Nature is wild
- Thread starter The Corinthian
- Start date
I'm not sure how this isn't a dinosaur
I asked my wife what she thought this sound was. Response: "Russia invaded Ukraine?"
Last edited:
You might almost rather ask: what's the counterargument?
Sharks too…well to be more accurate, sharks existed before dinosaurs. They’re truly ancient - there was a fact I read recently on how sharks predate Saturn’s rings, which is just mind boggling to me.
They're the most perfect being this planet has come up with and they nailed it a couple hundred million years ago. Incredible.
Sharks would be dead/nonexistent without everything 'below' on the food chain.
And your point is?
Superorganism
It's a school of thought regarding things like how a cell is a part of a superorganism that is a plant/animal is part of a superorganism of the collective human species is a part of a superorganism of DNA-based life, etc etc.
I mean this is shit that aspiring Disney princesses in tutus are aware of.
Did you take a friendly nudge to contribute to positive expansion of awareness and bristle instead?
EDIT: Definition of bristle added due to possible re-evaluation of Dr. Dwayne
They contain the driest deserts in the world in terms of rainfall
It's not the Atacama?
Bugger off and answer the question instead of insulting my intelligence. What's your point? We all know that everything is connected. That doesn't take away from the perfection that is sharks.
Last edited:
That's the driest sand desert
Interesting. Thanks for that.
Crocodilians too, though I don’t know where the cutoff point is in exactly how old they are.
Also interesting in this context is that they are as closely related (or more so?) to birds and non-avian dinosaurs as they are to other modern reptiles.
Last edited:
From WIkipedia:
"A desert is a barren area of landscape where little precipitation occurs and, consequently, living conditions are hostile for plant and animal life. The lack of vegetation exposes the unprotected surface of the ground to the processes of denudation. About one-third of the land surface of the Earth is arid or semi-arid. This includes much of the polar regions, where little precipitation occurs, and which are sometimes called polar deserts or "cold deserts". Deserts can be classified by the amount of precipitation that falls, by the temperature that prevails, by the causes of desertification or by their geographical location."
There is also a concept in geography where 'sea deserts' are areas of sea from which you can see no land - but that's obviously essentially unrelated. It's relevant to historical periods in which seafaring was limited to areas of seas from where you could still see some land (if only a mountain top).
Yea I remember years ago on QI he asked what was the driest desert in the world and I said Atacama.
A bit of light viewing on quantum mechanics in nature.
All birds are cnuts? Or at least most of them.
Huh? All animals are in a food chain. So what?
I see where you're coming from - I read another article about the intelligence of Australian cockatoos this week.
Wings don't eat and can't be hungry?
They are pricks. Amusingly arrogant and bolshy pricks.
They love trashing things. Trees first and foremost- they don't just eat the seeds and fruit - they love to trash the whole tree at the same time.
They also love breaking human stuff. Like anti-perch spikes.
Last edited:
Not everyone can conceptualize further and further how much. No real reason to get angry when someone presents the opportunity, yet your default was to do so. Right? I didn't contradict the sharks thing. You're the one who bristled when said opportunity was presented. And the one who's still treating it as some adversarial encounter and by default assuming someone is trying to insult you.
A: sharks are perfect
B: sharks are useless without plankton
A: wtf is your point bugger off etc.
Read that back to yourself; who's insulted whom.
Now this, would be B being an asshole:
A: sharks are perfect
B: sharks can't use a dumaresq you moron
If that's what you feel, sure. Perhaps as long as you are aware of the irony that there are many many objectively 'smarter' people who are able to entertain and have fun discussing the 'theory' would never dismiss anyone holding the bolded opinion.
There is definitely a cutoff where certain aspects become impossible for people to understand and hence it gets shunted into 'bollocks/nonsense'. Posted a video a while back where a gentleman discusses the idea of cell-based emergent behavior etc. Maybe check it out if you have the time.
This was the part where I felt insulted.:
Apparently, I have less awareness than an aspiring Dinsey princess. You're also making a lot of assumptions on what I do and do not conceptualize.
I suppose it's (partially) a function of my non-use of smilies. Either way, I apologize. My default switch is rimaldo. The lead in *was* 'mighty' sharks being useless without 'lowly bottom-feeders', right?
All insults end up resulting in the same amount of violence as unspeakable things, so I avoid them. Someone like Woodward (manipulative narcississt) is the only person towards whom I'd ever behave that way.
I'm making zero assumptions regarding the conceptualizing part. There is no positive or negative either way ('more ability'/'less ability') - each entity is unique and encounters the universe in its own way.
Also you just offended all Disney princesses by calling them low-awareness.
Last edited:
I'm well aware of what it is and humans are not a superorganism because they don't meet the definition of what one is. Humans are holobionts although that concept also has problems.
I am entirely confused why you would respond to someone saying that sharks are perfect by pointing out that they're part of a food chain or, more widely, of the earth's ecosystem. I mean, isn't everything?
It's also a little odd to see you adopt such a condescending tone (the aspiring Disney princesses), followed by the above argument from authority with a sprinkle of condescension ('many objectively smarter people') - while actually your use of the term 'superorganism' here is pretty obscure and not accepted scientific consensus at all.
(Edited to tone this down a little.)
Last edited:
I want these objectively smarter people hunted down and eliminated.
Last edited: