> which are becoming extinct at a rate between 100 and 1,000 times the rate before humans
I have always wondered how people come up with that conclusion. How do people guess at those numbers? We honestly don't know how fast species went extinct at various points in the past and we don't really know how fast they are going extinct right now. We are still discovering new species, by the way, and there may be some that go extinct that we never discover.
> We honestly don't know how fast species went extinct at various points in the past and we don't really know how fast they are going extinct right now.
Citation needed please. Yes, they're estimates, but there are scientists who have devoted their entire careers to exactly that question. A quick Google turns up entire books devoted to this topic (http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/344/13...) Your phrasing here makes it sound like this number is entirely random and not based on any evidence or science.
I am not going to give you a citation for missing knowledge. Grow up.
Consider the Drake Equation[1]. This equation was created to stimulate conversation. It was never intended for scientific merit, but this doesn't stop people from looking at evidence and then making unsubstantiated guesses about things. People can guess and theorize all they want, but in the absence of evidence any guess is crude.
So, lets talk about it in terms of numbers. Between 2000-3000 years ago how many species went extinct rounded down to the nearest 1000? In the past ten years how many species have gone extinct rounded down to the nearest 50? You must have some kind of numbers, based upon something, that serve as the presented basis of comparison. Without evidence of numbers you are simply making an extremely crude guess.
> I am not going to give you a citation for missing knowledge. Grow up.
Incivility like this, and flamewars like this subthread, are things we ban accounts for. Would you please not post like this? Regardless of how right you are or how wrong someone else is.
You disagree with a claim in the article. Someone replies asking you to cite evidence for your opinion. And you respond telling them you’re not going to do the research for them? Why would you even make the claim of disagreement in the first comment if you can’t already provide information to back it up?
I like that after you refuse to support your own claims, you then tell the person to grow up. Awesome.
So you can't cite a single source that evidence does not exist for present and historical species counts and yet there are entire books dedicated to said topic (supposedly, perhaps parent could list some). You should probably think about that for a while before you continue to respond.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim (that extinction has increased) not the person questioning the claim. It's like asking someone to prove God doesn't exist.
Likewise, you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary.
I will repeat myself. How do you cite evidence of something that doesn't exist? Case in point, can you provide any example, from any form of science, of evidence of something that doesn't exist?
As an example: Eventually scientists may prove the existence of dark matter, but they will never prove that dark matter doesn't exist because evidence of absence isn't scientific.
If you show me how such any evidence, evidence of absence, is vaguely possible I will find it for you.
Or, you could prove me wrong. If this topic is utterly indisputable this should be a simple feat. A single simple Google search. Things like appeals to authority and argument from ignorance are not scientifically credible. I could be wrong, but all anybody has done is shown offense.
I am thinking if the scientist in the article were comparing extinctions of recent years to mass extinction events his numbers would be radically different. He is comparing extinctions of modern times with the natural extinction rate of prior historical epochs.
The theme of the conversation is that species naturally go extinct all the time, but now in the age of industrial man the rate of extinction is much faster. This is likely a valid and accurate claim, but associating this claim with comparative quantities is not scientific.
I suggest you take great caution before casting aside entire analytical approaches used by scientists. Remember that intellectual humility is also part of being a good skeptic.
This is what's called an appeal to authority. Caution should not be taken in questioning scientific claims. It should happen continuously and vigorously.
I have always wondered how people come up with that conclusion. How do people guess at those numbers? We honestly don't know how fast species went extinct at various points in the past and we don't really know how fast they are going extinct right now. We are still discovering new species, by the way, and there may be some that go extinct that we never discover.