By Anonymous - 30/08/2012 18:33 - United States - Auburn
Add a comment - Reply to : #
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
I understand that the plant gets more energy from the sun than it transfers to the deer. You all completely misinterpreted what I said... My teacher was telling us that a lion that ate the deer would get less energy than the deer eating the plant. That is incorrect. The deer eats numerous plants every day accumulating more energy as months go on than a single plant has.
So you think eating 1 meal of a deer gives more energy than eating an entire deer? You simply lack common sense and must only read textbooks. Maybe you should work on applying your knowledge rather than memorizing it with brute force. The plant is more efficient but it's net energy is still lower as the deer has eaten more than 10 plants in its life.
And the lion only eats one animal in it's lifetime? 10% of 10% is definitely less than 10%, no matter which way you slice it. Maybe you should spend more time actually learning something rather than trying to make yourself sound smart. You're wrong. I'm not going to play 'who has the bigger dick' with you.
The lion would get less energy eating the deer than the deer would get eating a plant. If you would do your math, you would figure out that the lion is getting one hundredth of the energy that the deer got from eating the plant. 100%•10%•10%=0.01. So what that mean is the lion has to eat 10 deer to obtain the amount of energy the deer gains from eating the plant. So your teacher is right, and you are an idiot. Good day.
I'm not behind, they are just not understanding what I'm saying. The "10% rule" is quite simple; I don't need you to explain it to me. I know that a plant gets more energy from the sun than a deer gets from eating the plant. A deer would have probably consumed thousands of plants in its lifetime though. Is that incomprehensible to you? Yes each plant passes on only .1x its energy but if the deer ate a thousand of them, it still has 100x the energy of one plant. Then when a lion eats the deer it would be getting 10x the amount that the one plant got from the sun. thus, the deer gave more energy in total.
NO NO NO. Stop commenting. You are an idiot! Energy is released through physical activity, digestion, and all things your body does. What you're saying I that the dear will eat 50 plants, and the deer will not use up any more energy. You are an idiot that does not understand BASIC BIOLOGY. Do the world a favor, and DO NOT breed!
I'm not trying to sound smart bro. I'm sorry it seems that way, cause I'm simply trying to establish that I'm not an idiot by typing correctly so i dont get buried with thumbs down. I have a point. I admit that I could have been more clear in my original comment, but I know that I'm right
Lmao you're 13 years old and calling me an idiot for not understanding basic biology? I do understand it and yes you have a point that the deer uses energy as well as absorbs it! But it also eats more plants to make up for lost energy and still ends up with an exponentially larger amount of energy than a single plant as it eats thousands within its lifetime and doesn't use all of it. You are now pissing me off. Why intervene in a conversation you weren't even originally part of?
No I was not talking to you, because you're extremely annoying. I was talking to maninthemachine. I was letting him know that I'm not trying to sound smart, I'm typing legibly so people would give my point a chance instead of dismissing it without a thought like you did you fucking asshole. Fuck yourself and leave.
LiterOfCola: Let me put it this way. Your argument is invalid because you're saying 1 plant has less energy that 'X' number of plants, and then excluding all other plants from the equation. You can't do that, it goes against the entire purpose of math and science. It's okay to be wrong, as long as you learn from it. Think about that.
This whole conversation is a monument of failed communication. Here's the deal: LiterOfCola is saying that a lion gains more energy from eating a whole deer than that deer gains from eating a single plant. This is true. Everyone else is saying that the lion gains less of the energy from the single plant than the deer did when it ate it. Also true. Now can't we all get along?
I would have told the principal or if college then dean. She doesn't have the right to kick you out. Also, a fuck you would have been appropriate in this situation and I would have left the class as well trying to bring the rest of the gang as well to be on the side that doesn't deserve to be kicked out. Not all teachers are 100% right. Also, this was a dumb question to begin with because it is an obvious answer.
140- Yes, it is in the dictionary. However, people use it wrong frequently. "Ain't" is the the contraction for "am not" and should only be used like, "I ain't" since you'd be saying "I am not." Regardless of whether or not it's in the dictionary now, one still sounds much more educated if they say "I'm not" as opposed to "I ain't."
#174-- If being Jewish were just a religion, then why didn't all the Jews in the Holocaust just convert? Although you could argue that it was just anti-Semetic propaganda. But the fact that Jews had been outcasts in Europe for centuries, usually having children with other Jews to the point that they developed their own "look" makes me think that there is something to the "Jewishness is an ethnicity" theory... (That said, I am part Jewish, but not religiously.)
I don't know how you all have teachers like that. It may be that my courses are all science and maths based, but I've found that if they don't know something, they'll try work it out, and they encourage us to do the same. In a fair few cases we have proved our teacher wrong, which makes them happy about the work we put in. Maybe it's just an age/country thing though.
There's always gonna be a teacher like that, at least you proved that bitch wrong.
Does she still believe in an East and West Germany or one Korea as well?