Extinction and Loss of Habitat

From: Ted.Held at hstna.com on 2001.11.06 at 04:12:12(7737) I take exception to the statement that most extinctions are caused by loss of habitat. Surely some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But new predation, disease, and plain old climate alteration must be right up there. And then there is the probable fact that some species are just not well evolved - failures, in other words. I think habitat loss gets a big following since it is an obvious factor in large animal extinctions, particularly those of recent times. You know, the warm fuzzies. I wish I had the Book of Life and could review the numbers on this that would include all "species", including the millions that have perished since the beginning. +More Just a skeptic about sweeping pronouncements. ted.held@hstna.com

From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.11.06 at 16:25:25(7746) Ted! You must be joking? Ron +More ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:12 AM Subject: Extinction and Loss of Habitat I take exception to the statement that most extinctions are caused by loss of habitat. Surely some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But new predation, disease, and plain old climate alteration must be right up there. And then there is the probable fact that some species are just not well evolved - failures, in other words. I think habitat loss gets a big following since it is an obvious factor in large animal extinctions, particularly those of recent times. You know, the warm fuzzies. I wish I had the Book of Life and could review the numbers on this that would include all "species", including the millions that have perished since the beginning. Just a skeptic about sweeping pronouncements. ted.held@hstna.com

From: Ted.Held at hstna.com on 2001.11.06 at 21:02:04(7750) Am I missing something? Did the big dinosaurs die off because of loss of habitat? Most species have died out because they are failures of one sort or another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world. This is basic Darwin and modern permutations thereof. I think I am safe in saying this is science. "Ron Iles" +More m.net> Sent by: cc: aroid-l@mobot. Fax to: org Subject: Re: Extinction and Loss of Habitat 11/06/01 11:25 AM Please respond to aroid-l Ted! You must be joking? Ron ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:12 AM Subject: Extinction and Loss of Habitat I take exception to the statement that most extinctions are caused by loss of habitat. Surely some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But new predation, disease, and plain old climate alteration must be right up there. And then there is the probable fact that some species are just not well evolved - failures, in other words. I think habitat loss gets a big following since it is an obvious factor in large animal extinctions, particularly those of recent times. You know, the warm fuzzies. I wish I had the Book of Life and could review the numbers on this that would include all "species", including the millions that have perished since the beginning. Just a skeptic about sweeping pronouncements. ted.held@hstna.com

From: Jonathan Ertelt jonathan.ertelt at vanderbilt.edu> on 2001.11.07 at 00:36:50(7757) >Am I missing something? Did the big dinosaurs die off because of loss of >habitat? Most species have died out because they are failures of one sort >or another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world. This is >basic Darwin and modern permutations thereof. I think I am safe in saying >this is science. > Ted, As a matter of fact, more than likely the majority of the "big dinosaurs" died off due to a sudden an extreme loss of habitat - at the end of the Cretaceous period, due to the earth's colliding with a large asteroid resulting in loss of sunlight, global warming, acid-rain, volcanos. etc. This is based on the evidence so far presented and as such, is referred to as scientific theory, though it is not without problems and questions still unanswered. The more recent ice age, which caused massice extinctions, could also be said to be due to impressive loss of habitat, habitat and ecosystem being a combination of biotic and abiotic forces. Other extinctions due to climatic change, or sudden change in sea level, would also suggest a dramatic shift in habitats. Most mutations die out because they fail in the way of reproductive fittness or superiority, and species have certainly gone the same route, with the loss of a major food source or pollinator and the lack of the right mutation at the right time in order to "adapt." However, it would crertainly be safe to say that in recent history, i.e. since man came into the picture in a big way, there has been an impressive increase in extinctions, and much of that has been due to loss of habitat. Certainly the arguments can be made. Jonathan +More Jonathan Ertelt jonathan.ertelt@vanderbilt.edu Greenhouse Manager Vanderbilt University Biology Department Box 1812, Sta. B Nashville, TN 37235 (615) 322-4054

From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.11.07 at 00:37:01(7758) Am I missing something? Did the big dinosaurs die off because of loss of habitat? Most species have died out because they are failures of one sort or another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world. This is basic Darwin and modern permutations thereof. I think I am safe in saying this is science. "Ron Iles" +More AROID-L m.net> Sent by: cc: aroid-l@mobot. Fax to: org Subject: Re: Extinction and Loss of Habitat 11/06/01 11:25 AM Please respond to aroid-l Ted! You must be joking? Ron ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:12 AM Subject: Extinction and Loss of Habitat I take exception to the statement that most extinctions are caused by loss of habitat. Surely some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But new predation, disease, and plain old climate alteration must be right up there. And then there is the probable fact that some species are just not well evolved - failures, in other words. I think habitat loss gets a big following since it is an obvious factor in large animal extinctions, particularly those of recent times. You know, the warm fuzzies. I wish I had the Book of Life and could review the numbers on this that would include all "species", including the millions that have perished since the beginning. Just a skeptic about sweeping pronouncements. ted.held@hstna.com

From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2001.11.07 at 00:37:16(7759) Dear Ted, The Do-do? Passenger pigeon? Stellar`s sea cow?? The giant Auk?? ALMOST the American buffalo? The whooping cranes?? The Tasmanian marsupial 'tiger'? Need a few more?? Keep up with a 'changeable world"??? Surely you jest---'pave paradise and put up a parking lot', and I guess we have to expect all the plants and animals to then 'change' to be able to live on a barren expanse of cement??? Come ON! Respectfully, Julius +More >>Am I missing something? Did the big dinosaurs die off because of loss of habitat? Most species have died out because they are failures of one sort or another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world. This is basic Darwin and modern permutations thereof. I think I am safe in saying this is science. "Ron Iles" AROID-L m.net> Sent by: cc: aroid-l@mobot. Fax to: org Subject: Re: Extinction and Loss of Habitat 11/06/01 11:25 AM Please respond to aroid-l Ted! You must be joking? Ron ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:12 AM Subject: Extinction and Loss of Habitat I take exception to the statement that most extinctions are caused by loss of habitat. Surely some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But new predation, disease, and plain old climate alteration must be right up there. And then there is the probable fact that some species are just not well evolved - failures, in other words. I think habitat loss gets a big following since it is an obvious factor in large animal extinctions, particularly those of recent times. You know, the warm fuzzies. I wish I had the Book of Life and could review the numbers on this that would include all "species", including the millions that have perished since the beginning. Just a skeptic about sweeping pronouncements. ted.held@hstna.com

From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.11.07 at 00:37:29(7760) During three BILLION years of Evolution less advanced & inappropriately specialised kinds were SLOWLY replaced by more advanced kinds.. Except for simpler kinds which could adapt very fast, sudden catastrophes & cataclysms intermittently delayed or set back Evolution. Over most of Modern Man's three MILLION years he was part of that Evolution in stable dynamic equilibrium with other kinds. But increasingly over the past two centuries, when he was powered by machines, & the past twenty years when you could argue he used & is manipulated by mind machines, most other kinds on earth have been subject to his mushrooming cataclysms. Thousands of times more kinds have been made extinct in the past century than in the entire period since Ape Man first walked upright. Please look at the Red Book of Endangered Species. You are right in saying that these "could not keep up with the changing world" = the cataclysms of Man. Few "Higher Forms" of Life could, and far from being "failures of one sort or another" modern wild kinds were the glorious successes of over three BILLION YEARS of Evolution. Barring total Planet sterilisation, an optimistic scenario is that that Man, a "Higher Form" of Life, psycho-socially & environmentally will be a victim of his own cataclysm alongside other Higher Forms. And the most adaptable "Lower Life" will take over & Evolution will be restored probably without his inabilities to adapt to them. If he is not capable of achieving concord for himself within a stable dynamic equilibrium with all other successful kinds, then Man is certainly "a failure of one sort or another". I was dealing with Man's Posterity after temporarily suspending Evolution of Life on this Planet. (The following immortal words by one of your simple but advanced unspecialised Native peoples who lived in stable dynamic equilibrium with Evolution on the Planet like other Native Peoples - Would you call of them failures? Your Chief Seattle said - 1842 I think?) "What will happen to the Spirit of Man when all the great Beasts have gone" We are surely in the midst of knowing the answer now? Ron Iles. +More ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 9:02 PM Subject: Re: Extinction and Loss of Habitat Am I missing something? Did the big dinosaurs die off because of loss ofhabitat? Most species have died out because they are failures of one sortor another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world. This isbasic Darwin and modern permutations thereof. I think I am safe in sayingthis is science. "Ron Iles" To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L m.net> Sent by: cc: aroid-l@mobot. Fax to: org Subject: Re: Extinction and Loss of Habitat 11/06/01 11:25 AM Please respond to aroid-l Ted!You must be joking?Ron----- Original Message -----From: To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:12 AMSubject: Extinction and Loss of HabitatI take exception to the statement that most extinctions are caused by lossof habitat. Surely some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But newpredation, disease, and plain old climate alteration must be right upthere. And then there is the probable fact that some species are just notwell evolved - failures, in other words. I think habitat loss gets a bigfollowing since it is an obvious factor in large animal extinctions,particularly those of recent times. You know, the warm fuzzies. I wish Ihad the Book of Life and could review the numbers on this that wouldinclude all "species", including the millions that have perished since thebeginning.Just a skeptic about sweeping pronouncements.ted.held@hstna.com

From: "George R Stilwell, Jr." grsjr at juno.com> on 2001.11.07 at 02:40:07(7764) Ted, Exactly. The dinosaurs did die off because of a loss of habitat caused +More by a meteor crashing into the earth. It really destroyed the habitat. Loss of habitat is another way of saying some parts of the world are changing too fast for some plants/animals to evolve to accommodate the change. I think I am also safe in saying this is science. Ray GRSJr@Juno.com On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:02:05 -0600 (CST) Ted.Held@hstna.com writes: > >Am I missing something? Did the big dinosaurs die off because of loss >of >habitat? Most species have died out because they are failures of one >sort >or another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world. This is >basic Darwin and modern permutations thereof. I think I am safe in >saying >this is science. > > > > > "Ron Iles" > > >of list AROID-L > m.net> > > Sent by: cc: > > aroid-l@mobot. Fax to: > > org Subject: Re: Extinction >and Loss of Habitat > > > > > 11/06/01 11:25 > > AM > > Please respond > > to aroid-l > > > > > > > > > >Ted! > >You must be joking? > >Ron > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L" >Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:12 AM >Subject: Extinction and Loss of Habitat > > > >I take exception to the statement that most extinctions are caused by >loss >of habitat. Surely some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But new >predation, disease, and plain old climate alteration must be right up >there. And then there is the probable fact that some species are just >not >well evolved - failures, in other words. I think habitat loss gets a >big >following since it is an obvious factor in large animal extinctions, >particularly those of recent times. You know, the warm fuzzies. I wish >I >had the Book of Life and could review the numbers on this that would >include all "species", including the millions that have perished since >the >beginning. > >Just a skeptic about sweeping pronouncements. >ted.held@hstna.com > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

From: Paul Tyerman ptyerman at ozemail.com.au> on 2001.11.07 at 02:40:20(7765) At 03:02 6/11/01 -0600, you wrote: > >Am I missing something? Did the big dinosaurs die off because of loss of >habitat? +More Ted, Emphatically YES!!!!! A Meteor hit the planet or some other major upheaval caused global changes that afected each and every habitat on the planet. This was the ULTIMATE habitat loss example. This was on a planetary scale, rather than being on a minor scale for a given species. I would have said that Dinosaurs were a good example of how habitat loss affects everything, rather than an example of how it doesn't. >Most species have died out because they are failures of one sort >or another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world. I assume therefore that you feel Dinosaurs were one such failure because they weren't able to cope with climate (and habitat) change due to a planetary extinction event. They existed in domination of this planet for over 100 Million years before whatever caused the planetary change (This statement is not meant to step on any toes of those religions who do not believe in evolution.... please let us not go there!). I don't call that an evolutionary dead-end!! Been a Dinosaur lover since way back, which is why I thought I'd bring this up. As I said, they are the ultimate example of the affects of Habitat Loss!! Shows just how dependant EVERYTHING is on its habitat and how catastrophic the loss of it's habitat is to it. Cheers. Paul Tyerman Canberra, Australia. USDA equivalent - Zone 8/9 mailto:ptyerman@ozemail.com.au Growing.... Galanthus, Erythroniums, Fritillarias, Crocus, Cyrtanthus, Liliums, Hellebores, Aroids, Irises plus just about anything else that doesn't move!!!!!

From: Eric_L_._Schmidt/LEU/CYS/Orlando at priv.ci.orlando.fl.us.ci.orlando.fl.us on 2001.11.07 at 21:20:13(7775) Man's greed and short sightedness is causing major habitat disruption across the globe and is causing the biggest era of extinctions since the late Cretaceous Period. If not for the infamous asteroid slamming the Earth, dinosaurs would still be roaming. That is unless one or more species developed an intelligence in the 65 million years since the extinction and raped the earth as man is doing now. Dinosaurs were an extremely adaptable animals as a whole. They did not die out because they were an "evolutionary dead-end". It is possible that there are dinosaurs who could have survived the cataclysm still alive today; in the jungles of equatorial Africa, South America, and the oceans. If so then they are even more successful than ever thought. It is a controversial subject but then look at the coelacanth. A fish that supposedly died out around 100 million years ago but found alive in several Indian Ocean locations. there are plants like that too; Cycads, Metasequoia, Ginkgo, Wollemi Pine and the tree (can't remember the exact name) in the Proteaceae Family that was discovered still alive in Australia after only being known from fossils. Eric Schmidt +More Orlando, FL.

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.