ForumsWEPRTHE GREAT DEBATES! (Rd. 6 Results)

224 55642
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,574 posts
Duke

Some of you may remember The Great Debates thread from years past. Some thought it was fun, and some thought it was just too heavy.

So I thought I'd bring things back, but with a twist! The basic idea is still the same: two users will debate on a topic. The difference is that you won't get to pick the topic or which side you'll be arguing for.

Oh, and I almost forgot - the topics are going to be somewhat ... silly But that doesn't mean your argument has to be silly. In fact, if you can defend your silly point in a serious way, you might just earn yourself a merit! So it's not about winners or losers, it's about whether you can argue for, well, just about anything!

RULES:

- I will provide three possible topics for debate. If you'd like to participate, then you can SIGN-UP HERE in the Art, Music, and Writing forum: click here

- Once 6 people (at least for now) have signed up for the current three topics, the signup thread will close and the debates will begin

- Assignments will be given on this thread (who will be debating for which topic and what side).
**NOTE** You are signing up to play. Which topic you get and what side you'll be arguing for will be decided randomly. So be prepared!

- You will only have 1 post in which to give your argument, so make it count! Keep in mind that your argument should stand on its own. So don't quote your opponent and just shoot down their arguments. But you should also anticipate potential objections and try to respond to them.

- Merit-earners will present well-reasoned and genuine arguments in favour of their position - even in the face of some pretty silly topics. What that means is that, if users on opposite sides each give great arguments, they would both earn merits!

- A loosely enforced time limit (which has yet to be officially established) will be in place. Once that time limit is reached, the next round will begin.

Good luck! And let the return of The Great Debates begin!

  • 224 Replies
Ishtaron
offline
Ishtaron
359 posts
Jester

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bW7PlTaawfQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GibiNy4d4gc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There, I won't edit this one.

randomblah
offline
randomblah
246 posts
King

@Jackinbigletters

Nuclear Fusion
While it's an interesting topic, nuclear fusion doesn't exist feasibly as of right now. I think it is best if we focus on whether or not developed countries should exclusively use nuclear fission as the source of electricity. Nuclear fission is almost entirely unrelated to nuclear fusion research-wise, and research requires very few reactors in any event.

Consequences
Without a doubt, a nuclear meltdown is a very serious event. Even the biggest proponents of nuclear fission should realize that a meltdown is an incredibly destructive disaster that can leave areas uninhabitable for thousands of years. This is where nuclear power diverges from every other source of power - if any other power plant explodes, some people may die, but the area does not become a radioactive wasteland. This is one of biggest reasons why nuclear power for every developed country is unwise.

Risk profile- paper vs. reality
While it is true that nuclear power has gotten more safe, it is important to remember that all power plants are human operated and designed. Sure, safety has somewhat improved since Three Miles and Chernobyl. And yet, ***ushima has shown us that, a mere four years ago, unsafe nuclear power plants are very possible. On paper, a nuclear power plant might seem indestructible, but preventing accidents from human error is just as easy as teaching common sense - nearly impossible. There's always the risk of a natural disaster hitting, or terrorists, or just plain operator error to lead to a meltdown. And the world can't afford many of these disasters - just a few will leave plenty of dead individuals and wastelands. The more nuclear power plants(and there will need to be very many), the bigger the risk profile(again: 443 nuclear reactors are currently in operation; it would take ~5,000 reactors to power all developed nations). And the more power plants are constructed, the more companies will trim their safety margins and cut corners in safety. This is an unnecessary risk for power that can be fulfilled by many alternatives(see below).

Pricing
One of the main reasons for going nuclear is pricing. As taken from this source, the price(in levelized cost) of electricity for coal is 95.6, 96.1 for nuclear, 80.6 for wind, and 130.0 for solar. Here, you can see that solar costs 30% more than either source, while wind costs 15% less. Of course, wind has finite capacity, which means that the largest growth in terms of renewables will come from solar.

Systemic side effects
Even when nuclear power plants work properly, they aren't very clean. The waste they generate is quite radioactive, and essentially renders areas unusable for the next few millennia. In addition, this waste isn't really well contained(especially if there is a lot of it, something that 5000 reactors will generate), as shown by incidents such as the Hanford leak. While it's easy to bash on fossil fuels for creating global warming, it's hard to decide whether nuclear power is much better when it pollutes rivers and possibly even groundwater. Environmentally, nuclear power is no gem.

Analogy - treating back pain
Now, a lot of facts have been presented and it's worthwhile to have a good analogy to make the appropriate value judgement. Suppose I have chronic back pain(a serious but not fatal condition, just like power generation), and there are three treatments(technologies for power generation). The first(nuclear) is a spinal surgery that is inexpensive($10,000), but occasionally results in a fatal complication(<.01%), and sometimes results in local tissue necrosis(~.01%). The second(fossil) is a drug that is also inexpensive($10,000) but systematically causes damage to the liver and the kidneys over time. The third is a new device(renewable) that costs $13,000, but has no known side effects. Suppose each treatment is extremely effective in treating back pain. Personally(and for many individuals), the case is clear - the device is the clear choice, even though it is somewhat more expensive, as it creates no medical emergency down the road. The surgery may or may not be better than the drug, but without a doubt, it is certainly inferior to the device. Sure, my wallet might be $3,000 lighter, but there's absolutely no risk of me dying for something that isn't life-threatening. Most likely, the FDA would agree - hence the lack of vaccines for cavity prevention(vaccines carry a very small but serious risk, which means that their use on a non-threatening condition is unwarranted). The same logic should be applied here - after all, people have to live on these lands and breath the air.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,574 posts
Duke

It's been pointed out to me that I can't add. I had originally put the end of the debates as 19 May. This should have said 29 May. Sorry for the confusion.

Also, if it's been 3 or more days since your opponent has posted, please let me know on my profile. Thanks!

SirLegendary
offline
SirLegendary
16,315 posts
Marquis

@Doombreed Sorry for the late response, been quite busy!

Well, you can't measure comfort as a physical size, but you can understand what is more comfortable. Tables have most of the times flat hard surfaces and nothing to lay back on.

Comfort is opinion, which is not fact.

On the contrary here is a regular chair:

Your regular chair seems to not be regular at all. In fact it has a soft part to sit on. A regular (synonymous to common) is just flat and wooden with a back support.

If you realize how small these tables are (which are the ones often seen in cafeterias) you will understand that even if you sit on these, you will have almost no freedom of moves whatsoever, due to the instability. Shifting your bw center even slightly means that it is no longer directly on the table's central leg. Meaning that you will most likely fall with any further move.

About all your mini tables, those aren't the regular kinds. You seem to be using the best looking chairs to the worst looking tables for this debate. Those mini tables aren't regular tables. You seem to be pulling some half truth.

According to the wikipedia article found here, "Rocking chairs are also comfortable because, when a user sits in one without rocking, the chair automatically rocks backward until the sitter's center of gravity is met, thus granting an ergonomic benefit with the occupant kept at an un-stressed position and angle."

First of all wikipedia. Second of all, like I said again, your using types of chairs that specialize in what they are meant to do. I'm talking about a regular four legged table.

You've also strayed way too deep into comfort. We're trying to measure value. Comfort is no way equal to value.

To measure value in our objects, we look at their utility, worth, and importance as described from your source of definition.

Worth: If a table and a chair uses the same material, the table is of more valuable because it uses more material.

Utility: A regular (common) table and chair.

Action | Table o | Chair x

Sitting o x
Multiple items on surface o x
Laying down o
Barricade o x
Space underneath in case of earthquake o
Space for decoration (vase, magazines) o

Can you use one without the other? :

Without table:
You may sit on your chair, but your plates and glasses go nowhere except on the floor. Your papers and work have nowhere to be except on the floor.

Without chair:
You may still do your work and eat your food standing up, but at least there's a place to put it. In fact you may sit on the table (if it is big enough) while doing it. Why not do both eat and work at the same time?

Importance

I would say the table is more important because it has more uses than the chair. Let's say we could buy only one item, a table or a chair. This goes back to utility, where you can still use the table without a chair. You may still use the chair without the table, but it has less uses without the table.

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
6,809 posts
Justiciar

@SirLegendary , a late response just to repeat the same stuff again? What took you so long then?

Comfort is opinion, which is not fact.

Comfort is not always opinion. How many times do we have to repeat the same things? Just like a bed is much more comfortable than the ground, a chair with a large back for you to rest (even without a soft part to sit on) is somewhat more comfortable than a flat table (and that is when talking about tables you can sit.) with no back at all.

Your regular chair seems to not be regular at all. In fact it has a soft part to sit on. A regular (synonymous to common) is just flat and wooden with a back support.

My regular chair is almost as regular as it gets, it is one of the most common types of chairs. Even if we don't consider it THE most regular, I've also examined the case the chair doesn't have a soft part to sit on.

And aside from that, who keeps such chairs without a soft pillow or something else on to make them softer?

About all your mini tables, those aren't the regular kinds. You seem to be using the best looking chairs to the worst looking tables for this debate. Those mini tables aren't regular tables. You seem to be pulling some half truth.

Those tables are exactly the regular kind. They are found everywhere. A type of table used in cafeterias, bars, gardens, balconies and many others is quite possibly the most common i.e. regular.

And even if these tables are not regular, I am not in any way comparing the best chairs with the worst tables. In fact that's what you are trying to do I think

But in any case, I've only examined various different types of tables, and various different types of chairs separately. And noted that contrary to what you are saying, there are many tables on which you simply cannot sit, let alone sit as easily and comfortably (as comfortably as that may be) in chairs.

First of all wikipedia. Second of all, like I said again, your using types of chairs that specialize in what they are meant to do. I'm talking about a regular four legged table.

First Wikipedia > nothing. Second, all I am saying is that unlike tables which all serve the same purpose and don't stray too far from it, There is a type of chair that provides unmatched comfort and relief to the user.

You've also strayed way too deep into comfort. We're trying to measure value. Comfort is no way equal to value.

Nor am I saying it is. All I've been trying to prove with those "comfort" posts is that no one in his right mind will choose to sit on a table when a chair is available, regardless of the type of chair or table in availability. And that is because chairs are more comfortable (I mean come on, they are designed for people to sit on).

And comfort also plays a part in value. It is the reason rocking chairs are more valuable than regular ones, both in monetary worth and utility, importance etc.

Worth: If a table and a chair uses the same material, the table is of more valuable because it uses more material.

There we go again... I am going to keep it simple because I don't like to repeat myself all the time: Not Always. For reasons, check my previous posts. But let's just for the sake of the argument assume that it is true.

Utility: A regular (common) table and chair.

You will have to define a regular table and a regular chair. Like I said previously, most probably the "regular" table would be a small one as they are found everywhere. But even if that is not a regular table, we would have to agree on a regular table before moving with your utility arguments. Can you prove a type of table to be the most common, so that we may both agree to take that as a regular?

As for the chairs, I hope we can agree that a regular one is a 4 legged (possibly wooden) with a back and no soft part to sit on (at least when you buy it )

But until we can establish the regular table, I will answer to your next points with the complete sum of table types in mind, meaning, all of the tables and all of the chairs:

Action | Table o | Chair x

Sitting o x

Nope. I've already explained a jumbillion times that you cannot sit on every table. On the contrary, you can sit on EVERY chair. This is not comparing any regular items with their weak counterparts or anything, this is a fact.

Laying down o

Again no and I've replied to this in my previous posts.

Barricade o x

Red Herring? No? Ok...

Space underneath in case of earthquake o

That one is true, but again in some cases. Some tables are either too small or too fragile to cover you, or supported by one leg in the center, leaving you no space for cover. As such, no.

Space for decoration (vase, magazines) o

Oh really? if the table didn't have space for decoration then what would its purpose be?

Can you use one without the other? :

Without table:
You may sit on your chair, but your plates and glasses go nowhere except on the floor. Your papers and work have nowhere to be except on the floor.

No. I've written, done work, painted and eaten a great many times without a table, holding the papers/models/plates or laying them on my knees. As have you most likely, unless you've never been to the cinema with popcorn or never eaten in front of the tv

Without chair:
You may still do your work and eat your food standing up, but at least there's a place to put it. In fact you may sit on the table (if it is big enough) while doing it. Why not do both eat and work at the same time?

Never eaten standing. Never worked or painted standing. That is only viable if you are in a real hurry in which case, you would do said things fast.

As for the other part, have you ever sat on a table to do those stuff? Have you ever seen anyone do it? has anyone told you he/she has done it?
It is impractical and uncomfortable in the sense that you have to twist your body very much. I think we can agree that performing the tasks described (eating, working etc.) is much better on a chair without a table (especially the eating part) than on a table without a chair.

And talking about utility here: Have another artillery shot.

Availability and usage

You are going to love this one. It hurts you right at the "regular" part you've been throwing around all the time
The primary reason a chair is more useful than the table is that you can use for types of work and things other than sitting. Yes, you've tried to convince me that the table can also be used for many things other than laying items on but a chair is the best readily available solution to most of those things, as you'll see below

Here is a very common everyday usage of all chairs:

- Using them to reach high selves and objects. A table may be larger in height but it is also much heavier and much more difficult to move than a chair (and that is when talking about your favorite long 4 legged wooden tables . But even if we don't take them as a base, a table is most of the times much less maneuverable than the chair. heavier, harder and the like, these attributes make you pick the chair every time you want to reach something very high. If a table is easier to move around, like if it is smaller, lighter than a chair, then it is not suited for this job). You can move a chair around anywhere you want and use it for this purpose, which, come to think of it, is very practical.

This argument is about "utility" just like the ones you've tried (and in my humble opinion failed ) to provide in your post. Enjoy it!

akshobhya
offline
akshobhya
4,921 posts
Justiciar

@Ishtaron,

Here is the Part Three of my debate. I have not been able to completely complete it, due to the lot of work that I had been held up with. But since there is a 1 day extension to the Debate, I will see if I can complete it.

Let me move onto Kingdom Animalia.
Lets talk about Invertebrates first.
Take a look at Phylum Porifera. They have Spicules which support them and also help in Self Defense and prevent them from collapsing from pressure present at the bottom of the water body. Isn't it amazing? Now, whose supporting structure tends to be superior? The oldest fossils on the planet are of sponges about 600 million years old. Now, whose ancestors have played an important role in evolution? It is quite fascinating to know that some sponges living far away in the ocean can live around 200 years. Now, think about land animals or humans... They also house other organisms inside it and other sea organisms also seek protection in it, from other predators. Chemicals that are produced by sponges are also hypothesized to cure Cancer. So, who is being helpful, and to whom? When a part of a Sponge breaks off, it forms a new Sponge. So, who has more re-generation capacity?
Poriferan -
http://www.lcsciences.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/sponges.jpg

The next Phylum – Phylum Coelenterata. There are two basic forms of coelenterates: the medusa, or swimming form[polyp] (jelly fish) and the stationary polyp . The difference between the polyp and the medusa is that the polyp is attached by its pedal disk to the rocky bottom with its tentacles facing up, and the medusa floats freely in the ocean with its tentacles hanging down. So, do humans have this kind of an alteration of Generation? The coelenterate mouth (oral disk) is surrounded by a ring of tentacles that contain cells that have small whip like structures known as nematocysts. These nematocysts are released when the coelenterate senses food or danger. The Portuguese Man-of-War is particularly dangerous to humans. When potential prey swims into the tentacles, the nematocyst is released. These stinging structures sometimes contain a venom which can paralyze the prey. This mechanism is also used for self defense. So, do humans have such a kind of a self defense system?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UZxEo8k894

Apart from Fact5, who is more cooler? Apart from these, corals are formed by these organisms and corals happens to be their exoskeleton. So, who has a more colorful(also meaning cooler) exoskeleton? and I thought this aspect will also add in telling who is *Superior*!

Now, lets talk about Arthropods. The oldest known animal to have lived on land is the arthropod Pneumodesmus newmani. Fossil evidence of this species consists of a single specimen that was discovered in 2004 in Scotland. Pneumodesmus newmani is classified as a millipede and is thought to have lived 428 million years ago, during the Late Silurian Period. So, who is Superior in terms of Age?
Arthropods are a highly successful group of animals—they account for over three quarters of all currently known living and fossil organisms.
Of all animal groups, arthropods are the most diverse and their diversity is due in no small part to the diversity of one subgroup, the insects. Scientists approximate that there may be as many as 30 million species of insects alive today. To date, over one million have been identified. The success of arthropods has been attributed to their versatile exoskeleton, the process of metamorphosis, and their metameric body structure. So, compare them with humans now. Arthropods employ a variety of reproductive methods. Humans have only one. Arthropods are some of the most interesting animals in the world!
They fly, they creep, and they crawl.  They live on land, in ponds and in the ocean.  From ants to bumblebees, crabs to crayfish, spiders to centipedes. So, who do you find is more diverse? Lets talk about Ants - Ants are arguably the greatest success story in the history of the animal kingdom. For every human there are about one million ants. In tropical regions; where ants are very common, their weight can exceed that of ground living 'vertebrates' by up to four times!
The Asian weaver ant can carry weights of more than 100 times their own body weight whilst upside
down on a glass!
http://antark.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Thomas-Endlein.jpg
So, who is stronger?
A giant colony of invasive Argentinian ants stretching 6000 Km or 3750 miles has been discovered in Europe. Although they exist in their usual smaller group size in their homeland, the colonies have merged to create one massive super colony. So, how *Big* is your city compared to this size?
The jaws or 'mandibles' of trap jaw ant Odontomachus bauri have been recorded to shut at speeds of 230 km/h or 140 mph. This system can exert forces 300 times its own weight, it can be used to kill or damage prey and in times of danger it can push its head to the ground to fling itself away. Check out the slow motion video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OHi_WcwObo
So, how fast are your reflexes?
The ant database 'antbase' provides access to all the recorded ant species in the world. As of 03 Mar 2010 it has logged 12,565 different species of ants. New species are continually being discovered. It is estimated that there could be around 22,000 different species at this moment in time.   So, how many species do apes have?
Ants can carry 50 times their own body weight, and they will work together in small or large groups to move even heavy objects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cQqS7E-yGg
That was just one small video to show that they can do it. So, how strong are you?
Ants and humans are the only creatures that farm other creatures. So, aren't they equally Superior in this Aspect?

Sometimes you may see ants 'hitting' each other but they are actually actually feeding each other from their social stomachs or crops. This process is called trophallaxis. I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnVn8KH9fq8#t=44
So, aren't ants caring and “social”?

So, you know to swim? Even ants know that!
Ants breath through small holes found around their bodies, 'spiracles'. When an ant is drowned in a flood, it may appear to be dead. However, if the water can evaporate and there is enough oxygen flowing through these holes, the ant can come back to life. Can humans do this without any special equipments?
Some species of wingless ants that live in tropical rain forest canopies use a controlled glide to return to their home tree trunk when they fall from branches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcw37Bg7vn8
Can humans do that even with support on the ground?
Now, we only talked about ants. Let us talk about another member of this phylum – Bees.
Honey bees, scientifically also known as Apis mellifera, which mean "honey-carrying bee", are environmentally friendly and are vital as pollinators. If they are wiped out, we will be facing a huge food Scarcity.
Honey is the only food that includes all the substances necessary to sustain life, including enzymes, vitamins, minerals, and water; and it's the only food that contains &quotinocembrin", an antioxidant associated with improved brain functioning. So, could humans have perfected this earlier?

Honey bees have 170 odorant receptors, compared with only 62 in fruit flies and 79 in mosquitoes. Their exceptional olfactory abilities include kin recognition signals, social communication within the hive, and odor recognition for finding food. Their sense of smell is so precise that it could differentiate hundreds of different floral varieties and tell whether a flower carried pollen or nectar from meters away. So, how strong is your sense of smell?
A hive of bees will fly 90,000 miles, the equivalent of three orbits around the earth to collect 1 kg of honey and visits 50 to 100 flowers during a collection trip. So, how hard working are you?
The bee's brain is oval in shape and only about the size of a sesame seed, yet it has remarkable capacity to learn and remember things and is able to make complex calculations on distance travelled and foraging efficiency. So, can an equivalent part of your brain do the same job as that?
Each honey bee colony has a unique odour for members' identification. So don't they have an equivalent of an ID Card?
http://www.benefits-of-honey.com/image-files/honeybee-dance.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFDGPgXtK-U#t=251
So, were humans intelligent enough to develop such a technique. Even decoding that was not done until the 20th Century! And those bees had perfected it since long back.
Bee wax or beeswax from beeswax candles which burn longer and cleaner than ordinary wax candles. These naturally scented candles made by the bees may seem to be more costly than paraffin candles, but they burn so much more slowly that any price difference is nullified. So, the wax that humans manufacture in not as efficient as the one produced by a bee? And it is also this wax that helped in lighting purposes of the older times.
Lets stop with the bees and talk about Wasps!
Can you live a day without using any form of paper? Well we know that paper was invented in China. But do you know that we are not the “Inventors of paper”? It was actually a form of recreation of a wasp's nest that has been improvised over the years. Wasps create their familiar papery abodes from wood fibers scraped with their hard mandibles and chewed into a pulp.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4059/4632540508_c36e658e48_z.jpg
Switching onto ****roaches, ****roaches are scavengers. While most roaches prefer sweets given a choice, in a pinch, they will eat just about anything: glue, grease, soap, wallpaper paste, leather, bookbindings, or even hair. Worse yet, a ****roach can survive a remarkably long time without food. Some species can go as long as 6 weeks without a meal! So, can you get energy from almost anything?
****roaches can live for weeks without their heads.As crazy as this sounds, entomologists have actually decapitated roaches to study this phenomena. Lop the head off a roach, and a week or two later it will still respond to stimuli by wiggling its legs. Can humans do this?
A ****roach can hold its breath for 40 minutes, and can even survive being submerged under water for half an hour. They hold their breath often to help regulate their loss of water. Can any average human do this?
They are also believed to survive Nuclear Attacks. Can a Human do that and escape without no harm?
Let me stop with this, with this phylum but more such examples can be found though!
In the Molluscs, an Octopus is a prominent figure.
HERE. So, are Humans the “Only” intelligent Species present? Want more proof – Remember about Paul the Octopus and the predictions made by it? Here is one -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swz8HjHRUHU
Adding more, They can solve problems, as when they remove a plug or unscrew a lid to get prey from a container. They are the first invertebrates to be seen using tools, such as using coconut shells to hide from potential predators and using rocks and jets of water in a way that could be classified as tool use.
The common octopus has a wide array of techniques it uses to avoid or thwart attackers. Its first—and most amazing—line of defense is its ability to hide in plain sight. Using a network of pigment cells and specialized muscles in its skin, the common octopus can almost instantaneously match the colors, patterns, and even textures of its surroundings. Predators such as sharks, eels, and dolphins swim by without even noticing it. Do we have such a type of a camouflage?
Here's Proof -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rqhomPaxhE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS-USrwuUfA

When discovered, an octopus will release a cloud of black ink to obscure its attacker's view, giving it time to swim away. The ink even contains a substance that dulls a predator's sense of smell, making the fleeing octopus harder to track. So isn't that intelligent first line of defense?
If all else fails, an octopus can lose an arm to escape a predator's grasp and re-grow it later with no permanent damage. Do we have such regeneration capacities?
Shifting to Echinoderms,
Brittle Stars can be found at depths as great as 6000 m. Can you withstand such pressures without any aid?
Lost an arm? No problem if you're an echinoderm! They can regrow lost limbs in a form of asexual reproduction. Amazingly, sometimes the lost part will grow a new animal if it has a part of the Central Ring System of Echinoderms. So, how far have humans come in the field/technique of Re-generation?(Echinoderms are mainly known for their amazing strength in regeneration.
I think I have not covered all aspects of invertebrates though I have tried to touch upon all main aspects.
But, now, going to the Vertebretes. 
Talking about Chondrichthyes, Cartilaginous fishes have a skeleton that consists of cartilage and are known not to suffer from cancer. Can you evolve to be like that?

Talking about Sizes, The largest living cartilaginous fish is the whale shark (about 30 feet long and 10 tons). The largest known cartilaginous fish ever to have lived is Megalodon (about 70 feet long and 50-100 tons). Other large cartilaginous fish include the manta ray (about 30 feet long) and the basking shark (about 40 feet long and 19 tons). So, don't humans when considered as individuals be “dwarfed”?

By piecing together the shark remains that do exist, scientists have uncovered a diverse and deep ancestry. Sharks of the past include ancient creatures such as Cladoselache and Ctenacanths. These early sharks were followed by Stethacanthus and Falcatus, creatures that lived during the Carboniferous Period, in a window of time referred to as the “Golden Age of Sharks”, when shark diversity blossomed to include 45 families. So, how diverse are they?

Sharks have a solid reputation for locating prey by smell, especially over long distances. However, they can also pick up on the small electrical fields generated by other animals. Near the nostrils, around the head and on the underside of the snout, or rostrum, are small pores called ampullae of Lorenzini. Connected to the pores are long, jelly-filled bulbs that lead to nerves below the skin Electrical signals coming from muscle movements of other organisms are received by the ampullae and transmitted through jelly-filled bulbs where they strike the nerves and signal the brain. Sharks can use their ampullae to navigate the globe by tracking earth’s electromagnetic field. When a shark is on the move, water pushes the tips of sensory hair cells and stimulates nerve cells to allow a shark to detect the location of other animals or structures nearby using minute changes in ocean currents. So, do humans have such Navigational Skills? And this skill puzzles scientists even today.
Rays are also capable of producing Bio-Electricity. Are we?
Talking about Sizes, the largest living cartilaginous fish, of the order Orectolobiformes, is the whale shark (Rhincodon typus), of the world's tropical oceans.
Now moving on to Osteichthyes, what best intrigues me is the Archer Fish. Archerfish are expert marksmen. They spit jets of water into the air to fell flying insects with startling accuracy. Now it seems they fine-tune their jets to pack an extra punch.The water jets made by archerfish can bring down prey, even small lizards perched on foliage, up to 2 metres above the surface of the water they live in. As well as being good shots, the fish alter the force of their blast to hit bigger targets harder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B1Ng1ViDrM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcLLB5vijfk#t=25
Can humans do that, considering the amount of refraction that happens when light enters an optical denser medium and also be accurate enough?
The giant squid, Architeuthis dux, has the largest eyes of any animal on Earth. They are up to about 30cm across - the size of a dinner plate. So, do you have large eyes?
Do we need to know more about deep sea fishes that have their own unique adaptions? Can we ever achieve it?
Goldfish can see infrared radiation that is invisible to us. Can we see that with our naked eyes?
One Puffer Fish contains enough poison to kill 30 people. So are they defenseless at all?
So, don't they have a long life span? They do have - A koi fish named "Hanako" lived for 225 years. How long did anyone live?
Fossil evidence suggests that fish have been on Earth for about 530 million years. So, did't they play an extremely major role in Evolution?
Catfish have over 27,000 taste buds. Humans have around 7,000. So, who can better decide what is tasty?
Lungfish can live out of water for a very long duration. Can we do that?
Talking about sizes, The ocean sunfish, also known as a mola mola, is the world's largest bony fish. This strange creature is like no other.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Mola_mola.jpg/220px-Mola_mola.jpg
Talking about lengths, The extremely rare king of herrings or oarfish, the longest of all bony fish.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Giant_Oarfish.jpg/320px-Giant_Oarfish.jpg
I think I will be stopping here with Pisces. But more information is always there and they are making our scientists to become more and more curious!
Mentioning of Amphibians, they have played an extremely important role in evolution. Frogs can breathe not only with their lungs, but also through their skin. Can we?
Glass frogs are frogs in the family Centrolenidae. Many frogs in this family have transparent skin (particularly on their underside), through which you can see their internal organs. Many have green bones! Aren't they helping our scientists in their studies and creating a new oppourtunities?
http://amphibiaweb.org/amphibian/AmphibianFacts_files/h_fleischmanni.jpg
The poison dart frog of South America, scientific name Phyllobates terribilis, is arguably the most dangerous animal in the world. To a laboratory mouse the frog's skin secretions are more than 400 times as toxic as the venom of a king cobra. So, isn't that poisonous enough?
Moving on, next comes Reptiles.
The leatherback turtle is the largest turtle species. Adult leatherbacks grow to an average length of 2 meters and can weigh between 250 and 700kg. The Komodo dragon is the largest lizard species and can grow in excess of 3 meters in length and 70kg in weight. The saltwater crocodile is the largest of all living reptiles and can weigh between 600 and 1,000kgm. Saltwater crocodiles grow to lengths of between 4 and 5.5 meters. So, who is Superior in terms of Size?
Reptiles are among the longest-lived species on the planet. For example, large tortoises such as the Aldabra tortoise can live for more than 150 years. So, are we the most Superior in terms of longevity?

Snakes and lizards flick their tongues in the air to capture scent particles. They don't smell through their noses like you and I. Instead, the use their tongues to collect scent particles and then pass the particles over something called a Jacobson's organ to decipher the air around them. This is partly how reptiles hunt for food. Can we ever evolve such a technique?

Chameleons have unique eyes, which can move separately from each other and achieve visual field of 180 degrees. This way chameleon can watch in two different directions at the same time and detect objects on the opposite sides. Eyes move rotationally and together provide visual field of 360 degrees. Chameleons have very good eyesight and they are able to detect small insects that are 5 to 10 meters away. They are also able to detect ultraviolet light. Now, what kind of a vision do humans have?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipxoot9WSv4

Chameleons do not have ear opening or outer ears, but they are not deaf. They can detect sounds in the frequency range from 200 to 600 Hz. Isn't that amazing, considering that they have no special passage for sound waves to get in ?

The best known characteristic of chameleons is their ability to change the color of the skin. Most people believe that chameleons change their color to blend in with environment. Actually, change in color is the result of the mood change (when they are angry or aggressive), temperature, light and moisture in their environment. Can we do that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9ecX8PRPSw

Chameleon's tongue is propelled by incredible speed: it takes 0.07 seconds for tongue to reach the victim. So, how fast are we?

Pit vipers, pythons, and some boas have infrared-sensitive receptors in deep grooves on the snout, which allow them to "see" the radiated heat of warm-blooded prey mammals. In pit vipers the grooves are located between the nostril and the eye, in a large &quotit" on each side of the head. Other infrared-sensitive snakes have multiple, smaller labial pits lining the upper lip, just below the nostrils. The part of the body in direct contact with the ground is very sensitive to vibration; thus, a snake can sense other animals approaching by detecting faint vibrations in the air and on the ground. Do we/Will we ever have such receptors, naturally?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Wiki_snake_eats_mouse.jpg
An anaconda kills its prey by coiling its muscular body around the creature and squeezing until the animal can no longer breathe. Isn't that a very evolved technique?

We can go on and on, talking about Reptiles, talking about Dinosaurs whose size, weight, structure, diet, habits, length completely outmatch Humans, about Snakes, other Lizards, Turtles/Tortoises, etc. They are also one of the most important links in the process of Evolution. But, thinking that I have touched upon a few aspects, I will stop there and move on to Aves.

Coming to Aves, which are next in order, Birds (class Aves) are feathered, winged, two-legged, warm-blooded, egg-laying vertebrates. Birds are characterised by feathers, a beak with no teeth, the laying of hard-shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a four-chambered heart, and a lightweight but strong skeleton.

A bird, Falcon, can swoop at over 200 mph. Can we ever do that in anything?
A bird's heart beats 400 times per minute while resting and up to 1000 beats per minute while flying. So, whose heart is more active? Air sacs may make up 1/5 of the body volume of a bird. Think of us.
A carrier pigeon or messenger pigeon is a homing pigeon that was used to carry messages. Without these, it would have taken days for our Ancestors to just send and receive a message.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IudOqVdqQb8

So, aren't birds unique, except a few facts shown there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lneBlxZn6sg

So, aren't they unique in building their own homes, with their own efforts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6VCkpW6PNs

It would take pages to write about all the interesting birds of the world. But due to time constraint, I have not been able to include all their uniqueness in here. But, if I can I will certainly include them.

akshobhya
offline
akshobhya
4,921 posts
Justiciar

I don't know why this is appearing so

****roaches

I meant it to be C - O - C - K - R - O - A - C - H - (S).

Zophia
offline
Zophia
9,453 posts
Bard

@apldeap123 First off, sorry about the delay in replying. I think I am a small amount past three days in this, so if you would like to complain to Moe about this (or of Moe deems this unacceptable on his own) I accept that.

Regardless,

With the exceptions of a few species (the penguin, ostrich, etc.), all birds can fly. This gives them almost unlimited mobility and the freedom for them to choose where to go. A tree? Sure. The roof of a tall building? Why not.

While I think we can all agree that the ability to fly is pretty cool, it comes with several disadvantages, such as dying by flying into windows because of an incapability to understand that windows are not air. The general life of wild birds (the ones with the most unlimited flight opportunities) is full of ways to die rather horribly.
Wild dogs do not exactly have pleasant living conditions, but they don't usually die from colliding with glass or being killed by cats.

Dogs, on the other hand, only have four legs as a means of moving around, which means that they can only walk, run or swim.

Dogs are agile, fast creatures, capable of jumping over impressively high obstacles as well as digging and, as mentioned, swimming. Most can also learn to walk up stairs, and a few have been seen ">climbing trees*, though they are not as built for it as cats.

Also, many birds are admired by people. There can be whole zoos and sanctuaries dedicated solely to birds. Some people often go lengths just to see some species of birds in their natural habitats. In fact, numerous species of birds are protected under U.S. federal law, and the penalties for killing one of those birds merits harsh punishment.

Zoos and sanctuaries typically deal with endangered species of birds. There are penalties for killing certain species of birds largely because they are endangered. Again, birds are not really doing too well at the whole surviving thing. Generally speaking, of course.

Meanwhile, dogs. Dogs are one of the two species we have an entire cultural binary revolving around - are you a dog person or a cat person? No one would ask if you're a bird person the same way they'd assume you like either dogs or cats, since western culture places far more value on dogs and cats as treasured pets. Both of which are generally capable of being yet another cause of death for the average bird, for the record.

*: Skip to 45 seconds in.
https://youtu.be/-BOgys9yhOQ?t=45

apldeap123
offline
apldeap123
1,707 posts
Blacksmith

@Zophia

The general life of wild birds (the ones with the most unlimited flight opportunities) is full of ways to die rather horribly. Wild dogs do not exactly have pleasant living conditions, but they don't usually die from colliding with glass or being killed by cats.

True, there are other horrible things that can possibly kill birds, such as being hunted, shot at by a firearm, and et cetera. However, when you say that some birds can be killed by cats, I assume that you're referring to smaller birds, such as robins and sparrows. Many species of birds are bigger than cats, and some, such as some owls and hawks have the capacity to snatch and consume cats.

Dogs are agile, fast creatures, capable of jumping over impressively high obstacles as well as digging and, as mentioned, swimming.

Birds can also fly over such obstacles with relative ease. Some smaller species of dogs, such as the chihuahua and dachshund, are short and may not be able to jump as high. Also, ducks, geese and pelicans are just the few of the birds that are known to swim.

Zophia
offline
Zophia
9,453 posts
Bard

@apldeap123

Birds of prey (as well as large birds like the ostrich) are not immune to the many, many possible ways of dying horribly, although yes they do generally have an advantage over cats. As do... Pretty much every dog breed except maybe the very smallest ones.

I might inject that we're comparing an entire class of animals against a subspecies (not even a species, that would be going from the gray wolf). As might be reasonably expected from this, that does mean there is a greater variation among birds than there is among dogs. The question is generalized - would it be better to be a bird or a dog? But which bird? Which dog? Given that this greatly impacts what benefits or disadvantages are actually present to be considered, it might lead to a more productive discussion with a lessened need for generalized statements if we each choose a couple of specific breeds to vouch for. Would you be interested in this?

apldeap123
offline
apldeap123
1,707 posts
Blacksmith

@Zophia

Please do, I feel that this discussion is getting a bit overboard on my part.

JACKinbigletters
offline
JACKinbigletters
9,521 posts
Templar

I think it is best if we focus on whether or not developed countries should exclusively use nuclear fission as the source of electricity.
I heartily disagree with you my good man simply because of the title of our argument, Developed nations should make a shift to only use nuclear power. This means that all forms of nuclear energy production are up for debate. My argument for nuclear fusion still stands.

if any other power plant explodes, some people may die
And what if a hydroelectric dam just, "explodes"? Take the TVA dam operation the first and highest dam has an elevation over 800 meters from sea level, the lowest is just over 370 meters. Just imagine the kinetic destruction that that water would cause to the surrounding areas. The shipping rout would be destroyed, the ships would be swept away, their crew and cargo gone. The flooding would be unimaginable. Also you fail to mention what happens if a power plant is exploded, the power output is gone, the whole region that is reliant on that output gets thrown into chaos, industry stopped, homes without power, shops systems shut down. No matter what kind of power plant is destroyed the power is lost and the surrounding area critically wounded.

a mere four years ago
On a plant from 1982. Built the old way. The cheap unsafe way. Construction of plants has now become much stricter to avoid such disasters.

And the more power plants are constructed, the more companies will trim their safety margins and cut corners in safety.
This is the exact opposite of how I see it going. I see the world pouring huge funding into a blanket observation group, independent of any country to ensure the safe construction, maintenance and operation of the reactors. I also see countries coming together like a NATO for power instead of military. I see blanket procedures to be followed to the dot with major repercussions for failure to apply the correct procedures. This may be costly to implement but the cost effectiveness of the nuclear power plants would offset this, plus with every developed country pouring cash into the pooled nuclear account this would be an easy feat.

As taken from this source,
You can say that but if you look at another chart from the same source nuclear is only 71.4. Another, 80-105. Another, 40-70. Another 75-105. Another, 40-120. 67 is another. So which of these figures from varying years and varying locations would you like to take next? It's an inaccurate summery of power production cost around the world.

Systemic side effects
I've already stated how the technology is already in use that reduces the waste from nuclear power plants 100%. Check my previous argument.

Taking your analogy then you have to argue that the device can only placed in a certain node of the human lymphatic system and some people simply don't have adequate nodes capable of holding the nodes. So some people just can't have that device, however almost everyone can have the surgery and most people can take the drug(some just can't get their hands on it.) Also your pricing would be way off, the drug would be 5.000, the surgery 8.000 and the device would be nearly 13.000. Then there are aftercare costs too.

All in all nuclear is still looking

randomblah
offline
randomblah
246 posts
King

@Jackinbigletters

Note: your argument got cut off after the (all in all). I'm guessing that was just concluding remarks though.

But, in response to your points:

Nuclear Fusion - technology of the future
(controlled) Nuclear fusion does not exist at the moment(on earth, that is). Heck, at this moment, scientists have barely managed to break even in terms of energy costs. It's probably going to be 50+ years till nuclear fusion becomes viable(even if we devote all resources to developing it). There's little data on how expensive it would be, how much waste it would generate, or even what it would need to operate. I could just as well claim that it costs $10 trillion/watt or $0.00001/MW. That's pretty absurd, so that's why I recommend focusing discussion away from nuclear fusion(unless we just want to make straw men of nuclear fusion).

Explodify!
Yup, exploding power plants kill people. Some explode more spectacularly than others, and some have longer lasting side effects. The king of side effects? Nuclear. Sure, exploding plants cause loss of power. But, does every exploding plant leave a toxic wasteland that cannot be inhabited for millions of years? Nope. And what about photovoltaic panels installed on a house? Will those cause a 10 km dead zone? Nope. Will a single photovoltaic exploding leave a neighborhood powerless? Nope. While pounding on the safety of hydroelectric may be fun as a straw man, it's really not the only alternative.

Cost of Nuclear vs. Safety
The reason that nuclear fission has so many varying costs is simple - safety vs. cheap power. Obviously, safety measures cost money - and that money shows up somewhere. You've constantly touted advanced technologies as being safe - let's suppose that those in the U.S. are quite advanced(as compared to perhaps, Russia). But it would be foolish to believe that the safety is free - and unsurprisingly, it isn't. That's exactly what you get when you pay for cheap power - less safety. And if we pay so much that nuclear power becomes "completely safe", then why don't we just go with renewables?

Investment
Sure, every industry gets better with more investment into R&D. Just the same, I could invest all those sums into King Coal or renewables. But investing in nuclear power doesn't make a meltdown any safer. Nor does it reduce the amount of waste produced. And any cost savings would likely be replicable across other power plants. So why spend on nuclear as opposed to a safer, cleaner power?

Systemic Side effects
Sure, your last post mentioned that Uranium mining can be (relatively clean). That's perhaps possible, but unlikely(it's about as likely as finding a clean coal mine, or a fairy). But hey, let's suppose that it's doable. No system has successfully eliminated nuclear waste. Sure, there's theoretical designs, but there's also theoretical ways to cure cancer, solve poverty, and create immortality. Problem is, these are only theoretical, and the real world rarely plays nicely with theory. Until something gets implemented, there's not much reason to discuss it.

Revisiting the analogy
Sure, some locations(mostly just Japan, which has ~1.5% of the world's population) can't fit renewable power. But that's like saying 1% of patients can't have the device implanted because of anatomy. But for the other 99%(e.g. USA, Europe, Russia, etc), renewables work amazingly well. Just because Japan can't use solar doesn't mean every country should use nuclear. And again, revisiting the variable costs, it's like saying: drug for 5000, surgery by mediocre surgeon for 8000, surgery at a world-class facility for 10000, and the device for 13000. And when was the last time solar had any real aftercare costs? Nuclear and fossil fuel both have aftercare, which only hurts the case for nuclear.

akshobhya
offline
akshobhya
4,921 posts
Justiciar

@Ishtaron

Many inventions have also been inspired by other organisms. I will talk about them, soon.

Ishtaron
offline
Ishtaron
359 posts
Jester

@akshobhya

Your animal post is huge and every time I try to reply I grow a little more insane from repeating myself so much. So instead, I'll break my response into the 4 main things you bring up in all of your arguments. Diversity, abilities, usefulness to humans, and longevity.

___ genus is more diverse than humans.

Of course it is, it's an entire genus of creatures. On a species and subsepieces level they really aren't any more diverse than humans. In fact, most are less diverse because humans are a global species while many organisms often get restricted to a limited area with a climate that suits them.

___ creature can do ____, can humans do that?

Yes, we probably can. With our technology we can duplicate almost anything an animal can do. What little we can't usually results in that animal being farmed as a food product, and that includes farming bees for honey. Not only can we do all of the things they can, we can do more. We can travel the whole world in a matter of hours, we can live in environments that kill all but the hardiest of eukaryotes, we can even leave the planet. Anything they can do we can do better, we can do anything better than them.

____ does ____, which provides (food/materials) to humans

Being a useful tool still does not make something a superior species. In fact, it does the exact opposite. Being useful as a tool to another species simply means that they're so inferior that other species can do anything to them without fear. And don't make me repost the circle of life speech, it always reminds me of Mufasa's death.

____ can live for ____ years, can humans do that? ____ has been around for ____ millions of years, they're older than humans.

Humans in general might not be immortal, one person is. Henrietta Lacks was a woman who, about 50 years ago, was diagnosed with and killed by cancer. But her cells continue to live on. Today there are several tons of HeLa cells that are still alive and reproducing, her cells are immortal. And one day medical science may find a way to make everyone immortal thanks to her.

As for time of existence, existing first only means that a species is either extinct or so horrible at adapting to their environment that they've been left unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Either way, humans are the superior survivor. We can not only adapt ourselves to an environment, we can also adapt an environment to us. We can manipulate the weather with chemicals, change the temperature on a global scale, and build homes with complete control over their internal temperatures.

P.S. The Argentine Ant supercolony is more like a country than a city. The Argentine Ant is a unique species of ant because while other species will fight with neighboring colonies regardless of their species Argentine Ants cooperate with other Argentine Ant colonies. Their supercolonies are not a single large colony, but are instead a collection of colonies working together. My country is 2.5 times the size of Western Europe, a 6000 km line of ant colonies is not very big compared to that.

Showing 196-210 of 224