Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Truth Grenades

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DaveGodfrey

Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza / Re: L3
Shouldn't even be a separate thread.

ETA: Shit thread. Ban OP.
So it would have been better for Pingu and Borealis and Dave Godfrey to say something like... Hey Dave be careful about running your movable pen too close to the edge of the forest because that's a place where there can be lots of poisonous plants. I had a neighbor once that blah blah blah etc etc...

But no, they chose to take the high and mighty approach (I'm so smart and Dave is such a ninny) pontificating in vague generalities and sharing no first-hand experience at all and ended up giving me ridiculous advice that no one could possibly follow.

You don't need first hand experience of animals dying because they ate poisonous plants to know that allowing animals to eat poisonous plants is a bad idea.

The reason I spoke in generalities (and I did mention specific plants and how you might deal with them- laburnum is a tree, so you don't want to be cutting tree hay from it if you have one), is because I don't know what plants you have that grow in Missouri that could harm your livestock. And generalities that no-one can follow? Really? " If you have a patch of something you know to be toxic don't drag your cage through it" is"impossible to follow"? That's basic animal husbandry Dave. to identify and name some common poisonous plants is something children can learn- as a kid I could tell the difference between a blackcurrant bush and deadly nightshade. Surely its not beyond your wit to do the same?

it looks to me like you people want me to run around all over my property ID'ing poisonous plants and testing them in small amounts on my goats.  Then somehow make sure my goats DO eat them so that the other animals won't.

No Dave, you identify the plants that you have that are poisonous. You the make sure that goatschwitz isn't dragged through a big patch of the stuff. Or that your cow can't wander over and eat it from her leash. If goats can it it without any problems then you can lead Polly over to it on a bit of string and she can chow down on it, before your automated battery cage trundles over it and the sheep are presented with a salad of death.

Or you could remove the plant completely if its efficient to do so (if it was a small tree like Laburnum, or something a bit shrubby like Deadly Nightshade). You may not even need to do that- if the only parts that are poisonous are berries, say, then you time when your forced march arrives so as not to coincide with the poisonous parts being available.
I can't imagine a less qualified teacher than Dave.
You have read a Socrates thread haven't you?
Introductions / Re: Squee ...
Welcome back!
Lol. I made a delicious salmon salad for lunch today with fresh sage, chives, spinach, garlic greens, parsley, oregano and thyme from the garden and salmon i pulled from the river last fall. The olive oil and balsamic vinegar and feta came from trader joes but im ok with that. I do make my own mayo usually with fresh eggs but i dont make my own vegetable oil. And i didnt use mayo on this salad.
<recipe needed> 😉

That pretty much is the recipe minus salt and pepper and baking the salmon with lemon and fresh rosemary first. It was delicious btw.
I was mostly wondering about ratios, I don't think I have that much basil. 😞
Lol. I made a delicious salmon salad for lunch today with fresh sage, chives, spinach, garlic greens, parsley, oregano and thyme from the garden and salmon i pulled from the river last fall. The olive oil and balsamic vinegar and feta came from trader joes but im ok with that. I do make my own mayo usually with fresh eggs but i dont make my own vegetable oil. And i didnt use mayo on this salad.
<recipe needed> 😉
Time to remind the interested reader, once again, that the only published studies on HMG discuss (1) cattle or (2) sheep.
No other animals.
The results of those studies are mixed.
(Nordborg, 2016)

Generalizations to "all herbivores" or to "all large herbivores" are unwarranted.
And dumb.
Yeah it's really dumb to generalize to other herbivores that also eat grass and also chew their cud.

Do pigs chew the cud Dave?

Or don't live in herds that much. Or don't actually graze that much. Or aren't migratory.
Pingu your idiocy knows no bounds.

It is true that if we are "in the trees" what you observe is generally correct.

But I'm "flying above the forest" and observing larger scale trends.

Eight Miles High and falling fast?

And when we do this, we see that as a general rule, in Nature which is undisturbed ...

Large herbivore herds tend to ... (a) bunch in relatively tight herds, and (b) stay on the move

On the scale of the entire fucking Serengeti this might be true. On the scale of your farm. Not so much, Or indeed at all. And plenty of herbivores that live in climates that aren't seasonal in the way the Serengeti is don't keep on the move.
Why don't you answer the question "Professor"? What do you think it means?

I think he can answer the question. But just because he can, doesn't mean he should, and doesn't mean its useful to. Especially when you ask the question to find out what other people think it means.

So answer your own question Sucky. Do you think they can be both 99.7% identical and 1-4% identical? And what is your reasoning for your answer?
I wonder if Sukcy is familiar with the work of Danny Vendramini? It sounds right up his street.
How well do you think reproduction works if you're eaten before you can reproduce? Or if the organisms you depend on to complete your life cycle aren't around? (Your plan to eliminate parasites is based on that idea).
changing goal posts I see. You are lost in space my friend.
I'm not changing goalposts at all Dave. If your "keystone species" wipe out a set of particular species because they preferentially eat them, then they'll be eliminated from your system, as will other organisms that depend on them. It's why one of your gurus doesn't recommend running goats unless you need to eliminate particular plants. So your biodiversity can decrease as a result. You'll be left with plants that tolerate grazing- or indeed "need" grazing because that eliminates the competition- and the organisms that depend on them.

Just as the population explosion in elk in Yellowstone led to a decrease in the number of aspen, your introduction of grazers to your land could have a similar effect with plants that you have. Of course since you don't know what plants you even have, you don't have a bemchmark for establishing what your change in biodiversity might look like, or how to track it.
How well do you think reproduction works if you're eaten before you can reproduce? Or if the organisms you depend on to complete your life cycle aren't around? (Your plan to eliminate parasites is based on that idea). 
Including excluding them from an area they'd otherwise live in perhaps Dave?
Anyway, a large number of non-native animals artificially brought into, and artificially constrained on, a patch of land violates the definition of "keystone species" in pretty much every conceivable way.
Type less. Read more.

Nature conservation in densely populated areas, as in western Europe, faces the continuous loss and fragmentation of suitable habitats for wild species. Current conservation measures have not been successful in countering this threat to biological diversity, so a new concept for nature conservation is required. I propose using the habitat requirements of large herbivores as a key to the design of large-scale nature reserves. Large herbivores can have a significant influence on vegetation composition and thus act as keystone species. Moreover, they require large tracts of land and can be considered an umbrella species group for the preservation of other plants and animals. I review the present status of nature reserves in the European Union concerning size distribution and the occurrence of large herbivores and their predators. I argue that habitat fragmentation and the increased management costs of maintaining seminatural areas necessitate an enlargement of existing reserves, a process-oriented management approach, and a minimization of human influence for the long-term preservation of biological diversity.
Which large herbivore Dave? And doo you think HMG involves a minimising of human interference? Really? Hawkinsing has let you down again. As has just reading the abstract.
Dave, what do sheep and goats eat? What are some plants good at coping with but others can't cope with? What about the insects that depend on those plants that can't cope with being grazed, what happens to them when those plants disappear?

Beavers have been extinct in the UK for 400 years - but they are back!!!

Interestingly, Eurasian beavers are a different enough species that they can't interbreed with canadensis. Eurasian beavers have visible differences (from Castor canadensis) as well
I seem to recall they're not so destructive on trees either.
- narrower tails, longer snouts and, well, larger, more thin skinned testicles.
Optimised for biting off and throwing at your predators.
I'm thrilled that you learned about soil erosion in school. But what did you learn about how to fix it?
It was fairly basic stuff about how to reduce it, like planting particular species to stabilise the soils- e.g. Marram Grass in sand dunes near the sea, to stop them migrating too much, etc. Not much in terms of actual details, because there's a lot to get through in the typical curriculum, and, again, if its the sort of thing that's important for you to know for your job, or chosen career, then you'll be educated in it in more specific training, such as university, apprenticeships, etc, etc.
That's a different story... they should have been making sure that curriculums included somewhere along the line such fundamental things as how to not destroy topsoil in the process of producing food and how to turn Sunshine into milk while improving your pasture.
Why should I need to know that from a school education, when there is zero chance of me becoming any kind of farmer Dave? Despite your laughable attempts to return us to it, we don't live in the Fourteenth Century.
"Now you might well argue that an EFFECT of bacteria, is to support other life forms.  You might also that an EFFECT of humans is to destroy other life forms.  But humans aren't optimised to do this, and bacteria aren't optimised to support higher life forms - or, at any rate, the only ones that are, are those whose self-reproduction capacity is served by the continued health of their host.  Lions aren't optimised to support antelope life. They are optimised to utilise antelope as a food source.  Antelope aren't optimised to support lion life. They are optimised to avoid being eaten by lions.  Some species are symbiotic with others - some are antagonistic with others.  But common to both is optimisation for perpetuation of the lineage/design."

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Bacteria most definitely ARE optimized to support higher life forms.  99.99% of all bacteria are "good" for other life forms in the sense that other life forms could not survive and thrive without them. 

But many of those bacteria wouldn't notice if everything else went extinct Dave. The other life forms have to deal with the fact that the bacteria exist, and have found that they do useful things that they can co-opt to optimise themselves for survival. And in order to do so they have a variety of adaptations that encourage the bacteria to take up home inside them, etc.

Bobtail squid have a little organ that houses bacteria that produce light that allows them to camouflage themselves when swimming in the open water- it produces light so that their silhouette disappears when seen from below looking up to the light coming from the ocean's surface. They aren't born with that bacteria, they have to acquire it floating freely in the water column. The bacteria doesn't need the squid to survive at all. The opposite is true for the squid.

I would also disagree with the statement that "lions aren't optimized to support antelope life" and vice versa.  Predators actually DO provide a key function in Nature which is absolutely vital to the health of perennial grasses - namely, keeping the the herbivores which provide vital "exercise" to the grasses tightly bunched in herds and keeping them on the move. 

Do anteaters keep termites "tightly bunched and on the move Dave"? Can you not envision that there would be a different equilibrium if there were no predators?

And grazers certainly CAN be thought of as being optimized for supporting lion life.  I mean, what would lions eat otherwise?

No they can't you idiot. Lions have become optimised to eat grazers. There's nothing in a zebra's biology that makes them want to be eaten by lions. They're not parasites that need to jump between different hosts to complete their life-cycle. If anything herbivores are optimised to be as difficult to catch as possible. Elephants and rhinos are huge, Water Buffalo and hippos are big and very aggressive, zebras and wildebeeste live in huge herds to reduce each individual's chance of being singled out, gazelles are among the fastest runners on the planet, and so on.
But wait a minute... I thought there was no such thing as a correct configuration for a gene in Bizarro Darwin world.

After all, random mutation is the engine of all biological diversity... So we are told.

Dave, if you would just focus for a minute, you might learn what the rest of us ACTUALLY think, instead of making shit up.

Back up a bit: You think that a goat has the appearance of design because it is optimised to eat vegetation rather than meat, right?

Because I think that is important.

Similarly, Excel is optimised to help people do calculations, right?

Whereas a geode doesn't seem optimised to DO anything at all?

While a tree is optimised to make sugar from sunlight, and CO2, right?

Let me know whether I am reading you right on this.
I didn't know that trees make sugar but yes you are reading me right.
Ever hear of maple syrup?
Ever hear of photosynthesis Dave?
How the fuck do I report threads on the mobile site? Could a mod please lump all of sucky's bullshit into one place?
Dave, you've been busted.

You have NO "overwhelming evidence".  All you have is argument from incredulity which wouldn't work anyway, but absolutely doesn't work if you don't know the first thing about geology.

of course I have overwhelming evidence. But people wearing blindfolds who stick their fingers in their ears won't be able to see it. It's really simple... We have massive fossil bearing Rock layers all over the world, so we already agree that these were led by water. The only thing we don't agree on is how quickly they were laid. And if you dig into it, you see that its bordering on Insanity no I take that back it's full-blown from another planet insanity to say that these layers were laid in calm Placid Seas over millions of years.

Napoleon in the insane asylum kind of insanity.

Why? many of those deposits have multiple layers of coral reefs in them, stacked on top of each other. How does that form in your fludde?
Ocean drilling program.

These days it's the IODP. (Integrated ocean drilling program)
In other words a bunch of geologists travelling the world on a series of boats drilling holes and looking at the sediments, and correlating them together. Exactly the thing that Dave decided geologists weren't doing.
Also do you disagree with ICR's work to obtain data from as many worldwide boreholes as possible (1500 and counting) so that they can put them together coherently for analysis? 

If so, why?

Do you know of any mainstream geologists that are doing such a thing?

If not, why not?
Dave, do you know what the ODP stands for?