipes out a competitor, or an outside species arrives and has an evolutionary advantage over the local species. But this does not happen at some magical rate. It's governed more by the laws of chance. We might be able to predict the rate of change in the number of species on the planet, within rough parameters, but there is no way we are going to be able to predict the evolutionary path of an individual species.

By introducing outside species to ecosystems, we have sped this process up considerably. On the balance, that is bad for bio-diversity at the time. However, this is not going to end the world. Evolution seems to be spurred on by pressures in the system, not balance in the system. Marginal advantages in a species need to have an environment in which the ability to mate is influenced by small factors. In a stable ecosystem, where food is plentiful and predation is extreme, even less viable members are going to survive and mate, and may drown out the individual line with the evolutionary advantage by sheer numbers.

Still, I would agree that we should avoid introducing outside species into an environment. Biodiversity does have advantages, but let's not pretend that the world will end, or life will be completely wiped out but its reduction. Most of the Earth's history has the number of species on this planet at a far smaller number than we have now. And with the various extinction events, it has been forced even lower. Yet, somehow, it has recovered on its own each time.

Now, I'll agree that the pollution is a problem we need to get on top of. It is causing local environments to change faster than evolution can deal with in complex species. If we keep dumping crap in the environment, the meek won't inherit the Earth, the bacteria will. Still, short of finding a way to fracture the planet completely and/or irradiating every inch of the Earth, land and sea, at the same time; we aren't going to wipe life out. We're just going to make things hard on ourselves.

Still, let's not pretend that species have some magical cycle of evolving, flourishing and dying out. They don't. They evolve, and assuming that they don't have a competitor which is far more capable, they will scrabble along until either they, or their environment changes enough to either make them more or less viable than competitors. At which point they will either eliminate their competitor, or die out. Unless the laws of chance throw them a screwball in the form of a meteor impact.

The history of biodiversity on this planet is a sporadic and jumpy thing. It tends upwards, but every once in a while something comes along and smacks it down, and hard. Right now, we're very lucky to be living in a time between those smack downs, where biodiversity is flourishing. And, I'd agree that we should try to avoid being the cause behind the next Great Dying. But, let's keep in mind that we really are living in a time which is so far above the norm for this planet, in terms of number of species, that seeing a few of them die off is almost inevitable.

We should try to avoid this, after all, some of those species could be tasty. But, in the words of Douglas Adams: DON'T PANIC!

And how old are sharks and crocodiles? 400 and 200 million years in pretty much their current form? There are always going to be weird circumstances. When humans are around in another 398 million years, then we may have enough data to say we are evil and caused the doom of the Earth.

Untill then, eat it if you can catch it. Oh, and nothing we can do can compare to the forces of nature that have caused at least the last 5 major extinction events. Nuclear weapons don't even register on the same scale as what Ma Nature does when she is pissy.

Oh, the land around Chernobyl, by the way, is flourishing with life. In fact, it is probably more healthy now than ever. Species driven out have returned and prospered. So much for nuclear contamination being evil.

Thunderpipes: Oh, the land around Chernobyl, by the way, is flourishing with life. In fact, it is probably more healthy now than ever. Species driven out have returned and prospered. So much for nuclear contamination being evil.

Nuclear contamination isn't as bad for animals as it is for humans. If a wild animal lives long enough to die of natural causes(like cancer) instead of predation, mother nature made a mistake.

As an aside to this: I challenge you to present one area of the planet which has become a barren wasteland with no life on it at all, due to human influence. Even White Sands, New Mexico has a functioning ecosystem. Our effects on a area can change life there drastically, and even create a temporary wasteland, but we've not managed to create a lasting wasteland anywhere.

How many people living in White Sands depends directly on their environment? The real problem isn't that ecosystems will disappear, but that the ecosystem will no longer be able to support humans. The necessities of life they import it from abroad, putting more stress on their area as the bread baskets turn more acreage into monoculture farms. We can keep them propped up with technology, but it's still a fool hearty practice. There's salination, top soil runoff, and prevalence of nematodes to name a few cronic problems plaguing farmland and decreasing fertility.

Nature leans toward diversity for a reason. The more life, the more opportunities to eat. This is the time proven method for stability, as has been noted with the previous major extinction events caused by forces originating from outside earth. The world is finite, we can only keep putting pressure elsewhere for so long before enough gives out that agriculture fails us. Then what will we turn to to eat?

Are any of these people actually scientists? Animal species go in and out of existence on a regular basis. It's called evolution. Animal species (and plants, for that matter), also go through cycles of migration, adjustment, and behavior changes. It's called adaptation.

Goddamn I hate viros.

Looking for a biologically sterile zone? Try the ocean.