Are the planets growing?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:04 pm

Here they go again blaming oxygen levels on insect size. I'm still concerned about Mothra showing up someday. HA!

Reign of the Giant Insects Ended With the Evolution of Birds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 155703.htm
ScienceDaily (June 4, 2012) — Giant insects ruled the prehistoric skies during periods when Earth's atmosphere was rich in oxygen. Then came the birds. After the evolution of birds about 150 million years ago, insects got smaller despite rising oxygen levels, according to a new study by scientists at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Insects reached their biggest sizes about 300 million years ago during the late Carboniferous and early Permian periods. This was the reign of the predatory griffinflies, giant dragonfly-like insects with wingspans of up to 28 inches (70 centimeters). The leading theory attributes their large size to high oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere (over 30 percent, compared to 21 percent today), which allowed giant insects to get enough oxygen through the tiny breathing tubes that insects use instead of lungs.

The new study takes a close look at the relationship between insect size and prehistoric oxygen levels. Matthew Clapham, an assistant professor of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz, and Jered Karr, a UCSC graduate student who began working on the project as an undergraduate, compiled a huge dataset of wing lengths from published records of fossil insects, then analyzed insect size in relation to oxygen levels over hundreds of millions of years of insect evolution. Their findings are published in the June 4 online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

"Maximum insect size does track oxygen surprisingly well as it goes up and down for about 200 million years," Clapham said. "Then right around the end of the Jurassic and beginning of the Cretaceous period, about 150 million years ago, all of a sudden oxygen goes up but insect size goes down. And this coincides really strikingly with the evolution of birds."

With predatory birds on the wing, the need for maneuverability became a driving force in the evolution of flying insects, favoring smaller body size.

The findings are based on a fairly straightforward analysis, Clapham said, but getting the data was a laborious task. Karr compiled the dataset of more than 10,500 fossil insect wing lengths from an extensive review of publications on fossil insects. For atmospheric oxygen concentrations over time, the researchers relied on the widely used "Geocarbsulf" model developed by Yale geologist Robert Berner. They also repeated the analysis using a different model and got similar results.

The study provided weak support for an effect on insect size from pterosaurs, the flying reptiles that evolved in the late Triassic about 230 million years ago. There were larger insects in the Triassic than in the Jurassic, after pterosaurs appeared. But a 20-million-year gap in the insect fossil record makes it hard to tell when insect size changed, and a drop in oxygen levels around the same time further complicates the analysis.

Another transition in insect size occurred more recently at the end of the Cretaceous period, between 90 and 65 million years ago. Again, a shortage of fossils makes it hard to track the decrease in insect sizes during this period, and several factors could be responsible. These include the continued specialization of birds, the evolution of bats, and a mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous.

"I suspect it's from the continuing specialization of birds," Clapham said. "The early birds were not very good at flying. But by the end of the Cretaceous, birds did look quite a lot like modern birds."

Clapham emphasized that the study focused on changes in the maximum size of insects over time. Average insect size would be much more difficult to determine due to biases in the fossil record, since larger insects are more likely to be preserved and discovered.

"There have always been small insects," he said. "Even in the Permian when you had these giant insects, there were lots with wings a couple of millimeters long. It's always a combination of ecological and environmental factors that determines body size, and there are plenty of ecological reasons why insects are small."

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of California - Santa Cruz. The original article was written by Tim Stephens.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

Journal Reference:

Matthew E. Clapham and Jered A. Karr. Environmental and biotic controls on the evolutionary history of insect body size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 4, 2012 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1204026109
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Meganisoptera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganisoptera
allynh
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby nick c » Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:03 pm

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 am

HOw do we reconcile the "problem with dating" and catastrophic events with supposed time lines/periods? :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby mague » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:01 am

Arent oxygene/oxidation, underpressure/vacuum and growth/expansion all aspects of the same thing ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHY9fFQh ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpSPhRM0 ... h_response

And since there are fossil in coal mines at 5000ft and deeper we probably can add the tectonic idea too. Truth is probably all of it. It even might be that earth is expanding, shrinking and expanding again.
mague
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:18 am

nick c wrote:Arthropleura, an 8' long millipede

Yikes! Run away! I hate normal size centipedes that wander into the house, I don't want to meet an 8 footer. HA!
Sparky wrote:HOw do we reconcile the "problem with dating" and catastrophic events with supposed time lines/periods?

Ignore all dating systems until we understand that a half mile thick layer can be formed in minutes by sloshing(tsunami).
mague wrote:And since there are fossil in coal mines at 5000ft and deeper we probably can add the tectonic idea too.

I suspect that a combination of carving(EDM) and sloshing(Michael's Duning process) combine to bury layers of coal with plants and animals.

Each time the Earth was shifted and thrown around willy nilly, massive sloshing occurred. The fact that things were stable long enough to form deep layers of material to turn into coal indicates that the big shifts in rotation were rare.
allynh
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:21 pm

Here we go again, here we go again, strolling down the avenue.... HA!

Dinosaurs were lighter than previously thought, new study shows
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-dinosaurs- ... ought.html
University of Manchester biologists used lasers to measure the minimum amount of skin required to wrap around the skeletons of modern-day mammals, including reindeer, polar bears, giraffes and elephants.

They discovered that the animals had almost exactly 21% more body mass than the minimum skeletal 'skin and bone' wrap volume, and applied this to a giant Brachiosaur skeleton in Berlin's Museum für Naturkunde.

Previous estimates of this Brachiosaur's weight have varied, with estimates as high as 80 tonnes, but the Manchester team's calculations – published in the journal Biology Letters – reduced that figure to just 23 tonnes. The team says the new technique will apply to all dinosaur weight measurements.
dinosaurswer.jpg
dinosaurswer.jpg (9.84 KiB) Viewed 847 times

Brachiosaurus scan

Lead author Dr Bill Sellers said: "One of the most important things palaeobiologists need to know about fossilised animals is how much they weighed. This is surprisingly difficult, so we have been testing a new approach. We laser scanned various large mammal skeletons, including polar bear, giraffe and elephant, and calculated the minimum wrapping volume of the main skeletal sections.
"We showed that the actual volume is reliably 21% more than this value, so we then laser scanned the Berlin Brachiosaur, Giraffatitan brancai, calculating the skin and bone wrapping volume and added 21%. We found that the giant herbivore weighed 23 tonnes, supporting the view that these animals were much lighter than traditionally thought.
1-dinosaurswer.jpg

Dr Sellers, based in Manchester's Faculty of Life Sciences, explained that body mass was a critical parameter used to constrain biomechanical and physiological traits of organisms.
He said: "Volumetric methods are becoming more common as techniques for estimating the body masses of fossil vertebrates but they are often accused of excessive subjective input when estimating the thickness of missing soft tissue.

"Here, we demonstrate an alternative approach where a minimum convex hull is derived mathematically from the point cloud generated by laser-scanning mounted skeletons. This has the advantage of requiring minimal user intervention and is therefore more objective and far quicker.

"We tested this method on 14 large-bodied mammalian skeletons and demonstrated that it consistently underestimated body mass by 21%. We suggest that this is a robust method of estimating body mass where a mounted skeletal reconstruction is available and demonstrate its usage to predict the body mass of one of the largest, relatively complete sauropod dinosaurs, Giraffatitan brancai, as 23,200 kg.

"The value we got for Giraffatitan is at the low range of previous estimates; although it is still huge, some of the enormous estimates of the past – 80 tonnes in 1962 – are exaggerated. Our method provides a much more accurate measure and shows dinosaurs, while still huge, are not as big as previously thought."

More information: Images: WI Sellers & PL Manning

Journal reference: Biology Letters

Provided by University of Manchester

And the National Geographic has "weighed in" on the birds eating giant bugs issue. GET it, "weighed in". HA!

Giant Bugs Eaten Out of Existence by First Birds?
Without avian predators, bugs today would be much bigger, study says.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ence-bugs/
Sure, they provide the soundtrack of spring and are often lovely to look at. But a new study may offer the best reason yet to appreciate birds: the general absence of gigantic insects from our daily lives.

Today insects are among the smallest creatures on Earth, but about 300 million years ago, huge bugs were fairly common. The dragonfly-like griffinfly, for example, had a wingspan of about 28 inches (70 centimeters)—"a little bit smaller than a crow's," study co-author Matthew Clapham said. Today's widest-winged insects are butterfly and moth species that span about a foot (30 centimeters).

The prehistoric bugs' incredible growth was fueled by an atmosphere that was more than 30 percent oxygen, compared with 21 percent today, experts say. The extra oxygen gave bugs more energy per breath, allowing them to power bigger bodies.

(Related: "Did Rising Oxygen Levels Fuel Mammal Evolution?")

In the new study, Clapham and a colleague created a wingspan database for more than 10,500 insect fossils spanning the past 320 million years.

"When oxygen went up, insects got bigger. And when oxygen went down, they got smaller," said Clapham, a paleobiologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

But things changed about 150 million years ago, during the Jurassic period (prehistoric time line), when the first birds appeared alongside dinosaurs. After birds took to the skies, winged insects stopped growing bigger—even as oxygen levels rose.

"The argument that we're making is that oxygen is important and a limiting factor on insect size," Clapham said. "But once birds evolved, they became a more important constraint on the maximum size of insects."

(Also see "Why Giant Bugs Once Roamed the Earth.")

Not Too Big to Fail

As to why the big bugs might have fallen to birds, Clapham said, "the maneuverability of any sort of flying thing really scales with size. Small things are much more maneuverable than large things."

In other words, large insects may have been easy targets. Another possibility is that birds may simply have eaten the big bugs' lunch.

"Dragonflies are predatory, and they eat smaller insects," he said. During the Jurassic, "the birds and these large dragonflies may have been competing for the same food." (See National Geographic magazine pictures: "The Long, Curious, Extravagant Evolution of Feathers.")

Curiously, the researchers found no evidence that pterosaurs—flying reptiles that pre-dated birds and are believed to have included bugs in their diets—had any effect on insect size.

"In general, the insect size that you see after pterosaurs evolved is more or less what you would expect, given the oxygen levels," Clapham said.

"I think pterosaurs may not have been as agile or maneuverable at flying as birds are."

One implication of the new study is that, were it not for birds, modern insects would likely be much bigger.

"The largest insects today could perhaps be three times as large as they currently are," based on current oxygen levels, Clapham said.

"That doesn't mean that every insect today would be three times as big, but the [growth limit] could rise, and there could be larger ones."

The insect-bird research is detailed in this week's issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
allynh
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:21 am

"The largest insects today could perhaps be three times as large as they currently are," based on current oxygen levels, Clapham said.
But they're not which just proves that oxygen is not the limiting factor.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby mague » Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:51 am

Aardwolf wrote:
"The largest insects today could perhaps be three times as large as they currently are," based on current oxygen levels, Clapham said.
But they're not which just proves that oxygen is not the limiting factor.


It is wrong to think nature aims for superlatives.

The factor is survivability. Small is better. If humans where half their size they would have twice as much food. Thats why animals and insects turned smaller. It might be connected with earths axis and the seasons and changes in plants gowth and continental drift (Be it growth or motion).

Smaller also means more room for diversity. Diversity is one strategy of the biosphere to maintain life through bad and even disastrous times. Its not necessarily about the strong who survive. Its rather a spreading into any niche available to make sure some life even survives the most hostile situations.

The strong ones on top of the chain arent selected to rule the planet but to secure it from external influences. Thats quite a bit shamanic tbh. But there was a reason why earth had such scary animals on land, air and sea. I thought i mention it, because mankind doesnt fill that role very well currently.
mague
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:05 am

mague wrote:Small is better.
If that were the case why did enormous dinosaurs evolve in the first place? Why in certain species is the largest the most dominant and normally (and critically for evolutionary purposes) has the breeding rights? In most species males fight rivals for the right to breed and the largest of its offspring will no doubt win its own future breeding contests. Even in small creatures size is an advantage as smaller creatures tend to have many offspring and only the largest/strongest of those will survive as they need to compete with their siblings for access to food. Large animals also have very few if any predators (or rivals), whereas smaller creatures are surrounded by predators and rival species. What creatures are traditionally at the top of the food chain (excluding man and his technology)?

No, if something can be big and still be efficient, nature will evolve it, as size is the best offence, defence and survival advantage nature has. Obviously it still has to be efficient as its no good being big if you cant move and that's where gravity comes in.

If small is better we would all still be unicellular.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby webolife » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:43 am

Perhaps, because evolution has nothing to do with it.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:02 pm

webolife wrote:Perhaps, because evolution has nothing to do with it.
But that still doesn't address any of the points made, however, for your benefit and anyone else with doubts about evolution I'll rephrase;

mague wrote:Small is better.
If that were the case why did enormous dinosaurs exist in the first place? Why in certain species is the largest the most dominant and normally has the breeding rights? In most species males fight rivals for the right to breed and the largest of its offspring will no doubt win its own future breeding contests. Even in small creatures size is an advantage as smaller creatures tend to have many offspring and only the largest/strongest of those will survive as they need to compete with their siblings for access to food. Large animals also have very few if any predators (or rivals), whereas smaller creatures are surrounded by predators and rival species. What creatures are traditionally at the top of the food chain (excluding man and his technology)?

No, if something can be big and still be efficient, nature will trigger its existence, as size is the best offence, defence and survival advantage nature has. Obviously it still has to be efficient as its no good being big if you cant move and that's where gravity comes in.

If small is better we would all still be unicellular.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby MosaicDave » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:52 pm

...largest the most dominant...
...size is an advantage...
...compete for access to food...
...Large animals also have very few if any predators (or rivals)...
...What creatures are traditionally at the top of the food chain (excluding man and his technology)?...
...size is the best offence, defence and survival advantage nature has...

Well, I won't split hairs by arguing, for example, over what it means to be "dominant".

But, isn't this really just the perspective of a Large Animal? After all, the total mass of ants, or fungi, or cyanobacteria, or just take your pick, outweighs the total mass of humans, by a hundred times, or a thousand times, or whatever the actual figure is in any case. To say nothing of the total number of organisms, where the accounting would tip even more heavily.

And isn't there furthermore a certain fragility or brittleness, that comes from being large and specialized, as opposed to small and numerous? Cockroaches seem to have been around a lot longer than people.

And anyway, is there actually a "top" to the food chain? That's what they teach in gradeschool, but doesn't it really more go round in a cycle?

People build cities, and write books, and form cultures, and Internets, make big plans, think big thoughts. Meanwhile the Compost Pile waits, going quietly about its business, biding its time...
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby mague » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:00 am

Aardwolf wrote:If that were the case why did enormous dinosaurs exist in the first place?

What creatures are traditionally at the top of the food chain (excluding man and his technology)?


As i wrote, my opinion on the dinosaurs is less scientific and more based on a shamanic view. I dont want to use the word alien. But there are theroies that certain fungi and microbes are actually space travelers. It might be that the gaia intelligence created the dinosaurs to make earth a very unpleasant place for extraterrestrial species. And i am not about green men in high tech UFO's. Its more like those old natives who thought bringing back moon stone was a bad idea.

The real masters on earth are the microorganism. They are able to kill us all or to force any species, be it flora or fauna, into mutations (in a positive way). Their collective mind, if such exists, might be similar to a superbrain. It is assumed that they are the largest biomass followed by the trees.

However, back to the topic. The TPOD today is very interessting. Looking at ther Alaska picture i cant helpt to think of simliar mechanics as ice has. It is mass, then crumbles, is swiming above or below the surface of the fluid and is reorganising itself to mass again. Something similar might happen to the teranes...
mague
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:27 am

MosaicDave wrote:
...largest the most dominant...
...size is an advantage...
...compete for access to food...
...Large animals also have very few if any predators (or rivals)...
...What creatures are traditionally at the top of the food chain (excluding man and his technology)?...
...size is the best offence, defence and survival advantage nature has...

Well, I won't split hairs by arguing, for example, over what it means to be "dominant".

But, isn't this really just the perspective of a Large Animal? After all, the total mass of ants, or fungi, or cyanobacteria, or just take your pick, outweighs the total mass of humans, by a hundred times, or a thousand times, or whatever the actual figure is in any case. To say nothing of the total number of organisms, where the accounting would tip even more heavily.

And isn't there furthermore a certain fragility or brittleness, that comes from being large and specialized, as opposed to small and numerous? Cockroaches seem to have been around a lot longer than people.

And anyway, is there actually a "top" to the food chain? That's what they teach in gradeschool, but doesn't it really more go round in a cycle?

People build cities, and write books, and form cultures, and Internets, make big plans, think big thoughts. Meanwhile the Compost Pile waits, going quietly about its business, biding its time...
Dominant as in dominance of an individual in a species not a species as a whole. That should have obvious from my points. Mague stated that small is better. Maybe thats true for a species but its not true for an individual within a species where, in most cases, nature clearly favours the larger/stronger.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:33 am

mague wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:If that were the case why did enormous dinosaurs exist in the first place?

What creatures are traditionally at the top of the food chain (excluding man and his technology)?


As i wrote, my opinion on the dinosaurs is less scientific and more based on a shamanic view. I dont want to use the word alien. But there are theroies that certain fungi and microbes are actually space travelers. It might be that the gaia intelligence created the dinosaurs to make earth a very unpleasant place for extraterrestrial species. And i am not about green men in high tech UFO's. Its more like those old natives who thought bringing back moon stone was a bad idea.

The real masters on earth are the microorganism. They are able to kill us all or to force any species, be it flora or fauna, into mutations (in a positive way). Their collective mind, if such exists, might be similar to a superbrain. It is assumed that they are the largest biomass followed by the trees.

However, back to the topic. The TPOD today is very interessting. Looking at ther Alaska picture i cant helpt to think of simliar mechanics as ice has. It is mass, then crumbles, is swiming above or below the surface of the fluid and is reorganising itself to mass again. Something similar might happen to the teranes...
I'm not adverse to the idea of panspermia but that doesn't change any of the issues regarding the inability of larger animals to roam the Earth in todays gravity, nor the fact that within most larger animal species nature favours larger individuals as long as it maintains efficiency within their environment.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests