3 ms·
> which are becoming extinct at a rate between 100 and 1,000 times the rate before humans I have always wondered how people come up with that conclusion. How
by austincheney 9y ago
> which are becoming extinct at a rate between 100 and 1,000 times the rate before humans
I have always wondered how people come up with that conclusion. How do people guess at those numbers? We honestly don't know how fast species went extinct at various points in the past and we don't really know how fast they are going extinct right now. We are still discovering new species, by the way, and there may be some that go extinct that we never discover.
- nharada 9y ago> We honestly don't know how fast species went extinct at various points in the past and we don't really know how fast they are going extinct right now. Citation needed please. Yes, they're estimates, but there are scientists who have devoted their entire careers to exactly that question. A quick Google turns up entire books devoted to this topic (http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/344/1307/local/front-matter.pdf http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/344/13...) Your phrasing here makes it sound like this number is entirely random and not based on any evidence or science.
- ianai 9y agoIt seems like blanket denials of research to impeach an article would be against the rules here.
- TaylorAlexander 9y agoI don’t know about the rules, but the comment is certainly uninteresting. It’s getting downvoted currently, which is nice.
- austincheney 9y agoIt is only research if it is presented with evidence. Challenging unsubstantiated claims is generally how truth is achieved... according to JS Mills.
- austincheney 9y agoI am not going to give you a citation for missing knowledge. Grow up. Consider the Drake Equation[1]. This equation was created to stimulate conversation. It was never intended for scientific merit, but this doesn't stop people from looking at evidence and then making unsubstantiated guesses about things. People can guess and theorize all they want, but in the absence of evidence any guess is crude. So, lets talk about it in terms of numbers. Between 2000-3000 years ago how many species went extinct rounded down to the nearest 1000? In the past ten years how many species have gone extinct rounded down to the nearest 50? You must have some kind of numbers, based upon something, that serve as the presented basis of comparison. Without evidence of numbers you are simply making an extremely crude guess. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
- TaylorAlexander 9y agoWhoa, whoa, whoa, hold on there. You disagree with a claim in the article. Someone replies asking you to cite evidence for your opinion. And you respond telling them you’re not going to do the research for them? Why would you even make the claim of disagreement in the first comment if you can’t already provide information to back it up? I like that after you refuse to support your own claims, you then tell the person to grow up. Awesome.
- austincheney 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence What is the scientific process to prove something doesn't exist? What is evidence of a thing that isn't?
- behringer 9y agoSo you can't cite a single source that evidence does not exist for present and historical species counts and yet there are entire books dedicated to said topic (supposedly, perhaps parent could list some). You should probably think about that for a while before you continue to respond.
- ianai 9y agohttps://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-timeline-of-the-mass-extinction-events-on-earth.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-timeline-of-the-mass... They use fossil dating methods, core samples, and way more things than I’d know.
- austincheney 9y agoI am thinking if the scientist in the article were comparing extinctions of recent years to mass extinction events his numbers would be radically different. He is comparing extinctions of modern times with the natural extinction rate of prior historical epochs. The theme of the conversation is that species naturally go extinct all the time, but now in the age of industrial man the rate of extinction is much faster. This is likely a valid and accurate claim, but associating this claim with comparative quantities is not scientific.
- haZard_OS 9y agoI suggest you take great caution before casting aside entire analytical approaches used by scientists. Remember that intellectual humility is also part of being a good skeptic.
- insickness 9y agoThis is what's called an appeal to authority. Caution should not be taken in questioning scientific claims. It should happen continuously and vigorously.
- austincheney 9y ago> take great caution Why should I be afraid? People should not feel afraid to engage in science.