Defending the Truth

Here is what some scientists are saying is the cause in the decline of sea otter population.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4665067

or

http://www.ucsc.edu/oncampus/current...-19/killer.htm

Imagine that, Darwin was right!!!!! There is such a thing as survival of the fittest. The Killer Whale, larger, stronger, and more agile that the sea otter is actually preying on them. Considering the fact that the young pup sea otters are easy prey, is it a wonder why the population is declining. If you take away the young of the species how is it to survive??

Before blaming everything on man, you really should learn more about the ecosystem. Like it or not we are only one factor. The increase in the killer whale population can explain a decrease in the sea otter population.

http://currents.ucsc.edu/04-05/05-09/whales.asp

Science at work!!!!

dmk

That is all based on the ASSUMPTION that everything was atmospherically the same 2 million years ago - which, almost certainly, it was NOT.

That is all based on the ASSUMPTION that erosion and decomposition took place at the same rate, 2 million years ago, that it does today.


But those of you who are claiming that we're destroying the environment are claiming that "certain" aspects of the environment are NOT changing. So which is it?

So what you are saying is this ASSUMPTION is only a scientific theory like evolution. Yet you fail to use science to debunk this theory. This means you are using everday reasoning with your religion as a foundation. Yet it is commonly excepted that scientific theory is the highest form of knowledge as opposed to an everyday, uneducated guess. Does this not mean that your faith should allow you to fly? It must, because gravity is just a scientific theory too!

Sound to me like you are the one who needs to learn more about the ecosystem.
Look into the history of the population of sea otters, then get back to me.

Some of you people are UNbelievable!

Did I say anything about religion? Hardly! Only YOU did - and you did it in the typical arrogant, condescending style of extremely insecure and very young people.

Scientific theory is NOT the hightest form of knowledge. It is THEORY.

And assuming that you know what was going on 2 million years ago - then stating it as fact - is stupid.


...and by the way, the proper word is "accepted", not "excepted". I would think that somebody who is so into the "highest form of knowledge" would know that.

Sarge,
I did some research into what you are saying about the orcas killing the sea otters, and there may be some credence to that. However, I think it is a case of many causes contributing to their decline, and one of those causes is oil, another, lack of a suitable diet, which affects the reproductive capabilities of marine animals.

In the 1700's the sea otter population was estimated to be about 300,000 but by the early 1900's the sea otter population was estimated to be as low as 2000, because of the maritime fur trades. (Directly attributable to humans).

Oil is very detrimental to sea otters. When oil get on a sea otters fur, its weight forces out the air from between the sea otters hairs, which is the only insulation sea otters have from the ocean. Unlike sea lions and seals, otters have no insulative blubber layer. The air between their hairs keeps them dry as well as insulating them. So, when a sea otter gets covered in oil, it is instantly exposed to freezing water temperatures. The exposure causes hypothermia and death.

We wouldn't even be talking about whether or not we were responsible for the recent decline if we hadn't nearly caused their extinction during the fur trade years. So, yeah, we are responsible, killer whales or not.

Some of us do believe that humans and their dominion over the planet are a part of the evolution of the world and the consequences we have to bear are a part of that. I believe that as humans we are being given a chance to do something that no species has ever done before. Prevent its own extinction.

If, in all your writing, your religion didn't constantly show through, I wouldn't feel a need to mention this.
As for your comment on my age, wrong, read my intro.
Also if you feel superior being the dictionary, I really have no problem with that. I must tell you that since I have been posting here, no one has been so unable to argue a subject that they resorted to spell checking.And I do think that scientific theory is the hightest form of knowledge.

Okay genius, what exactly IS my religion?

Actually, a change in atmospheric composition would be indicated by the petrified trees, erosion patterns, and sediment layers. I am not assuming that erosion and decomposition took place at the same rate. It all depends on the environment. Radioactive dating doesn't though. Decay rates are pretty steady. That's what is used for the actual time measurement. The evidence is dated, and then analyzed.

Seriously dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. I think you should go talk to someone at the science department of your local college. He or she might be able to straighten out your misinformation about how the past is pieced together from evidence.

Given the demographic constitution of the United States, I am going to guess some denomination of Christianity. I don't think your religion is influencing your opinions, because I know plenty of religious people that believe in science as a method, and scientific theory. I think you just lack understanding, and should go crack open a text book.