Scientists over-estimate extinction figures

What is needed is a better understanding of how science works. This is just more bullshit from our resident hack. 9or one of our resident hacks)

Exactly how do you propose we determine whether an animal is extinct or not?

One of the examples used was the Okapi. No sightings from 1959 until 2005. Are you saying that we should look for 46 years, find nothing, and still reserve judgement on whether any are still around?

Biologists don't have some great index of where all the animals hide. Believe it or not, they don't count Okapi on the african census. (or at least they didn't return their forms)


Is it exact? Hell no. And no scientist worth his salt will tell you that it is.

But one point to remember, if a species reaches a certain low level population, they are extinct for all practical purposes in the wild. i'm sure you will say that if one exists its not extinct, but from an environmental standpoint, thats not point.
 
WinterBorn said:
What is needed is a better understanding of how science works. This is just more bullshit from our resident hack. 9or one of our resident hacks)

Exactly how do you propose we determine whether an animal is extinct or not?

One of the examples used was the Okapi. No sightings from 1959 until 2005. Are you saying that we should look for 46 years, find nothing, and still reserve judgement on whether any are still around?

Biologists don't have some great index of where all the animals hide. Believe it or not, they don't count Okapi on the african census. (or at least they didn't return their forms)


Is it exact? Hell no. And no scientist worth his salt will tell you that it is.

But one point to remember, if a species reaches a certain low level population, they are extinct for all practical purposes in the wild. i'm sure you will say that if one exists its not extinct, but from an environmental standpoint, thats not point.
Click to expand...


Hey dumbass, all I want is them to be more accurate. They overestimated by 30%. You're fucking stupid, dude. seriously. You deserved to be fucked by your governemnt
 
tinfoil said:
Hey dumbass, all I want is them to be more accurate. They overestimated by 30%. You're fucking stupid, dude. seriously. You deserved to be fucked by your governemnt
Click to expand...

Hey dumbass, did they do it intentionally? Did they refuse to correct their facts when the animals were found?

Its wild animals. You want accuracy? Exactly how do you propose we get a more accurate count on wild animals? No one can find one for almost 50 years, they pretty much figure there aren't any more of them.
 
WinterBorn said:
What is needed is a better understanding of how science works. This is just more bullshit from our resident hack. 9or one of our resident hacks)

Exactly how do you propose we determine whether an animal is extinct or not?

One of the examples used was the Okapi. No sightings from 1959 until 2005. Are you saying that we should look for 46 years, find nothing, and still reserve judgement on whether any are still around?

Biologists don't have some great index of where all the animals hide. Believe it or not, they don't count Okapi on the african census. (or at least they didn't return their forms)


Is it exact? Hell no. And no scientist worth his salt will tell you that it is.

But one point to remember, if a species reaches a certain low level population, they are extinct for all practical purposes in the wild. i'm sure you will say that if one exists its not extinct, but from an environmental standpoint, thats not point.
Click to expand...

Great news for Sarah Plain and the other trigger happy tossers.
 
Still a large figure if it was overestimated by 30%. Not a big deal if it wasn't done intentionally; the fact that they eventually corrected it just goes to show how science is self-correcting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top