Forum

Do you think that there is a fundamental difference between micro and macro evolution or do you think that one just grades into the other given enough time?

Am I correct to assume that most of you are familiar with the theory that birds are decended from the dinosaurs (specifically from the theropods)? I think that this theory is largely correct, however I'm not sure where Archeopteryx fits into the picture. There have been many bird-like fossils discovered in the past ten years or so that predate A. lithographica by millions of years.

Does anyone here collect fossils, minerals, rocks, insects or anything else pertaining to natural history. I have a modest fossil and mineral collection that I started about 15 to 20 years ago. It is mostly pretty commonplace stuff. Trilobites, amonites, desert roses and such. But I do have a small fossil fish. Also I just recently purchased a genuine metorite fragment and an awesome cast of a Keichousaurus hui. The K. hui cast cost a mere fraction of what the genuine article would have, is to my eye just as good and as a benefit I don't have to feel guilty that my specimen rightly belongs in a museum for the benefit of all. These last two acquisitions came from a store called "Darwin's World" found in the most unlikeliest of places, small town USA. It is in New Hope, PA for those of you who may be nearby but he does not have a website yet. Perhaps what most impressed me about this store (being the sceptical atheist that I am) is that I did not have to wade through a gamut of the virtues of the healing powers of crystals etc. but rather that they were there just to be admired for their intrinsic beauty. I had to purchase nearly all of my fossil/mineral collection. There isn't a whole lot of fossils or interesting minerals just laying around where I live, or maybe I am just as good at fossil collecting as I am at chess. However I do have some large fossil scallops that I dug out of Calvert Cliffs before I learned that it was actually illegal to do so. Recently I also bought some "natural art" which were framed butterflies and insects to hang on my wall. They are exquisite. I will eventually show picts of my collections but don't hold your breath since I don't possess the "techy" gene. I always wanted to start an insect collection of my own when I was a kid but I felt bad about killing the insects. Many if not all of the ones that I bought are native to exotic locales like rainforests but supposedly many of these insects are farmed specifically for this. I finally convinced myself to do it since 1) insects reproduce and grow very rapidly, so my collection should not noticably damage their population and 2) there is a cost to popularizing nature, which though may sometimes be higher than we would like is likely to be far lower than if virtually no body knew about the rich diversity of plants and animals that existed in the world at large and so consequently would not be interested in maintaining that diversity and heritage for future generations. If my reasoning is flawed I still hope to enjoy my bug collection anyway. cheers

If we found extraterrestrial life what would we call it and more specifically how would we classify it. This question may sound trite but it is not meant to be. For example what is an animal, a plant or a fungi. We probably all have a picture in our mind of examples of these organisms but what most people don't really think about is that an animal is any representative of kingdom animalia, a plant is a rep. of k. plantae, and a fungi is a rep. of kingdom fungi. To be a representative of a taxonomic group is to share an evolutionary heritage with other members of that group. Suppose for a moment that in the future some team of exobiologists sent to explore another planet discover life that looks vaguely similar to that which we know here from earth. If they found a scaly aquatic cold-blooded pisciform shaped organism with an internal sceletal structure the media would doubtless call it a fish, but could science? All fish share a (hypothetical) common ancestor but it stretches reason to suppose that our newly discovered quasi-fish could have the same ancestry. With complex life forms it is perhaps very unlikely that a planet with the exact initial starting conditions as earth would end up with complex life forms which were at all similar to ours, but it seems to me that the simpler the life form then the more likelyhood there might be that evolution would arrive at a similar "body plan". If we found bacteria like organisms on another planet, and it could be reasonably proven that they were not contaminants and that they did not likely arrive via panspermia (or vice versa) then could we really call them bacteria. Note for purists: I don't think that the word bacteria has much taxonomic significance these days since it is rather vague. Just use "archaea" or "eubacteria" instead of the word "bacteria". Well, what do you think?

Well since this a history group, throughout all time what was the time you find to be the most interesting? Not time as in year (well it can be like that still). More like time for certin groups of people or whatever. I am really fasinated by the Egyptians! Everything they've done during their rein was amazing! Especially the pyramids.

This was a question posed in my Philosophy of Biology (Phil-Bi)course that I took many moons ago. Do species exist outside of our own minds, or is the species concept just a concept for us to make sense of the world around us? The question is surprisingly hard to answer, especially when you consider that there is no universal definition of species which is acceptable to everyone.

Do you have a favorite book or author of natural history?

We have been invited to join a team match. I am not inclined to join at this time since we have so few members (I am also a litte burnt out on chess at the moment) but what do you guys have to say about it?

This should be a good topic. What entity does evolution act on? The gene? The individual? A population? The species or perhaps some higher taxonomic level? Most of my reading on the subject has been by Richard Dawkins and as most of you probably already know he is a proponent of evolution acting at the level of the gene, so this is the view that I am most comfortable with. I know that there are other points of view on this, even among professional biologists, I am just not too aware of who the supporters are and what evidence they have to support their point of view. What say you everyone?

I have a question for you all. There is a possible member (Timotheous) who is applying for membership. From his homepage I am going to assume that he is a biblical literalist. I also assume that proselytizing is probably more important than science to this individual. Many potentially interesting discussions concerning science or natural history have just devolved into bible-thumping tirades--which is something that I had hoped to avoid in this group. Still, there hasn't been much discussion at all in the group really (partly because my hours at work have picked up) so it might not be such a terrible thing. What do you all think?

Origin of life Understanding evolution and the fossil record The history of climate on the planet

Tell us a little about yourself and what specifically attracted you to this site. Do you have a specific interest in natural history? Is your interest professional (potentially) or is it just a hobby? Is there something in particular that you would like to discuss/debate on this site? I will start. My name is Bill and I live near Baltimore, MD. My interest in natural history is not professional and is never likely to be so. What I find interesting about natural history is, Oh God where do I start...? I find the concept of deep time facinating. I find evolution facinating in all of its shapes and forms, whether we are talking about the history of the universe, the history of the planet or a particular continent, or the history of a group of organisms. I am very interested in the heirarchies that are used to classify species...D,K,P,C,O,F,G,S,ssp When I went to H.S. is was only aware of the 2 kingdom system of classifying all organisms--all organisms were considered to be either plants or animals. Fungi, bacteria and many other single cell organisms did not fit into this system very well and in college I learned of the 5 kingdom system which added a kingdom for fungi, bacteria and the other single-cell organisms. Within the past 10 years or so I have learned of the 3 domain system. I feel that none of these systems really adequately fit viruses into the tree of life, so who knows...maybe there will be yet another major revision. I am more knowlegable about animals than any of the other kingdoms, and in particular I know more about the vertebrates than any other group. If you are a non-professional, non-specialist like myself these seem to be the easiest ones to learn about. Enough about me and my particular obsession with natural history. Tell us about yourself.

This week is the 200th aniversary of Charles Darwin, father of evolutionary theory (as most of you probably already know).