Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Global warming could cause the little cute little lizards in your yard to evolve into 10ft fire breathing dragons   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 55
    More: Spiffy, Komodo dragon, lizards, reptiles, paleontology, herbivores, Proceedings of the Royal Society, fossils, fire breathing  
•       •       •

2123 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Jul 2013 at 3:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-18 01:36:02 PM  
i40.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-18 01:39:12 PM  
imokwiththis.jpg
 
2013-07-18 01:42:54 PM  
Can't afford to feed it anymore.
 
2013-07-18 01:52:11 PM  
Welcome to the new age...
 
2013-07-18 02:08:23 PM  
Way to make it sound cool as hell.
 
2013-07-18 02:20:23 PM  
See?
It's not ALL bad news.
 
2013-07-18 02:24:36 PM  
moderateinthemiddle.files.wordpress.com

Approves.
 
2013-07-18 03:03:08 PM  

James!: Way to make it sound cool as hell.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-18 03:07:25 PM  

I_C_Weener: James!: Way to make it sound cool as hell.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 194x259]


4.bp.blogspot.com

/He's our friend!
//...and a whole lot more! ;-)
 
2013-07-18 03:14:41 PM  
What's the worst that could happen?

content9.flixster.com
 
2013-07-18 03:20:30 PM  

Before:


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com



After:

scienceblogs.com
 
2013-07-18 03:20:37 PM  

Sybarite: Can't afford to feed it anymore.


It's pretty farkin' nifty

www.zupes.com
 
2013-07-18 03:24:41 PM  
Wait a minute, we were told that global warming would make animals smaller.

Make up your minds already global warmists!
 
2013-07-18 03:25:07 PM  
Only Bert I. Gordon can save us now.
 
2013-07-18 03:39:50 PM  
You know...THEY'RE RIGHT....WE ONLY HAVE (checks clock) GOOD GOD. 1-10 MILLION YEARS BEFORE THIS BECOMES A PROBLEM. QUICK. SOMEONE DO SOMETHING!!!!
 
2013-07-18 03:40:45 PM  
Is this after runaway global warming causes the moon to crack, and 1000 years later we have sorcery and super science?
 
2013-07-18 03:58:16 PM  
And you should see the way they shiat.
 
2013-07-18 04:04:21 PM  

indarwinsshadow: You know...THEY'RE RIGHT....WE ONLY HAVE (checks clock) GOOD GOD. 1-10 MILLION YEARS BEFORE THIS BECOMES A PROBLEM. QUICK. SOMEONE DO SOMETHING!!!!


Yeah, like if they get big enough we aren't going to hunt them to extinction.
 
2013-07-18 04:10:06 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Wait a minute, we were told that global warming would make animals smaller.

Make up your minds already global warmists!


You really don't understand science do you.

We have two papers that disagree. Neither represents claims of fact ... they are two different theories based on different data sets. Each likely has its merits and each may be correct in specific cases. Or one or possibly even both of them may be wrong.

Unlike AGW, which has massive amounts of supporting data and corroboration between different scientific disciplines, single papers should always be taken with a grain of salt until much more research has been done.
 
2013-07-18 04:17:20 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-18 04:19:42 PM  
Time to start burning tires I guess.
 
2013-07-18 04:20:56 PM  

Sybarite: Can't afford to feed it anymore.


And you should see the way he shiats!
 
2013-07-18 04:26:34 PM  

Rhames: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x640]


That game was REALLY fun.
 
2013-07-18 04:26:42 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Wait a minute, we were told that global warming would make animals smaller.

Make up your minds already global warmists!


This is why one should read more than the headline.

Note that one is talking about a developmental change (immediate effect), while the other refers to an evolutionary effect (over hundreds of thousands or millions of years). They are in no way mutually exclusive.
 
2013-07-18 04:51:44 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Note that one is talking about a developmental change (immediate effect)


i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-18 05:19:36 PM  

GameSprocket: What's the worst that could happen?


...damn.

Well, I don't know if the thread's done, but we've gotta be almost there.
 
2013-07-18 05:54:50 PM  
No, now where people live.
Because, you know, people are lizard predators.
 
2013-07-18 09:35:39 PM  

Fano: Is this after runaway global warming causes the moon to crack, and 1000 years later we have sorcery and super science?


You forgot savagery.  Sorcery and super-science are cool, but it's boring without some savagery.

/Lords... of LIGHT!
 
2013-07-18 10:18:27 PM  
Okay, now I want to pollute all the things.
 
2013-07-18 10:48:49 PM  
Well, yes, they COULD go all dragony on us...after of course having all the mammaliform competition wiped out and developing homeothermy, of course, and lepidiosaurs probably would need a good long while to "bake" to do that and some evolutionary pressure to go homeothermic rather than their present evolutionary state (in which it's thought that lepidiosaur ectothermy is actually a sort of metabolic economy system--in hot, dry climates it tends to be easier to survive if one's metabolic engine is the equivalent of a diesel Smart rather than, well, an 18-wheeler or a high-performance Mercedes or even an F-16 running avjet fuel) :D

(There's some compelling evidence to suggest that flight in chordates requires a sufficiently high metabolism that homeothermy (endogenous warm-bloodedness) is about the only way it could be pulled off.  It's now thought that archosaurs (including the pterosaurs--which tended to be surprisingly furry little bastards--and the surviving theropod dinosaurs we affectionately know as "birds") actually developed homeothermy quite early in their evolution (and, as weird as it sounds, it's also now thought that crocodiliforms are SECONDARILY ectothermic--basically, much like naked mole rats lost homeothermy, non-ground-running crocodiliforms (including the ancestors of the crocodiliforms we know know like alligators and crocs and gharials and caimans) may have gone secondarily ectothermic as a specific adaptation to being marine hunters)--warm-bloodedness came first, flight later.  It's entirely possible that archosauriforms went homeothermic almost from the time they forked from the rest of the diapsids...  We also know that bats, particularly insectivorous bats, do have a much higher metabolism (and a higher baseline temp) than most mammals--right at bird-levels, in fact.  An actual dragon would have quite a high metabolism as well.)

Now, if you had dragons derived from actual archosaurs rather than lepidiosaurs (the true lizards and snakes), however... :D

Fire-breathing...okay, that's a little more difficult to plausibly pull off :D

That said, though...the big monitors and goannas of old times were not just around because of it being nice and warm (and thus a bit more conducive to big lizards in the backyard being able to sun themselves into activity), but were probably also able to get big because there wasn't a hell of a lot of competition from mammaliform predators OR dinosaurian/archosaurian predation where they lived (around 40mya was when the creodonts were really coming into their own in Europe and North America, carnivoramorphs were getting started (and weren't quite proper Carnivora yet), but Burma was still part of an Indian continent rather like Australia (and similarly isolated and home to its own weird and wonderful fauna) and there was a lot of diversification going on).

South America, too, was full of relative weird (of all things, it was trending towards Ground Running Dinosaurs 2.0 with the beginnings of phorusracids...which managed to hang around until the colonisation of South America with mammalian predators; later on in the Miocene it'd experiment with sparassodont (sister group to marsupials) sabertooth-cat-analogues), Asia and North America also had the mesonychids (CARNIVOROUS UNGULATES including Andrewsarchus--basically a ginormous hyena-analogue that was the biggest land-based predatory mammal EVER), and Australia and Antarctica continued being wonderfully weird with big lizards and giant penguiniforms and the like.  Suffice it to say that the Eocene was a weird and wonderful time for experimentation, and the more isolated places like the then-continent of India did have their own bits of interesting evolutionary weirdness.

If mammals end up dying out save for the tiny ones (and it's usually the tiny critters that tend to survive mass extinctions) there'll probably be some interesting stuff going on in Australia and Indonesia with super-monitor-lizards (maybe giant goannas can come back! :D), elsewhere, there's probably going to be interesting experimentation with other clades.  (I'd not be entirely shocked to see the return of big dinosaurian predators--we did see it come back once before with phorusracids--and it'd be nifty to see what would happen with crocodyliforms, if we'd have some re-evolving homeothermy and becoming basically crocodilian foxes again (as happened in the Age of the Dinosaurs--yes, crocodyliforms were warm and fast and ran off the ground--little fox-analogues in some ways, some even went to frank herbivory) or if they'd finally take to the seas properly and bring back an age of Diapsid Sea Monsters.  (It'd also be interesting to see how bats would evolve--assuming White Nose Syndrome doesn't drive insectivorous bats extinct as a clade, it'd be very interesting to see what evolutionary experiments happen.  Maybe even ground bats; we've certainly seen it with dinosaurs (possibly from the time they first took flight--there are serious theories that dromies like Deinonychus are secondarily flightless, basically Roadrunners From Hell) and there's been recent speculation that at least one clade of pterosaurs (azdarchids) could have been secondarily flightless as well.)   Dinosaurs at least seem to have diversified pleasantly after all their clade save for the bat-analogues got killed off...speaking of modern dinosaurs, maybe we'd get a third attempt at big galloanseriformes; nature seems to LOVE evolving chocobo-esque clades out of the Galloanseriformes, first with gastornids and later with mihirungs...
 
2013-07-18 11:25:59 PM  
If warmer weather is all it takes, why are all of Arizona's lizards small?
 
2013-07-19 12:15:44 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: If warmer weather is all it takes, why are all of Arizona's lizards small?


'Cuz it's punctuated, baby.

They're waiting for the right moment.
JUST when you're not looking, BAM! Horror Movie Time
 
2013-07-19 02:36:24 AM  
sooooooooo very disappointed

i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-19 02:39:38 AM  
it can't happen soon enough. After watching a couple of the linked "news videos" at the bottom of that page, we need some giant farking lizards to take over this planet.
 
2013-07-19 02:40:13 AM  

devlin carnate: sooooooooo very disappointed

[i.imgur.com image 500x500]


oh, NOW DesertDemonWY's image  appears, after I post mine.   goot jorb, fark servers!
 
2013-07-19 06:33:22 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: If warmer weather is all it takes, why are all of Arizona's lizards small?


Because a lot of people on both sides talk out of their ass when this subject is raised
 
2013-07-19 06:43:41 AM  

Farking Canuck:

Unlike AGW, which has massive amounts of supporting data and corroboration between different scientific disciplines,
Why do you keep spewing this horse shiat?   There is no such thing at all, and in point of fact, AGW has been falsified several times.  Move on to a new scam, FFS -- this one's busted.
 
2013-07-19 07:55:59 AM  
images.wikia.com
 
2013-07-19 09:06:22 AM  
GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Unlike AGW, which has massive amounts of supporting data and corroboration between different scientific disciplines,

Why do you keep spewing this horse shiat?   There is no such thing at all, and in point of fact, AGW has been falsified several times.  Move on to a new scam, FFS -- this one's busted.

Hmmm ... who should I believe??? A proven liar and shill from the internet or the entire scientific community.

I think the green threadshiatter must be right! He gets his science from the Urantia Book and, according to him, science is just beginning to catch up to it.

/Just kidding ... I'm going to side with the scientists.
 
2013-07-19 04:15:02 PM  
Lizards don't eat plants.
 
Kiz
2013-07-19 04:39:57 PM  

ocelot: Lizards don't eat plants.


You sound like someone who has never owned an iguana.
 
2013-07-19 09:06:18 PM  

Farking Canuck:

Hmmm ... who should I believe??? A proven liar and shill from the internet or the entire scientific community.

A proven shill?   What's your name and address, dipstick?  I'd like to sue you for slander/libel, whichever applies to the 'Nets.  Just what does your limping brain consider "proof" that I have shilled ANYTHING?  Paystub?  Tax return?  Ouija board session transcript?

And where do you get this "entire scientific community" crap"  From the Big Golden Book of Appeals to Authority?  The closest to "consensus" on climate that exists in the scientific community is that the IPCC has grossly over-stated the "dangers" of carbon dioxide.  So, PROVE YOUR POINT.   Show the EVIDENCE (that is, NOT model output) validating the alarmist sensitivity figures.  Go ahead -- if the "entire scientific community" supports it, there must be TONS of evidence supporting it.   We'll all wait.

 
2013-07-19 09:12:10 PM  

Farking Canuck:

I think the green threadshiatter must be right! He gets his science from the Urantia Book and, according to him, science is just beginning to catch up to it.
Unlike you, I keep religion and science totally separate.  It's amazing what a clueless idiot will stoop to, when science doesn't back up their religion.
 
2013-07-19 09:42:36 PM  
jonova.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-07-19 10:40:01 PM  

GeneralJim: what does your limping brain consider "proof" that I have shilled ANYTHING?


Well if you could read you would see that I said that you were "a proven liar and a shill". The adjective "proven" goes with the word "liar".

I do not claim to have any solid evidence that you are a shill. Just your long history of repeating lies and your m.o. of posting at the end of threads (so that your lies get little opposition) and your self-coloring of your posts (so they are easy to count when you go to invoice your employer). Nothing concrete.

There are mountains of evidence on Fark that you are a liar  So I stand by that.
 
2013-07-19 10:45:10 PM  

GeneralJim: Unlike you, I keep religion and science totally separate. It's amazing what a clueless idiot will stoop to, when science doesn't back up their religion.


Except that, if you follow the link I provided, you will see a post by you where you say that science is just catching up to the Urantia Book. That makes it pretty clear what you feel is a good basis for science ... and the Urantia Book is definitely not evidence based.

This would explain why everything you post contradicts the evidence generated by all the scientists in the field and it explains your inane conspiracy theories about corruption in the scientific community.

/hope you don't get fired for being outed like this
//just kidding
 
2013-07-19 10:53:24 PM  

Farking Canuck:

GeneralJim: what does your limping brain consider "proof" that I have shilled ANYTHING?

Well if you could read you would see that I said that you were "a proven liar and a shill". The adjective "proven" goes with the word "liar".

I do not claim to have any solid evidence that you are a shill. Just your long history of repeating lies and your m.o. of posting at the end of threads (so that your lies get little opposition) and your self-coloring of your posts (so they are easy to count when you go to invoice your employer). Nothing concrete.

There are mountains of evidence on Fark that you are a liar  So I stand by that.

Well, it's good that you stand by your lies.  Consistency -- it must be your hobgoblin. I note that while you deny that you are calling me a "proven shill," you repeat claims only applicable to shills. You are denying the truth of it, and then repeating the accusation. Isn't that a form of lying? Typical.

So, as to lies -- OTHER than the one time I did actually lie to elicit a response, and for which I immediately 'fessed up and apologized, every other claim that I have lied has been shown to be false. Perhaps you don't understand what a "lie" is in the first place. Look it up. Then, show me these presumably dozens, or hundreds, of places where I have been proven to "lie," as you call it. A whole mountain. Of bits? Impressive, if it weren't bullshiat.
 
2013-07-19 11:01:24 PM  

Farking Canuck:

Except that, if you follow the link I provided, you will see a post by you where you say that science is just catching up to the Urantia Book. That makes it pretty clear what you feel is a good basis for science ... and the Urantia Book is definitely not evidence based.

Apparently it is YOU who cannot read.   Science has found very weird oddities about the Shroud of Turin that the Urantia Book stated as facts decades earlier.  And, since you do not understand the basics of science, I'll give you a pass on not knowing the difference between commenting on the relative timing of information from two sources, and using one in the other.  Baby steps, at least for infantile minds.  Again, I challenge your lying ass (or any other orifice) to produce ONE instance of me using the Urantia Book in a scientific argument, or as backup for a fact, or anything similar.  I don't do it, plain and simple -- the only one conflating science and religion is YOU, since you have a religious, rather than scientific, approach to the issue of the thread, which is scientific, at least in the broader scope; gigantic lizards, not so much.
 
2013-07-19 11:51:49 PM  
GeneralJim:

Apparently it is YOU who cannot read.   Science has found very weird oddities about the Shroud of Turin that the Urantia Book stated as facts decades earlier.  And, since you do not understand the basics of science, I'll give you a pass on not knowing the difference between commenting on the relative timing of information from two sources, and using one in the other.  Baby steps, at least for infantile minds.  Again, I challenge your lying ass (or any other orifice) to produce ONE instance of me using the Urantia Book in a scientific argument, or as backup for a fact, or anything similar.  I don't do it, plain and simple -- the only one conflating science and religion is YOU, since you have a religious, rather than scientific, approach to the issue of the thread, which is scientific, at least in the broader scope; gigantic lizards, not so much.

You've gone on record as believing that UV lasers blasted out of Jesus' corpse to create the Shroud of Turin. You've stated that you believed that if the republican governor of Hawaii didn't confirm Obama's birth certificate she would have been assassinated before she made it home that night. And now you have some ridiculous conspiracy theories about scientists all being corrupt and lying to the world.

You're just a whack-job. No more reasonable than truthers, moon landing hoaxers, alien abductees, or any of the other weak-minded pseudo-science practitioners out there.

I'm not here to argue AGW with you. You've already been destroyed on that subject more times than I can count ... and you still seem to think that partisan blogs and misinterpreted papers are science. No, I'm just here to make sure that everyone reading knows what the source of all the green threadshiat really is.
 
2013-07-20 12:14:25 AM  

GeneralJim: [jonova.s3.amazonaws.com image 709x464]



Let's go through the list.

Circular Reasoning:

GeneralJim: In this case, the ORIGINAL IPCC temperature graph is the most accurate, oddly enough BECAUSE it does not show temperatures.


Argument from ignorance:

GeneralJim: Au contraire -- The attribution of climate change is PRECISELY based upon a perceived (and phony) correlation. What else?


Uses ad hominem attacks:

GeneralJim: Scientists are willing to do this to get the research money they need, and to hire climatologists, and others. If someone upsets the apple cart, 95% of their money will go away. As I said, the U.N. folks know how to bribe. First, they arrange to take ALL their information from ONE source, and then they buy the top two or three people at that source, to make sure they only get the information they WANT to get. Simple, straightforward, and WAY cheaper than most scams.


Hides or loses their data:

GeneralJim:Your continual requests for repeats of research are abusive.
GeneralJim: I didn't make the charts.  They stand, unless you can find the data showing that they do not represent real data


Adjusts the data to fit the theory:

GeneralJim: img.fark.net

Won't debate or answer questions:
The fact that I'm on ignore.Alternatively:
GeneralJim: I really enjoy seeing a big-assed post from Snowjob with the [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20 ][21][22] crap... and then not even reading it.


Bullies, threatens, name-calls:

GeneralJim: You are behaving in a way that would cause you to get pimp-slapped if you were in a bar. My text is crafted to show that response as closely as I can. I very rarely get angry -- I can't afford it. I have literally choked someone unconscious without getting angry; some people say that is not possible, but it is. (More precisely, I pressed on his carotid artery...) As I see it, what I did just MIGHT impress upon you that you are going in territory where you should not be.


Idolises human institutions:
Has "faith" in systems, committees or authorities:

GeneralJim: Once again, science begins to catch up with the Urantia Book.

GeneralJim: Oddly enough, you pick an area of my religious beliefs to attack which is weirdly predictive. What the U.B. says happened REQUIRED exactly the weird stuff about the Shroud of Turn.

 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report