What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
28 Comments
- penguinofspades, on 11/21/2008, -1/+21what does that even mean?
- chadsexingtime, on 11/21/2008, -0/+12It means that the guy has no real grasp on darwin or the theory of evolution . . . or that its some house cat, through a surprisingly random sequence of events, has managed to depress the keyboard to create that post above.
- apackofmonkeys, on 11/21/2008, -3/+10But... I thought everything "bad" in nature was the humans' fault? That's what public school taught me....
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -4/+11Now this is interesting...guess those plants EVOLVED. Hehe...love Darwin Jokes.
- Fartbandit, on 11/21/2008, -0/+6lol @ the phrase 'Darwinist'.... A word usually only used by creationists.... :p
- slvrbullet87, on 11/21/2008, -1/+5Mother nature kicking some ass!
- wrmjr, on 11/21/2008, -1/+5Obviously, we should bring in some non-native animal to eat up all those native invasive plants.
- apackofmonkeys, on 11/21/2008, -1/+5Wow, I see the public schools got to you, too. If the species are spreading rapidly and displacing other species because of humans, that's "bad". If they're doing the exact same thing, displacing other species, but not because of humans, it's "good". It's the SAME DAMN RESULT.
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3Dude, you love everything.
- thaimyshoe, on 11/21/2008, -2/+4When I saw "invasive plants", I thought of the movie The Ruins.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0963794/ - Rippleeffect, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2Or is creationsists only used by darwinists?
wait.. this isn't the time travel article? my bad.... - theonlybradever, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2@apackofmonkeys:
same result doesn't mean same cause.
the concern is a question of guilt and influence. if humankind had nothing to do with this, then that's nature. if we caused this event, and it led to the extinction of species native to the island then there's a pretty obvious difference. if you can't figure that out, your particular education failed you more than is already evident. - solistus, on 11/21/2008, -2/+3The only reason we thought these species might be "bad" is because they were the result of human interference. It's not like these plants are destroying the island; it's just that if they were actually non-native, they could outcompete native species and drive them to extinction.
- groo68, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Either the plants are related to a different strain on the islands or the seeds floated by ocean to the islands. seeds can lay dormant for decades and then start growing once they get fresh water and minerals.
- ShrimpCrackers, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Please reread the article, nothing of what you're claiming is in the article.
Also it certainly does NOT claim that this is the ONLY invasive species of plant in the Galapagos, even less the world. - solistus, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1apackofmonkeys: the point is that, if the plants are actually native, there is very little risk of them crowding out other species, whereas if they're non-native then the risk is much greater. If these plants have been there for thousands of years as TFA indicates, then there's no reason to assume they are a threat to the current ecosystem. I agree that what ultimately matters is what happens, not simply how involved humans might be; I just think that the native/non-native distinction is important to predict likely outcomes.
- windowboxes, on 01/27/2009, -0/+1this is amzing..
- zunigbab, on 11/23/2008, -0/+1Hmmmm. Environmentalists get it wrong, again! What a surprise. The problem with environmentalists isn't their cause, it is their human ego!
- esteskid, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1you need to figure out what it is to prove something
- apackofmonkeys, on 11/22/2008, -1/+1@theonlybradever:
Sorry, but you show all the obvious signs of a lost public schooler too, with a dash of green internet elite "science".
Only results should matter. You talk as if "nature" has some actual purpose in mind, otherwise why should we suddenly not care that other species are being crowded out when it would be a terrible thing if humans were behind it? If you really want to be thick-headed, at least be intellectually honest enough to fall back on the old "humans are just animals" bit and then realize that anything we do is nature too. How is anything we ever do NOT nature? Unless you're trying to tell me there's something in humans that is SUPERnatural, and I don't think our government-funded public school upbringing would look to kindly on that, now would it? - MarineDigg80, on 11/21/2008, -0/+0ummm whatever happened to survival of the fittest?
- jaygeeze, on 11/24/2008, -0/+0Ouch, that's an embarrassing error...
- corr1756, on 11/22/2008, -0/+0methinks you need to learn sarcasm.
- MessiahTyler, on 11/21/2008, -2/+1That is a statement made out of ignorance the difference between human interference and nature is vast i will not explain just an example in NZ the possums were brought by men and are destroying the Kiwi birds very few ppl could see that as a good thing
- inactive, on 11/21/2008, -4/+1Thank god
- corr1756, on 11/21/2008, -8/+0Hah, silly darwinists. Obviously this is proof for intelligent design.
It's not like these plants are the only invasive species god came up with...cough...cough...
"There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern..." anybody? - threemagic, on 11/21/2008, -11/+2Did they get there on the ... wait for it.. waiiitttt for itttttt.... the Mayflower???
Thanks.. i'm here all week.. tip the waitresses, try the veal.. - inactive, on 11/21/2008, -13/+4hehe wonder what the darwinists will say about this one. no way to spin it.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is