The way you present everything in an unbiased and open-minded way. Like the way you included the note on the percentages, just gives me extra respect for this channel. It baffles me why you're not everywhere on TV and science channels
the discussion of methanosarcina was very interesting and i didn't know about them. cyanobacteria at the great oxygenation event should have been mentioned. they probably take 3rd place because even though their destruction was probably worse than methanosarcina's in proportion, the raw numbers would be smaller because of overall smaller biological activity on earth. similar to how the mongol invasions killed less than world war 2.
should we call it biomass? biodiversity? it is not even clear exactly what we're measuring here. raw numbers, yes, but raw numbers of what? there is no accurate terminology because it is not well defined and considering the subject, it should stay as vague as it is to encompass everything we want it to encompass
They might actually take first place, due to singlehandedly upendinging an entire biosphere permanently in a way no other mass extinction has done since (& nearly wiping out life on Earth by freezing it). Unfortunately, we can't get data on microbe species counts that far back, so we can't put them in a ranking of mass extinctions empirically, but they're almost certainly responsible for the worst/best.
Bahraini Vsauce. I think it has been shown that the people of Bahrain are mostly of Persian origin with some Arabic genetic components. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23039013
If you input that phrase into some of the websites dedicated to keep records of the homo sapiens sapiens' intercourse habits in the form of moving pictures, you might be likely to find an output that matches it.
how did this methane releasing feeback look stop? these methanogenic organism should've been able to proliferate even after consuming all the biological matter on earth. BTW geat video sharkee keep them coming!
As more and more organisms died and were digested, the methanogenic organisms would find less food sources and the process would have slowed down. Since the methanogenic organisms brought the athmosphere content out of equilibrium, I guess that this meant that methane and oxygen levels could slowly restore to normal.
usually it's used as a catalyst. anyway i looked it up, the abundance of nickel is very low on earth's crust and that in my opinion sets a maximum number of these organisms that can exist at any given time regardless of resources. add the point made by +martijn bouman and we've got ourselves an invasive species that cannot eradicate the totality of all the other organisms. many other variables are at place here but i don't think we'll ever know the full story
I guess it's really about how you define organism. For example, we humans couldn't be so deadly without all the organisms that make up coal and oil and other fossil fuels. Do you compare a whole class of bacteria to just a species? In the end it's just one big organic process killing off parts of itself.
Cyanobacteria/blue-green algae in the Cambrian period as a close second to the hypothetical methanogen mechanism for the great Permian extinction. Just a guess, no numbers handy for comparison
Hard to say. I wonder about cyanobacteria during the great oxygenation event. Though, given the amount of time any species has been alive for & how deadly they can be to other organisms it would be hard to classify given lack of data. Based on the limits on what we know & our definitions on what constitutes for a living organisms, I would be open to viruses being included in the list. With viruses being calculated as well my money would be on bacteriophage. This virus could have existed before the first mass extinction event giving it enough time to out compete any other organism for being the deadliest.
good point about bacteriophages, but there are many species of them. is there any one species that did the destruction for all that time consistently enough to compete with humans or methanosarcina or the most dominant species of cyanobacteria at the great oxygenation event?
How much would the earths population increase by if there was no deadly disease, and people stopped killing each other? What would be the impact to society and the planet?
*itastain* I'd say that a society of humans with the level of civility to not kill each other would have enough discipline to control overpopulation in a civil way that everyone willingly agrees to follow.
David Flores Population isn't sustainable, booms cause drops when they all die, and their children and grandchildren didn't have the same amount of children to replace them. (Wouldn't be a boom of the growth was sustained) A lot like baby boomers currently, population peak will happen, and then pop will decrease.
Sorry but no your completely wrong on this one. Your compare something that likely had 100's of millions to modern humans who have been around for around a 1/4 million. Furthermore it's only been in the last 200 years that we started have a large enough impact on the world around us to drive an extinction event. All things being equal humans are far more deadly by several magnitudes if your comparing similar time lines.
Jack Kingers No thats also Arab. You can eat Arab food and meet Arab people. You don't eat Arabic food or meet Arabic people. I'm sorry but this is one of the cases where English breaks it's own rules and the ic suffix doesn't mean pertaining to.
