QuoteThe gravity of the world's current extinction rate becomes clearer upon knowing what it was before people came along. A new estimate finds that species die off as much as 1,000 times more frequently nowadays than they used to. That's 10 times worse than the old estimate of 100 times.
It's hard to comprehend how bad the current rate of species extinction around the world has become without knowing what it was before people came along. The newest estimate is that the pre-human rate was 10 times lower than scientists had thought, which means that the current level is 10 times worse.
Extinctions are about 1,000 times more frequent now than in the 60 million years before people came along. The explanation from lead author Jurriaan de Vos, a Brown University postdoctoral researcher, senior author Stuart Pimm, a Duke University professor, and their team appears online in the journal Conservation Biology.
"This reinforces the urgency to conserve what is left and to try to reduce our impacts," said de Vos, who began the work while at the University of Zurich. "It was very, very different before humans entered the scene."
In absolute, albeit rough, terms the paper calculates a "normal background rate" of extinction of 0.1 extinctions per million species per year. That revises the figure of 1 extinction per million species per year that Pimm estimated in prior work in the 1990s. By contrast, the current extinction rate is more on the order of 100 extinctions per million species per year.
Orders of magnitude, rather than precise numbers are about the best any method can do for a global extinction rate, de Vos said. "That's just being honest about the uncertainty there is in these type of analyses."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140902151125.htm
Just the example of the differences made by one species, the wolf in Yellowstone Park, is enough to show how big an impact a species loss can make. The park was literally reshaped for decades because the Buffalo and Elk were allowed to roam at will, turning forest into greasslands. Reintroduction reversed that in jsut a decade or so.
Loss of a single top species like the African Elephant would cause a significant loss on the environment. One species breaks up thorn bushes, pulls down trees and create open grasslands for other species. They dig water holes in dry river beds, cause the spread of plants with their droppings and so on. Anything that impacts the environment ultimately impacts man. Protecting species and ecosystems is vital to all species at every level.
Quote from: Solitary on September 05, 2014, 11:18:00 AMIf just one species becomes extinct, like bees, we will too. :eek: :boohoo:
Nitpick: there are many thousands of known species of bees, several of which are economically important pollinators, with the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) as the most important.
We wouldn't necessarily go extinct from that particular species going extinct, but it would certainly hurt our harvests.
How many new species are filling the gap?
Every species of living thing affects others. That's the larger picture of what I learned during graduate school. The wolf example is very tangible, but there are billions of such interactions between and among species happening all the time. Life is very delicate and amazing.
Quote from: Solitary on September 05, 2014, 05:34:05 PMAren't all bees the same species?
You so silly. :razz:
(http://u.osu.edu/ellsworth.2/files/2013/12/8fb77-beeposterfb.jpg)
The extinctions are part of God's plan. Who the fuck do you think you are to criticize?
:eh: Each bee in the picture is of a separate species.
One of us didn't. I can assure you that biologists do not class all bees as the same species, hence the many different species names. I though you were joking about that at first, but it seems you'd rather be wrong than be corrected.
Bee isn’t a species any more than cat is. Lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris) are separate species just as eastern honey bees (Apis cerana) and western honey bees (Apis mellifera) are. Lions and tigers are both members of the genus Panthera. Eastern and western honey bees are members of the genus Apis. Same genus. Different species.
From Wikipedia:
Now to make it even more complicated: Difficulty of defining "species" and identifying particular species
Main article: Species problem
It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.
Most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition, known as the Biological Species Concept (BSC) of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". It has been argued that this definition of species is not only a useful formulation, but is also a natural consequence of the effect of sexual reproduction on the dynamics of natural selection.(Also see Speciation.)
Various parts of this definition serve to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:
Those that occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating partners may not be available) or as a result of deliberate human action
Animals that may be physically and physiologically capable of mating but, for various reasons, do not normally do so in the wild
The typical textbook definition above works well for most multi-celled organisms, but there are several types of situations in which it breaks down:
By definition it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually. So it does not work for asexually reproducing single-celled organisms and for the relatively few parthenogenetic or apomictic multi-celled organisms. The term "phylotype" is often applied to such organisms.
Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding.
There is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may succeed under natural conditions, or even in the degree to which some organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed.
In ring species, members of adjacent populations interbreed successfully but members of some non-adjacent populations do not.
In a few cases it may be physically impossible for animals that are members of the same species to mate. However, these are cases, such as in breeds of dogs, in which human intervention has caused gross morphological changes, and are therefore excluded by the biological species concept.[dubious â€" discuss]
Horizontal gene transfer makes it even more difficult to define the word "species". There is strong evidence of horizontal gene transfer between very dissimilar groups of prokaryotes, and at least occasionally between dissimilar groups of eukaryotes; and Williamson argues that there is evidence for it in some crustaceans and echinoderms. All definitions of the word "species" assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents that are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false.
Charles Darwin wrote in chapter II of On the Origin of Species:
No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation.
But later, in The Descent of Man, when addressing "The question whether mankind consists of one or several species", Darwin revised his opinion to say:
it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element that cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation. :wall: :confused2: Solitary
Quote from: SolitaryI'm not joking!
Like I keep saying to no avail, encyclopedias are better for learning about a term than dictionaries. As for bee species, [lmgtfy=number of bee species in the world]look it up[/lmgtfy].
QuotePlease explain what the other species of bees they are if they are not bees.
Not even wrong.
Okay, you know how the term "bird" refers to lots of different species of birds? Yeah, it's like that. Bee is a general term for lots of different species of bees. So, you essentially commented that you're worried that the bird species might go extinct and then when someone corrected you and posted a chart containing many different bird species, you seriously argued that all birds are the same species because they have nearly the same characteristics apparently based on a very poor dictionary understanding of the term.
It's really hard for me to take something like that seriously.
Quote from: Solitary on September 06, 2014, 12:25:28 PMThat definition I gave is wrong I guess. You are correct! I stand corrected
Yay! Thank you. Now we can get back to the topic at hand.
Not so fast! We still have to agree on the definition of species to determine if all bees were destroyed mankind would die off. Which of the 24 different definitions do you want to use?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VADefiningSpecies.shtml
Quote
Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.
A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.
For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator.
That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is notâ€"in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. The bacterium shown at right is reproducing asexually, by binary fission. The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually. a dividing streptococcus bacterium
Also, many plants, and some animals, form hybrids in nature. Hooded crows and carrion crows look different, and largely mate within their own groupsâ€"but in some areas, they hybridize. Should they be considered the same species or separate species?
If two lineages of oak look quite different, but occasionally form hybrids with each other, should we count them as different species? There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It’s not so surprising that these blurry places existâ€"after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!
Why is this getting like reading the Bible? It's because even science is ambiguous with definitions because they are all made up for our use, depending on what we want them to mean. Solitary
Here's the most general definition:
A species is often described as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
Quote from: Solitary on September 06, 2014, 01:35:33 PM
Not so fast! We still have to agree on the definition of species to determine if all bees were destroyed mankind would die off. Which of the 24 different definitions do you want to use?
(http://i.imgur.com/oDubyS4.gif)
Solitary, please stop this nitpickery. Nobody is impressed by it. No matter what definition of "species" you use, it will not change the basic findings of the paper or the fact that without bees humanity would be in deep shit trouble.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on September 06, 2014, 07:00:20 PM
Solitary, please stop this nitpickery. Nobody is impressed by it. No matter what definition of "species" you use, it will not change the basic findings of the paper or the fact that without bees humanity would be in deep shit trouble.
It's my fault. I was trying to explain how "If just one species becomes extinct, like bees, we will too" isn't technically correct because there are a great many species of bees. I expected a simple "oh, ok" but got something else entirely.
You're right, without bees, humanity would be in very deep shit (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140502-what-if-bees-went-extinct).
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 03:00:53 PMhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtm
You left off the l at the end. It's a dead link without it. And yes, I've been there before. I just wish you had. Or failing that, gone there instead of pointlessly arguing to salve a bruised ego.
QuoteIf just one species becomes extinct, like bees, we will too. Note: Bee's plural.
(http://www.acting-man.com/blog/media/2014/07/never_go_full_retard1.jpg)
That statement would've actually have been a lot less objectionable if you had simply amended it to all bee species, which you easily could have done. Doubling down on poor phrasing probably wasn't the smartest decision on your part.
And please, for the love of all that is good and just in the world, don't use apostrophes for plurals. That's just...oh yeah, I used that pic already.
QuoteLet’s start by defining a species.
Defining a Species
A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.
That is correct. I'm glad you learned at least that much.
QuoteAll your different bees shown can interbreed, therefore they are all, as a group, a species according to Berkeley biologists.
This is not correct. And I honestly have no idea where you got the absurd idea that tens of thousands of distinct species can all interbreed. Because that's about as wrong as saying that all birds can interbreed. You might want to recheck your source, because it doesn't actually support your argument.
To be accurate, the lines of "species" Can be blurred and confusing. Some cases of interspecific hybrids can produce fertile offspring. For instance, there have been fertile mules, and yes, fertile interspecific bees. Some genera can even interbreed in rare cases, although they aren't generally reproductive (Like sheep and goats).
Interspecific bee colonies have been documented.
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 05:46:03 PM
Not all species can breed, even apes and man,
I am not so sure about that. I would not be at all surprised if humans and chimpanzees were able to produce viable offspring.
Quote from: Mermaid on September 07, 2014, 06:00:18 PM
I am not so sure about that. I would not be at all surprised if humans and chimpanzees were able to produce viable offspring.
Viable but not fertile perhaps, that goes down a dangerous road.
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 05:46:03 PMYes, your picture is of a species, a "sub" species, of bees a species because they can breed with yours.
Dafuq?! That picture, if you're actually referring to the one I think you're talking about (http://u.osu.edu/ellsworth.2/files/2013/12/8fb77-beeposterfb.jpg), refers to many different bee species native to the United States (http://bugguide.net/node/view/475348), of which there are around 4,000. They are
not subspecies. FFS man, they have species labels right next to them! Anyone with the ability to read would immediately know they're different species.
Damn, I'm really starting to regret using that full retarded pic too early. :(
QuoteNot all species can breed, even apes and man
*wonders if he should even attempt to explain that "ape" in scientific classification actually refers to a lot of species, including gorillas, both species of chimps (bonobos and common chimpanzees), orangutans, and humans*
QuoteI guess you haven't studied about species and sub species yet.
QuoteScientific classification: Bees make up a superfamily known as the Apoidea. Cellophane bees make up the family Colletidae, mining bees make up the family Andrenidae, sweat bees make up the family Halictidae, the leafcutter and mason bees and their relatives make up the family Megachilidae, the digger bees make up the family Anthophoridae, and honey bees and their relatives make up the family Apidae.
Good, good. You're so close to figuring it out. Just one last question for the pot: what are families (in the taxonomic sense of the word) made out of?
(http://images.wikia.com/vampirediaries/images/6/6b/This_gonna_be_good.gif)
QuoteThis is the family of species we are talking about, and they can breed.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CmauLFi2z48/T2ZadpUTd7I/AAAAAAAAB3U/EHXJM6sgLH4/s400/AllOfMyWhyRarity.jpg)
Yeah, I already know that. You on the other hand, seem to be really struggling with distinguishing species from subspecies. Might be worth a remedial lesson to get you up to speed, though I'm not getting my hopes up.
So let's play Species or Subspecies! Winner gets an internet cookie! Textbooks are allowed and you get one ask the audience.
Apis mellifera + Bombus terrestris. Different species or different subspecies?
Bombus breviceps + Bombus balteatus. Different species or different subspecies?
Canis lupus lupus + Canis lupus familiaris. Different species or different subspecies?
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 08:05:05 PMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apis_mellifera_subspecies
Keep your internet cookie!
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--DU-OyNtz--/18ocxa85lxi68jpg.jpg)
Yes, those are all subspecies of the the European honeybee (apis mellifera).
The image that I posted contained not just the European honeybee, but also the long-horned bee, the eastern carpenter bee, the yellow-masked bee, the hornfaced bee, the small carpenter bee, etc.
Do you finally see your mistake in looking at that and calling them all the same species?
You've proven that you can list all the subspecies belonging the different species I've posted. Congrats. But you're still just as wrong as you were 5 min ago. The image still contains many different species.
Here's a freebee just to ol' wheel turning:
European honeybee = Apis mellifera (this is the species name)
eastern carpenter bee = Xylocopa virginica (this is the species name)
A. mellifera = one species
X. virginica = another species
Together, these are two species. Not two subspecies. TWO SPECIES.
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 09:45:13 PM
So you are correct then, and http://bugguide.net/node/view/174363/bgref?from=241 is wrong to list the ones you mentioned as sub species. Congratulations! You are the bee whisperer.
For the hundred time, the bug guide isn't wrong, it just doesn't actually say what you think it does
For example, from the list you posted above, Xylocopa (http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Xylocopa) is its own genus. It contains lots of species. And some of those contain subspecies.
There's the california carpenter bee (Xylocopa californica). This species contains the following subspecies: X. c. arizonensis, X. c. californica, X. c. diamesa
Then there's the eastern carpenter bee (Xylocopa virginica). This species contains the following subspecies: Xylocopa virginica texana, Xylocopa virginica virginica, and Xylocopa virginica krombeini
That's a total of two species and 6 subspecies just from these examples. Do you understand how two is a bigger number than one?
Quote from: Solitary on September 08, 2014, 12:05:34 AMCan all the bees you listed interbreed and produce fertile offspring?
NO.
That's what I've been trying to tell you this whole time. #FFS
Quote from: Solitary on September 07, 2014, 03:00:53 PM
If just the different species of bees becomes extinct, we will too.
fify*
Again solitary, "bees" is a group of species.
Same as how humans are apes, but apes are not necessarily humans. Same as how crows are birds, but birds are not necessarily crows. It's just a grouping.
Quote from: Solitary on September 08, 2014, 01:18:45 AM
OK, so they are not the same species, and when someone talks about bees, then bees are a species when they can not interbreed unless it is with the same species? It seems that bees are not a specific species, but more than one species that can't necessarily breed with each other. Right?
Different species can interbreed if they are close enough in DNA.
Zebra and donkeys can mate, for instance. They are different species, but they are closely related enough to breed together
I think part of the disagreement here is because taxonomy is not an easy thing. Biological science as spent an inordinate amount of time classifying animals, only to reclassify them again and again. A couple of times during the process, the system itself was redesigned, and the difficulty of classifying something still exists today. As evolution speciates, it's a slow process and at first differences are not distinguishable. Given time, the differences become more apparent. Before we understood DNA, this was all done by observation, and identifying a species, or categorizing a living thing was pretty much nothing more than a judgment call. This is why creationists consider it prudent to refer to "kinds" as taxonomic device. It still is a judgment call, although the rules are more widely accepted and agreed upon today.
So while we can quibble over whether two living things are in the same group or not, we are expected to accept a scientific consensus, which is much like agreeing on the definitions of words during debate. Sure we can invent new meanings for the words, and we can arbitrarily announce that we don't separate bees into species of bees, but that would put ourselves on the idiosyncratic fringe, and out of touch by refusing to accept the common usage. You can do this, sure, but it's kind of like being defiant or something. Unless you believe you are right and everyone else is wrong, it doesn't offer much to the discussion.
Quote from: Solitary on September 08, 2014, 01:18:45 AMOK, so they are not the same species, and when someone talks about bees, then bees are a species when they can not interbreed unless it is with the same species?
Bees is a general term for thousands of species.
QuoteIt seems that bees are not a specific species, but more than one species that can't necessarily breed with each other. Right?
Yes. In the same way that birds does not refer to a specific species but lots of different species.