Talk:Extinction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in death and evolution.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Extinction article.
Article policies
Extinction is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
WikiProject on Extinction

This article is part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
WikiProject Biology
Biology Portal

Extinction is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] mass extinction thesis and its opponents

213.253.40.220 writes: "replaced opinion as an opinion: some people (not me) certainly _do_ believe" that the mass extinction thesis is false, and the result of poor reasoning based on faulty data.

I would not dispute that some people really do believe that: however we are not obliged to report every crackpot belief. The fact of human-caused mass extinctions is beyond reasonable doubt: the list of extinct species is simply too long for anyone other than the biological equivalent of a flat-earther to ignore.

Two matters remain to be thrashed out:

  1. Should mention be made of the "no-anthropogenic extinction" hypothesis, simply on the grounds that some people really do believe in it? (My own feeling is that, yes, it is reasonable to do this, probably as a footnote, in exactly the same way that one mentions that some people believe in creation ex nihlo when writing a page about tectonic plates or evolution. It is not reasonable, however, to include such beliefs in the main body of an article where the scientific evidence is laid out.)
  2. Does the extent of human-caused extinction qualify as a "mass extinction event", to be compared with the others in the past? On this, there is reasonable grounds for rational debate. Just how big does an extinction event have to be to qualify? How high is "high"?

My feeling is that this is not the appropriate entry in which to describe that debate, as there is the Holocene extinction event page for that purpose.

Last point: on what grounds is it reasonable to describe the view that humanity is causing;/has caused mass extinctions as "extreme"? Tannin


I agree. Facts are facts and solid scientific theories arent facts, but are substatiated by them, and therefore are more than just conjecture. I think though that people, despite thier childish denials, are right to protest if there seems to be an agenda present in the choosing of new theories for presentation- In other words, why not write them all in a heirarchy of most believed to least. The crackpots get a little bite at the end, but its still a solid article.

We have to think of many of these articles in the news style: The substance up top and the rest in decending order.

---Sv and dont forget to sign you comments so we know where they end.


Ps.: The article nevertheless looks like its ready to soon become a good one. as it is it is fairly weak, and issues of credibility for theories will evaporate when some real research gets into the article. -Sv

Removed the bit about (2013) in "Holoscene Extinction" because it seemed to be unsupported by the cited reference, and the 2013 bit was completely non-sequitur.

[edit] Holocene mass extinction proponents

I think it's obvious, and can be stated without citation, that all biologists believe that extinctions are occurring now. I think it's obvious, and can be stated without citation, that most or nearly all biologists believe that extinctions are occurring at a faster pace now than over comparable recent periods. I think it's obvious, and can be stated without citation, that most biologists believe that this phenomenon is at least partly due to effects caused directly or indirectly by humans.

What is not obvious is that "most" biologists believe that the holocene extinction event is a mass extinction event on the order of the "big 5", and that the mass extinction event is human-caused. I see that there is a webpage listed in the external links section which reproduces a Washington Post article which would do nicely for a better reference -- in this case, where better data are available, stating that data is preferable to using vaguer terms like "some" or "most". I have changed the section in question to have a better reference and more specific language.

On another note, this article is sorely lacking in several respects, and I am planning to make time for a major rewrite. I would invite all interested parties to join me in making this article better. Bantman 00:28, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] discrepancy

In the Notes at the end of the article on Extinction, it says that "The Permian-Triassic extinction alone killed off 95% of the species then alive." However, the Permian-Triassic_extinction article itself says that "about 90 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species" went extinct at that time. The combined value of 95% does not sound correct. Maybe the Notes at the end of the article on Extinction should be edited to say the same thing as the article about the P-T extinction. I'll do that if no one objects. Jkintree 17:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Good catch. When I find a discrepancy between articles, I run through a few questions to decide what to do. First I check references -- referenced facts should have precedence over unreferenced facts. If only one is referenced, I would usually use that value in both articles. If both are referenced, and the references seem equally reliable, it may be appropriate to place both references in both articles, and show a range of values. If neither is referenced, I usually go with the "main article" on the topic. Also, if the fact is tangential or irrelevant in an article, I sometimes consider just dropping it. Here, there is a reference for the extinction article, but it states something like "as much as 95%" - they hardly sound sure of it themselves, so I'm not putting a lot of value in that. The Permian-Triassic extinction article, however, is unreferenced. I would therefore look at deleting it altogether, as it's not really relevant to the rest of the footnote. Do you agree? - Bantman 17:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
From "When Life Nearly Died", by Michael J. Benton: The end-Permian mass extinction is in a class on its own, since it is known that 60-65% of families disappeared at that time, and this scale up to a loss of 80-95% of species Fornadan (t) 22:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Super. Edit the article to reflect that, and reference it properly. The article will be better for it. - Bantman 20:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mass extinctions and punctuated equilibria

As I understand it, Gould and Eldridge's puntuated equilibria hypothesis has nothing (well, very little) to do with mass extinctions. It certainly has a strong bearing on (local) extinctions, but suggesting, as the article currently does, that mass extinctions are key to it is simply incorrect. I'll remove the offending line for now (I'll see if it fits in another subsection while I'm at it), but please discuss if you disagree. --Plumbago 11:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] prevention of animals extinction in southern africa

what can you do to prevent extinction

[edit] Human attitudes to extinction

Hmmm. This section's a bit ropey I think. The first subsection's not too bad, but the second is really quite weak. Making the observation that because we breed we're against our own extinction is pushing the point a bit. And including a reference to genocide, while laudable, probably isn't necessary on a page on biological extinction. I think the article, as a whole, would read a lot more solidly (and scholarly?) if this whole section were removed. YMMV. Opinions, anyone? --Plumbago 10:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Extinction in species other than Homo sapiens
Because humans are a reasonably intelligent species capable of abstract thought, the views on the extinction of species other than Homo sapiens tend to be diverse, ranging from the preservative views of the most vehement eco-warrior to general apathy in the matter. However, it is seen that humans as a whole generally will act to protect against the extinction of species (primarily species that have a direct impact on human agriculture, such as cattle), if only to further preserve and perpetuate the human species. This is evidenced by organizations such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov), created by President Richard Nixon.
Extinction in the species Homo sapiens
In a normal human being, a very strong instinctual urge to survive and, upon puberty and physical development, procreate (or at the very least have sexual contact, which normally leads to procreation) is prominent. Because of this, the general consensus of the human species can be presumed to be against the extinction of humankind. The natural urge to both survive as long as possible and mate can be and often is overcome by things such as personal, organizational, or religious beliefs, such as is the case with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (http://www.vhemt.org), by mental illness (possibly leading up to suicide and thus a zero percent chance of both living and continued mating), or sometimes by trained willpower strong enough to overcome the natural functions of the brain. Laws against genocide have been ratified to help prevent human extinction as a direct result of unnatural death caused by another human being or group of human beings.

I've now removed the above text from the main article as per my comments above. I've copied the text here in case anyone disputes, or would like to work on the text (the first section definitely has some merit).

While I'm in a deletionist frame of mind, in the same section there's a fair chunk of text on extinction and mobile phone signals. Not being an expert (to say the least!) on this, I can't be sure it's incorrect, but it definitely feels that way to me. I'd have thought the habitat disruption brought about by mobile phone mast erection, and, more importantly, the very developments that the mobile phone masts were erected to service would be far, far more important. If someone can cite some evidence in favour of the mobile phone hypothesis, I'd be grateful. Of course, I'm saying this without providing a rival cite, but I think it's a lot safer to say that extinctions are caused by loss of habitat than low energy broadcasts (however fashionable said hypothesis is in the popular press). Cheers, --Plumbago 09:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As per my remarks above, I've now removed the text on mobile phone technology and extinction. I've reproduced it below in case anyone would like to rehabilitate it. --Plumbago 10:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The most recent example of the potential clash between industrial technology and species survival is in the wireless communication revolution. Although extensive studies have rejected the hypothesis that low-level exposure to microwave-frequency communication is harmful to human health (or is not statistically significant) few studies have been carried out on the effects of microwaves in other life forms. For instance, the dielectric heating studies are limited to their effects on human beings. Currently 1mW/cm² is taken to be the acceptable power density of such radiation. The most glaring omission is the absence of any study on other living species, and hence on the existing fragile eco-system.
The rapidly dwindling species of dragon-flies, butterflies and fireflies from densely populated areas (where satellite foot-prints and mobile communication infrastructures are plentiful, India or China for instance) has been blamed by some on the rise of the mobile phone, although in the absence of studies, this is speculative.

I've heard it said that "extinction" as such is only a recentish idea - before the 1800s, when the world was pretty thoroughly explored, scientists were unable to rule out that wooly mammoths etc. weren't just 'hiding' somewhere that humans hadn't explored yet. [1] -Malkinann 20:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article assessment

Wikipedia:Article assessment is looking at extinct mammals from the week starting 20 February 2006 - please come along and help out with the submissions and assessments. violet/riga (t) 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] DDT

I feel that the following paragraph either needs to be backed up by substantiated empirical evidence or removed as it directly contradicts the wiki page on DDT:

"DDT played such a role in killing off bald eagles and other birds by thinning the egg shell walls of affected birds, thus lowering the survivability of offspring. Since this effect was discovered, DDT has been banned in many parts of the world and affected bird populations are recovering."

  • The link between DDT and Bald Eagles is not sufficiently supported by evidence.
  • The subtleties of the DDT ban are too numerable to be discussed in this article, in particular this statement shows a very simplistic viewpoint and is misleading
  • The controversy over the use of DDT and its banning draw attention from the main article.
  • This is a bad example as Bald Eagles aren't extinct!

Merurider 15:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As no-one has commented to support the inclusion of this para I'm removing it. The original text is above if anyone can come up with proof to justify it going back in.

Merurider 18:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with the removal. I think your first point, about the link between DDT and the Bald Eagle, isn't quite right, but your final point (that the Bald Eagle isn't extinct) does underscore why this item should be removed. Cheers, --Plumbago 19:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extinction Theory Fallacy

72.195.144.113 has added the following text ...

One constant in Western Thought and traditionally credited Plato's Theory of Forms An ancient seminally important and still-evolving array of prophets, philosophers, metaphysicians and scientists (e.g. Job, Socrates, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Newton, Steno, Buffon, Cuvier, Hutton, Lyell, Jefferson, Paley, Leibnitz, Lamarck, Hegel) have, since the beginning of recorded history and through a brilliant panoply of schools and systems (e.g. Judaism, Old Kemeticism, Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Aristotalianism, Christianity, Neo-Platonism, Gnosticism, Mysticism, Hermeticism, Natural Theology, Deism, Spiritualism, Hegelianism) propounded elaborate theories of quasi-eternal energetic endurance or semi-infinite life-resilience in the process of constructing a philosophical problematics of life on earth. Many of these theories maintain a shared speculative or propositional assertion that life in all its manifestations, stages, and permutations is a "permanent integer," an inexpugnable factor in the quanta that envelope, permeate, embody, and constitute all energy. These grandes idées contend that all theories of species (as opposed to population) extinction constitute non-malicious fallacies based on the the biological sciences' dependence on empirical proofs of presence of being. These theorists contend that life in its individual instance leaves an eternel, inerradicable, energetic present or residue on the coaxial dimensions of time and space, one which grants each cell and thus synecdochically each creature an eternal present in a determined (but not necessarily deterministic) time and space: the axial turning of a concave sphere, the animacule trapped in a reiterating fold of space-time is, as Pareto would go on to claim, the verifigural chalice or grail of eternal life. Such a presence would of course not be entirely equatable with or identical to the life of, for example, a new-born animal, for the obvious reason that a new-born animal would have not yet passed through the psychic, systemic, and energetic "trauma" of the state of physical disintegration known as death, but it would nevertheless constitute a continuation of individual presence, not to mention an envolving state of energetic existence: the post-thanatic (vide thanatos) phase of life. The process of energy utilization would be different in both cases of course, and this difference would result in post-thanatic (vide pretentious and hyper-urbane) life being largely removed from and invisible to pre-thanatic (vide over-written) life, though this would not in theory exclude the possibility (while certainly admitting the improbability) of pre-thanatic (vide synonyms for thanatic) life's detection of post-thanatic presences (vide cryptids, ghosts).
A related though perhaps less rigorous theory holds that all animals (and one assumes plants) that ever existed from the earliest unicellular life form, through the dinosaurs, to the latest mutant strain of avian flu, continue to exist in some zone or area of the planet and will continue to do so (although perhaps in greatly diminished numbers) until the earth itself ceases to exist. This theory contends that once life assumes a certain form through the processes of evolutionary change, that form will eternally abide as an inerradicable part of the biological diversity of the earth through the organism's own undefeatable processes of preservation either as cellular or mitochondrial memory in the body of another organism or by actually finding the most impenetrable enviromental niches permitting its continued survival as a living relic, the reproductive viability of which could depend on as little as a breeding pair, a gravid female. or even just a sole surviving hermaphroditic specimen.

I've removed it to here for now as it seems really rather overblown. There's something in there, but it's trumped up with nonsense like "psychic", "grail", "quanta", etc. To the extent that I can't quite work out what it's trying to say. It also seems a bit like original research to me. Anyway, anyone like to discuss? --Plumbago 08:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

72.195.144.113 added a similar section to Extinction event, where it was also removed to the talk page for more or less the same reasoning. I'd say it needs some verifiable sources before it can be considered for inclusion to either article. -- bcasterline • talk 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
So there are about 1.5 million species known to science on earth right now - and we believe that 50 billion species have existed over all time. Conventionally, we believe that 49,998.5 million species are extinct. According to this wacko theory, all of those are still on earth somewhere hiding out where we can't find them?! To have a viable gene-pool of creature to restock the species, it's generally agreed that you need at least 50 individuals - so at a minimum, this theory says that there are 2.5 TRILLION animals and plants 'hiding' somewhere out there where science has failed to find them. Can you even imagine how much space that would take? You can't hide 2 trillion animals (many of which are 50 ton dinosaurs). Furthermore, each of those species would need it's own habitat - so we can't imagine a 'Lost World' or the island where King Kong hangs out because you need some desert, some salt marsh some coniferous forest, some deep ocean...you name it. This is demonstrably complete BS! Just delete it and don't put it back until some references are produced - and even then, bury it in it's own article so it doesn't have to pollute this one. SteveBaker 12:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, quack nonsense it is then (my first suspicion too). I won't be adding it back. It does sound rather thought through in its own twisted sort of way. I'd love to know (well, that's probably overstating it a bit!) what the author is trying to say with it. The "not extinct but hiding somewhere" theory is amusingly bizarre (though lets not forget Lazarus taxa). Cheers, --Plumbago 13:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure - science is not infallible - some species thought to be extinct are eventually found not to be. There is room on the earth for many such species to have hidden away and gone unnoticed - the Coelacanth being perhaps the most notable. We've found a grand total of five such species in the last 100 years. But the world has been explored and studied far too well for science to have missed 2.5 trillion believed-to-be-extinct individuals spread over dozens of habitats. It is possible that the original author is talking in terms of these creatures being on some other plane of existance (eg: The dinoasaurs still exist in heaven.) - but that's a matter of religion and has nothing to do with this article. I suppose the best spin one could take on this is that all living creatures evolved from other species - that are (by definition) extinct now. The genes from those extinct species could be said to live on in the DNA of the creatures that evolved from them - so in some kind of metaphysical sense, those species are 'still here' hidden inside modern plants and animals. However, even this generous view cannot be said to be true. The genes that made Neanderthals different from modern humans didn't get passed down to us - the two species split apart and then one branch died off. Whatever genes they evolved after the split no longer exist in us. SteveBaker 13:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Given that the author drags quanta to the table, perhaps they think these dinosaurs persist in alternate universes as per the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.  ;) Anyway, you're right, there's nothing approaching the wriggle-room required by the author's theory in this universe. Let's put this one to bed. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah - but if we define 'extinction' as 'none of these critters left on planet Earth within this universe.' then it doesn't matter if there are Dinosaurs in some alternate universe - they are still extinct according to our definition. You could argue that we didn't state the "within this universe" part - but then if you look at the article on (to pick a random example) the Ford Explorer truck - it doesn't say "The Ford Explorer was first built in 1993 in this universe and it weighs 3000lbs in this universe". We simply don't feel the need to qualify every statement with the caveat that there might be other parallel universes in which this fact might not be true. So when we say "The Dinosaurs are Extinct" - then if there are none left on this Earth - then they are extinct even if there are plenty of them frolicing around in some alternate universe. So there is no wiggle room there either. Anyway - as you say: Let's put this one to bed. SteveBaker 16:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the way that guy thinks, he's definitely on to something, although I agree his style is a bit pedantic. I mean there are so many angles and hidden corners waiting to be explored in that labyrinthine paragraph. For starters, Plumbago and SteveBaker (who I'm sure are both smart guys) confuse disappearance with extinction, just because you can't find it in the ground or in the fossil record doesn't necessarily mean it's gone extinct, obvious example the coelacanth. SteveBaker claims a viable population must consist of at least 50 fertile individuals, clearly he doesn't no the theory behind survival of the cheetah: all living cheetah's are descended from a sole surviving female and her cubs, (extreme) inbreeding is not to be recommended but neither does it spell the end of a species. Another BIG BUBBLE that needs bursting is the belief that there isn't any room on the earth for trillions of different animals and billions and billions of different species, when in reality there are currently an almost countless number of individual animals and plants currently living on this earth, consider that there are simply thousands for every grain of sand contained on this earth. The obvious explication for this seemingly impossible superabundance of individual life is that most animals and plants are microscopic to the naked human eye. While I'm certainly not proposing that dinosaurs and other supposed megafauna have become microscopic, I am saying that they could and did become smaller over time, to the point where they would be harder to locate. Dwarfism, which is in itself a misnomer, is such a common enough phenomena that it needs no defense and I hope no explanation. It is no coincidence that some of the biggest animals on earth have also been found to have existed for millions of years in dwarf states, e.g. elephants, hippopotomi, humans. Kitti's hog-nosed bat is often said to be the smallest mammal in existe4nce, measuring 1.2 in, if a bat, itself a relation of much larger mammal species can evolve to the size of persons toenail, what could possibly have prevented a dinosaur from evolving to the size of my pinky? Religion, which science to its own detriment belittles (pardon the pun), offers us philosophical problems designed to provoke just the kind of creative speculation The Extinction Fallayc exemplifies. For example, how was it, you ask, that Noah was able to fit a pair of each species of animal in the ark, extreme dwarfism is the obvious answer. The Bible says it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven, this is often understood to mean that riches corrupt, but couldn't it also mean that camels can evolve to a size that would make it possible for them to walk through the eye of a needle, and that man can grow to such a height that he wuold literally risk losing sight of other forms of life and therefore of the presence of the Creator himself, the Supreme Architect of that life?

Fine - whatever. Find us some solidly peer-reviewed evidence and we'll consider putting this pile of nonsense back into the article - meanwhile it's pseudo-scientific babble that doesn't belong in an otherwise solidly written article. SteveBaker 00:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I just read the Cheetah article and it doesn't mention that all Cheetah are descended from a single individual. They are certainly unusually closely related - but that could easily be from a population of more than 50 individuals. You are misreading the facts. If you read something like the Richard Dawkins book "The Ancestors Tale", you'll realise that it is true that ALL creatures of one species are descended from a single individual. That's not the same thing as saying that a single individual is all that's needed. There would be many other individuals contributing to the blood-line after the key speciation event. The figure of 50 individuals is only a rule of thumb - sometimes you need a lot more to ensure survival - othertimes, perhaps less. As to whether you could somehow hide a couple of trillion individuals (even in the case of extreme dwarfism) - let's look at the numbers. The surface of the earth (land and water together is about 1/5 billion square kilometers. If these supposed microfauna were scattered evenly then 2 trillion of them would mean that there were 4,000 in every square kilometer - if you look around your living room - there should be half a dozen or so right there under your rug. Even if I buy into your Cheetah theory and there is only one each of the 50 billion 'extinct' species, there would be 100 of them in every square kilometer. How is it CONCIEVABLE that scientists with magnifying glasses have NEVER, EVER found a microscopic version of an extinct animal or plant. It's just not remotely concievable and anyone who says otherwise is either being disingenuous or is 'numerically challenged'. SteveBaker 01:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Cheetah theory - misreading of evidence. Actual effective population could have been hundreds or thousands. All that can (or could, didn't read the original research) be said in such cases is that there exists only one unbroken lineage of maternal ancestry.
Presbyornithidae - Stilt-geese and wader-ducks, gosh, I wonder where they are now?
Gigantism and dwarfing - governed by apparently quite constrained parameters; we don't know exactly what the ultimate reasons are, but show a good vertebrate paleontologist your choice of vertebrate, odds are s/he'll be able to tell whether it would become a giant or a dwarf over time. Check Insular dwarfism and compare the taxon lists with Island gigantism; you'll note that the processes are very taxon-selective.
"The coelacanth" (not a nice thing to say) is a bad example because the oceanic crust's fossil record only goes back to the Jurassic, only does so in a few places, and even there is few and far between. No wonder there's this "gap", it's called sampling bias.
Re Steve Baker: I wouldn't trust in Dawkins when it comes to biodiversity. He's not a "proper" zoologist by training, and anyone who is not able to tell or doesn't care about the difference between an amphipod and a shrimp needs to be treated with caution (the difference is nearly as large as between a sparrow and an ostrich). The one thing one has to give Gould credit for by all means is that he was aware what biodiversity means. The present case, major BS in all likelihood - see here as for why we are probably descended from dozens of species at the same time.
Re "50 individuals" - actual numbers are, for practical purposes, roughly between 500 (Siberian Tiger and other wide-range low-density K-strategists) and 5 or so (Petroica traversi and other small-range high-density r-strategists). As low as 1 in clonal r-strategists such as certain aphids at least in theory, and on the metapopulation level it has been verified time and again I think (founder population size = 1 is nothing uncommon really in aphids. Anyone who loves pot plants know what I mean). Dysmorodrepanis 22:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human extinction assured, just a matter of time

Are you people in such denial that you seriously believe humans will live forever? It is the ultimate destiny of all life to eventually die. Humans are the only beings that try, and laughably so, to deny this fact. It is only a matter of time until this entire universe ends, and humans too, and no amount of pathetic hope can prevent it.

Capital error - equalling individual existence and a species' existence. Two separate processes; while the death of an individual is a process immediately noticeable to all involved, the extinction of a species is hardly noticeable for the individuals of this species usually. Dysmorodrepanis 22:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


It's not at all clear that the universe will ever "end" (ie a 'Big Crunch' to mirror the Big Bang). We don't really know whether there is enough dark matter and other weird stuff out there to prevent the universe from expanding indefinitely. However it does seem likely that in the absence of a 'Big Crunch' that would put a definite end to the universe, the relentless effects of entropy will eventually eliminate all possible sources of energy for humanity to exploit. When everything in the universe is a billionth of a degree above absolute zero and all matter is converted to low-energy photons...that would certainly be the final, inevitable end of humanity if we don't succumb to something else first.
The most magnificent radio show in the universe - and nobody there to listen to it... ;-) Dysmorodrepanis 21:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
But we might not go extinct per-se - we might evolve into something else first - that 'something' would inevitably go extinct. Does that technically constitute extinction? I'm not sure. What if we figured out how to transfer our minds into computer memory inside robotic bodies that were more convenient and long-lived than our biological forms? Our biological extinction might then happen voluntarily when the last person has their mind transferred - but we would still exist as recognisable individuals with racial memories. The very definition of 'extinction' is hard to pin down under those kinds of "science fiction" scenario.
Highly unlikely due to restricted resources. To go back to the original question, check chronospecies. You might also find Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Men interesting, because for being 80 years old, it is still very good when it comes to the science. Some minor updates, and it is entirely plausible, technically. Stapledon's human succession starts off fairly tame at first, but after 3 or so human species it gets decidedly weird. Dysmorodrepanis 21:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
But aside from the end of the universe, we are such an adaptable species (especially with our technology to back us up) that it's hard to imagine any kind of gradual problem that we couldn't survive in some way. On timescales shorter than the end of the universe it would take a very sudden global catastrophy to make us go extinct - and even that would have to happen before we managed to establish stable colonies on other planets. That's not to say that there couldn't be major disasters that would wipe out 99% of our numbers - but to take us down to zero population - that's hard to imagine. SteveBaker 12:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Species change, and from some point on, even without the evolutionary lineage splitting (a la Morlocks and Eloi) it won't be the same species anymore. So although there are fair chances that the human lineage will continue for some time, the human species, like all species, is fair game eventually. The species as such is an evolutionary stage that does not exist (in vertebrates) for more than a few million years at best. Dysmorodrepanis 21:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Stable populations on other planets?" Star Trek is FANTASY. We will NEVER, EVER, EVER step foot on another planet, except maybe if we're VERY lucky, Mars. And even then, there will never be "colonies" on Mars. It would take more resources THAN EARTH HAS EVER HAD to support a colony-worthy expedition to another galaxy. It is impossible - we will die with the earth, and no amount of pathetic denial can, nor ever will, change that fact.

It may be a matter of centuries before an interstellar colonial mission could be launched, but that's a far cry from never. Why would be need to launch an expedition to another galaxy? There are between 100 billion and 200 billion stars in our own galaxy. Barring technological collapse, there's no reason why there won't be colonial missions launched to planets outside of our solar system within the next 1000 years. It would be quite a feat, but possible. The biggest obstacle would be that it would take a very long time, and would require a vessel capable of maintaining a self-sustaining environment. We won't be zipping about like Star Trek, the travel time would be over several lifetimes. As far as missions to Mars, the only thing lacking is the will to do it. There likely will be permanent outposts on Mars, it's more efficient than taking short stays there. There is sufficient water obtainable to drinking, or to be broken down for oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for fuel.--RLent 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is only a matter of time, this article should be changed to include all currently living species since they will all inevitably become extinct. Nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.52.56 (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LEAD and "Overview"

This article's lead section was, in fact, overly long. But it is not clear to me that moving the material into an overview section is an improvement. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should itself be a concise overview. A better way to go would be to have the lead be a solid three paragraphs that give a useful summary of the article, and move the extra material into the article body. We should also get rid of things like empty section headings. Jkelly 17:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A fair point. I wasn't entirely happy with my work, but I thought the previous intro was a bit wordy and just not straightforward enough. By all means revert, but I'd be happy to help rework it. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that reverting is a good idea, because the version before that edit wasn't a good lead. Let's figure out how to get three good paragraphs that summarise the article out of the current "Overview"/lead and move the rest of it into the article. Jkelly 23:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I reckon the paragraphs could be :
  1. What extinction is (the first couple of sentences at the moment; plus expansion of concepts as suits)
  2. Mechanisms and role of evolution (some of the stuff I moved to "Overview")
  3. Extinction and humankind (background rate vs. modern rate; maybe mention that we're in the sixth great extinction)
We should be able to carve these out of the existing text. Anyway, a plan? --Plumbago 22:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good, as long as that #3 doesn't wind up putting things in the lead that aren't in the body -- I don't see a lot of discussion of that in the article. I also note that we have very little mention of plant life, which probably needs fixing. Jkelly 23:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something like ...

In biology and ecology, extinction is the cessation of existence of a species or group of taxa. The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of that species (although the capacity to breed and recover may have been lost before this point; see population bottleneck). Because a species potential range may be very large, determining this moment is difficult, and may be done retrospectively.
Through evolution, new species are created by speciation — where new varieties of organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche — and species become extinct when they are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. A typical species becomes extinct within 10 million years of its first appearance, although some species survive virtually unchanged for hundreds of millions of years (see living fossil).
Prior to the dispersion of humans across the earth, extinction was a purely natural phenomenon that generally occurred at a continuous low rate (mass extinctions being relatively rare events). Starting approximately 100,000 years ago, and coinciding with an increase in the numbers and range of humans, an unprecedented rate of species extinctions commenced. This is known as the Holocene extinction event and is the sixth (seventh?) such extinction event.

I've mostly cut-and-pasted the above, but I've tweaked a bit, and tried to add in some new concepts (bottleneck; extinction events). Cheers, --Plumbago 08:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. I would make maybe two changes: Firstly in the first para, we could somehow work into the last line something about that science sometimes declares species extinct when they aren't - and point to the article Lazarus taxon. (We also need to say more about this in the body of the article - but that's another issue.) Secondly, the issue of the number (six or seven?) of mass extinctions - we can only place a lower limit on that number because mass extinctions may have occurred in times before we have a good fossil record - so something like "at least the sixth" might be better words and "the sixth (seventh?)". SteveBaker 12:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I almost put something in about Lazarus taxa when I wrote it - I thought it was a bit specific for the intro, but it's fairly relevant and would fit nicely with the point about determining that extinction has happened. Your wording "at least the sixth" is good. Definitely change that.
The only thing that remains to do (in the short-term) is to sort out what to do with the remaining text in the "Overview" section I created. Any ideas? --Plumbago 12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Can we say that the extinction event we're driving is "unprecedented" given earlier mass extinctions? I think we need a more accurate adjective there. My guess is that the current rate is actually probably lower than that during these events, given their rather extreme nature. However, I don't want to lose the sense that we're amidst a biodiversity calamity. --Plumbago 12:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that this is now largely sorted out; the article currently has a very reasonable lead and no second "overview". Jkelly 19:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a good FA candidate?

This article is looking pretty good - with the new introduction, and maybe a few more references for some of the key facts, I think it could make featured article status. I'm going to 'be bold' and take the first steps. Unless anyone has any objections, I'll nominate it for 'Good Article' status then put it through peer review. SteveBaker 12:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is going to need a lot more referencing before it could pass WP:FAC. The WP:LEAD work discussed above needs to happen. The "See also" items need to be integrated into the text. "Endangered species" needs a summary. For the article to be comprehensive, we should have a summary of pretty much everything in Category:Extinction. The mere existence of a "Human extinction" section probably overstates the level of concern about the possibility, and the absence of a discussion of plant life extinctions needs to be corrected. That said, if other editors are feeling energised or enthusiastic about getting together a WP:FA-level article about extinction, I think that would be great, and a good Wikipedia:Summary style article on the subject should not be too hard to get to from what we already have. Jkelly 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Jkelly. We've a bit to go yet before we can submit this for GA/FA status. I concur on all of the points raised - we really do need to introduce each of the "see also" points, and probably need to sort out the rather dubious "human extinction" section (which is as nothing compared to what was there a few months back, where it was suggested that we, as a species, are "opposed to extinction" because we have an instinct to breed). As noted, the balance towards more familiar species could probably do with being addressed too, and probably something said re: ocean/terrestrial extinction in the context of mass extinction. I guess we should be careful not to overplay the big extinctions, although it occurs to me that I've no idea how significant they are for the average species (i.e. of all the species that have existed, what fraction have been felled in a mass extinction rather than everyday "oops, I'm dead" extinction). Just some thoughts. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Further "to do list" items might include the addition of some home-made charts showing modern rates of extinction, and a re-evaluation of what I just renamed "Legacy and recovery..." -- these paragraphs may not belong together, probably are not really a subsection of "Definition", and may be overstating the importance of the thinking of Michael Crichton on the subject of extinction. Jkelly 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
OK - I guess I agree with the above points. I'll hold off nominating for GA for a while. SteveBaker 12:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've trimmed the human extinction section down to a longish sentence instead of a paragraph with its own section heading. I think that, in terms of the balance of this article, we could really use a lot more plantlife examples and discussion. Jkelly 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is coming along nicely. Feedback? I'm especially interested in whether or not we should expand the "Mass extinctions" section significantly, including a short description of each event. I'm thinking "yes". Jkelly 02:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's looking better - but not because of any input from me of late! Two quick points though :
  1. In the introduction at the head of the article it quotes some "tenth of one percent" number - this seems entirely bogus to me (i.e. it probably stems from some "99.9% of species are extinct" quote). The number (and diversity) of living fossils vs. "dead" fossils suggests it's waaaay less than 0.1%. But a source would be best of all (failing that, remove this attempt to ennumerate)
  2. In the "Causes of extinction" section (and more generally in the article), there's a still something of a bias towards anthropogenic extinction rather than natural extinction. Probably just my twisted perception of things. Might just be that they need to be delineated more clearly (just to clarify, it's certainly not the case that natural is as important as anthro; at least in the last 65 My).
Anyway, when I think what the article looked like even a month or so ago, this is a huge improvement. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The number is cited to Mark Newman of Cornell's website, but it could perhaps do with more precision and a more direct source. I think that the anthropogenic issue could be balanced by my suggestion of adding significantly to the "Mass extinction" section. Jkelly 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I found this article after seeing the 1.5 millionth article, which was connected to levels of extinction, after which I decided to check out the main article on extinction. I'm not a scientific specialist or anything of the sort, but I do think that this is at least a GA-class article. Once the particulars have been worked out, following the peer review, this should go to FAC. —Cliff smith 22:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from William Beebe

i notice the quote from William Beebe has been moved by JKelly to Wikiquotes - which is fine - but doen't it seem appropriate to keep it here as well? I have re-entered it - but if you think it is inappropriate to have it here would you please let me know why/

Many thanks, John Hill 01:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been removed again, not by me. I've answered you at User talk:John Hill. Jkelly 02:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro Change

The intro used to read something to the effect of "99.9 % of species that have existed have gone extinct" and has been replaced with "1 out of 1000 species that have existed remain today." This is just a restatement of the other sentence (I think in an effort to better represent the linked reference) but doesn't sound as clear. One thousand, as a number, isn't a very good scale for the very long list of extinct species; the percentage of extinct better conveys the data of the sentence, in my opinion. Mmcknight4 03:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the use of percentage of species is better. Peter Maas 12:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
we have to be very careful with this percentage approach. the percent figure should be in the article somewhere, but most readers cannot relate to the geological time scale here. the percent figure is commonly bandied about by poachers and other people who are involved in acive extinction events as a justification for their posture. Anlace 14:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Im not sure what 'bandied about by poachers' means; I have read on the talk page about the ongoing talks re: Holocene Event or human caused extinction but my suggestion was only about the clarity of the sentence and not related to other concerns. To say "1 out of 1000 that have existed remains today" makes it sound like "a small proportion of old species are extant today" rather than the percentage figure which seems to read "most forms of life have gone extinct over time", which, I think, is the more relevant 'sounding' sentence.Mmcknight4 02:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Competition amongst birds statistic?

I just cut the following from the article:

Around three species of birds die out every year due to competition.

It was appropriately marked with {{citation needed}}, and, with no further information, sourcing it is going to be difficult. Does anyone have a reference for this? Jkelly 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 90+%???

I dont recall where I heard it but, some tidbit like "90% of all the species that ever existed on the earth are already extinct"... any truth to that? --Kvuo 21:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A differently-phrased statement stronger statement is in the lead of this article. It's uncontroversial, but needs better sourcing. Jkelly 21:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
moved from User talk:Jkelly Billy Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" and plenty of other folks have given the 99.99% extinction rate among species on Earth. I am still convinced that this is a simpler way of relaying this data than the "one in a thousand" line which, again, is just a more obscure way of explaining that extant species represent a small part of all the species to have ever existed. The reason people are using the percentage figure is because it is more clearly understood than the ratio reference. I cant tell if there is some aversion to the percentage line or if it just hadn't been documented until now. Mmcknight4 04:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extinction = cause already lost

The Work of Nature, a great, great book, talked about how human-caused extinctions are not that momentous an event-- because most of the damage has been done long ago. When a species is reduced to endangered or threatened status, it's already become, or on its way to be, an insignificant part of its ecosystem. Thus, when we hear of an endangered species, huge damage has already been done. Some people wonder why we should bother saving a few mice from extinction; the reason is not that those few mice will help save humankind, but because we should try if at all possible to reverse the damage we've done because the ecosystem must be really out of whack if it can't support a formerly abundant species. I don't know how to put this into the extinction and related articles, unless I missed it, but I think it's an important point. Xiner 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The conservation biology article has some attempts to give reasons for its importance. But it could certainly be improved. —Pengo 06:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planned extinction of 30 mosquito species?

What was the reaction to that proposal? It sounds like a great idea. Why haven't they implimented it yet? 64.236.245.243 16:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it might have just been talk. You might like to Google Olivia Judson to find out more. I believe that it was her who suggested it. I'm not entirely sure how it would be accomplished. Insecticides, as well as being broad-brush, only lead to the evolution of resistant insects. She might be proposing the release of large numbers of sterile mosquitos to waste reproductive effort and decrease their birth rate that way. Anyway, good luck with your search. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitely needs some salt. It presently sounds as if the technology exists, but this is BS. The homozygous knockout concept seems shiny and nice, but at present the assumption that it could work is not based on evidence but just on makebelieve. Evolutionary population genetics is a tough bitch, and I'd suspect that we'd rather end up with 60 mosquito species if there's anything to be learned from Wolbachia: induced mate incompatibility has been a major, if not THE driver of insect biodiversity being so amazingly large. It could work on an oceanic island. It could work in a species-poor lineage with low reproductive rate (as insects go). But as advocated by Judson, it is simply to force evolution to kick in the afterburner by enforcing partial reproductive isolation in widely-distributed r-strategists with amazingly high K: the population will fragment but still (due to being r-strategists) at least some isolated pockets are fairly certain to remain, and then it's just a matter of time before genetic drift has resulted in prezygotic isolation, and one year later, we'd be back to where we started, and ALL the money and effort and whatnot has been wasted, could just as well burn the bucks. For the love of God, Judson, have you slept through your undergraduate lectures? The entire idea exists only as a mathematical model that is crude to the extreme (comparable to the 70s climate models predicting a 21st-century ice age) and the knowledge required for an even marginally accurate risk-benefit assessment won't simply be there until at least one more generation of antimalarial medications has been developed, thoroughly tested, and deployed. And who breeds billions of billions of GM mosquitos (is there an assessment of the numbers of GM mossies needed for saturation? These critters don't really live that long, so if the number cannot be provided for release in a single batch - forget it, it WON'T WORK PERIOD)? Not once, but every few weeks? Who stores, transports, releases, monitors the stuff? Does anyone have an idea how much that will cost, given that such a program must be run for decades, and that 100% success is virtually ruled out because of a little thing called evolution? And is breeding GM mossies in large numbers even technically possible (we should have learned by now that cloning is "successful" only by accident)? And given that malaria is one of the top 3 health problems globally, such sloppy analyses based on nonexistent "science" and reeking of getting one's name in the news are close to cynical. People are dying; they need better than ivory tower scifi crap.
In brief, the idea as proposed is utterly devoid of a factual basis and does not exist outside computer models that bear hardly any resemblance to real-world population dynamics/genetics. The article should reflect this but I can't do it NPOVy.
And BTW, "knockout genes" is erroneous though generally in line with the abysmal scientific standard. Genes can't be recessive or dominant, by definition; "Recessive genes" is like "The dobermann pinscher genus". And knockout genes don't exist either I think (Gene knockout does). Dysmorodrepanis 21:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What a stupid idea. Way to frack up the ecosystem even more... hey frag bats and all those other creatures.-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.157.7 (talk • contribs)

The ecological consequences would actually be minor to beneficial (due to less pesticide spraying). The only creature that would certainly suffer are some Wolbachia strains. There seems to be no strong mutualism between a specific species of malarial mosquito and much else. To anything that eats mosquitos, most all species seem to taste alike...
In any case, human blood is a food resource, and you can't keep insects from evolving into a vacant niche for long. The London Underground mosquitos did it in decades, and they are a new species by all accounts.
The problem is less that the plan will hurt the ecosystem; it that it is highly liable to backfire against us humans directly, by actually enforcing pest evolution in the long run, and squandering and diverting away resources without any benefit even in the medium term. If there are billions of archers that cannot be shot before they're at your neck - and those that survive your shooting at them will only become better and stronger and hit harder -, it is probably best just to try shielding from the arrows. It is generally not a good idea to mess with ecosystems, but the worst idea of all is to try and outsmart evolution. 3.5 billion years of experience are hard to beat. Dysmorodrepanis 21:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Mosquitos are very tenacious creatures, but I'm not sure if they can evolve that fast. If Mosquitos could evolve a new species in just 10 years wouldn't the creationists shut up about not being able to see evolution happen? Being able to adapt to pesticides is an evolutionary trait, but evolving a completely new species requires much more significant divergence. 64.236.245.243 15:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganisation of article

I just reverted a large reorginsation of the article. I really don't think that we need two separate "modern extinctions" sections, and this breaking out every paragraph so that it has its own section header is too much clutter.

What we're really aiming for here is a Wikipedia:Summary style article on the topic of extinction. The reason given for putting a dinosaur picture at the top instead of the one of the Dodo was "to illustrate that this article isn't just about modern extinction, as it gets confusing and is pretty mixed up". While I'm not sure that I am entirely clear on what the editor was trying to convey, I've long thought that we could use another longish paragraph on historical mass extinction events that would serve as a summary of our Mass extinction article. That article, and the articles on each extinction event, however, is not particularly well-referenced, especially as compared to this one. What I suggest would be very helpful, then, would be get some good references for past mass extinctions and expand their treatment in this article, correcting any over-emphasis on modern extinctions that might exist. Jkelly 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, my reason for rearranging the article was to clearly mark where the article talks about modern vs non-modern extinction. This was for my own reference as much as for the reader's, and so further work could be done cleaning up the article.
The problem I see is that the article jumps between modern and pre-human extinctions and each section on one disregards the other. E.g. in some parts it sounds like modern extinctions are the only extinctions, while in others it seems to be using the "well extinctions are just a natural part of things" line (which is true) but due to the way the article is arranged, it's as if this is saying modern extinctions are of no concern.
I think you're saying that your solution would be to have longer summary of extinction events, and I agree with that, and had thought the same thing myself. But beyond that, every major section should be dealing with both modern and pre-human extinctions, or state clearly when it's dealing with only one of them.
The reason for two sections on modern extinctions was that one was a subheading under "causes of extinction", (i.e. modern causes) while the other was about mass extinction events (i.e. the modern mass extinction event). The text was not rearranged there, I was just marking that two sentences into the opening paragraph on "causes" the article starts assuming we're only talking only modern extinction (actually I misread it). The reason to put the dinosaur picture in is to show immediately to the reader (and further authors) that the article is about both modern and fossil extinctions. "Attitudes towards extinction", which makes up a large section of the article, deals only with modern extinction (except for the scientific part which doesn't belong there) and the whole section should be summarised and moved to Holocene extinction event.
The article on endangered species has quite a bit of good material on extinctions which compares the recent extinctions to the rest.
I'm going to put back a few of my changes (mainly moving the scientific "attitudes" part out to its own section), but not go as heading-happy. —Pengo 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planned bacterium extinction?

I've removed the words "and bacterium" from this sentence:

Humans have aggressively worked towards the extinction of many species of virus and bacterium

Can anyone give an example of humans attempting to wipe out a bacterium? It sounds like too impossible a task to even consider, but please correct me if I'm wrong. —Pengo 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call, but should virus extinction be mentioned either, considering they aren't organisms? Bendž|Ť 15:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please create more "Wildlife of ....." articles for all countries.

.... and kindly contribute to these new articles when you get time, and request others too.

See Wildlife of India for reference.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation for Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas of India & Conservation

If you are interested in Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature etc. please join in to contribute, even starting off with making new stub class articles will be a great contribution.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We need senior administrators or people who are long in Wikipedia to help us with the templates and for other further helps. Details can be seen in its talk page. IT's urgent. We want this wkiproject to be added to the exsisting WP:IND banner. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Rate of Extinction

Forgive me, for I am new to participating in wikipedia, but I found some information that I believe contradicts, or at least offers a contrary viewpoint to some of the information presented on the Extinction article, and I wish to contribute this, but do not have enough experience editing wikipedia to do so.

In the introduction it is stated that "Some experts have estimated that up to half of presently existing species may become extinct by 2100" citing a book by E.O. Wilson as the source.

I have contrary information though, also from an essay by E.O. Wilson, "Biodiversity: Wildlife in Trouble," published in the book "The Biodiversity Crisis" by Michael Novacek. In his essay, Wilson writes "terrestrial species are vanishing one hundred times faster than before the arrival of humans." The background extinction rate is generally accepted to be 1 species per million species per year, and moderate estimates of the total number of species currently on the planet range from 20 to 30 million. So background extinction rates would be 20-30 species per year. Taking into account that anthropogenic factors have exacerbated this rate by 100 times, this gives us an extinction rate of 2000-3000 species per year. Over 100 years that's 200,000-300,000 species overall (out of 20 million to 30 million total). But that means that in the next 100 years, only about 1% of all species will have gone extinct, a far cry from the 50% claimed in this article.

67.174.104.138 23:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MJH

I'm guessing you'd have to considered an accelerating rate of extinction, and I'd speculate he may be possibly considering the devastating effect of climate change combined with fragmented habitats, which means species cannot escape the changing climate like they have in the past. But I'm guessing. —Pengo 01:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of context addition to article

The following out of context addition was made to this article:

63.3.132.131 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Goniatite Fossil63.3.132.131 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Goniatites lived during the Carboniferous Period, about 300 million years ago. Only a single relative of the Goniatit survives today, the pearly nautilus of the South Pacific. Goniatites probably had heads with well developed eyes, as well as grasping tentacles. They swam by squirting water out of the body cavity.

If anyone thinks it is worthy of inclusion have at it with proper sourcing. Cheers. Anlace 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extinction and death

It was brought up recently that extinction shouldn't be summarized at the death article. As the one who added the section, which is basically just the lead section from this article, I'd like to get some input on this. Is extinction relevant to the death article? Should it be summarized, mentioned only in the context of death, or mentioned only in passing (e.g. one sentence). Please leave your comments at Talk:Death. Richard001 02:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's it called when a species evolves?

When a species never dies out, rather just evolves into a new species, what term is used to describe this? Like how Homo erectus never went extinct, it evolved into Homo sapiens; but since Homo erectus is no longer a species in existence, could it be described as extinct? 82.16.7.63 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoextinction. It's covered in this article too. —Pengo 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. Do you mean speciation? Orangemarlin 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Speciation often accompanies pseudoextinction, but theoretically it's not necessary. Bendž|Ť 09:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Erectus never evolved into Sapiens. It did go extinct however. You sound like you don't really understand evolution. No entire animal species merely evolves into a new species all at once. An animal species can spawn new subspecies, but the parent species can still remain intact. From there, it's just a matter of whether the parent species goes extinct or not. 65.41.92.123 (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] goats

Insert non-formatted text here

[edit] Extinction rates

Per my obvious and essentially unanswered arguments above, about this editorial desire to obscure facts about the extent of extinction, I am going to revert, with citations, the goofy 1 in 1000 rate figure with the mathematically equivalent, and effectively recognizable, 99.9% figure. Should sensible objections exist, please make them plainly evident.Mmcknight4 (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)