Convergence

[UC]

Wow....this is amazing!

Which of these xerophytes is a cactus and which one is a euphorbia?

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images/conevo2b.jpg

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/convevol.htm

[Richard Norman]

Biology really is quite an impressive field. You should learn about
it someday. I mean, really learn some. Not just dabble.

And not you, UC, in particular. Everybody!

(Fill up those classrooms and help get another biologist employed!)

[UC]

On Jun 27, 6:17 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:07:14 -0700 (PDT), UC
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Wow....this is amazing!
>
> >Which of these xerophytes is a cactus and which one is a euphorbia?
>
> >http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images/conevo2b.jpg
>
> >http://waynesword.palomar.edu/convevol.htm
>
> Biology really is quite an impressive field.  You should learn about
> it someday.  I mean, really learn some.  Not just dabble.
>
> And not you, UC, in particular.  Everybody!
>
> (Fill up those classrooms and help get another biologist employed!)

So, why don't they take endangered African animals and transport them
to South America? Same with Arctic and Antarctic animals?

[Richard Norman]

Because South America has restrictive immigration laws? Maybe we
could just swap so that Africa gets the endanged South American ones
in exchange! Put them all in zoos where they will be very happy!

I did suggest you really, really learn some biology. We just recently
had a discussion here about who's stupid introduction of foreign
invasive species has caused the most ecological, agricultural, and
economic damage. That, plus the realization that the human factors
that caused the endangerment don't get solved by moving a few animals
around. That plus a zillion other facts that you haven't bothered to
think about.

[chris thompson]

On Jun 27, 6:17 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:07:14 -0700 (PDT), UC
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Wow....this is amazing!
>
> >Which of these xerophytes is a cactus and which one is a euphorbia?
>
> >http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images/conevo2b.jpg
>
> >http://waynesword.palomar.edu/convevol.htm
>
> Biology really is quite an impressive field.  You should learn about
> it someday.  I mean, really learn some.  Not just dabble.
>
> And not you, UC, in particular.  Everybody!
>
> (Fill up those classrooms and help get another biologist employed!)

I despair. This summer I have a Bio class for non-majors. You might
not meet 23 more likable kids. But oh, oh, getting the simplest
concept through to them is darn near impossible.

Granted, when I was required to take Economics as an undergrad, my
prof probably thought the same thing about me.

Chris

[Richard Norman]

I taught the same bunch with the same despair. Intro for majors is
not a lot better -- those are pretty much all pre-med with no hope of
achieving that goal. Find the one or two people in the class who are
really interested and watch them react to the really good stuff.

Then when you get the paycheck you despair even more about how paltry
it is. Still, you do get the paycheck and there are those who don't.

Certainly you know the tricks about getting through it easier!
Oversimplify. Spice up your lectures with the sex lives of assorted
animals, plants, and fungi Instead of assigning one paper, put two on
the syllabus and then, halfway through the class, announce "you are
all working so hard and doing so well I think I'll drop that second
paper!" (You have to wait a couple of years before pulling that one a
second time. They talk to each other about their courses.)

[SkyEyes]

I can't speak to South America, but they have hundreds of thousands of
endangered African animals in *Texas*.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/27/2012 06:46 PM, chris thompson wrote:
> On Jun 27, 6:17 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:07:14 -0700 (PDT), UC
>>
>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Wow....this is amazing!
>>
>>> Which of these xerophytes is a cactus and which one is a euphorbia?
>>
>>> http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images/conevo2b.jpg
>>
>>> http://waynesword.palomar.edu/convevol.htm
>>
>> Biology really is quite an impressive field. You should learn about
>> it someday. I mean, really learn some. Not just dabble.
>>
>> And not you, UC, in particular. Everybody!
>>
>> (Fill up those classrooms and help get another biologist employed!)
>
> I despair. This summer I have a Bio class for non-majors. You might
> not meet 23 more likable kids. But oh, oh, getting the simplest
> concept through to them is darn near impossible.

I recall having to retake freshman biology as my credit didn't transfer
from another school. For me it was a cakewalk at the time, since I had
taken so many advanced classes. For the newbies in the large auditorium
class it was trial by fire. I remember asking the GTAs teaching the lab
some pretty advanced questions which made them do a double take.

> Granted, when I was required to take Economics as an undergrad, my
> prof probably thought the same thing about me.

At least biology is grounded in reality.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/27/2012 07:06 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:46:02 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
> <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 27, 6:17 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:07:14 -0700 (PDT), UC
>>>
>>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Wow....this is amazing!
>>>
>>>> Which of these xerophytes is a cactus and which one is a euphorbia?
>>>
>>>> http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images/conevo2b.jpg
>>>
>>>> http://waynesword.palomar.edu/convevol.htm
>>>
>>> Biology really is quite an impressive field. You should learn about
>>> it someday. I mean, really learn some. Not just dabble.
>>>
>>> And not you, UC, in particular. Everybody!
>>>
>>> (Fill up those classrooms and help get another biologist employed!)
>>
>> I despair. This summer I have a Bio class for non-majors. You might
>> not meet 23 more likable kids. But oh, oh, getting the simplest
>> concept through to them is darn near impossible.
>>
>> Granted, when I was required to take Economics as an undergrad, my
>> prof probably thought the same thing about me.
>
> I taught the same bunch with the same despair. Intro for majors is
> not a lot better -- those are pretty much all pre-med with no hope of
> achieving that goal. Find the one or two people in the class who are
> really interested and watch them react to the really good stuff.

Premed? Yuck. I wonder how many go on to complain about the mathematics
of the mutation and selection phenomenon on usenet.

I could pick premeds out of the crowd in the ecology lab I was taking.
They were the ones whining about getting their shoes wet. Yet now some
might be driving BMWs and Lexi and be upside down on the mortgage of
their mansions.

[Arkalen]

... because South America already contains animals ? Many of which are
also endangered for that matter ?

And the Arctic and Antarctic are two completely different environments;
one is an ocean surrounded by land and the other is land surrounded by
ocean.

[UC]

Polar bears in the Antarctic? Penguins in the Arctic? Why not?

Why not gorillas in the Amazon? I bet they would flourish!

[Richard Norman]

And your opinion is based on exactly what actual knowledge you have
about either gorillas or the Amazon?

[Arkalen]

And how about rabbits in Australia ? Or cats in New Zealand ? I really
can't see anything wrong with these plans, let's do it already !

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:26:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

Your question illustrates the reason why Richard's
suggestion that you learn some biology is a good one; a few
classes specifically dedicated to ecology (which is a
different but related subject) would also be of benefit.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:31:20 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

Assuming you're not being facetious, your post is a prime
illustration of why "invasive species" has become such an
obscenity; those in the past with more money than brains did
their unthinking best to make it so.

[UC]

On Jun 28, 12:58 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:31:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

I don't think gorillas in the Amazon would get to be a problem. I
already considered it.

[Arkalen]

But of course you did. What was you reasoning, what evidence did you use
to support it and where did you get this evidence, what are the
projected results of your proposed introduction and what are the error
bars on those ?

One the "learn about biology" theme, do you know the term "competitive
exclusion" and what do you know about it ?

[UC]

Yes, I imagine it would mean that gorillas would have no competitors
in the Amazon, but that would not be quite true. It astounds me that
no-one has suggested this.

[Arkalen]

Thank you for giving me the chance to try out this smiley I've seen
online but never thought to use myself :
m-(

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:31:20 -0700, UC wrote:

> On Jun 28, 7:52 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> On 27/06/12 23:26, UC wrote:

<snip>

> Polar bears in the Antarctic?

Do you think there's a reason polar bears carry the name "Ursus maritimus" or "sea bear"?

> Penguins in the Arctic? Why not?

No safe places to lay eggs? Polar foxes? Ursus maritimus?

> Why not gorillas in the Amazon? I bet they would flourish!

I'd bet all of them would die within a year. Surviving in the wild
does take a shitload of knowledge concerning plants: which are edible, which are not?
Most plants in the Amazon are HIGHLY toxic.

[Richard Norman]

As long as this thread is titled "Convergence" perhaps I should
mention the Antarctic convergence, a geological and meteorological and
ecological feature of enormous importance. Clearly UC is quite
ignorant of this extremely significant difference between the two
earthly poles.

Of course, there are penguins in South Africa and even equatorial
penguins in the Galapagos so it is not impossible for penguins to
eventually adapt to produce Arctic species.

[Arkalen]

(2012/06/29 23:03), Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:31:20 -0700, UC wrote:
>
>> On Jun 28, 7:52 am, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>> On 27/06/12 23:26, UC wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Polar bears in the Antarctic?
>
> Do you think there's a reason polar bears carry the name "Ursus maritimus" or "sea bear"?

Why would UC know that ? Is he claiming to be in anyway informed on the
question or something ? Also, why would UC know the relevance of this to
his suggestion ?

>
>> Penguins in the Arctic? Why not?
>
> No safe places to lay eggs? Polar foxes? Ursus maritimus?

All the polar bears have been moved to the Antarctic. BOY are you dense.
And polar foxes, LOL. Their red color would totally make them too
vulnerable to survive against the white snowy background ! /very_informed_UC

>
>> Why not gorillas in the Amazon? I bet they would flourish!
>
> I'd bet all of them would die within a year. Surviving in the wild
> does take a shitload of knowledge concerning plants: which are edible, which are not?
> Most plants in the Amazon are HIGHLY toxic.
>

I'm sure UC took that into account. UC ?

[Arkalen]

(2012/06/29 23:41), Richard Norman wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:03:45 +0000 (UTC), Kleuskes& Moos

Sincere question from someone who looked up some ecology matters for a
professional reason and found little consensus on the matter :
Would the survival, adaptation and flourishing (or at least persistence,
which I would argue comes to the same thing but I could be wrong) of
penguins in the Arctic imply the reduction or extinction of other Arctic
species ?
Thanks.

(hey, you know, I got this brilliant idea : polar bears are having more
trouble surviving in the Arctic, right. And penguins are having trouble
in the Antarctic. Well. Would INTRODUCING PENGUINS TO THE ARCTIC HELP
POLAR BEARS FLOURISH ??? I am a genius)

UC : have you watched the BBC documentary "Frozen Planet" ?

[UC]

On Jun 29, 11:05 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> (2012/06/29 23:41), Richard Norman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:03:45 +0000 (UTC), Kleuskes&  Moos

> > <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>  wrote:

yes, perhaps it would. More food!

[UC]

On Jun 29, 10:03 am, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:31:20 -0700, UC wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 7:52 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> >> On 27/06/12 23:26, UC wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Polar bears in the Antarctic?
>
> Do you think there's a reason polar bears carry the name "Ursus maritimus" or "sea bear"?

Don't follow.

>
> > Penguins in the Arctic? Why not?
>
> No safe places to lay eggs? Polar foxes? Ursus maritimus?
>
> > Why not gorillas in the Amazon? I bet they would flourish!
>
> I'd bet all of them would die within a year. Surviving in the wild
> does take a shitload of knowledge concerning plants: which are edible, which are not?
> Most plants in the Amazon are HIGHLY toxic.

Well they would learn, would they not? Are not African plants also
toxic?

[Arkalen]

... or perhaps it wouldn't because seals and killer whales would profit
from all the additional food and the reduction of sea ice would screw
over both the polar bears AND the penguins in equal proportion.

Seriously, does it even occur to you these kinds of question might
require a minimum of thought and (lol) knowledge of the processes at work ?

(and screw you for making me argue against my own brilliant ideas)

(also, have you even noticed that this plan promotes the survival of
penguin species not at all ?)

>>
>> UC : have you watched the BBC documentary "Frozen Planet" ?
>

Have you ? It includes some info as to what the problems are exactly
that polar bears and penguins are facing.

[Richard Norman]

Penguins would have a lot of trouble where land predators are
abundant. Besides the many land mammals, I think there are also far
more large predatory birds in the Arctic. I also think there are far
more competitors eating fish and krill in the Arctic. Whether arctic
penguins could outcompete and therefore drive out competition is
another story: a colony of a few thousand would not do the job. As to
the penguins providing a nice source of food for the bears: the chicks
and eggs would be an excellent source but penguins in the water would
be safe.

The real question is the reason for endangerment of all these species.
Given that it is almost always human infuence: hunting, pollution,
habitat destruction, competition from fishing, disruption of normal
behavior patterns, results of climate change ... there are few places
in the world you could relocate any species where it would not also
face the same problems. And you could better create reserves free of
these problems in the native habitats than try to establish artificial
ones elsewhere.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:34:08 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>I don't think gorillas in the Amazon would get to be a problem. I
>already considered it.

You considered it... Oh, well then obviously it would be OK.

So now in addition to being the world's premier authority on
language you fill the same post in ecology, biology and the
environment?

*Jesus*, you're arrogant!

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:44:51 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>On Jun 29, 10:03 am, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:31:20 -0700, UC wrote:
>> > On Jun 28, 7:52 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> >> On 27/06/12 23:26, UC wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Polar bears in the Antarctic?
>>
>> Do you think there's a reason polar bears carry the name "Ursus maritimus" or "sea bear"?
>
>Don't follow.

*There's* a news flash...

>> > Penguins in the Arctic? Why not?
>>
>> No safe places to lay eggs? Polar foxes? Ursus maritimus?
>>
>> > Why not gorillas in the Amazon? I bet they would flourish!
>>
>> I'd bet all of them would die within a year. Surviving in the wild
>> does take a shitload of knowledge concerning plants: which are edible, which are not?
>> Most plants in the Amazon are HIGHLY toxic.
>
>Well they would learn, would they not? Are not African plants also
>toxic?

Or we could let them eat cake!

Do yourself a favor and stick to linguistics, where at least
your ignorance isn't exposed *quite* so dramatically.

[UC]

On Jun 29, 2:15 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>
> >> Do you think there's a reason polar bears carry the name "Ursus maritimus" or "sea bear"?
>
> >Don't follow.
>
> *There's* a news flash...

Plenty of sea around Antarctica:

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/polar/antarcz.gif

> >> > Penguins in the Arctic? Why not?
>
> >> No safe places to lay eggs? Polar foxes? Ursus maritimus?

Lots of land inside the arctic circle:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Arctic_circle.svg/478px-Arctic_circle.svg.png

>
> >> > Why not gorillas in the Amazon? I bet they would flourish!
>
> >> I'd bet all of them would die within a year. Surviving in the wild
> >> does take a shitload of knowledge concerning plants: which are edible, which are not?
> >> Most plants in the Amazon are HIGHLY toxic.
>
> >Well they would learn, would they not? Are not African plants also
> >toxic?
>
> Or we could let them eat cake!

Chocolate?

>
> Do yourself a favor and stick to linguistics, where at least
> your ignorance isn't exposed *quite* so dramatically.

No, I think this would 'fly'

Nyuk nyuk nyuk

[Arkalen]

On 29/06/12 20:59, UC wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2:15 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> Do you think there's a reason polar bears carry the name "Ursus maritimus" or "sea bear"?
>>
>>> Don't follow.
>>
>> *There's* a news flash...
>
> Plenty of sea around Antarctica:
>
> http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/polar/antarcz.gif

And how much of it is frozen, compared to the Arctic ?

>
>>>>> Penguins in the Arctic? Why not?
>>
>>>> No safe places to lay eggs? Polar foxes? Ursus maritimus?
>
> Lots of land inside the arctic circle:

And how much of it is occupied by polar foxes ? And Ursus maritimus
hungrily waiting for the summer to end and the sea to freeze again ?

>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Arctic_circle.svg/478px-Arctic_circle.svg.png
>
>>
>>>>> Why not gorillas in the Amazon? I bet they would flourish!
>>
>>>> I'd bet all of them would die within a year. Surviving in the wild
>>>> does take a shitload of knowledge concerning plants: which are edible, which are not?
>>>> Most plants in the Amazon are HIGHLY toxic.
>>
>>> Well they would learn, would they not? Are not African plants also
>>> toxic?
>>
>> Or we could let them eat cake!
>
> Chocolate?

Are you sure it isn't poisonous to them ?

>
>>
>> Do yourself a favor and stick to linguistics, where at least
>> your ignorance isn't exposed *quite* so dramatically.
>
> No, I think this would 'fly'
>
> Nyuk nyuk nyuk
>

Yeah, we're totally laughing *with* you here...

[UC]

On Jun 29, 4:05 pm, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> On 29/06/12 20:59, UC wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 2:15 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >>>> Do you think there's a reason polar bears carry the name "Ursus maritimus" or "sea bear"?
>
> >>> Don't follow.
>
> >> *There's* a news flash...
>
> > Plenty of sea around Antarctica:
>
> >http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/polar/antarcz.gif
>
> And how much of it is frozen, compared to the Arctic ?
>
>
>
> >>>>> Penguins in the Arctic? Why not?
>
> >>>> No safe places to lay eggs? Polar foxes? Ursus maritimus?
>
> > Lots of land inside the arctic circle:
>
> And how much of it is occupied by polar foxes ? And Ursus maritimus
> hungrily waiting for the summer to end and the sea to freeze again ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Arctic_circl...

>
> >>>>> Why not gorillas in the Amazon? I bet they would flourish!
>
> >>>> I'd bet all of them would die within a year. Surviving in the wild
> >>>> does take a shitload of knowledge concerning plants: which are edible, which are not?
> >>>> Most plants in the Amazon are HIGHLY toxic.
>
> >>> Well they would learn, would they not? Are not African plants also
> >>> toxic?
>
> >> Or we could let them eat cake!
>
> > Chocolate?
>
> Are you sure it isn't poisonous to them ?
>
>
>
> >> Do yourself a favor and stick to linguistics, where at least
> >> your ignorance isn't exposed *quite* so dramatically.
>
> > No, I think this would 'fly'
>
> > Nyuk nyuk nyuk
>
> Yeah, we're totally laughing *with* you here...

It's obviously not a 'slam-bang' thing, but I am reasonably sure that
at least some Arctic species would do well in the Antarctic and vice
versa.

[Arkalen]

That's not the question. The question is whether they would do *better*
in the other pole than in their native one, and whether their
introduction to that other pole wouldn't make *other* species there do
worse.

[UC]

I do understand that.

[Arkalen]

Great. So what's your evidence for being reasonably sure any of those
things are true ?

[UC]

Well, honestly, much of these environments is similar, probably more
similar than more hospitable parts of Earth. Are not seals found at
both poles?

http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/downey/project/seals.html

Arctic seals face predation from polar bears, but antarctic ones do
not. It might be a good idea to bring some Arctic seals too....

[Frank J]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:17:16 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:07:14 -0700 (PDT), UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Wow....this is amazing!
> >
> >Which of these xerophytes is a cactus and which one is a euphorbia?
> >
> >http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images/conevo2b.jpg
> >
> >http://waynesword.palomar.edu/convevol.htm
>
> Biology really is quite an impressive field. You should learn about
> it someday. I mean, really learn some. Not just dabble.
>
> And not you, UC, in particular. Everybody!
>
> (Fill up those classrooms and help get another biologist employed!)

Had I been born 30-40 years later, I would have majored in biology with chemistry (my field) as a minor.

[UC]

On Jun 29, 4:54 pm, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:

Well here's some info on it:

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/07/species_relocation?currentPage=all

[Richard Norman]

Did you read that citation about the terrible consequences of species
relocation?

[UC]

> >http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/07/species_relocat...

>
> Did you read that citation about the terrible consequences of species
> relocation?

But some experts are talking about it.

[Richard Norman]

If you read your own citation, you find some experts talking about it
intelligently with far more experts aghast at the notion.

If you read t.o., you find some total novices talking about it but
having absolutely no idea what the issues are or what it is about and
a number of people who do have some good idea about the issues aghast
at the notion.

[UC]

On Jun 29, 6:18 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:03:33 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well I am not sure that it would be a bad idea. Most 'invasive species
horror stories' do not involve large species, but small ones that
reproduce quickly. It does not take a genius to know this. Polar bears
would not breed that fast, and if necessary, some could be killed off.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/29/12 8:05 AM, Arkalen wrote:
> [...]

> Sincere question from someone who looked up some ecology matters for a
> professional reason and found little consensus on the matter :
> Would the survival, adaptation and flourishing (or at least persistence,
> which I would argue comes to the same thing but I could be wrong) of
> penguins in the Arctic imply the reduction or extinction of other Arctic
> species ?

I would guess not (with the exception given below). Auks were once
common in the arctic, and penguins and auks are somewhat similar
ecologically.

Of course, the same thing that killed the auks would kill the penguins,
so if the penguins thrived, that would imply that there had been a
significant reduction in the human population.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[jillery]

Do dromedary camels qualify as large to you? They were introduced to
Australia in the 19th century. Their numbers have increased enough in
that short time to cause severe loss of vegetation in the areas they
occupy.

Do burmese pythons qualify as large to you. They escaped into the
Florida Everglades after Hurricane Andrew, and are now so numerous
they risk making extinct most of the other animals there.

These are just two examples I know about. I could specify many others
with a little effort, but I assume it wouldn't make any difference to
you.

Do you ever research what you write before you post it?

[UC]

On Jun 30, 3:09 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:16:40 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Not really. I was talking about polar bears (in Antarctica), gorillas
(in the Amazon), etc.

>They escaped into the
> Florida Everglades after Hurricane Andrew, and are now so numerous
> they risk making extinct most of the other animals there.

Ho hum. they could have arrived on a drifting mat of vegetation 100
years ago too. There is no true 'native species' anywhere, just the
most recent one.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:36:11 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
(in article <4dnou717sp7teahkt...@4ax.com>):

> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:31:20 -0700 (PDT), UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 28, 7:52 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>> On 27/06/12 23:26, UC wrote:
>>>

>>>> On Jun 27, 6:17 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:07:14 -0700 (PDT), UC

>>>
>>>>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Wow....this is amazing!
>>>
>>>>>> Which of these xerophytes is a cactus and which one is a euphorbia?
>>>
>>>>>> http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images/conevo2b.jpg
>>>
>>>>>> http://waynesword.palomar.edu/convevol.htm
>>>
>>>>> Biology really is quite an impressive field.  You should learn about
>>>>> it someday.  I mean, really learn some.  Not just dabble.
>>>
>>>>> And not you, UC, in particular.  Everybody!
>>>
>>>>> (Fill up those classrooms and help get another biologist employed!)
>>>

>>>> So, why don't they take endangered African animals and transport them
>>>> to South America? Same with Arctic and Antarctic animals?
>>>
>>> ... because South America already contains animals ? Many of which are
>>> also endangered for that matter ?
>>>
>>> And the Arctic and Antarctic are two completely different environments;
>>> one is an ocean surrounded by land and the other is land surrounded by
>>> ocean.
>>

>> Polar bears in the Antarctic? Penguins in the Arctic? Why not?

>>
>> Why not gorillas in the Amazon? I bet they would flourish!
>

> And your opinion is based on exactly what actual knowledge you have
> about either gorillas or the Amazon?
>

He heard that there was a guerrilla war going on in Colombia, and applied his
typical reading comprehension problem, lack of logic, and brain-dead language
skills.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:59:32 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

I'm sure you do, which is what prompted my suggestion.

>Nyuk nyuk nyuk

[jillery]

So your assertion that "Most 'invasive species horror stories' do not
involve large species" is just another one of your irrelevant jokes. I
admit I have trouble noticing any difference.

[jillery]

Sounds plausible to me.

[chris thompson]

On Jun 30, 3:09 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:16:40 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On top of that, what UC considers "small" is obviously vastly
different from what biologists consider small. The Cane Toad, for
example, definitely counts as a "large" amphibian, and it's wreaked
havoc in Australia- where it was deliberately introduced to control an
insect pest of sugar cane.

And mongoose are not considered a "small mammal" (nor are they a
"large mammal", within the limits of subjective evaluation of course)
but they've likewise brought several species in Hawaii to the brink of
extinction...another deliberate human introduction.

Chris

[UC]

On Jun 30, 10:46 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I was indeed think of the Cane Toad as a 'small' animal.

[chris thompson]

On Jun 30, 1:36 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 3:09 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

snip

>
> > Do burmese pythons qualify as large to you.
>
> Not really. I was talking about polar bears (in Antarctica), gorillas
> (in the Amazon), etc.

Burmese pythons aren't large?

Sigh. It's too much to hope for that you're joking.

>
> >They escaped into the
> > Florida Everglades after Hurricane Andrew, and are now so numerous
> > they risk making extinct most of the other animals there.
>
> Ho hum. they could have arrived on a drifting mat of vegetation 100
> years ago too. There is no true 'native species' anywhere, just the
> most recent one.

So European Starlings, introduced to North America in the 1800's, are
just as native to North America as the Eastern Bluebird, which became
highly endangered as a result of that introduction?

Please, please see a doctor ASAP. Your cranio-rectal impaction has
become acute.

Chris

[chris thompson]

On Jun 27, 7:06 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:46:02 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 27, 6:17 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:07:14 -0700 (PDT), UC

>
> >> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Wow....this is amazing!
>
> >> >Which of these xerophytes is a cactus and which one is a euphorbia?
>
> >> >http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images/conevo2b.jpg
>
> >> >http://waynesword.palomar.edu/convevol.htm
>
> >> Biology really is quite an impressive field.  You should learn about
> >> it someday.  I mean, really learn some.  Not just dabble.
>
> >> And not you, UC, in particular.  Everybody!
>
> >> (Fill up those classrooms and help get another biologist employed!)
>

> >I despair. This summer I have a Bio class for non-majors. You might
> >not meet 23 more likable kids. But oh, oh, getting the simplest
> >concept through to them is darn near impossible.
>
> >Granted, when I was required to take Economics as an undergrad, my
> >prof probably thought the same thing about me.
>
> I taught the same bunch with the same despair.  Intro for majors is
> not a lot better -- those are pretty much all pre-med with no hope of
> achieving that goal.  Find the one or two people in the class who are
> really interested and watch them react to the really good stuff.

Most of my majors students are pre-nursing, rather than pre-med, but
it's the same story. I had a pre-nursing student one year- mind you,
this is someone who's supposed to check med dosages- who literally
could not explain the relation between 1/10 and 0.1.

On the other hand, there are gems. I had a guy who routinely corrected
me on human medical topics- which I welcomed every time. Turned out he
was a Coast Guard Corpsman. ("Dammit, Jim, I'm a biologist, not a
doctor!") He was angling for entry into a Physician's Assistant
program. I talked him out of it, wrote him a glowing letter, and last
time he contacted me, he was in his last year of medical school. Those
are the ones you hope for.

>
> Then when you get the paycheck you despair even more about how paltry
> it is.  Still, you do get the paycheck and there are those who don't.
>
> Certainly you know the tricks about getting through it easier!

I am learning them. Life is a little easier for me, since the
publishers all realize that charging $300 for a text is soon to be a
thing of the past. Now they charge half that for an electronic version
and include all sorts of bells and whistles on CD/DVD for the
instructor. (That's great as far as it goes, but there's still a large
body of students for whom "chalk and talk" works better, so I combine
them).

One of the best I've found is a "Jeopardy" type game that reviews the
main points of each chapter. The kids love it and compete with one
another.

> Oversimplify.  Spice up your lectures with the sex lives of assorted

Heh. When I lectured about simple sugars, they loved the fact that
semen is rich in fructose.

> animals, plants, and fungi  Instead of assigning one paper, put two on
> the syllabus and then, halfway through the class, announce "you are
> all working so hard and doing so well I think I'll drop that second
> paper!"  (You have to wait a couple of years before pulling that one a
> second time.  They talk to each other about their courses.)

Now that one I never knew. Thanks- I will use it in Fall!

Chris

[chris thompson]

On Jun 28, 6:55 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 06/27/2012 07:06 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:46:02 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
> > <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Jun 27, 6:17 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:07:14 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
> >>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Wow....this is amazing!
>
> >>>> Which of these xerophytes is a cactus and which one is a euphorbia?
>
> >>>>http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images/conevo2b.jpg
>
> >>>>http://waynesword.palomar.edu/convevol.htm
>
> >>> Biology really is quite an impressive field.  You should learn about
> >>> it someday.  I mean, really learn some.  Not just dabble.
>
> >>> And not you, UC, in particular.  Everybody!
>
> >>> (Fill up those classrooms and help get another biologist employed!)
>
> >> I despair. This summer I have a Bio class for non-majors. You might
> >> not meet 23 more likable kids. But oh, oh, getting the simplest
> >> concept through to them is darn near impossible.
>
> >> Granted, when I was required to take Economics as an undergrad, my
> >> prof probably thought the same thing about me.
>
> > I taught the same bunch with the same despair.  Intro for majors is
> > not a lot better -- those are pretty much all pre-med with no hope of
> > achieving that goal.  Find the one or two people in the class who are
> > really interested and watch them react to the really good stuff.
>

> Premed? Yuck. I wonder how many go on to complain about the mathematics
> of the mutation and selection phenomenon on usenet.
>
> I could pick premeds out of the crowd in the ecology lab I was taking.
> They were the ones whining about getting their shoes wet. Yet now some
> might be driving BMWs and Lexi and be upside down on the mortgage of
> their mansions.

ROFL! I had a student show up for a field trip in a dress and heels-
we were hiking over some of the hilliest ground in New York City
(Inwood Hill Park, if you want to Google it). She was not pre-med so
this might not apply...but she never ONCE complained. She got dirty
and grubby like every other student, clothes be damned. She has a good
full-time job but she's teaching part-time at the community college
where I am full-time, and if there's ever a chance to put in a word on
her behalf, I take it.

Chris

[UC]

On Jun 30, 10:51 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > > you.

> > > Do you ever research what you write before you post it?

Species migrate, sometimes there are physical obstacles that hinder
this. There is no difference in principle between naturally occurring
and other spread of species. How did the Galapagos animals get there?

Not all 'alien' species thrive in new environments. That is a myth.

Pythons are not large mammals like polar bears or gorillas, but for
snakes they can get pretty big.

[chris thompson]

Well, you're wrong- especially as far as Amphibians are concerned.

As far as mammals:
Set aside your human perspective, because humans are a really, really
big animal. Don't be comparing us to giraffes or hippos or Cape
Buffalo. Compare us to the vast majority of animals on the planet.
Think rodents (the largest of which, the capybara, barely tops 40 Kg),
or bats (the largest of which might hit 2 KG on a good day) and you'll
see that what you think is small, is actually pretty darned big.

And those are the two most speciose Orders of mammal on the planet.


Chris

PS: As a side note, whenever one of my students talks about how he/she
sees a mouse and freaks out, I ask the person, "How do you think that
mouse feels when it sees you? You're a gazillion feet tall and the
mouse is what? A centimeter?"

[UC]

On Jun 30, 11:28 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>

Well I was thinking of the big cats, polar bears, and gorillas,
specifically.

[chris thompson]

Which, as far as size is concerned, are the exception rather than the
rule. Those aren't just "large" animals, they're huge compared to the
vast majority of animals out there.

Chris

[chris thompson]

I didn't write the text you seem to have attributed to me.

Pythons aren't any kind of mammal, large, medium or small (I think you
know that, but your writing is unclear).

They're some of the largest snakes, and they're a hell of a lot bigger
than 99% of the mammals on the planet.

Chris

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 08:33:55 -0400, chris thompson wrote
(in article
<a829f408-2457-4e1a...@d24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):

> On Jun 30, 11:27 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 10:51 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> you.
>>>>> Do you ever research what you write before you post it?
>>
>> Species migrate, sometimes there are physical obstacles that hinder
>> this. There is no difference in principle between naturally occurring
>> and other spread of species. How did the Galapagos animals get there?
>>
>> Not all 'alien' species thrive in new environments. That is a myth.
>>
>> Pythons are not large mammals like polar bears or gorillas, but for
>> snakes they can get pretty big.
>
> I didn't write the text you seem to have attributed to me.
>
> Pythons aren't any kind of mammal, large, medium or small (I think you
> know that, but your writing is unclear).

No-one, including UC, can figure out what he means.

>
> They're some of the largest snakes, and they're a hell of a lot bigger
> than 99% of the mammals on the planet.

No kidding. Reticulated pythons are, allegedly, the world's longest snakes
(and also the longest reptiles, period)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reticulated_Python>. Rock pythons are Africa's
longest snakes. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_sebae> Burmese pythons
are around the same size. There are seven python species still around; three
of them are in the top five largest snake species and the others aren't that
far back.

Anyone who thinks that pythons are anything except large animals has serious
problems. Oh. Wait. It's UC. Carry on, then, we already knew that he has
serious problems.

>
> Chris

[Attila]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:44:51 -0700 (PDT), the following

> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
>

>>On Jun 29, 10:03 am, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
>>wrote:

>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:31:20 -0700, UC wrote:
>>> > On Jun 28, 7:52 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>> >> On 27/06/12 23:26, UC wrote:
>>>

>>> <snip>

>>>
>>> > Polar bears in the Antarctic?
>>>

>>> Do you think there's a reason polar bears carry the name "Ursus
>>> maritimus" or "sea bear"?
>>
>>Don't follow.
>
> *There's* a news flash...
>

>>> > Penguins in the Arctic? Why not?
>>>
>>> No safe places to lay eggs? Polar foxes? Ursus maritimus?
>>>

>>> > Why not gorillas in the Amazon? I bet they would flourish!
>>>
>>> I'd bet all of them would die within a year. Surviving in the wild
>>> does take a shitload of knowledge concerning plants: which are
edible,
>>> which are not? Most plants in the Amazon are HIGHLY toxic.
>>
>>Well they would learn, would they not? Are not African plants also
>>toxic?
>
> Or we could let them eat cake!
>

> Do yourself a favor and stick to linguistics, where at least
> your ignorance isn't exposed *quite* so dramatically.

Trust me, Bab, it is. Please don't try to palm him off on us.
This is but one sample:
> This is semantics, not linguistics. Linguistics refers to language
> structure. Semantics refers to meaning.
And compare that claim to the following:
http://linguistics.utoronto.ca/graduates/applications.html

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/30/12 8:07 PM, chris thompson wrote:
> On Jun 27, 7:06 pm, Richard Norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> [snip ... re teaching]

>> Certainly you know the tricks about getting through it easier!
>
> I am learning them. Life is a little easier for me, since the
> publishers all realize that charging $300 for a text is soon to be a
> thing of the past. Now they charge half that for an electronic version
> and include all sorts of bells and whistles on CD/DVD for the
> instructor. (That's great as far as it goes, but there's still a large
> body of students for whom "chalk and talk" works better, so I combine
> them).

One of the most interesting facts I learned in calculus class: If you
twist a piece of chalk, it breaks in a 45-degree helix. That had our
attention until the chalk pieces were small fragments. Probably won't
work well with whiteboard markers, though.

[Richard Norman]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:07:25 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:

>On 6/30/12 8:07 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 7:06 pm, Richard Norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> [snip ... re teaching]
>>> Certainly you know the tricks about getting through it easier!
>>
>> I am learning them. Life is a little easier for me, since the
>> publishers all realize that charging $300 for a text is soon to be a
>> thing of the past. Now they charge half that for an electronic version
>> and include all sorts of bells and whistles on CD/DVD for the
>> instructor. (That's great as far as it goes, but there's still a large
>> body of students for whom "chalk and talk" works better, so I combine
>> them).
>
>One of the most interesting facts I learned in calculus class: If you
>twist a piece of chalk, it breaks in a 45-degree helix. That had our
>attention until the chalk pieces were small fragments. Probably won't
>work well with whiteboard markers, though.

So that's why I always had just a bunch of little scraps of chalk to
teach with!

[UC]

but those were the ones I had in mind

[UC]

On Jul 1, 9:21 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:44:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

I was making a general observation, not writing a program description.
'Linguistics' is the study of language structure primarily.
'Semantics' is concerned more narrowly with the meanings of words.

[Ymir]

In article
<uranium-f7cc61a1-e034-...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.c
om>,

Linguistics is the study of _language_, which includes, but is not
limited to, structure.

> 'Semantics' is concerned more narrowly with the meanings of words.

Semantics is the branch of linguistics that concerns itself with
meaning. The meaning of words (lexical semantics) is only one part of
that.

Thus, your 'general observation' makes no more sense than "This is
addition, not arithmetic".

André

[UC]

On Jul 1, 3:38 pm, Ymir <agis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <uranium-f7cc61a1-e034-466e-af14-d9da021ed...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.c
> om>,

I understand. I was again not trying to write an essay.

[chris thompson]

Nice to know...but they are the exception rather than the rule.

You are letting your human-biased perspective get in the way of
reality. The reality is that humans are a really, really large animal,
whether we're talking about amphibians, reptiles, mammals, or fish.
We're just really freaking big.

Chris

[Attila]

Your general observation is false.

> 'Linguistics' is the study of language structure primarily.

And syntax is concerned more narrowly with the structure of sentences
and morphology is concerned more narrowly with the structure of words
and round and round and round we go.

> 'Semantics' is concerned more narrowly with the meanings of words.

No it isn't. Do a little reading please.

Is the word "whoops" not present in your vocabulary.

[UC]

OK, but I was talking about gorillas, polar bears, big cats...OK?

[chris thompson]

On Jun 28, 6:25 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 06/27/2012 06:46 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 6:17 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:07:14 -0700 (PDT), UC

>
> >> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Wow....this is amazing!
>
> >>> Which of these xerophytes is a cactus and which one is a euphorbia?
>
> >>>http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images/conevo2b.jpg
>
> >>>http://waynesword.palomar.edu/convevol.htm
>
> >> Biology really is quite an impressive field.  You should learn about
> >> it someday.  I mean, really learn some.  Not just dabble.
>
> >> And not you, UC, in particular.  Everybody!
>
> >> (Fill up those classrooms and help get another biologist employed!)
>
> > I despair. This summer I have a Bio class for non-majors. You might
> > not meet 23 more likable kids. But oh, oh, getting the simplest
> > concept through to them is darn near impossible.
>

> I recall having to retake freshman biology as my credit didn't transfer
> from another school. For me it was a cakewalk at the time, since I had
> taken so many advanced classes. For the newbies in the large auditorium
> class it was trial by fire. I remember asking the GTAs teaching the lab
> some pretty advanced questions which made them do a double take.
>

And GTA's (I assume you mean graduate teaching assistants) were more
than happy to give you more info than you wanted, if they knew
anything at all. Or if they didn't know anything:

http://twitpic.com/63lcfq/

(Hrummph) These days, all research is in molecular genetics. Don't get
me wrong- we NEED to know that stuff. But today, in the here and now,
it tells us nada about how species are going to survive, or interact
with other species.

Chris

> > Granted, when I was required to take Economics as an undergrad, my
> > prof probably thought the same thing about me.
>

> At least biology is grounded in reality.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 10:36:47 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>On Jun 30, 3:09 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:16:40 -0700 (PDT), UC
>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> >Most 'invasive species
>> >horror stories' do not involve large species, but small ones that
>> >reproduce quickly. It does not take a genius to know this. Polar bears
>> >would not breed that fast, and if necessary, some could be killed off.

>> Do dromedary camels qualify as large to you?  They were introduced to
>> Australia in the 19th century.  Their numbers have increased enough in
>> that short time to cause severe loss of vegetation in the areas they
>> occupy.

No response to the refutation of your assertion? Camels
*are* quite large. Nasty dispositions, too.

>> Do burmese pythons qualify as large to you.

>Not really. I was talking about polar bears (in Antarctica), gorillas
>(in the Amazon), etc.

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/burmese-python/

23 feet long, 200 pounds is "not large"? Interesting...

>>They escaped into the
>> Florida Everglades after Hurricane Andrew, and are now so numerous
>> they risk making extinct most of the other animals there.

>Ho hum. they could have arrived on a drifting mat of vegetation 100
>years ago too.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

Address the actual issue, if you can.

> There is no true 'native species' anywhere, just the
>most recent one.

True in a sense, the same warped sense in which there are no
"native peoples" outside Africa. Is that supposed to have
relevance to the issue?

>> These are just two examples I know about.  I could specify many others
>> with a little effort, but I assume it wouldn't make any difference to
>> you.
>>
>> Do you ever research what you write before you post it?

That would be a "No"; as he's commented in earlier posts he
*is* the source. Must be great to be an expert in all
things...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 15:21:22 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Attila <jdka...@gmail.com>:

"Bab"? ;-)

That aside, I'd argue that he's shown himself to be far more
inept in the fields of biology and ecology than in the field
of linguistics, but that could be due to the fact that I'm
not a linguist while I *do* know at least a bit about
science, something about which he's shown he knows
essentially nothing.

> Please don't try to palm him off on us.
>This is but one sample:
>> This is semantics, not linguistics. Linguistics refers to language
>> structure. Semantics refers to meaning.
>And compare that claim to the following:
>http://linguistics.utoronto.ca/graduates/applications.html

But he's a *recognized linguistics expert*! He says so all
the time! He even provides quotes of his "work" as
"evidence", and it can't get any more conclusive than that!

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 18:24:55 -0400, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article <b4j1v71naqqj2t29u...@4ax.com>):

>
> But he's a *recognized linguistics expert*! He says so all the time! He even
> provides quotes of his "work" as "evidence", and it can't get any more
> conclusive than that!

Has anyone been able to find any of his stuff anywhere by Googling on some of
the quotes? If none can be found, then:

1 his 'work' was never uploaded to the Internet

2 his 'work' is behind a paywall of some kind

3 his 'work' is completely made up.

I vote for #3.

If, by chance, someone _has_ been able to locate some of his 'work', please
let me know and I'll try to track down more, so that we can evaluate his
'work' in context.

This should be interesting.

[UC]

On Jul 1, 7:30 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 18:24:55 -0400, Bob Casanova wrote

> (in article <b4j1v71naqqj2t29utfr0qgvl8r28et...@4ax.com>):

>
>
>
> > But he's a *recognized linguistics expert*! He says so all the time! He even
> > provides quotes of his "work" as "evidence", and it can't get any more
> > conclusive than that!
>
> Has anyone been able to find any of his stuff anywhere by Googling on some of
> the quotes? If none can be found, then:
>
> 1 his 'work' was never uploaded to the Internet
>
> 2 his 'work' is behind a paywall of some kind
>
> 3 his 'work' is completely made up.
>
> I vote for #3.
>
> If, by chance, someone _has_ been able to locate some of his 'work', please
> let me know and I'll try to track down more, so that we can evaluate his
> 'work' in context.
>
> This should be interesting.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

It's not for the likes of you.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:33:41 -0400, UC wrote
(in article
<uranium-39400164-ad40-...@e7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):

As expected. I vote for #3. I really do.

[UC]

On Jul 1, 9:06 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:33:41 -0400, UC wrote
> (in article

> <uranium-39400164-ad40-4581-85f9-ed344a9f2...@e7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 7:30 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 18:24:55 -0400, Bob Casanova wrote
> >> (in article <b4j1v71naqqj2t29utfr0qgvl8r28et...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>> But he's a *recognized linguistics expert*! He says so all the time! He
> >>> even
> >>> provides quotes of his "work" as "evidence", and it can't get any more
> >>> conclusive than that!
>
> >> Has anyone been able to find any of his stuff anywhere by Googling on some
> >> of
> >> the quotes? If none can be found, then:
>
> >> 1 his 'work' was never uploaded to the Internet
>
> >> 2 his 'work' is behind a paywall of some kind
>
> >> 3 his 'work' is completely made up.
>
> >> I vote for #3.
>
> >> If, by chance, someone _has_ been able to locate some of his 'work', please
> >> let me know and I'll try to track down more, so that we can evaluate his
> >> 'work' in context.
>
> >> This should be interesting.
>
> >> --
> >> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>
> > It's not for the likes of you.
>
> As expected. I vote for #3. I really do.

Do you actually believe I care what you or anyone here thinks?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:30:54 -0400, UC wrote
(in article
<uranium-049e0ccc-80b1-...@n5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):

Nope. If you did, you'd use methods which might actually have a hope in hell
of convincing us that you're not a feckless loser.

As I've said before, I reply to you merely for entertainment purposes. I poke
you with a sharp stick to see what results I can get. You have to date been
quite entertaining. Keep it up.

[UC]

On Jul 1, 9:45 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:30:54 -0400, UC wrote
> (in article

> <uranium-049e0ccc-80b1-4620-be95-e899625c3...@n5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):

Do you understand what contempt most of the general population holds
for the academic profession, not without justification?

[UC]

On Jul 1, 9:06 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:33:41 -0400, UC wrote
> (in article

> <uranium-39400164-ad40-4581-85f9-ed344a9f2...@e7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):

here is some of my photography:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:51:26 -0400, UC wrote
(in article
<uranium-b019bae8-7461-...@6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>):

That would be your opinion, and we all know what that's worth.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:43:01 -0400, UC wrote
(in article
<uranium-76221c09-5416-...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>):

Photos ain't relevant. But you know that.

[UC]

On Jul 1, 10:17 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:43:01 -0400, UC wrote
> (in article

> <uranium-76221c09-5416-4ace-ad8b-8266fbb18...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>):

But they show I have some competencies, right?

[jillery]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:12:21 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:


More unattributed snippage. Why even make the argument if you're just
going to snip it out?


>On Jun 30, 10:51 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>

>> > > you.
>>
>> > > Do you ever research what you write before you post it?
>

>Species migrate, sometimes there are physical obstacles that hinder

>this. There is no difference in principal between naturally occurring

>and other spread of species. How did the Galapagos animals get there?
>
>Not all 'alien' species thrive in new environments. That is a myth.
>
>Pythons are not large mammals like polar bears or gorillas, but for
>snakes they can get pretty big.

So why don't you quantify what you think is a large animal?

[jillery]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:39:01 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 30, 11:28 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:

>> On Jun 30, 10:55 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > On Jun 30, 10:46 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>

>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 30, 3:09 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:16:40 -0700 (PDT), UC
>>
>> > > > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > > > >On Jun 29, 6:18 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > > >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:03:33 -0700 (PDT), UC
>> > > > >> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> >On Jun 29, 5:53 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:41:01 -0700 (PDT), UC

>>
>> > > > >> >> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >On Jun 29, 4:54 pm, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> (2012/06/30 5:33), UC wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> > On Jun 29, 4:16 pm, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com>  wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> >> On 29/06/12 21:10, UC wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> On Jun 29, 4:05 pm, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com>  wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>> On 29/06/12 20:59, UC wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>> On Jun 29, 2:15 pm, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off>  wrote:
>>

>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Do you think there's a reason polar bears carry the name "Ursus maritimus" or "sea bear"?
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> Don't follow.
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>> *There's* a news flash...
>>

>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>> Plenty of sea around Antarctica:
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/polar/antarcz.gif
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>> And how much of it is frozen, compared to the Arctic ?
>>

>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Penguins in the Arctic? Why not?
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> No safe places to lay eggs? Polar foxes? Ursus maritimus?
>>

>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>> Lots of land inside the arctic circle:
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>> And how much of it is occupied by polar foxes ? And Ursus maritimus
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>> hungrily waiting for the summer to end and the sea to freeze again ?
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Arctic_circl...
>>

>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Why not gorillas in the Amazon? I bet they would flourish!
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> I'd bet all of them would die within a year. Surviving in the wild
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> does take a shitload of knowledge concerning plants: which are edible, which are not?
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Most plants in the Amazon are HIGHLY toxic.
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> Well they would learn, would they not? Are not African plants also
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> toxic?
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>> Or we could let them eat cake!
>>

>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>> Chocolate?
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>> Are you sure it isn't poisonous to them ?
>>

>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>> Do yourself a favor and stick to linguistics, where at least
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>> your ignorance isn't exposed *quite* so dramatically.
>>

>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>> No, I think this would 'fly'
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>> Nyuk nyuk nyuk
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>> Yeah, we're totally laughing *with* you here...
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> It's obviously not a 'slam-bang' thing, but I am reasonably sure that
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> at least some Arctic species would do well in the Antarctic and vice
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> versa.
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >> That's not the question. The question is whether they would do *better*
>> > > > >> >> >> >> in the other pole than in their native one, and whether their
>> > > > >> >> >> >> introduction to that other pole wouldn't make *other* species there do
>> > > > >> >> >> >> worse.
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > I do understand that.
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> Great. So what's your evidence for being reasonably sure any of those
>> > > > >> >> >> things are true ?
>>
>> > > > >> >> >Well here's some info on it:
>>
>> > > > >> >> >http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/07/species_relocat...
>>
>> > > > >> >> Did you read that citation about the terrible consequences of species
>> > > > >> >> relocation?
>>
>> > > > >> >But some experts are talking about it.
>>
>> > > > >> If you read your own citation, you find some experts talking about it
>> > > > >> intelligently with far more experts aghast at the notion.
>>
>> > > > >> If you read t.o., you find some total novices talking about it but
>> > > > >> having absolutely no idea what the issues are or what it is about and
>> > > > >> a number of people who do have some good idea about the issues aghast
>> > > > >> at the notion.
>>

>> > > > >Well I am not sure that it would be a bad idea. Most 'invasive species

>> > > > >horror stories' do not involve large species, but small ones that
>> > > > >reproduce quickly. It does not take a genius to know this. Polar bears
>> > > > >would not breed that fast, and if necessary, some could be killed off.
>>
>> > > > Do dromedary camels qualify as large to you?  They were introduced to
>> > > > Australia in the 19th century.  Their numbers have increased enough in
>> > > > that short time to cause severe loss of vegetation in the areas they
>> > > > occupy.
>>

>> > > > Do burmese pythons qualify as large to you.  They escaped into the

>> > > > Florida Everglades after Hurricane Andrew, and are now so numerous
>> > > > they risk making extinct most of the other animals there.
>>

>> > > > These are just two examples I know about.  I could specify many others
>> > > > with a little effort, but I assume it wouldn't make any difference to

>> > > > you.
>>
>> > > > Do you ever research what you write before you post it?
>>

>> > > On top of that, what UC considers "small" is obviously vastly
>> > > different from what biologists consider small. The Cane Toad, for
>> > > example, definitely counts as a "large" amphibian, and it's wreaked
>> > > havoc in Australia- where it was deliberately introduced to control an
>> > > insect pest of sugar cane.
>>
>> > > And mongoose are not considered a "small mammal" (nor are they a
>> > > "large mammal", within the limits of subjective evaluation of course)
>> > > but they've likewise brought several species in Hawaii to the brink of
>> > > extinction...another deliberate human introduction.
>>
>> > > Chris
>>
>> > I was indeed think of the Cane Toad as a 'small' animal.
>>
>> Well, you're wrong- especially as far as Amphibians are concerned.
>>
>> As far as mammals:
>> Set aside your human perspective, because humans are a really, really
>> big animal. Don't be comparing us to giraffes or hippos or Cape
>> Buffalo.
>
>Well I was thinking of the big cats, polar bears, and gorillas,
>specifically.

You didn't mention big cats before. And camels are taller and heavier
than any of your animals. And what does the size of the animal have
to do with your argument anyway?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 22:27:17 -0400, UC wrote
(in article
<uranium-06c66469-d1d8-...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>):

Nope.

[Attila]

Bob Casanova wrote:
>>Trust me, Bab, it is.
>
> "Bab"? ;-)
>

Sorry about that Ba... I mean BOB!!!! Dementia strikes deep/ into my
brain it will creep/it starts when I'm always afraid/speak out of line
and the man come and take me away

> That aside, I'd argue that he's shown himself to be far more
> inept in the fields of biology and ecology than in the field
> of linguistics, but that could be due to the fact that I'm
> not a linguist while I *do* know at least a bit about
> science, something about which he's shown he knows
> essentially nothing.

That would be correct. What he said about semantics would be equivalent
to him claiming that genetics is not a subdiscipline of biology because
biology is about life and genetics is about the royal family. It's the
kind of thing you learn about early on in any intro class.

>
>> Please don't try to palm him off on us.
>>This is but one sample:
>>> This is semantics, not linguistics. Linguistics refers to language
>>> structure. Semantics refers to meaning.
>>And compare that claim to the following:
>>http://linguistics.utoronto.ca/graduates/applications.html
>
> But he's a *recognized linguistics expert*! He says so all
> the time! He even provides quotes of his "work" as
> "evidence", and it can't get any more conclusive than that!

Right! and kangaroos hopped to Australia being chased by tigers. ;)

[Attila]

UC wrote:

<snip>

> Do you understand what contempt most of the general population holds
> for the academic profession, not without justification?

I haven't come across that attitude. Which "general population" do you
have in mind?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 01:46:08 -0400, Attila wrote
(in article <jsrcj1$cka$2...@dont-email.me>):

That would be the 'general population' of his alleged mind.

[Tom McDonald]

On Monday, July 2, 2012 4:56:10 AM UTC-5, J.J. O&#39;Shea wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 01:46:08 -0400, Attila wrote
> (in article <jsrcj1$cka$2...@dont-email.me>):
>
> > UC wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >> Do you understand what contempt most of the general population holds
> >> for the academic profession, not without justification?
> > I haven't come across that attitude. Which "general population" do you
> > have in mind?
> >
>
> That would be the 'general population' of his alleged mind.

I thought it was the general prison population. Which would make us, what? Segregated? Isolated?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 18:30:54 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

So you submit dozens of posts per day into what you consider
to be a vacuum?

Why don't you save yourself some time (the time to hit
"send" so many times) and just open a document file, write
everything there, and store it on your computer?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:44:20 +0200, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Attila <jdka...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>Trust me, Bab, it is.
>>
>> "Bab"? ;-)
>>
>Sorry about that Ba... I mean BOB!!!! Dementia strikes deep/ into my
>brain it will creep/it starts when I'm always afraid/speak out of line
>and the man come and take me away

Hey, Springfield, you can't buffalo me!

>> That aside, I'd argue that he's shown himself to be far more
>> inept in the fields of biology and ecology than in the field
>> of linguistics, but that could be due to the fact that I'm
>> not a linguist while I *do* know at least a bit about
>> science, something about which he's shown he knows
>> essentially nothing.

>That would be correct. What he said about semantics would be equivalent
>to him claiming that genetics is not a subdiscipline of biology because
>biology is about life and genetics is about the royal family. It's the
>kind of thing you learn about early on in any intro class.

No surprise; his constant refusal to accept that language
usage is a dynamic process exposes his essential ignorance
(or maybe it's repugnance regarding his own status as an
animal, since he only seems strongly concerned about the
changed meaning of "ape") makes that pretty clear.

>>> Please don't try to palm him off on us.
>>>This is but one sample:
>>>> This is semantics, not linguistics. Linguistics refers to language
>>>> structure. Semantics refers to meaning.
>>>And compare that claim to the following:
>>>http://linguistics.utoronto.ca/graduates/applications.html

>> But he's a *recognized linguistics expert*! He says so all
>> the time! He even provides quotes of his "work" as
>> "evidence", and it can't get any more conclusive than that!

>Right! and kangaroos hopped to Australia being chased by tigers. ;)

Oy...

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:46:08 +0200, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Attila <jdka...@gmail.com>:

He polled the roaches under his fridge?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 05:19:42 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tom McDonald
<kil...@gmail.com>:

Thankful?

[Glenn]

On Jul 2, 11:14 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 18:30:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

So a vacuum is a place where people put things they don't care about.
I suppose that's one way of describing it.

[UC]

On Jul 2, 2:14 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 18:30:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

I don't see it that way. But I really, really, don't care what you
think. I stopped caring about what other people think on Jan 1, 2007.
My life has become much more pleasant since then.

> Why don't you save yourself some time (the time to hit
> "send" so many times) and just open a document file, write
> everything there, and store it on your computer?
> --
>
> Bob C.

I do enjoying watching you guys spout such total inanity.
Inconsistent, poorly organised thoughts, selective reading, it's all
too typical of the academic world.

You guys don't have any idea why you are the way you are, but I do:

http://100rsns.blogspot.com/p/complete-list-to-date.html

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 11:31:25 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

Lobotomy Day?

>> Why don't you save yourself some time (the time to hit
>> "send" so many times) and just open a document file, write
>> everything there, and store it on your computer?

>I do enjoying watching you guys spout such total inanity.

"Look, everyone's out of step but UC!"

>Inconsistent, poorly organised thoughts, selective reading, it's all
>too typical of the academic world.

How about those of us who aren't academics, and never were?

>You guys don't have any idea why you are the way you are, but I do:
>
>http://100rsns.blogspot.com/p/complete-list-to-date.html

So "less education is always better"? Typical sour grapes,
embraced by the incapable.

And FWIW I never went past the BSEE required for my
profession, although some of those with whom I worked did
so, and profited from it, both personally and
professionally.

But that's OK, Sparky; we also know why you are the way you
are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

[UC]

On Jul 3, 2:36�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 11:31:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

You act like an academic (spit).

[Mitchell Coffey]

You were molested by a college professor once, weren't you?

Mitchell Coffey