[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Extinction and The Loast World
I've read a lot of the responses about what I said about extinction. It
just goes to prove that sometimes I don't say what I mean. What I meant
was, as long as Earth remains a relatively safe (in terms of retaining
the ability to provide for life) and hospitable place, where life
continues beyond even a substantial event like Chicxalub, organisms must
adapt or be faced with possible extinction. Nature works in mysterious
ways and I don't believe that any organism is beyond extinction given the
right conditions no matter how hard the species fights or adapts to the
changes, some will perish regardless.
I hope I'm not blabbing. But, I do agree on some points that organisms
(maybe the dinos being THE prime example) simply CANNOT adapt maybe
because of one reason or another. It becomes extinct. It has failed a
test (as you can call it whatever) that has no possible solution. Kind
of like the Academy ttest you hear about all the time on the Star Trek
movies that Kirk cheated on where there is no positive outcome possible.
On to The Lost World. Jurassic Park has a LOT of scientific flaws, but
it is the movie industry and the artists that inspire people to look
seriously into paleo. It is the same people who work their magic to make
everyone think, "Hey, a T-Rex may have looked like that." Movies aren't
meant to advance science, but to entertain the public (however, nowadays
the public is demanding more scientifically real movies than before.
This demand is putting a little demand on producers and directors to both
be creative and be factually based at the same time). Either way,
realism or make-believe, expect to find a lot of stuff you might find
wrong with The Lost World. I'm sure I will as I did with Dante's Peak
and the NBC movie Asteroid (my god, it was full of REEAALLY off-the-wall
ideas). But who am I to say; I'm just an undergrad.
Michael D. Miller