CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
I've changed 1 word in the debate title (**Evolutionists** to **people**) to hopefully discourage discussions about the meaning of words and help people focus on the topic.
Basically extinction is as natural to existence as death is to life. That being the case, shouldn't we just let endangered species die out instead of trying to save them? I mean there's a good reason why they're endangered right?
You are wrong!!!! Have you not thought of the future? Have you not thought of what would happen if one animal disappeared forever? What would happen to that ecosystem in that area? If a species went extinct right now our grand kids, great grand kids and so on will never see them only as pictures! How dare you say that?!?!?!?!?!? Every single living cell in the universe has the right to live? Do you not care about the ecosystems? The affect it could have on other animals that depended on it? How dare you say that? Every single animal, plant and insect is the fittest. You do not know the effects of a species being wiped out and the effects of the ecosystem it lived in. What if a species that was wiped out was a brand new discovered one? Scientists would not be able to study it because they are extinct because we made it like that! We humans are moving into habitats of other animals that are native to that land. In 1949 a species of snake from Australia was brought to Guam by a stupid idiot. Now 12 insect eating birds are wiped out in that area because of that kind of snake. 2 of them are in an area where they can be protected for now. Now Guam has a large population of spiders that the population of spiders were once under control by the insect eating birds. There are not enough insect eating birds there to control the population. See what happens when a species is wiped out? Other populations become greater or lesser. Nature made this and we humans are destroying our once beautiful world. We humans need to think about what animals we bring over to other countries and how we treat our earth. The dinosaurs went extinct because they couldn't adapt to the changes. Mother nature made them and then took them away. They survived for a very long time and now it's our turn but by the way we are destroying our world we won't last nowhere near as the dinosaurs. Mother Nature knows when to make a new species and when to end an older species but we humans are speeding up all the other animals extinction cycle. We don't know the future yet but I know it won't be pretty. Who knows about the dinosaurs? Maybe in a couple million years evolution and mother nature will work together and make something similar to the dinosaurs. The only unchanged dinosaur there is left is crocodiles. Their habits are not hanged even though their eniviroments, sizes and a few other factors are changed. The Cuban crocodile is very endangered in the wild. There aren't even 10,000 in the wild left. See what happens when we temper with the natural order of life?
I don't believe humans can survive a "transition" that kills of species after species of both plants and animals. We are part of a web of life...and are hacking away at the environment that supports both them and us.
I think you are misunderstanding the gist of my argument. I was being facetious, saying that humans are sure to destroy all nonhuman life on earth and resort to the consumption of genetically engineered foodstuffs.
The assumption that anything humans do is not part of nature or unnatural is false. We are a part of the Earth and its environment as much as any other living creature and apparently we got here much the same way, too (through evolution). We weren't unnaturally thrown into the mix of things here on Earth were we? Termites build homes out of earth mounds and timber. We build homes from cement and bricks and steel. Our infrastructures are home to lots of rats and other living things, nothing unnatural about human activities at all.
I completely agree. Just like when some one says somethings unnatural. It ordinal came from nature, we just changed it. Sorry for changing the subjected.
I agree their is nothing unnatural about what we do. But we are stealing the homes of the animals, plants, insects, whatever that was living their before us, so we should at least be kindful enough to contribute in builiding them more homes. Besides, you wouldn't like it if I knocked down your house, took over land, and left you standing their with the clothes on your back.
There are as many symbiotic relationships in nature, as there are species in nature. That is - Animals help each other out all the time (flower pollens get distributed by cows (who shit it in fertile ground), birds serve as warning signalers for other animals, some animals, both in sea and on land serve as cleaners for bigger animals, and in return get to eat what they clean - all sorts of mutual growth buisness goes on in nature.
Saying that "Evolution teaches the survival of the fittest" is as good a summary of the theory og Evolution as saying that Einsteins theory of relativity says "that everything is realtive"
These are oversimplifications and the reason your statement still keeps lurking in popular culture is because of a political theory called Social Darwinism, that simplified evolutionary theory to justify its actions (usually actions of shitting on people, in so many words). Social Darwinism is close to a dead theory but there are always radical groups who bring it up occasionally.
I point this out because alot of the arguments Creationists bring up time and time again are arguments against this simplified theory of evolution.
Like I said somwhere here before, evolitionary theory does not simply say that the "fittest survive" but rather the species most apt to deal with its current environment (that is "most fit" in that relative sense) is most likely to survive, but then environments change. So "fittest" has a context, and is not meant to be taken in a general sense. very small factors (like flu epidemics that rush up) can have a drastic effect on an animal that in all other respects (armour, speed, big jaws) has advantages. So unpredictable small changes have great consequences and randomly shake up the grounds we use to calculate "fittness"
As a side note it is important to realize that in many cases the greatest assets a species can have for survival is its symbiotic realtionship with diverse nature. (so that it doesnt put all its eggs in one basket, so to speak: like just depending on the size of ones jaws for example.)
Sometimes that's not enough. Sometimes once something is gone it may be gone forever. We humans are destroying what we have. We abuse what we are given. Only selfish people have a blind eye to the dying world and I am not one of the selfish ones like you. I try to help the world by doing my job. I recycle, reuse, reduce and spread the word of the three r's. Apparently I have more brains that you do.
You know, Moonpup, you're probably a good person but you haven't taken the time to fill out your profile, so I'll never know!
Either way, each and every living thing on this planet contains, within itself, the building blocks necessary for creating every other living thing. According to evolution, we are all related.
So all we have to do is create something that resembles what it once was. We don't have to be exact because it really doesn't matter. Many animals and plants have become extinct, even before humans walked the Earth, and it has not had a lasting negative effect.
And if you're a creationist..., well then..., God should be able to bring them all back.
And as far as your "dying" planet comment..., the planet has sustained multiple mass extinctions and every time, life came back. And even if this time life doesn't come back to this planet, the stuff of life can travel on meteors to other planets and seed them with life.
But regardless..., you just keep on doing your job ;)
For many species for those multiple extinctions. When those multiple extinctions occurred there were some species left that blossomed from those surviving species. I am a good person. I am sorry I haven't filled out my profile. I've been busy with my book project. It's Moondog not Moonpup. I'm just saying.
No it's not! Even if you just reuse, reduce, and recycle you can still save endangered animals. It keeps the dart healthy and clean and then there is no trash to kill off important animals!!!
If you really want to reduce something that may have the effect you describe, reduce the world's human population. Apparently humans are not as important. ;)
I meant paper, glass, cans, and other recyclable things that can be reduced, reused and recycled. Are you really that stupid to not know those things can be reused, reduced and recycled?
Let's say we "reduce, reuse and recycle paper, glass, cans, and other recyclable things..." the world's population will continue to increase. So your "reduction" will continue to increase past the point deemed "acceptable." I'm embarrassed to have to connect such obvious dots for you.
We depend on other animals for things like fur, wool and food. What do mean what do other species do? That's how. We can't just kill off the endangered animals. It's the human race's fault so many animals are in endangered and dying off quickly. The human race is the one to cut down all the forests for stupid things. All those chopped down forests were once habitats and the green leaves on the trees in the forest were once used photosynthesis that makes 6 oxygen molecules and C6H12O6 (Glucose) we need air. Plants need the carbon we expell from our lungs. We work together to create more life and the cycle goes on and on and what am I rambling about?
Messing with nature's process of elimination will only slow things down. Leave it alone and let the species that are inferior die out to make room for those that are obviously meant to survive.
You seem to assume that it is written in some higher law (I wonder where that idea came from) that some species should survive and others not.
and in talking about how saving endengered species can "slow things down" you also seem to assume that evolution is heading in a predefined direction to some sort of rapture (I wonder also where that idea came from).
The theory of evolution is not a scientific version of bible prophecy.
I personally believe that evolution is a process created by God (and so I'm a theistic evolutionist). I personally believe that all species should be saved. However, that is not my position in this debate. I've chosen the side that doesn't believe in God.
Evolution is a process that scientists have observed when studying biology and history and whatever else... they call the process evolution, they didn't make evolution, so there's no agent involved (according to the evolutionists). The process of elimination that naturally occurs in nature has been coined Natural Selection by Darwin and that other guy. And like you said it's a simple natural phenomena, and I haven't humanized it. It's what happens in nature, naturally! If we try to stop it, isn't that going against that natural process?
It's what happens in nature, naturally! If we try to stop it, isn't that going against that natural process?
: ) I like that question, I think it touches on quite a big conundrum that is facing us today. - That is - we tend to assume that there is a great big difference between "artifical "and "natural", and it is commonly assumed that things humans produce are artifical and things that are produced by non-human agency´s are natural.
I dont think "natural process" has a goal in mind. I dont see nature giving out signals of where it is heading. And concerning the statistics I would have to assume that "nature" is pretty random (75% of all matter is supposed to be dark matter - that is; unacountable ). So I dont think there is such a thing as going against nature, for nature (meaning outside effects) doesnt seem to have an angle.
I think our minds are the pinnacle of evolution - No thing before the human mind could calculate and produce as much data in less time before (computers are gaining ground on us , so this is not a settled issue :)
-So our minds (i think) are in a sense a natural process.
judging what species should live and what species shouldnt is a hard question, for it is obvious that we cant save them all, but I dont think it is any special reason for "Evolutionists" to be against saving some endagnered species.
Thinking that the theory of evolution gives out any such pedegrees is confusing the theory of evolution with "social Darwinism" ( a political theory) like I said before
I agree that how our mind works is natural, and some people's mind wants them to save the endangered species.
I don't think natural selection has a specific goal in mind, but one can take a look at history and how things have evolved and deduce that it seems to be taking living beings on a certain journey and it seems that at any given point in time, the creatures that exist are those best at the game of survival at that point in time. So at a point in time in the very far future some millions of years from now, you could probably say that the Earth may have a super super intelligent dominant species that is super super adapted to its environment physically... given that the Earth hasn't been destroyed or its environment hasn't changed drastically (because that would change everything).
I don't even want to open the can of worm that is social Darwinism, I don't think it's relevant to this topic.
Problem is that most of them aren't dying because of "nature's process" but rather Human intervention. They are dying not because they aren't great hunters, breed to slowly, etc. They are dying because men leveled their envirmoent, destroyed their food, or simply killed them for fur, oils, meat, etc.
I agree with this but I do not agree wih that we should let endangered animals die. We do not know everything and we maybe shouldn't. We should think about the future and how we can save the world not kill it.
They're dying because we're the more dominant species and we're more successful at survival than them, we're so good at surviving our population has to be controlled.
Sure, they're good hunters and whatever, but we're much better! So no, they're not dying out because they're not good at what they do, they're dying out because we're just better... Plants that are better at survival will outgrow and suffocate those that aren't as strong, killing them. Same with animals. The more dominant species will dominate! It's natural to destroy the environments of other species.
Human beings are certainly the most arrogant and self righteous of all species.
As far as hunting, even with technology on our side, there are many animals who are still better. As far as "It's natural to destroy the environments of other species." No, it's natural for animals, like humans, to use other species for their survival needs, kills for no reason is just the opposite of natural, it's human.
Evolution doesn't care for arrogance or self-righteousness.
No animals hunt better than humans because we have much more developed brains with sophisticated thought processes . We're capable of hunting ALL animals no matter how elusive. We have traps. We're the only species that keep pets, I believe, others only care about their survival, we on the other hand waste our time with beauty and cuteness and animal rights, etc... It only slows down the natural process of Evolution.
I didn't say evolution cared for arrogance or self-righteousness, simply commenting on human being's seem to often suffer delusions of grandeur.
From an evolutionary stand point, killing more then you can eat (thus wasting food) is hardly good for the species.
Depends on what you define as a pet. Many animals have mutual relationships with other animals.
I believe you are confusing the evolutionary process with taking responsibility with one's actions. You seem to have a false idea of what evolution is, evolution isn't throwing a baby in the Ocean and saying "either learn to swim and avoid the sharks or die" but rather a process which helps species become better suited for their surroundings.
Friend, evolution is a natural process, it happens/occurs on its own, without anyone throwing any baby in any ocean! What do you think Evolution is? Go look it up on Wiki or something. It has nothing to do with delusions of grandeur and nothing to do with wasting food.
If species become better suited for their surroundings, great! But evolution doesn't "help" them. We should stop wasting our time trying to save the species that are basically not meant to survive.
Evolution does not occur on its own, it occurs as a reactions to a change in the animals surroundings.
Inaccurate. Gene frequencies change regardless of environmental influences.
Evolution does help a species survive, in fact that's the entire point of it.
It's not the entire point at all. It's merely a process of change. Whether survivability increases depends on a number of pressures, and isn't an inevitable end.
I would usually agree with you, but we are talking about since endangered species are failing to adapt to their environment, from an evolutionary stand point we should stop protecting them.
"Inaccurate. Gene frequencies change regardless of environmental influences."
Those changes are usually mutations, and did not occur in order to increase the chances of survival of the endangered species we are talking about
"It's not the entire point at all. It's merely a process of change. Whether survivability increases depends on a number of pressures, and isn't an inevitable end."
Organism, such as virus, evolve in order to increase the chances of survival. Which is why there are now viruses that are immune to medicine that previously worked.
Look, we're still stuck on should we or shouldn't we save them. And why?
Some species evolve to survive like your virus example, those are obviously good at the game. Some aren't so good at it, so they become endangered. Why should we help them?
Those changes are usually mutations, and did not occur in order to increase the chances of survival of the endangered species we are talking about
The point is, there's no such thing as evolutionary change that occurs in order to increase fitness. Mutations simply occur at varying rates and are pit against selective pressures that result in neutrality, selection for or selection out. It is natural selection that occurs in the environmental loop as dual-occurring feedback, not evolution.
Organism, such as virus, evolve in order to increase the chances of survival
Stop with the teleological language. Virii (which aren't alive) and bacteria in general have high mutation rates. That's all. Evolution does not occur so that some subsequent result will happen. It just happens. Leave it at that.
I agree that evolution does help species survive, in a way, species evolve to become better adapted to their environment, etc... but that's all. What happens when something changes the natural habitat of a species and because it cannot adapt to it, it becomes extinct. That habitat is then available for another species. New species are created and species become extinct all the time throughout history. The question remains, "should we save them, or leave them?"
I understand your point, but the fact of the matter is that Human beings are far to superior (for a lack of a better term) then any other species. While they have claws and heightened senses, we have guns that can shoot from over a mile away. These animals are not dying because we need to kill them, they are dying because people find it fun. I am not some bleeding heart liberal, I simply think that if an animal dies, it should have a purpose. I don't think we should save them, per say, but I think we should at least regulate the hunting of the endangered species.
I don't think we quite got my point even though you said you do.
What humans are capable of doing (overhunting, cruelty, destruction of habitats, etc...) are natural. We are a product of evolution, we were made this way! We got here because a long time ago, another dominant species went extinct (dinosaurs?)
Who knows? If we were extinct due to something else beyond our control, maybe another species will become the new dominant ruler of the Earth millions of years from now...
It's natural to want to continue to carry the human genetic codes into the future, but how much of our existence is due to our direct control??? We can kill lots of human lives in a war that lasts hundreds of years, but a tsunami or earthquake kills off the same number of people in a few minutes! If we put up a town and clear out some farmland then it's frowned upon by conservationists, but if a forest fire destroy an area the size of a small country they say it's nature returning the balance of plants and animals back to that area!!! We just don't know...
The world is like honeysuckle. One tendril chokes the other to reach for the light, believing they grow from seperate stems. When the sun shines, young leaves fight for its warmth. The struggle makes the bush strong, each branch seeking out the light and climbing even higher. But when there is no sun, when the leaves begin to fall and the branches wither one by one, the stem must look to its roots for nourishment. If the stem withers and dies all the branches die with for the stem carries minerals and water to the branches and leaves, does it not? That happens when we destroy a species. The ecosystem goes down with it. All will be unbalance of one disappears and another had depended on it:
These species are not endangered because they are inferior. They are endangered because of human actions that destroy their environment.
You may as well argue that cockroaches are superior to humans because they will survive and thrive after an atomic blast that kills the entire human race.
Lets have that nuclear war let and the species that are inferior die out to make room for those that are obviously meant to survive!
Dude, I think you're a little bit dramatic, but I actually like that in this debate. Suppose we destroy ourselves with a global nuclear war. Here's something we don't know: What if a group of us develop the ability to adapt to this radioactive environment and have all kinds of new crazy abilities that the X-men have? So as a result, we don't destroy ourselves but we merely got rid of those who were obviously "weaker" (or haven't got the ability to adapt to the new environment). We just don't know for sure, do we?
Just out of interest, why do we need to survive long into the future? What's in it for us thousands or millions of years from now? The dinosaurs died out and we came along as the dominant species. We die out and i'm certain evolution will have another species ready in line to take over millions of years from now.
Your questions have been asked before. They are, in fact, debated by philosophers to this day. We have no way of knowing exactly what is going to happen in the future, and therefore, all that we as human beings know is that we have the potential to survive. It is basic instinct! Just like a parent wants their child to live, so will a parent thousands of years from now, should we maintain an attitude that promotes our 'survival.'
As for myself, I see no need to explain to a suicidal person my wish that I, our planet and the plants and animals on it survive and thrive as much as is naturally possible.
I dunno, it's a bit selfish to want to stay in power for ever...
I mean democratically speaking, other species should have a chance to gain power and rule the Earth once every few hundred million years, right? I mean even if they haven't yet evolved, they will!
Well, its a bit foolish to think we are powerful enough to survive without the natural order of things to sustain us.
Our attempts to manage nature typically result in our mismanaging nature. Natural selection is not a democratic process. You would have us make it so. But then, you have a bunch of wrong ideas, so your appeal to have natural science be guided by a political process is just one more wrong idea among many.
But, sure. Don't be selfish. Go ahead and die. We will feed your corpse to the vultures and see if that aids in their evolution or not.
Our attempts to manage nature typically result in our mismanaging nature
Which side are you arguing for? Trying to save endangered species is totally trying to manage nature, so if we're going to mismanage it, why do it then?
Natural selection is not a democratic process
Agree! It's a process that actually require us to do nothing! It just happens. So stop saving the endangered species and let nature happen. Let natural selection "choose" the best candidate for the future.
Go ahead and die
I hate to break it to you buddy, but death is inevitable ;) You don't get to stay alive for ever, so when you're gone, nothing you care about matters... sorry to ruin your day there.
Go ahead and save the stupid pandas. They're not going to exist in the wild, so they'll end up in human created habitats, and one day a single virus will wipe them all out in one fell-swoop... I'll be laughing my ass off that day for sure, cos y'all reckon you can control nature by saving some cute looking species and then nature puts you back in your place!
"So stop saving the endangered species and let nature happen."
Destroying natural habitats and thereby endangering species is not letting nature happen. Again, your argument is like saying that we should drop nuclear weapons all over the Earth and see which species will survive.
"y'all reckon you can control nature by saving some cute looking species "
I reckon we can control ourselves. I reckon we can stop destroying natural habitat. I reckon that with their natural habitat intact, the pandas will take good enough care of themselves.
I also reckon that you don't have a clue what I'm saying. You are a profoundly uninformed debater. I think we are done here now. Bye and good luck.
Ok, look I think we're missing the big picture here. The question remains "should we" or "shouldn't we"?
We haven't managed to kill ourselves off with a nuclear war yet, but if that day came and humans were all but gone, a few million years from now another species will dominate the earth. I actually don't care if that happens. Death comes to us all. But I know that self-preservation is such a powerful force that says we won't kill ourselves with a nuclear war.
Humans clearing land for farms and towns is not anywhere near the destruction level of a nuclear war. That's just total exxageration for effect.
I don't know about me being a profoundly uninformed debater, but it was nice to debate with you.
We humans are speeding up the elimination because we destroy animals habitats young grasshopper we are not slowing anything down. We abuse what we are given.
I think you have made a good point! take the dolphins on cape Cod, a group saved them from the beach..... they may now breed and have baby's who stranded on the beach as well?, maybe they should have let them die to persevere the rest of the Dolphins.
Do you have to be so mean to an accident that was not their fault? All life in the universe is given chances to live and die. Just like the rising and the setting of the sun. Like the new moon and the full moon. They are given chances to bring and give life but we are speeding up many extinction cycles by building more cities and using more land for farming. Many people do not know the amazon forest is poor for farming. They have tried this many times but they never learned from their mistakes.
These dolphins are not necessarily defective. However, our actions in their environment are damaging and destructive.
We need to stop the testing and use of sonar by the Navy that:
1. disorients sea mammals enough that they beach themselves
2. damages the way they navigate --> beaching.
3. Causes major pain (earache anyone) --> beaching to escape the noise.
THE CANARY ISLANDS - A total of 21 whale strandings in 1985, 1988, and 1989 were linked to visible US Navy maneuvers. These were the only times that whales were reported to strand in the Canary Islands. (Nature, 1991) Award-winning French biologist Dr. Michael Andre, free from our government's influence, learned from necropsies while studying the decline in sperm whales in this area that two of the whales (who were involved in the increasing whale collisions with boats in the area) were deaf as suspected.
THE ATLANTIC COAST - In 1987, dolphins exposed to 235 decibels of sonar stranded and were found to suffer from tissue and lung explosion. (This information was allegedly found by Dr. Joe Geraci and buried in reports on file.) Since this revelation, there has been a great deal of resistance to obtaining autopsies that check for these types of problems, also predicted by the Marine Mammal Commission in 1997 (possibly based on Dr. Geraci's findings) to be a consequence of LFAS.
THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA NEAR GREECE - In 1996, twelve Cuvier's beaked whales documented to be exposed to NATO sonar at 150-160 decibels were found stranded. At the same time about 200 stranded dolphins were suspected of suffering from tissue explosion. (Nature, 1996) LFAS levels to be used by the U.S. are reported to be 180 decibels in areas near shore and could go considerably higher, once deployment is underway and this program is classified.
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS - In 1998, three whale calves and one dolphin calf were found dead or abandoned during and immediately following sonar testing, even though in 15 years of research this phenomenon had never been observed. One of these was a distressed whale calf who breached 230 times and pectoral slapped 658 times in front of Dr. Marsha Green's research team in a four-hour period before the sun set on his distress. In addition, a pod of dolphins was observed by naturalists familiar with normal dolphin behavior huddling unusually close to the shore near the surface and vocalizing excessively while the sound was on.
CALIFORNIA- Since the open testing in California began in 1997, sonar exposed whales immediately began to strand in increased numbers. In addition, there was a report of uncharacteristically aggressive behavior which is known to be a symptom of LFAS exposure. More recently, The Malibu Times reported in January, 1999, that more than 150 gray whales were found dead due to starvation along their migratory route where testing took place in 1998. Starvation can be a result of deafness, but ears were not checked in these cetaceans, even though the cause of death has remained a mystery.
Thats awesome! but the Navy was no ware in sight! an the Dolphins and whales have been stranding on Cape Cod long before we Had a Navy! so to blame humans is irrational! http://www.deafwhale.com/stranded_whale/ theories.htm
"The Seaquake Theory suggest that the original cause of pod strandings is barotraumatic injury in the head sinuses of the entire pod caused by sudden changes in hydrostatic pressure (seaquakes) generated during undersea earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or when meteorites impact the ocean surface. The same sudden changes in ambient pressures (seaquakes) are also produced by projector arrays in the nose cone of a nuclear submarine, airgun arrays used to explore for oil, and underwater explosions. Thus, in this sense, the Seaquake Theory incorporates both man-made and natural causes of strandings."
So low frequency sonar is not ruled out entirely, just as the sole cause. The sea-quake theory includes other human activity such as "projector arrays in the nose cone of a nuclear submarine, airgun arrays used to explore for oil, and underwater explosions."
So, according to your own source, it is not irrational to blame humans, it is just insufficient.
Alas, my post was on standings on Cape Cod and the navy does not conduct maneuvers in that area, to shallow! and it seems to happen every year, so I'm guessing a medical issue that has been passed down from generations.
I believe we still need to be concerned with the impact of sonar on sea life.
"The low frequency active sonar (LFA sonar) used by the military to detect submarines is the loudest sound ever put into the seas. Yet the U.S. Navy is planning to deploy LFA sonar across 80 percent of the world ocean. At an amplitude of two hundred forty decibels, it is loud enough to kill whales and dolphins and already causing mass strandings and deaths in areas where U.S. and/or NATO forces are conducting exercises."
This is not natural selection. This is murder.
Supporting Evidence:
The Fragile Edge
(www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com)
You guys are wayyyyyyy off topic here. We're discussing something a lot more consequential than sonar on sea life.
But just to steer us back on track, war zones anywhere are not great habitats for animals. I mean if 2 elephants are fighting it out I reckon the hyenas will probably steer clear of the area. If there are tanks shooting each other and bombing runs in a certain area, animals aren't going to like it much. So what? It's human activities, which is natural, because we're part of Earth as much as anything else here and got here just the same way (through Evolution). A few species die out due to our activities, big deal! Extinction occurs continuously and throughout history there'd been several spikes in the rate of extinctions. If the dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct, who knows if we'd be here today or something else in our place??? The point is you just don't know... so I guess some people will try and slow extinction rates down, I reckon it's time to party and party real hard :)
"war zones anywhere are not great habitats for animals."
Sonar will cover 80% of the ocean. If all of that is a "war zone", it is a war I have not heard about.
------------------------
"A few species die out due to our activities, big deal! Extinction occurs continuously and throughout history there'd been several spikes in the rate of extinctions."
Yes, Extinction occurs continuously. However, "the background level of extinction known from the fossil record is about one species per million species per year, or between 10 and 100 species per year (counting all organisms such as insects, bacteria, and fungi, not just the large vertebrates we are most familiar with). In contrast, estimates based on the rate at which the area of tropical forests is being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, are that we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone."
"The typical rate of extinction differs for different groups of organisms. Mammals, for instance, have an average species "lifespan" from origination to extinction of about 1 million years, although some species persist for as long as 10 million years. There are about 5,000 known mammalian species alive at present. Given the average species lifespan for mammals, the background extinction rate for this group would be approximately one species lost every 200 years. Of course, this is an average rate -- the actual pattern of mammalian extinctions is likely to be somewhat uneven. Some centuries might see more than one mammalian extinction, and conversely, sometimes several centuries might pass without the loss of any mammal species. Yet the past 400 years have seen 89 mammalian extinctions, almost 45 times the predicted rate, and another 169 mammal species are listed as critically endangered."
"Increasingly, researchers are doing the numbers, and saying, yes, if present trends continue, a mass extinction is very likely underway." [1]
And what if we manage to survive?
"For along with that species richness, the ecosystem is likely to loose much of its ability to provide many of the valuable services that we take for granted, from cleaning and recirculating air and water, to pollinating crops and providing a source for new pharmaceuticals. And while the fossil record tells us that biodiversity has always recovered, it also tells us that the recovery will be unbearably slow in human terms -- 5 to 10 million years after the mass extinctions of the past. That's more than 200,000 generations of humankind before levels of biodiversity comparable to those we inherited might be restored." [2]
Well, yes. This does sound like a war zone -- and the enemy is us.
Buddy, all these science babble and stats paint quite a grim picture, but at the end of the day, it's just a guess! History and prehistory is so vast and life is so astronomically variable that we simply don't know jack! Sure it's an "educated guess", but it's a guess.
The amount of animals and plants destroyed by forest fire each year is vast. But that's ok because that's nature. If we clear forest for farming it's instantly branded "bad". Why?
Well, according to you, our choice seems to be between being guided by "educated guesses" or by blind luck. One is smart. One is stupid. You makes your choices and live -- or die -- by them.
And no, life is not "astronomically variable". The vast universe seems to operate under a standard set of rules. Certainly, within those constraints, there is a wide amount of variation. Yet, somehow, life manages to follow those rules, even if we can't yet explain them all and even if you can't accept as accurate predictors our current understanding of them.
"The amount of animals and plants destroyed by forest fire each year is vast"
Well, those fires have contributed to the the background level of extinction known from the fossil record. It's not particularly vast and certainly, over such a long period of time, has proven to be a sustainable loss. Our clearing of the forests along with other activities is raising the number of extinct species at an alarming rate. If present trends continue, a mass extinction is very likely underway.
Why would an asteroid hitting the Earth and wiping out much of life " instantly branded 'bad'?" Not all of us yearn for oblivion as you seem to do. Not all of us are oblivious to the fact that we may be facing the extinction of the human race if we do not act to protect biodiversity.
"Blind luck" is how we were created by natural selection. If something hadn't come along and taken care of the dinosaurs, we'd probably not be here. You think you know everything don't you? You think you can control everything don't you? Why don't you use your "educated guesses" to try and save the farmers around the world that are suffering from drought? With all the technologies available to them, they still can't make it rain. What a shame, cos if rain was available on demand, we'd have no famines any more.
You know why insurance policies don't cover "acts of God"? Because with all your "educated guessing ability" you just don't know how nature is going to behave! So I'd enjoy my time on Earth if I was you, and if it makes you happy to save those poor animals that are going to perish anyway, go ahead, but don't do it because you think it's going to ensure the survival of the human species... the appearance of a new type of virus might just help you clear those illusions.
"You think you know everything don't you? You think you can control everything don't you?"
You think you can win a debate with pointless rhetorical questions, don't you? You seem to be missing the point. I think we control too much, to the detriment of the natural order of things. It is one thing, for example, to find cures for illnesses and secure sources of adequate nutrition. It's quite another thing to destroy natural environments to the extent that we now threaten a catastrophe on the scale of a large asteroid striking Earth and wiping out much of life. I am hoping that of all the things we can control, we can stop this human-caused disaster by stopping our destruction of natural habitats.
"Why don't you use your "educated guesses" to try and save the farmers around the world that are suffering from drought?"
Oh, are you saying that they are endangered species? I thought you wanted those to die out. In fact, one of the environmental impacts of drought include loss in species biodiversity -- in other words species move away or die out. The dying out part is what you like, right?
As I have said, I advocate preserving the natural habitat of plant and animal life. Unfortunately, drought is a natural phenomena.
"Because with all your "educated guessing ability" you just don't know how nature is going to behave!"
Well, I'm fairly confident that every day the sun will rise and set. I can't say with a high degree of confidence that the day will be sunny or not. So, you see, to some degree, we do know how nature is going to behave. And I prefer being guided by that knowledge, limited as it is just now, than to rest my fate on blind luck.
"if it makes you happy to save those poor animals that are going to perish anyway, go ahead..."
If not for our destruction of their habitat, most species would not perish any faster overall than the base rate established in the fossil records.
So no, they were not going to "perish anyways". Since you seem not to understand this very simple and basic concept, after all this discussion, I'm going to think that you will not soon evolve into an informed debtor on this topic. I think we are done here.
We evolved by genetic mutation and survived due to having the best fit with our natural environment
None of this requires us to do anything consciously as a whole species, which part of that is not "blind luck"? You're just grabbing at straws now...
Control and destruction
Don't try to equate our natural behaviour to controlling of nature. We do what we can for ourselves by taking from nature. That's different to trying to save extinct species and reversing certain global phenomenon. Here's the thing: if we manage to destroy natural habitats on earth that does not help us with survival it will limit our survival, it will impact on our population. This will bring equilibrium back to nature. Nature finds a way, slowly...
Farmers and drought
I'm highlighting the fact that you can't control nature. It's much bigger than us or anything we can do, and it seems you agree.
humans unnaturally cause the accelerated rate of extinction
All you people who want to save the animals think that everything humans do (like overconsumption, destruction of habitats, burning of fossil fuels, etc...) are unnatural. You forget that we're a natural part of this ecosystem. We got here through the same process as everything else around us. Everything we're capable of doing is natural. Stop thinking that it's not natural. Why is it that if a bird builds a nest from straws and sticks, we think it's natural, but if we build a house from earth and timber it's not natural??? Everything from this planet is natural. A computer is natural.
The strongest species survive its natural. And it might prevent the evolution of another species to take its place. SO if we saved every endangered species lots of other species might not evolve.
You do releazie that evolvoution takes millions of years right? By then some species may have gone extinct because of us. That and your theory is not correct.
if we save the endangered, then what about the prey or predator of this animal?
if we start saving, then we will most likely continue, then, this endangered animal's population will soon increase. if there are to much of this animal, then killing this animal will be involved. Soon this animal will be endangered again and the cycle continues which is obviously no use.
But if this animal is a keystone species, then we have to do what it takes to build up this animals population. Because the balance of the ecosytem depends on it.
Humans are a species just like any other. The only rule in nature is that the fittest survive, we are the fittest, so why do we have to hold ourselves back? What's the difference from a lion killing a gazelle or us killing a gazelle?
Evolutionary theory does not suppose that species that survive are "better" in a general sense - it supposes it is better in a given environment (that environment includes the complex symbiosis between animals) If the environment changes (and it does all the time) then one species that might have been "the best" in the old environment might loose its position. If a nuclear war happened then cockroaches would theoretically be "better" apt to deal with the situation than us, fur example.
So in other words: the theory of evolution does not place inherent value onto species, its value is relative ( another concept the religious find hard to understand)
But to answer the question: "evolutionists" should in at least in some cases try to save endangered species, if only for the value of being then able to study its genetic code, and such. Some endangered species might have very special attributes that might be used for medicinal purposes, for example
Natural selection purely cares about the ability of a species to survive in a given environment. Those who are weaker than others will not be as successful in surviving and so may eventually find themselves on the endangered list. Rats are pretty awesome survivers, pandas on the other hand are pathetic animals that will probably not exist in the wild any more...
Perhaps we can keep them for research purposes, but I doubt that reason alone will justify a budget.
In terms of trying to save all endangered species, I think we agree - such a mission Is so humongous that it is practically impossible.
And I do think that there is to much emphasis on saving the visually appealing animals - that is I think somewhat of the endengered species right groups do what they do for sentimental reasons and not scientific (not that there is anything wrong with being a little bit sentimental).
But we definetly gain from trying to save some endangered speices, therefore I say no to the question.
P.s. When you say "Those who are weaker than others will not be as successful in surviving" I do think "weaker" is a loaded term there. It could happen that a species that is in all respects "stronger" than some other species would go extinct, and not the weaker one - just because of environmental luck/bad luck. On average though, the better apt species is more likely to survive.
In other words, though some species goes extinct, doesnt mean that it was necisarilly a worse survivor in a general sense than other species that might survive for a million more years.
I think that people confuse the scientific theory of evolution and the politcial theory of social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism is a simplified version of evolution used by politicians (usually facists) to justify their actions. It is built on the idea that evolution is an agency that has a predetermined linear plan for all species (and in that respect quite similar to gods of many religions) and Social Darwinist look at their survival as a proof that they are "better" In a scarily general sense, and therfore are justified in their actions.
Their logic is profoundly circular and stupid (like religious logic as well)
The whole point of this debate is centered around the ideology of genetic superiority. However, who is to say that these endangered species have a mechanism to prevent extinction? These endangered organisms have a method for survival that they have gained: humanity.
If we look at this from a more objective viewpoint, humankind is saving some endangered species from extinction. Now, why do we do this? The species have perked our interest in some category. These species have, one could say, evolved to be different, which causes humans to not wish their disappearance. Humans are saving the species for a reason, but this reason may seem hazy.
These species have managed to manipulate us indirectly to engage in a symbiotic relation with them: humans get what they want (beauty, a product, or knowledge) and the species gains the ability to survive.
In summation, these species are not genetically inferior. In fact, they have succeeded in manipulating the human species into keeping them alive.
Ok, the Tasmanian tiger looks like an awesome creature, but it's extinct. Lots of other animals that are awesome to look at or study, but because they're not so easily adaptable, they've become extinct. Humans can try to save them, but if our population keeps expanding, natural habitats of certain animals will continue to disappear. Survival of the fittest is a heartless game, but nature or rather evolution doesn't cater for the heart... The human species could well be on our way to becoming a super mutant species with super intelligence and physical abilities that far exceed our current levels, if the theory of natural selection is correct. Why do we want to mess with nature?
I guess I was a little unclear with what I meant when I said that. It is not that an awseome looking creature should survive; it is that our wish to save these creatures is a tool for their survival. It is not about catering for the heart; it is about logic. If humans want something, such as an endangered animal being saved, they will attempt to do it. We are not interfering with nature by saving it; we are submitting to nature by trying to better our own species through saving the endangered one.
I agree. There are probably better ways to put this but it's the best reason to save any endangered species yet. You can probably expand on the reasons why saving them would better our own species.
I agree. Saving some animals can be seen as a form of symbiosis, for it can enrich our society at the same time.
I have heard of such numbers as; 90 species go extinct every day (mostly bugs) - If those numbers are anywhere near correct then it is obvious that we cant really save a huge percentage. Therfore I think in choosing which species should survive there is always gonna be guesswork on what sort of policy is best concerning these animals. And we have to admit that maybe we have been overly emphasizing saving species that we can Identify with (find cute), Tigers, Pandas, whales and dolphins (even though they are nowhere near extinct), seals, and etc.
We also have to understand that "saving" a species often means changing it. And we have to be critical of what constitutes "saving an animal". For example when Keiko (the killer whale that played the whale (obviously) in Free Willy) was "saved" that is moved to Iceland to be rehabiltated into the wild, the plans humans made on how he would be rejoned with his family didnt go very well. He was usually more interested in mingling with humans, which could be quite scary for fishermen on small boats in Iceland :) - and in the end Keiko was found dead on a Norweigan beach.
When an animal cant deal with its environment and is close to going extint; then to save it, the savior has to build a new enironment for the animal - and that is a very complex undertaking - and much to complex that the people who do it can plan little and live in their airy fairy disney world of how great it would be if a whale for example would meet its family and live happily ever after. - Not that there aren´t real life story´s that are quite disney-escue, sometimes these things go very well - but too often an unforseen complication ruins the day for sentimental animal lovers, and at least sometimes the reason for things going wrong is more to do with the animal lovers having their head up their ass, and not with the survival skills of the endangered animal.
Evolutionists should subscribe to the theory that species that survive are genetically better than those that don't.
The term "evolution" refers to the fact that allele frequencies change within and across populations of biota as well as the explanatory model (theory) that accounts for how or why this occurs. It isn't, however, a social movement; there isn't an "evolutionism", and therefore no "evolutionists". There is also no such thing as "genetically better". That doesn't make any sense.
If so, shouldn't they just let endangered species die out? I mean there's a good reason why they're endangered right?
(:|) That biota evolve has little relevance to whether humans should or should not act to help sustain living populations.
Evolution is a theory of how things become what they are from the "beginning".
After the beginning, and not how things become what they are, it is specifically a theory that explains the observed biodiversity on the planet earth and the mechanisms that lead to it.
The other theory is Creation.
Creation doesn't have a theory. To this day it is an untested hypothesis (at best).
People believing in Evolution are called Evolutionists.
One does not believe in Evolution. You either accept it or reject it. "Evolutionist" is only a misnomer by ignorant people.
When I say "genetically better" I mean "genetically better adapted to survival".
I get what you mean. It's just nonsensical.
Why should we try to save those species that are obviously not meant to survive in the current environment?
"Meant to"and "not meant to" survive are absurd notions. Populations either survive or go extinct. And we do what we must because we can, and have an obligation to our own survival to ensure that ecological equilibrium is maintained as best as possible. For example, a species of frog disappears, dipterids and cucilidae, and all sorts of other nasty insects become disproportionately represented, causing problems for us that decrease our ability to survive. So, we have a practical obligation. Moreover, westerners have tended to outweigh our ecological budgets through urbanization programs that have created artificial punctuations and pressures. We also overhunt and exert our influence in ways unnatural to ecological balance. So, we also have a moral obligation because it is often our fault that these species are endangered, not nature's fault. So we are obliged to do something about it.
Evolution and Creation are both opinions of a beginning. Neither of which can be proven. Don't try to give one more validity over the other.
"accept it or reject it" believe it or don't believe it - you're actually just nit-picking now. People you call ignorant write the Wikipedia and dictionaries that these terms can be found in. Things maybe "misnomers" in the beginning, but wide usage actually earn them a place in books and acceptance in society.
"Meant to or not meant to survive" - I'm just gonna go ahead and pick on the pandas again, they're just pathetic animals that are so defenseless and slow moving and ridiculously reluctant when it comes to reproduction that basically leads them to their current fate in the hands of humans. They will probably not exist in the wild any more in the near future. Now, I look at that and say that they're not meant to last in this environment. Which part of that is absurd? Some other animals survive no matter what you throw at them. Which part of that is absurd?
I'm actually quite interested in what you say about how our survival is linked to ecological equilibrium. I mean, the dodos and the Tasmanian tigers are gone but that really hasn't affected us much. There are some 3 species of plant or animal that become extinct every hour, we're not affected.
You assert that what we do may be unnatural and that we're at fault for putting some species on the endangered list, but you forget that we are a natural species of this natural world and what we do is basically what we are naturally capable of doing! If a stronger species kill off a weaker species, it's always the stronger species fault: there's no moral obligation in nature! Nature doesn't care.
Evolution and Creation are both opinions of a beginning.
A scientific theory is a well-tested explanatory model that accounts for observed phenomena and accurately makes predictions. It is not an opinion. Evolutionary theory is, also, not about "a beginning". It is specifically about how populations of life descend with modification. Whereas creationism, on the other hand, is about "a beginning".
Neither of which can be proven.
What an absurd point. Science doesn't deal with proofs. That's left to math and liquor. Science deals with explanations, how we account for the phenomena we observe in nature. I used to study lentiviral resistance mechanisms in t-lymphocyte and macrophage lineages. If someone came to me and asked me to explain how HIV infects, cleaves and attaches its DNA to our immune cells and then remains dormant, I wouldn't be giving them my opinion. I would be giving them an explanation of observed occurrences in human immune systems. And that's not nit-picking. Science explains. It does not prove.
Don't try to give one more validity over the other.
The Onion did an interesting piece on "opposing views". It was titled "Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory". The article was, of course, a satire of the evolution/creation "debate". Creationism is an untested hypothesis. It necessarily can't be tested. But more importantly, it adds absolutely nothing to what we know about the world around us. And it isn't productive. I could just as easily propose that a divine Honey Bun created all of life and have exactly the same amount of evidence as the creation hypothesis. Our understanding of evolution on the other hand has propelled and advanced medicine, created one of the fastest growing industries in Bioinformatics, has influenced engineering design techniques. Evolutionary theory is productive. It works. I'm not going to pretend even for one second that Creationism and the theory of evolution stand on similar ground. One is a fairy tale and the other is observed and explained with productive results within and outside of science.
People you call ignorant write the Wikipedia and dictionaries that these terms can be found in.
Who cares what some random person on Wikipedia wrote? Wikipedia isn't authoritative. The term is steadfastly held and has been made popular by creationists and their dimwitted ilk.
Things maybe "misnomers" in the beginning, but wide usage actually earn them a place in books and acceptance in society.
Acceptance and appropriate use are two different things. That it is a colloquially popular term is irrelevant to whether it is the correct use of the word or even applicable to the object of consideration. One cannot be an Evolutionist because neither Evolutionary theory nor the fact of evolution are "isms". Calling someone an "evolutionist" is like calling someone a Gravitationist because they accept the theory of gravity. It's stupid.
I'm just gonna go ahead and pick on the pandas again, they're just pathetic animals that are so defenseless and slow moving and ridiculously reluctant when it comes to reproduction that basically leads them to their current fate in the hands of humans
Humans play a major role in the decline of pandas not their inability to survive in their environment.
There are some 3 species of plant or animal that become extinct every hour, we're not affected.
You're very myopic.
You assert that what we do may be unnatural and that we're at fault for putting some species on the endangered list, but you forget that we are a natural species of this natural world and what we do is basically what we are naturally capable of doing!
An outcome resulting from the ability of an organism to engineer doesn't mean that the outcome itself is natural. Plastic isn't natural. Circles aren't natural. Numbers aren't natural. Synthesized chemicals aren't natural.
If a stronger species kill off a weaker species, it's always the stronger species fault: there's no moral obligation in nature! Nature doesn't care.
"Nature" is term used to identify a non-thinking, robust ecological system. Of course it doesn't care. It can't. But so what? We do. And we have a vested interest in caring about various ecological systems because they impact human survival in the short and long term.
Your peers are gonna frown at this statement... I mean if a witch doctor said that you're crazy because you've been cursed by an evil spirit, but you don't believe him and you went and got a "scientific" diagnosis and got an MRI scan of your brain and saw that there was in fact a tumour. Wouldn't this science be trying to prove your craziness is as a result of the tumour???
I can argue with you on every other ridiculous points that you have made but I'm actually gonna urge you to get back on track with this debate topic instead of trying to debate the meaning of every word that you appear to be an expert on. It makes for more interesting reading than reading your "straw man" arguments (as someone has called it). Oh and Evolution theory is a theory, it doesn't make or break productivity in the scientific community. The human thirst for knowledge is what drives productivity in the scientific community.
You finally touched on the topic of the debate in your last paragraph and I'm actually quite a lot more interested in that. Please expand on how we can return current extinction levels to the "normal" level (if we can actually work out the normal level first it would actually help), and why that would benefit us? I mean I'm sure keeping things as unchanged as possible will probably also keep us as unchanged as possible. But here's something for you to think about:
What if a drastic change in the current environment of the Earth causes humans to then develop a new ability that we previously don't possess? What if the carbon level in the atmosphere got so high that the human respiratory system began to learn how to process carbon dioxide? What if as a result of that our eyes began to see radio waves? I'm seriously just wildly hypothesizing here but you know the point, I hope.
Not at all. Science utilizes induction. Inherent in its process is the inability to prove things. Science deals with levels of certainty, culminating in theoretical frameworks at the pinnacle of the process. Here is a link to a simple and interesting article about how science works: http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/science.shtml. Another: http://tinyurl.com/yeos493
Oh and Evolution theory is a theory, it doesn't make or break productivity in the scientific community
So what? I never claimed evolutionary theory "makes or breaks" productivity in the scientific community. I simply claimed that it 1) increases our knowledge of the world we live in and 2) is productive: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
I can argue with you on every other ridiculous points that you have made but I'm actually gonna urge you to get back on track with this debate topic instead of trying to debate the meaning of every word that you appear to be an expert on.
Please highlight the ridiculous point(s) I've made so that you can thoroughly embarrass me with your clearly superior understanding of a field I've worked and been educated in.
You finally touched on the topic of the debate in your last paragraph and I'm actually quite a lot more interested in that. Please expand on how we can return current extinction levels to the "normal" level (if we can actually work out the normal level first it would actually help), and why that would benefit us?
I don't see how this question is relevant to anything I've written. I haven't proposed that there is such a thing as a normal level, nor have I proposed that they should return to this arbitrary level you've introduced to the debate and are attributing to me.
What if a drastic change in the current environment of the Earth causes humans to then develop a new ability that we previously don't possess?
Shifts in the characteristics of an environment do not cause "abilities" to arise in humans.
you say Science doesn't deal with proofs, yet people use science to prove things all the time. I gave you a simple medical example to back my point up and you completely ignored it. Nice.
You've somehow lost the ability to actually use normal verbal language... All your science babble can usually be summed up simply using easy to understand language.
I say "the cat ate its meal",
you say "the felis catus ingested its sustenance"
yeah... ok, you deserve a medal?!
You say Creationism is an unproductive hypothesis and that Our understanding of evolution on the other hand has propelled and advanced medicine, created one of the fastest growing industries in Bioinformatics, has influenced engineering design techniques
I say that's complete bull. It's the inherent human thirst for knowledge and need to always improve that drives our unrelenting search for explanations and advances our sciences techniques. Scientists around the world include people who believe in God.
Who cares what some random person on Wikipedia wrote? Wikipedia isn't authoritative
Right, and you're obviously the authority... and that ofcourse extends to your opinion of Wikipedia.
An outcome resulting from the ability of an organism to engineer doesn't mean that the outcome itself is natural.
So a bird builds a nest out of sticks is natural, and humans build a house out of sticks is not natural because we use engineering? In the grand scheme of things it's all the same.
I gave you a simple medical example to back my point up and you completely ignored it. Nice.
I've ignored a number of your statements. There is a distinction between the practice of medicine and the study of medicine, and a difference between practicing medicine and doing science. Medical practitioners, first and foremost, are not scientists. It's basically why they get an M.D and not a PhD. The research involved in progressing medicine, its techniques and treatments for doctors to use is science. Doctors using the findings from research is not.
I say that's complete bull. It's the inherent human thirst for knowledge and need to always improve that drives our unrelenting search for explanations and advances our sciences techniques. Scientists around the world include people who believe in God.
You're absolutely correct. But this is irrelevant to what I wrote and the quote you're using. Does this at all address my accusation that creationism is unproductive? No. Does creationism increase our knowledge? No. You can literally replace god or whatever mumbo-jumbo religious bullcrap you want and still have the exact same evidence, the exact same amount of knowledge at the end of it all. If all we had was creationism, we still wouldn't know nada about the world we live in.
So a bird builds a nest out of sticks is natural, and humans build a house out of sticks is not natural because we use engineering? In the grand scheme of things it's all the same.
Please review the examples I gave of natural abilities engineering artificial things: circles, numbers, synthesized chemicals etc. etc. The next time you see any of those wandering around in nature, let me know.
I'm tired of this line of debate. You're just not going to give up with your science talk. Just admit that science proves/disproves and can be used to prove/disprove theories/conjectures/opinions all the freakin' time. I don't know why you find this so difficult... I truly don't know.
that creationism is unproductive
Creationism is a theory. It cannot be productive or unproductive. No theory has the ability to be productive or otherwise. People, on the other hand, can be productive. People of all belief systems increase our knowledge of the sciences and techniques.
that everything is "natural" in the grand scheme of things
Why can't you see this even after i've told you that it relates to the grand scheme of things? In this grand scheme of things, I consider the computer in your house natural because it is of this world. But just to humor you, plastic is nothing but fossil fuel. The full moon is pretty round, don't you think? And any chemical compound in nature (like salt = 2NACl) is synthesized right?
I don't know why you find this so difficult... I truly don't know.
The reason why I can't admit what you want me to admit is because of how science works. Evidence only supports hypotheses and theories through induction (science uses induction and not deduction). The conclusions we can come to through research do not necessarily follow from our observations and tests.
We simply can't use the scientific method (induction) to prove things. Here is why. We can have ten million points of data in support of the theory of gravity, but none of that will prove it because our theory of gravity is falsifiable--all scientific theories have to be falsifiable. That is, there will always exist the potential (and actuality) that our theoretical frameworks do not appropriately account for our observations and future points of data can and often will refute what we currently know. That something can be proven through science while at the same time being refutable is paradoxical at best. And falsifiability is inherent in all scientific theories. So no scientific theories can be proven or prove other things.
However, the scientific method can certainly disprove things quite easily.
Creationism is a theory.
For something to be considered a theory, it has to have first existed as a hypothesis that has been confirmedthrough a battery of tests. Creationism has not undergone this process, so it cannot count as a theory, no matter how much anyone wants it to be one.
And if by "theory" all you mean is the un-technical "opinion", then fine. Creationism is an opinion, a conjecture, guesswork. But let's not pretend that when you say "creationism is a theory", you mean it in the sense that general and special relativity are theories. Because it's not.
It cannot be productive or unproductive.
By productive, I mean that it is constructive and provides useful results. The application of our understanding of evolutionary principles underpins other industrial efforts: in medicine, agriculture and other fields.
Why can't you see this even after i've told you that it relates to the grand scheme of things?
I don't pretend to know the grand scheme of things. I leave that to religious cults, soothsayers and flock fleecers.
scientific method can certainly disprove things quite easily
...ok check this out: Disproving something is the same as proving the negative. So consider this "Birds can fly because the air is denser than their bodies", but using science you know that the air is not denser than the birds, so you can now say "Birds can fly NOT because the air is denser than their bodies".
I trust this should settle your reluctance to admit something quite simple.
I don't pretend to know the grand scheme of things
Noone knows that grand scheme of things. I'm simply relating it to the meaning of "natural" or "nature", that everything humans and any other living things on Earth are capable of are essentially a result of nature's work. This is ofcourse beyond your dictionary definitions of "nature" or "natural".
I trust this should settle your reluctance to admit something quite simple.
Quad erat demonstrandum...
I'm simply relating it to the meaning of "natural" or "nature", that everything humans and any other living things on Earth are capable of are essentially a result of nature's work
I've never suggested otherwise. I have, however, suggested that the result of a natural ability is not necessarily itself natural. And you do realize that you're the only one who's used a dictionary throughout our debate, correct?
Why you gotta go all fancy on me with Latin for...
the result of a natural ability is not necessarily itself natural
Well, haven't I extended the meaning of "natural" to cover the results of everything we can do? Houses, buildings, mercury thermostats, spaceships, all of it... all natural in the big picture.
To argue that the results of those natural abilities may not be natural is admitting that Natural Selection has resulted in something that may not be natural and so from this point on, the course of this natural process will be altered by the phenomenon "Unnatural Selection"? That's hardly something Evolutionists (can we please agree to use this term to refer to people who accept the theory of Evolution?) would allow to go undebated :)
Well, haven't I extended the meaning of "natural" to cover the results of everything we can do?
It doesn't mean that the extension is appropriate or universally applicable.
Houses, buildings, mercury thermostats, spaceships, all of it... all natural in the big picture.
Much like the grand scheme of things, I don't know the big picture. Artifice is one of the greatest achievements of human intelligence. Human engineering is definitely an inherited ability via evolution, but it doesn't mean everything we engineer is of nature.
To argue that the results of those natural abilities may not be natural is admitting that Natural Selection has resulted in something that may not be natural and so from this point on, the course of this natural process will be altered by the phenomenon "Unnatural Selection"
Natural selection isn't an ability. So the analogy doesn't hold. But the whole isn't always the same as its component parts. To argue such is merely to think incorrectly about some things. (See: Composition fallacy). That a sterling silver spoon is made of a metal found in nature does not necessarily make the spoon itself natural.
(can we please agree to use this term to refer to people who accept the theory of Evolution?)
Natural selection isn't an ability. So the analogy doesn't hold
I never said Natural Selection is an ability. It's a process observed and coined by Charles Darwin. So I will re-state:
To argue that the results of those natural abilities (products of our natural ability to engineering) may not be natural is admitting that Natural Selection has resulted in something (engineering ability leading to engineered products) that may not be natural and so from this point on, the course of this natural process (Natural Selection) will be altered by the phenomenon "Unnatural Selection".
So, is being human natural or not? (Being human is being capable of all these unnatural things). We've been trying to control nature since day 1. The farming of certain animals that serve human needs well, cross-breeding, global engineering projects, etc... But I doubt that it has made an impact on nature over all. If we have in fact been successful in changing the course of nature, we should call it Human Selection (to follow the theme of Natural Selection)!!!
But you were analogizing it. You're still analogizing it. And it only makes sense as an analogy if you're arguing that both are abilities. Hence my point: they are not both abilities and therefore aren't analogous. That is, me saying one thing about an ability is not like saying something about a process. All I'm saying is that humans have inherited from nature the capability to create and imagine unnatural things.
But you were analogizing it. You're still analogizing it
Analogizing doesn't equal defining.
I maintain that Natural Selection is not an ability, it's a process.
It's a process that continuously "selects" the best fit attributes or abilities in populations.
It's a process that occurs naturally in nature as observed by Darwin, which is free of interferance from human ethics and moral values.
If this natural process has resulted in humans being able to change the course of natural selection with unnatural creations, then the process observed by Darwin is no longer applicable.
what you wrote and its relevance to the topic of saving endangered species: Ok, you said that we should care about the various ecological systems because they impact human survival. And your position in this debate is to continue saving endangered species. So you're saying we should try and slow down or return the rate of extinction to "normal", don't "mess" with nature. You didn't say it in those words, but that's what you mean, please try and keep up with me here. It might help if you're not wasting time trying to correct me on the definition of every word ;)
abilities and the environment
Can I ask what you make of the many different types of cats (large and small)? What about the different types of primates? What about dolphins in fresh water or sea water? What do you think of the different skin colours of different races of human? The humans that live in areas exposed to the sun more than other areas have skins that protect them better against sunlight, that's an accident? There are various other creatures that have adapted to different environments to ensure its species survive. If I stayed in school long enough I'd probably be able to give you a few more examples. So the same species can survive in environments that are very different. They've adapted genetically.
You didn't say it in those words, but that's what you mean, please try and keep up with me here
My tacit position would certainly be to slow down rates of population decline. But my position is not to return these populations to some state that you call "normal". "I haven't proposed that there is such a thing as a normal level, nor have I proposed that they should return to this arbitrary level you've introduced to the debate and are attributing to me." Don't pretend that the latter has anything to do with what I've written. Your seemingly arbitrary use of words is yours to own, not for me to defend for you.
It might help if you're not wasting time trying to correct me on the definition of every word ;)
It might help if you have a working understanding of the words you are using.... ;)
My only point, and one I've explicitly made and requires no need for interpretation of meaning, is that we have a practical obligation to help (because it helps us in the long run), as well as a moral one (because it is our encroachment and over-consumption that often causes endangerment, not the endangered's inability to survive in their own environment).
They've adapted genetically.
You're obfuscating the issue. You argued that shifts in the environment can cause non-existent abilities to appear in populations. That is simply factually wrong and inaccurate. Let me quote you: What if a drastic change in the current environment of the Earth causes humans to then develop a new ability that we previously don't possess?" The environment cannot cause abilities to appear. Mutations do that.
My tacit position would certainly be to slow down rates of population decline
Slow to what? To normal? To close to normal? I mean extinction is a natural process, so there is a normal level if we don't interfere, wouldn't you agree? So when you propose to slow down rates of extinction, what are you talking about? May be you're just not that good at making a point... you're probably better at correcting people on their usage of words. Stop trying to defend yourself, it looks a bit... pitiful.
our encroachment and over-consumption that often causes endangerment, not the endangered's inability to survive in their own environment
Survival in an environment means you have to find food and defend yourself, but also means you have to adapt to changes in that environment, changes that may be caused by other species.
The environment cannot cause abilities to appear. Mutations do that
It's the same thing whether you can process carbon dioxide in your lungs as a response to a higher level of it in the atmosphere or you just develop this ability by mutation regardless. If that's the environment you're going to thrive in, you're obviously going to survive better while others in your population perish.
I'm actually sick of explaining the simplest things to you over and over. If you can't see past the simple words and read the meanings, then you're going to bore me. I mean if I called you a genius after you completely messed up the simplest task, do I mean that you're a very smart person or do I mean that you're an idiot?
If we're both discussing a scientific theory and you have it in your head that "theory" is synonymous with "opinion" (as you've pointed out earlier), then there's no hope for meaningful communication until that is resolved. You have to think more carefully about the subject that you are discussing, the implications of the words you choose to use and whether or not they are even applicable. Otherwise, the words themselves will have to be debated before we can debate the issue itself.
Listen, you can be sick and bored until you rot in your own ignorance for all I care. But some of the things you have explained require correction. And some of the words you use, and how you use them need to be properly contextualized. You are working under layers of misconception and misunderstanding, and failing to recognize them: http://tinyurl.com/ykon69w (PDF)
And the rhetoric you choose to utilize highlights that fact. Being ignorant of your own ignorance is not something to be proud of. And it's certainly not something to parade.
There you go again with your stupid (perhaps I should use "ignorant") nit-picking habit, I wonder where that comes from...
Thanks for your advice professor, but may be you can be more aware of your oblivious ignorance. Being stupid when you've been educated is a terrible waste of that potential.
There you go again with your stupid (perhaps I should use "ignorant") nit-picking habit, I wonder where that comes from...
It's called an attention to detail and it comes from a need to be accurate. Evolution isn't a theory about "how things become the way they are from the 'beginning'". Scientific theories aren't opinions. The changes in the environment do not and will never cause non-existent abilities to develop in organisms. These are statements that you have made. They are wrong. Things that are wrong require correction. And you need to recognize that.
Thanks for your advice professor, but may be you can be more aware of your oblivious ignorance. Being stupid when you've been educated is a terrible waste of that potential.
Well, I've already challenged you to cite all of those ridiculous things I've written and embarrass me with your superior knowledge. So far, all you've done is complain about my nitpicking and try to get into a pissing match with me. But the nitpicking will continue for as long as you choose to share your misinformation. I'm going to challenge you again. Put up or shut up.
- Opinion = a belief or judgement that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
- Theory = a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
You remind me of the reason I am strongly allergic towards pompous a-holes. May be now you'll correct me on the usage of the word "allergic". I think it conveys my meanings sufficiently. When your education and need for accuracy hi-jack your brains and get in the way of bigger things, it's time to regain control of your thoughts...
Continue your bs if you like... i've got a lotta time.
Are you sure you got those uses from a Webster's dictionary online and not dictionary.com? It doesn't really matter. I'm going to borrow from Norman Swartz. "Dictionaries do not define words; we do. Dictionaries report our standard usages." They are lexicons of normative--and not technical--uses. "How many of us have seen letters to editors of newspapers in which correspondents will jawbone opponents by invoking the seeming sanctity and authoritativeness of 'the' dictionary. They will write such things as "the [sic] dictionary defines..." and so on. "It is absurd to think that dictionaries, in which definitions are limited to some tens or hundreds of words, could have very much useful to offer on the genuinely weighty concerns of society. Just as no one would think to solve problems in physics or chemistry or medicine by consulting a dictionary, one ought not to believe that one can solve problems in, e.g., philosophy, political science, psychology, etc., by consulting a dictionary."
You remind me of the reason I am strongly allergic towards pompous a-holes.
Riiiiight.
May be now you'll correct me on the usage of the word "allergic".
Nope. But I will suggest that you consider how words are used by scientists within the scientific discipline and not consider how average people use words in every day conversation. This should be fairly obvious when discussing an issue of science. It is the difference between a normative and a technical definition. If you think that humans have gone into space and landed rovers on other planets based on conjecture, guesswork, and on insufficient grounds to produce complete certainty, then I honestly can't do anything about that. Nothing I will write will move you from the rock of your certainty.
But, if you go further down on the "Webster-Merriam" dictionary you cited, you'll note that there is a section called synonyms in which the first sentence goes as follows: Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: (i.e.) the theory of relativity. Attention to detail.
difference between a normative and a technical definition
So that'ssss where the problem is... You keep getting stuck on the technicalities. I don't think this debate is very technical (even though you've managed to make it so). We're talking about whether to save endangered species, and right now it's kinda resting on whether or not that would have a significant impact on our species's own survival... You've gone very far off track.
As an ethical debater (if that's what you are) you'd not add points to your side of the debate without making or breaking arguments towards the actual topic. I suggest you contribute directly to your side of the debate, otherwise I'd be justified in excluding you from further involvement.
The changes in the environment do not and will never cause non-existent abilities to develop in organisms
Have you thought about my example of people with different amounts of melanin in their skin and where they live geographically? And how that helps them deal with sunlight? Please share your knowledge.
First and foremost, melanin is not a non-existent ability. It is a pre-existing characteristic found in apes and other mammals, amphibians, avians and other animals. Evolution tinkers already existing traits. Second, Melanin did not develop because the environment changed. Shifts in environmental characteristics did not "cause" melanin "to develop" in humans. The environment works on the distribution of pre-existing characteristics across a population--not in the appearance of a novel characteristic in a population. Again, mutations in genes that code for things like hMCH (human melanin-concentrating hormones) did that. So, the appearance of melanin and its subsequent benefits were a complete accident--to answer your initial question. Its distribution of frequencies across the human population was not.
Ok, well can you read this and if you can find the occurrences of the word "new" in the article (there'll be 11) it'll focus your attention to where you might be wrong when you say new abilities can't be developed in response to environmental changes.
Buddy, everything must come from something else pre-existing.
the appearance of melanin and its subsequent benefits were a complete accident
Bull again. If things are always developed in a random/accidental way, how can we even exist? There is such an astronomical number of different things to randomly develop and only one ability to ensure you survive. It's like playing Russian Roulette where you have a seemingly infinite number of chances the bullet will be in the chamber and only 1 chance that it won't.
Ok, well can you read this and if you can find the occurrences of the word "new" in the article (there'll be 11) it'll focus your attention to where you might be wrong when you say new abilities can't be developed in response to environmental changes.
Your question regarded environments causing new abilities to arise in humans. The environment does not do that. Even the article you've cited does not suggest that this can happen. What the article is pointing to is called horizontal gene transfer, and it is well documented. But HGT is not the environment causing abilities to develop in organisms; it's biochemical transference.
Buddy, everything must come from something else pre-existing.
Yep.
If things are always developed in a random/accidental way, how can we even exist?
That's an exceptional question. Random mutations in any population of DNA/RNA replicating biological agents, who have metabolism and maintain internal homeostasis existing in a feedback loop will result in accidents guided by subsequent input and output. Simple English: random mutations are guided by pressures. But when we are dealing with populations of life existing in orders of magnitude, the statistical unlikelihood of evolution actually becomes an inevitability. "What" precisely happens can be considered wondrous happenstance.
It's like playing Russian Roulette where you have a seemingly infinite number of chances the bullet will be in the chamber and only 1 chance that it won't.
Yes! That's why it's taken ~3.5 billion years for all of this to happen. Evolution is generally a very, very slow process (occasionally punctuated by rapid change).
I dismiss your claim, sir.
Well, before you dismiss my claim based on statistical improbability, you should do a bit of introspection. Ask yourself the question: what was the likelihood of "you" being born. When you consider the amount of sperm competing for a single egg, the fact that the female reproductive system is geared towards killing off as many sperm as is possible (actually "foreign agents"), that upwards of 80% of all zygotes are naturally aborted before the mother is even aware of being pregnant, the actual likelihood of "you" being born and not someone else is actually so low as to be improbable. Yet, here you are.
HGT is not the environment causing abilities to develop in organisms; it's biochemical transference
Yeah, call it what you want, but don't pretend you didn't see this at the very top of the article: "Bacteria feel pressures to evolve antibiotic resistance and other new abilities in response to a changing environment".
"What" precisely happens can be considered wondrous happenstance
Rightttt... it's impossible. If things randomly happen which means there's chaos without order, rules of behavior, it won't just take 3.5 billion years. How about never! In Russian Roullette, if every time I spin the gun barrel I get deaded, all my good qualities will have vanished, ceased to exist and therefore has no more chance to evolve.
Ask yourself the question: what was the likelihood of "you" being born
Having children is never about trying to create a "specific" child. It's about throwing an army of sperms out there to search for ONE egg. One of them is bound to make. That's how we keep having babies my friend. At the time just before I was conceived, my father didn't have a private conversation with the sperm that was going to createn me and say "Lookie here feller, it's your time now!"... So the probably that "me" specifically was going to be born is like you said "improbable", but the probability that a child was going to be conceived is so high that people are having abortions left, right and centre!
"Bacteria feel pressures to evolve antibiotic resistance and other new abilities in response to a changing environment".
This quote doesn't rebut my point. It isn't the environment causing abilities to develop. What's happening is horizontal gene transfer. The environment simply doesn't have a mechanism to effect how gene coding and expression changes. So it has no direct impact on genetic change. It's passive in that pressures (what is actually in the environment) dictate whether changes that do arise in a genome are beneficial, disadvantageous or neutral, and subsequently whether those changes become more or less frequent in a population.
Rightttt... it's impossible. If things randomly happen which means there's chaos without order, rules of behavior, it won't just take 3.5 billion years.
Not at all. This might be true if evolution was completely random. But it's not. While an event like a mutation: the loci, the type of mutation and the subsequent result is entirely random, selective pressures guide organisms towards conservation and fitness.
Let's mix and mash the roulette and conception analogies. Let us pretend for a moment that you are a sperm in a population of 20x10^6. We will ignore all external factors naturally acting against your survival (female immune responses to foreign gametes and semen etc.), pretend that all the sperm in your population are both functional ("alive and not "dead") and healthy, assume that every sperm has an equal chance of fertilizing an egg and that there is only one favorable outcome: you fertilizing the egg and only the possibility of the egg being fertilized as opposed to not being fertilized.
That is: P(A) = f/p (where f is a favorable event and p is the number of possible outcomes). We end up with P(A) = 1/20x10^6. There is a 0.000005% chance that you will be the sperm to fertilize the egg. That's basically a statistical impossibility. But you do win, because here you are instead of someone else. However, here's the rub. You're not the only favorable outcome and you're not the only one trying to fertilize the egg. There are 20 million other sperm also trying to fertilize the egg. And the chance of conception exponentially increases with the number of favorable events. Simple statistical principle, when the number of chances reaches or exceeds the probability calculus, the outcome becomes an inevitability. So instead of 1/20x10^6, you get 20x10^6/20x10^6.
Here's where the roulette comes in. Let's say that survival is the same thing as fertilizing the egg. That's "success". Even though the odds of you, personally surviving this game where the odds are stacked against you is exceedingly low, you're not the only one playing, you don't only get one chance to achieve a favorable outcome and the number of chances exceeds the probability calculus because of the number of organisms in your population doing the same thing. What happens? Survival is an inevitability. While you may not survive, others almost necessarily will.
Even though the odds of you, personally surviving this game where the odds are stacked against you is exceedingly low, you're not the only one playing, you don't only get one chance to achieve a favorable outcome and the number of chances exceeds the probability calculus because of the number of organisms in your population doing the same thing. What happens? Survival is an inevitability. While you may not survive, others almost necessarily will.
Firstly, thanks for the mathematics.
Now, let's get back to specifics, we're talking about abilities and the fact that they're randomly developed as opposed to being developed on purpose specifically to deal with the environment.
You're saying that even though the chance of one member developing melanin is slim, the fact that there is a near infinite number in the population developing something and each member gets more than one chance, that melanin will inevitably be developed in time.
With this, you're making 2 very unlikely assumptions:
Assumption 1 - We have a near infinite number in the population. - We actually don't. At this point in time on Earth we have a very large quantity of life (I don't know if it's anywhere near the infinite number that you require for a positive ability to become inevitable), but near the beginning we probably had ONE living organism, maybe TWO, perhaps a BILLION, but that's not a big number in the grand scheme of things.
Assumption 2 - Randomness does not kill you - Randomness is randomness, it doesn't lean towards preserving life (otherwise it wouldn't be random). If those first few simple microscopic lifeforms developed something and it killed them (either directly or indirectly), we won't be back to square number 317, we'd be back to square zero in terms of Evolution. No more chances.
So early on in the history of the universe, the development of something to help you survive is actually no joking matter. So no randomness.
So you say: "While an event like a mutation: the loci, the type of mutation and the subsequent result is entirely random, selective pressures guide organisms towards conservation and fitness."
But I'll say that Evolution is not random and neither is all the little processes no matter how microscopic.
This quote doesn't rebut my point. It isn't the environment causing abilities to develop. What's happening is horizontal gene transfer
Ok, for the time being can we agree that "cause" is the wrong term to use because it suggests direct and active involvement.
So instead, developed abilities are retained and become more prominent in a population in response to the ever changing environment around it.
Relating this back to the debate topic, the changing environment is of no threat to life on Earth because it will continue to evolve. Life goes on with or without the species that are endangered.
You're saying that even though the chance of one member developing melanin is slim, the fact that there is a near infinite number in the population developing something and each member gets more than one chance, that melanin will inevitably be developed in time.
No. Keep up with the analogy; Melanin is only one possible outcome out of an indefinite number of possible outcomes. Melanin, specifically, had a low probability of occurring in ancestral organisms. But because there are an indefinite number of possible outcomes, a outcome, that is an x-variable, is inevitable. I find it interesting that you understood the “you being born” analogy intuitively but failed to apply it to evolutionary principles.
Consider what you wrote. “So the probability that "me" (Melanin as a trait) specifically was going to be born is like you said "improbable", but the probability that a child (a trait) was going to be conceived is so high that people (organisms) are having abortions (evolving) left, right and centre (at high rates… though the human population actually doesn’t reproduce that often relative to many other species…)!”
So early on in the history of the universe, the development of something to help you survive is actually no joking matter. So no randomness.
Its importance to survival is irrelevant to whether it was the result of a random event.
But I'll say that Evolution is not random and neither is all the little processes no matter how microscopic.
That’s not true at all. Genetic drift is quite random. If a family was on a cross-country trip, an asteroid hit their car, and they got into a fatal accident, that would result in drift. Allele frequencies in the entire human population would change because that gene pool was struck out of the record by some freak event. But, you have your hypothesis, go out and test it.
It’s very easy to make claim after claim when you don’t have to support those claims with empirical evidence. In the arena of science every opinion isn’t equal. And right now, observations, data and testing tells us that we’re dealing with random phenomena guided by pressures. If you really think no component of evolution is random, then go out there and seek your data. Otherwise, keep the misconceived conjecture to yourself.
So instead, developed abilities are retained and become more prominent in a population in response to the ever changing environment around it.
Not necessarily. Remember, it is the selective pressures in the environment that determine whether or not any genes and subsequent traits will become more or less frequent in a population. A “response” to environmental change really only means that there are shifts in reproductive trends—some members of a population get to reproduce more than others, this shifts with changing environments and so does the distribution of changing genes in that population.
Relating this back to the debate topic, the changing environment is of no threat to life on Earth because it will continue to evolve. Life goes on with or without the species that are endangered.
True and not true. Evolution isn’t infinite in its changes. All species will eventually go extinct—whether through dead ends or the natural destruction of the planet by our sun or some other celestial object. And some life will continue to go on even in the absence of entire populations. But not forever as populations are interconnected. The impact of one population of life impacts, ultimately, all populations of life. And the topic of the debate is whether humans should do something about endangered populations. And I’ve already given my answer. Highlighting the problem of disappearing coral is a good example.
No. Keep up with the analogy; Melanin is only one possible outcome out of an indefinite number of possible outcomes
You're still making the 2 unlikely assumptions I mentioned.
Its importance to survival is irrelevant to whether it was the result of a random event
No, it's very relevant. Randomness almost certainly guarantees no more Evolution, but here we are, so it wasn't random. It's important that you see that it wasn't random. How it works I don't know, but I'm sure scientists are continuing their efforts to find out.
If you really think no component of evolution is random, then go out there and seek your data. Otherwise, keep the misconceived conjecture to yourself.
I'm not one to devote my life into this work, I respect and encourage those who can, but i'll say that my opinion is not misconceived. My opinion is born of general observation and knowledge. The very fact that we're here from a beginning of simple, single-celled lifeforms says that those early microscopic mutational processes were not random. That we haven't worked out the pattern, doesn't mean it isn't there.
You're still making the 2 unlikely assumptions I mentioned.
No. I'm not. I am not assuming that we have a near infinite number of chances, nor am I assuming that randomness kills. You have explicitly stated the latter apropos of nothing on my end, and the former is the direct result of your own hypothetical situation (Russian roulette). These are most certainly your assumptions. Don't try to lay them off on me.
Randomness almost certainly guarantees no more Evolution, but here we are, so it wasn't random.
I don't see why it would. Genes replicate imperfectly and at different rates. The locations where this imperfect replication occurs is unpredictable, the effect this imperfect replication has is also unpredictable, and what kind of imperfect replication occurs follows the same unpredictable pattern. But the fact that we are here suggests you are wrong.
It's important that you see that it wasn't random.
Approximately 130 mutations occur in humans before birth. I'm going to wager that the human zygote wasn't making plans on what was happening to him/her. Another 30 mutations (average) will occur between birth and death. You will go through the rest of your life never knowing where the mutation will take place, what kind of mutation will happen and how it will impact you or your kids (assuming you will have kids or already do).
Why is it that the CCR5-delta 32 mutation occurred in Europeans 700 years-ago and not Africans where the selective pressure for its benefit is at its ultimate peak right now? Why isn't it present in Africans at all? You'd think a resistance and in certain cases immunity to HIV would benefit the people most under its pressure. What about mutations that increase LRP5 function leading to supernaturally high bone density in one family in the absence of any selective pressure? Why one family instead of two or three, or ten million families? And the anti-mysotonin duplication mutation that occurred in one German child, giving him excessive muscle mass? Did he plan on that just as the sperm met the egg, or when gestating, or just as they were born?
These are rhetorical questions because I know you don't have the answer. And I'm really no longer interested in your opinion and conjecture. Shit happens. And this kind of thing is happening all around the world in humans and every other species all the time. Traits are rising and falling, gene frequencies shifting every minute of every day. The reason why it doesn't kill us is because most of it has a neutral impact, and the disadvantageous results are weeded out while the good ones are kept.
My opinion is born of general observation and knowledge.
Have you ever observed cells or genes in the lab across generations? Have you ever reviewed scientific literature on the subject you're currently debating? Have you been sufficiently educated in evolutionary biology, phylogenetics, population genetics? If your answer to these questions is no, then I follow with what "general" observations have you made about genes and what general knowledge do you think you actually have about this subject? From what I can tel, you're overstepping your knowledge boundary, which is why you can only opine.
With all this knowledge, we still don't know the big picture (you having admitted to that), we still don't know how everything works, and then we still don't know how everything works together. Things are "random" until another discovery is made. But I guess you'd know best, cos you're apparently at the edge of discovery of a pattern somewhere.
I'm also tired of reading all your educated bs as well. So while my general knowledge and observations of the world being limited to books and TV and internet webpages and won't measure up to firsthand knowledge of this field, experts in the field will certainly be able to give you a run for your money.
Genes replicate imperfectly and at different rates. The locations where this imperfect replication occurs is unpredictable, the effect this imperfect replication has is also unpredictable, and what kind of imperfect replication occurs follows the same unpredictable pattern. But the fact that we are here suggests you are wrong
Nope, the fact that we are here suggests that it's not random and that if anyone thinks it's random, it's due to their ignorant of the pattern that is yet to be discovered.
Approximately 130 mutations occur in humans before birth. I'm going to wager that the human zygote wasn't making plans on what was happening to him/her
Nope, the human zygote has no conscious control over what happens, but all the 130 mutations before birth knows exactly what they're doing and when to do it. That's why you'd end up with a human baby and not an elephant or a random lump of cancerous cells.
So no, my opinions as an uneducated individual are far from perfect, but if all that education does is make you blind to the patterns of the world and simply call it "wonderous happenstance", I'm glad I haven't spent all that time getting one.
I said So instead, developed abilities are retained and become more prominent in a population in response to the ever changing environment around it.
You said Not necessarily. Remember, it is the selective pressures in the environment that determine whether or not any genes and subsequent traits will become more or less frequent in a population. A “response” to environmental change really only means that there are shifts in reproductive trends—some members of a population get to reproduce more than others, this shifts with changing environments and so does the distribution of changing genes in that population.
We said the same thing using different wordings.
The impact of one population of life impacts, ultimately, all populations of life
Perhaps, but how it will impact (good or bad), and to what degree, we still don't know.
I know I'm right, because I was raised hella-super religious to the tenth power.
If one is actually under the impression that some god created everything, and they are not simply spewing whatever corporate interest most recently hijacked their religion,
they would be even more into conservation than the "unwashed" Evolutionist.
I mean, your god loves and created all things. Shouldn't you be trying to keep them alive?
When did god become so bloodthirsty? Why wouldn't god want people to conserve? I can think of at least a couple places in the Bible where it specifically says to conserve things like grains back during Kind David's time. Why would your god encourage conservation on that scale, but be like "oh just kill all the (insert species) if I wanted them to live I would have made them smarter/faster/invisible.
It's just dumb NVYN. You cannot argue for killing from a religious perspective. It makes you a modern day Pharisee.
Ok, I'm gonna make this clear so you won't be confused:
I personally believe in God and that we should save endangered species, however I've chosen to represent the opposition for the sake of challenge. So while I'm arguing that we shouldn't save animals, I represent the side that doesn't believe in God.
So to sum up:
I actually believe in God and saving the animals, but in this debate I don't believe in God nor saving the animals.
Challenge? You are contradicting yourself and calling it a challenge?
Okay, sounds illogical to me, but I'm not one to push my belief on others.
Clearly you have no belief in what you are actually saying in regard to animal extinction, because you understand as well as I that human superiority is no excuse for standing in the corner. If human superiority mattered, then it would act as evidence that it is more noble to act upon this, and do our best to preserve natural life.
If playing God is how you define saving endangered species, then it seems that you are a little confused; though I can see how easy that could happen. You have gone off track by saying that as humans we play God when we save animals, because playing God involves choosing decisively what is born into this world. Now, in order to explain how these are contradictory, I'll have to get a bit complicated, I hope you don't mind! When God created the world, he also created the life that was to exist within it. He gave humans superiority in order for their species to maintain a higher status of living in comparison to other animals on Earth. In doing this humans were granted more than just primitive adaptations, we were given logic; something that is being applied in this debate. Our adaptations allowed us to develop ourselves in other areas and our mental capabilities allowed us to think, learn and understand. This takes us to today, where we are still thinking, learning and understanding ourselves and our surroundings, which also leads us to the understanding of our surrounding ecosystems. We are able to recognize how an animal is meant to live through the study of its habits and living environment, and therefore, are able to identify whether or not an animal is behaving or living unnaturally. This is where we hit the issue; humans can identify a species that could potentially, or are, going extinct. For some, human instinct tells us that it may be an unnecessary species, and therefore, unrequired in natural life. However, for others, it may be an entirely different story. Most people would believe that it is morally right to give nature a helping hand, and so they do it. The question at hand is how does this differ from playing God? God is not morality, morality does not come from God, therefore human morality is human belief; what we were created with. Saving an animal isn't the creation of life either, it is the preservance of life, something that most believe is morally right.
Long story short, we are born with morality, and that if it is morally right to save a species of animal, then where is the reason to stand aside?
If to most people it is morally right to preserve life, then where is the reason to go against morality? If that isn't enough, then perhaps I'll just have to argue the fact that I believe in morality and that I believe that we should preserve what life we can. If people like you, who demand an explanation for everything, can't understand that, then I can't agree with you. Perhaps now you realize why I argue my personal belief in a debate.
Bravo! As incoherent as your writings can be, I can just see that you've made some sort of point and thank God you actually have a conclusion at the end there, otherwise I'd be quite lost...
So basically, you're saying to continue saving the animals because preserving life is morally the right thing to do.
To that I say "Great!" But I don't think nature account for moral values. We can try to save them all, but we won't be able to, this is because extinction is like an expiry date on a species, if it's meant to go, it will go regardless of human efforts. Sure we might have contributed to a few species going extinct, but that's what happens in nature, all life on Earth compete for resources to survive, if a species can't compete well enough, it fails the game of survival and make room for a new species. So let's not waste any more efforts in trying to do something quite futile. Instead, let's put all the money and effort into eradicating world hunger or something.
I know, I've explained but I only come here very very drunk anymore, sometimes I miss stuff. You're cool don't take it personal. There's some point there somewhere I just have a varying point of view.
People who think it's "good" to let species go extinct because obviously if they do that just means evolution decided they were supposed to die off don't understand what evolution is. It's like saying we shouldn't interfere when we see someone falling off a cliff because gravity says things are "supposed" to fall.
Gravity just describes how/why things DO fall. It doesn't say it's good that they fall. And evolution just describes (among other things) how/why some species DO go extinct. It doesn't say it's good that they go extinct.
Nature isn't about good or bad. Nature doesn't have moral values I'm afraid. It's simply the case of passing on genetic codes... we're currently the leader in the game. Good or bad isn't part of the plan at all.
You don't see the connection because you don't understand what evolutionary theory is. You think it's a prescriptive statement about how nature is supposed to work and that interfering with a species going extinct is somehow preventing thing from working the way they are supposed to. That is nonsense. As I explained in my initial post evolution no more says a species that went extinct was supposed to go extinct than gravity says that someone who fell off a building was supposed to fall off the building. It just describes the physical mechanisms by which it happens.
You saying "because evolution says weak species go extinct+ we SHOULD let weak species go extinct" is exactly as valid as saying "gravity says people who fall off buildings will plummet to their deaths thefore we SHOULD let people plummet to their deaths."
+(Evolution does not actually say this btw. "Weakenss" and "strength" are not the criteria for evolutionary success. Reproduction is)
Ok, just on the point of gravity, if someone jumps off a building, gravity says they will plummet to their death. Likewise with natural selection, if a species doesn't have what it takes to compete for the Earth's resources, they won't last. I think we agree on that right?
What we're debating here is "should" we interfere with that process and why. So many species have gone extinct in our lifetime? Should we save other endangered species and why? Try not to let your feelings interfere.
And the problem is that you think it's "interfering" in a "process" that doesn't exist.
But if you absolutely insist on a "why" we should "interfere"... because loss of biodiversity is a long term hazard to the entire ecosystem. And guess what we're part of?
Ah HAH! Biodiversity is the best reason yet to save endangered species! But I still have something for you to think about: extinction is as much a part of existence as death is a part of life.
Some 3 species of plant or animal become extinct every hour:
The extinction of the dodos and Tasmanian tigers haven't negatively impacted our human existence at all (except we're now a bit sad that we can't see them any more). So what reasons have we got to save endangered species (other than the obvious "we want to look at them").
Yes, extinction is as much a part of existence as life or death. To go back to the beginnning... yet again... so is people falling to their death off cliffs. You aren't actually making any arguments, you're just making random observations.
And you have no idea if the extinction of the dodo or the Tasmanian tiger didn't negatively impact us because you don't have any clue what the world would be like today if they hadn't gone extinct. And you don't know what the impact of the extinction of those three plant or animal species that went extinct in the last hour is going to be in a year, or 5, or 10, or 50 because the system behaviors are too complex to fully model...
What we DO know is that the less diverse the ecosystem becomes the more unstable it is prone to be and the more susceptible to catastrophic disruption it becomes. Which is a bad thing.
What we DO know is that the less diverse the ecosystem becomes the more unstable it is prone to be and the more susceptible to catastrophic disruption it becomes
We know this for sure do we? I must have missed that memo. We don't know anything. We might have theories, but they're not at all concrete.
Our best efforts may save a couple of species from extinction now, but nature can destroy them quite easily with a simple virus...
Yes, we do know that. It's a basic property of these kinds of complex systems. The more elements you remove the larger a role the remaining elements have to play and the more pronounced the relative effects of removing them can become.
And there you go AGAIN with the "things happen anyway" stuff.
Yes, we might save some species and "nature" might wipe out some others anyway.
We might grab that guy before he falls off the cliff but another one might fall off a different cliff tomorrow. What the hell is your point? That because of that we shouldn't save the first guy either?
Yeah, I guess that is what I'm saying. I mean I think it's a bit futile to try and control nature don't you think? It sounds rather heartless and immoral but nature is kinda cruel, don't you think?
Up to this point you've been all about how "evolutionists" are supposed to be all gung ho about "survival of the fittest" and that means we should not only stop trying to prevent the extinction of other species but maybe even speed up the process. In case you missed it the reason those species are dying off at the rate they are is because we are exerting a huge degree of control over nature.
Now all of a sudden you run out of reasons why we should be using that control the way we are and "poof"... we can't control nature! Oh no... futile to try really. Can't be done.
I think what you meant to say was "I don't wanna, so I'll say it's too hard then we can keep doing what we were doing."
I never said we can control nature, buddy. I don't think it's possible. So if I gave you that impression somewhere, then i apologize. We all do what makes us happy, so if that involves trying to save cute species of animals, great! But bear in mind that nature will put you in your place and she does all the time. I dunno, I mean people spend money and lotsa time trying to save a certain area of a forest, and then a naturally occuring forest fire wipes it all out in one day... nature rules!
A huge part of why a lot of species are being saved is because humans have overhunted them, destroyed their habitats and homes, or polluted them to death. Evolutionists are trying to save these animals as a way to reverse the bad things we, as a species, did in the past.
The strong hunts and destroy the habitats of the weak all the times in nature. It's natural. Humans are currently the strongest, that's why we're destroying the habitats of other species... We're proliferating and we need space!
Our quest to control nature went overboard. The goal of evolution is to slowly change species and kill off a few here and there. We have killed off several species and have pushed many to the brink of extinction for nothing more than beauty. Many humans used to hunt elephants for their ivory tusks. Some still do hunt elephants for this reason alone! And as for loss of habitat, there is no need for us to cut down so much of the rainforest each year. It's just that a lot of people want cheap farmland. And what's the best way to do this? Burn down a few acres of the rainforest and, in the process, destroy the homes of thousands of different species.
Farmland is what we need, we can't live in jungles, we need roads and infrastructure, too bad for other animals cos we're just better at this survival game! Why should we care for them? Because they're beautiful? Please.... what is beauty? Humans happen to find those amongst us with the best traits that maximizes survival "beautiful", things like a strong, sturdy, symmetrical body is attractive... survival of the fittest my friend! If the animals are meant to survive, they'd be able to keep us in check...
They can't keep us in check. We have always had the advantage, which is why we have to keep it in check ourselves. We have opposable thumbs, logical thought, only two legs, and (most importantly) technology. Just because we are the most superior does not mean we should go out and kill animals and cut down jungles.
In fact, our technology allows us to maximize farmland. We can fit thousands of livestock where only a few dozen would live in the wild. And we can manufacture vertical farming.
Sure, we have all these technologies and brains that we can use to probably slow down world wide extinction rate, but why should we? Is there a benefit to saving endangered species other than because we want to look at them?
It's called the balance of nature. I'll give an example. In the northeast US, wolves were killed off because we were afraid of them and they ate our chickens about 100 years ago. Today, people are working to get wolves back into the northeast because the deer population skyrocketed after their disappearance. Now, people are hitting deer in their cars and there is no predator to the deer.
There's an easy answer to that: declare deer hunting season all year-round. Invite hunting tourism. You'd kill 2 bird with 1 stone: reducing the deer population and earning tourism money at the same time! The Japanese will love that shit. Maybe then they'd leave the whales alone (just kidding all you Japanese people out there, although you should probably farm whales if you're gonna eat them ;)).
where i live the department of natural resources introduced wolves in efforts to bring back the deer population to a reasonable level. the wolves didnt have the desired effect, and went instead after livestock. farmers are trapping them and shooting them regardless of the regulation. the wolves are a good thing, but this planet wasnt built to last forever anyway. so i say let em die and let me kill more deer:) protecting a beautiful species such as a lion is definitely a good thing but there is too much worry about the little species. nature will create its own balance after they go extinct.
Perhaps you feel that an animal has no beauty, or that beauty cannot be defined. However, the majority of people here actually care about what happens to an animal, after all, why should we just let an animal die for the sake of our superiority?
Suppose cows were on the verge of extinction, would you rule out their survival, not to mention the supply of dairy, just because we're superior?
Don't like animals? Go hunting, don't try and support animal extinction for the sake of human superiority!
FYI: God created all life (as is believed by Catholics, etc), yet you suggest moving against the continuation of this life. If God wanted an animal dead, they would all die together, or at least at very close dates (I.E. the Dinosaurs). If it is a natural cause (non-God related), then why shouldn't we help the species out. Seeing as we are superior, we should be able to do that... right?
Cows are farmed by us, they are not on the endangered list. They're not particularly beautiful animals either... I mean it's subjective but I don't find them attractive animals. Pandas on the other hand don't do anything for humans, why should we save them? You look at their reproductive habits, diet and behavior, it's almost like they don't want to survive!
I see you've banned me in your internet filter debate. Well done, I hope you feel better! Anyways, no matter how bad you are at debating I still won't ban you from this topic... people will see through your immaturity. I believe in freedom of speech ;)
I can't believe that I'm actually saying this to the creator of this topic, but you seem to have trouble staying on topic. You have a habit of getting personal with me, and that is what ticks me off. I have reported you several times and am hoping that the admins will find you suitable for a ban.
Getting back on topic; you need to realize that by pulling out an example of a cow going extinct, I was not stating that cows are going extinct, it was only an example!
"Pandas on the other hand don't do anything for humans, why should we save them?"
So, in your point of view: if an animal has no benefit towards human life, then it should not be allowed to exist? Correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure that that is exactly what you mean. In a previous post you stated that you believed in God. I think that you're lying, because God does not create an animal without it's purpose. Dinosaurs didn't help mankind out heaps, and look what happened to them. A meteor supposedly wiped out nearly every species of dinosaur; it was out of human hands. Now, imagine what life would be like if dinosaurs still existed today. Well, we probably could go as far as imagine, but that wouldn't help us out in the long run. Getting back to the pandas; people love pandas (or at least some do...) because we have been able to live alongside them and grow to fully understand them. That creates a particular bond between species, one that could not possibly be created with a dinosaur, after all, where are they?
Just because certain animals have no human benefit, that doesn't mean that they should be deprived of life because we as a "superior race" choose to do nothing. If pandas become extinct, people will come to regret it (NOT ALL! -I cannot stress that enough-).
Sure, pandas don't have human rights, but any animal has a right to live. Who are we to let them go? It seems rather heartless to me.
My beliefs land me in the category of Theistic Evolutionists. I believe that God created the universe and evolution is one of the many processes of God's work. This topic however, is about the pure Evolutionists' belief system (they don't believe in God). According to them everything magically appeared from nothingness in the beginning. So I personally believe that animals should be saved from extinction, but I've chosen to represent the opposite side in this topic to challenge myself because it's seemingly a difficult position to be in. However, todate, noone has yet made a convincing argument to save the animals!!! I believe it's quite easy so let's see how long it'll take for someone to come along and put me in my rightful place :)
Your example using "cows" is kinda useless because we're talking about animals that are endangered. You bringing cows in doesn't make any sense.
You think that an emotional bond between species is a good reason save them from extinction? I think you should consider something more concrete than "emotion" as a basis for your arguments.
The rest of your arguments have nothing to do with Evolution or Evolutionists at all. Do you actually know what Natural Selection is? I know it's quite a heartless concept and you hate being heartless, but it doesn't have anything to do with heart.
You believe in freedom of speech. Fine, I am not against that. However, there are differences between raising an opinion an insulting a person. I haven't tried to insult you, as you have done multiple times to me, and therefore I find you not as a debater, but as an immature, opinionated jerk. One day that 'freedom of speech' is going to land you in trouble. I am doing this so that you can 'learn,' So feel free to take notes.
If you take everything personal, and then say that I'm insulting you that's kinda like bullying... you're bullying me! I'm just stating the fact that you're not very mature and logical in your arguments!
But, thanks for teaching me a lesson on humility anyway ;)
Those on the yes side presuppose so many inaccurate ideas about evolution as a whole it makes my head spin. And though there have been good arguments on this side, I would like to add something of the human species.
We evolve also.
As such, we've evolved to such a point that we understand that killing off all of a species affects us in some negative way.
And so to continue our rate of evolution, without even thinking about it in these terms, we have evolved in large part to want to make sure things that are part of the overall Eco-system survive.
Of course there are those, namely the other side, which are less evolved. Like an alligator or bear, they don't realize or don't believe that using all of the sources available until they are gone will lead to their own demise.
Luckily most people are smarter than that.
While saving cute pandas and penguins is great. Ultimately saving endangered species is saving ourselves. It is a product of our own evolution to even understand it is in our best interest.
Sure we've evolved quite a lot. Sure we've got the ability to figure out "some" of the things about our environment. But we don't know everything yet. We might never know everything because there's just so much to know. For instance, how do you know we shouldn't continue to be as selfish and destructive to the environment as we've been so far? May be we should speed that up a little bit even? I mean we don't know how the human body will react to the new environment of carbon rich atmosphere. What about species that may be created to specifically adapt to this new environment of "pollution"?
I don't understand, please explain how that statement relates, in any way, to the topic?
I mean, sure, we can be as selfish as we want, and pollute our world to death. We might as well make a headstart and start throwing trees into a furnace for the sake of "selfishness." The whole point of our side of this debate is that we as human beings, as a superior race, can make a difference, we just need to open our eyes and notice what is going on in the world. From there, we make a positive difference as best as we can. God created human beings with superior logic because they were destined to become a superior race? I agree whole-heartedly, so why aren't we making a difference more often? Why aren't we trying to preserve natural life without overpopulating it?
The topic is all about "SHOULD". Should we or shouldn't we?
Now try and focus on that.
My point is we don't know everything about the world yet. How it worked. How it works. How it will work. For all we know, another species of dominant animal will rule the Earth in a few million years instead of us. Why should we continue? What's in it for us?
I have clearly made the point that we should. Ff you are too incompetent to see it, then don't bother arguing!
Now try and focus on that.
We as human beings are unable to accurately foretell the future; even science doesn't give us an accurate conclusion as to how the world exists years from now. What we can say is that we are naturally superior, and through this we are able to make decisions that create an impact on the world. Now, let's try and avoid a problematic impact and focus on preserving life. If an animal isn't impacting now, chances are it isn't going to impact any further in future. Where is the reason that this animal should be denied life? Why shouldn't we continue in these heroic acts? How does this conflict badly upon us?
KILL THEM KILL THEM ALL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Environmentalists should continue to protect endangered species by protecting their habitat from destruction by human activity.
Evolution is the theory of natural selection. There is nothing natural about turning a marsh into a parking lot and expecting the turtles to evolve into speed bumps.
Although highly expensive for taxpayers, it is our responsibility as humans save endangered species, for we interfere in their habits with our own ambitions. So, when an endangered specie is gone, it is gone for a long time. In other words, it is never coming back.
One species "interfere" in another species's ability to survive all the time in nature. It's natural. Ambition is natural. Greed is natural. Selfishness in general is natural. We can try to save them all I suppose, because it's also natural to do that. But I just don't think we'll be any good at trying to control nature like that...
Well, in many cases humans are the cause of the destruction of a species. Evolution loses all relevance when it comes to short range disasters and death. If we stop efforts to save a species it can have unpredictable results on the entire habitat; which my turn prove to be bad for that whole ecology. Biodiversity is a good thing, so let's keep it up by continuing to protect endangered species.
Humans destroying other species is no different to other species destroying each other. That's how nature works. All species compete for resources and the stronger ones win.
.
Biodiversity is a good thing? Prove that. Why should we have a billion species when half a billion would do just fine?
Ray Anderson spoke about how every scientific peer reviewed journal in the last 25-30 years stated that the biosphere is continually being shift to humans. While I don't think saving any and all animals is a good idea, we should give thought into how humans are very expensive to maintain in terms of ecological costs. While the biosphere is continually diminishing, it's only a matter of time when humans will perish due to the lack of food. First by the lack of variety, then the lack of amount. After which out of desperation, we'll start eating each other assuming that nothing changes. "In 50 years, if all the insects disappeared, life would cease. If all the humans disappeared, life would flourish"
I think the solution is to find ecological sustainability in agriculture. For instance, the metric of a good fish farm is in the number of fish predators. If the predators are plentiful, that means the fish are a good supply of food.
Firstly, I think ecological sustainability is even more elusive than world peace. This is because:
- a) you have to know exactly how everything works together, as in how everything affects everything else. It's a mammoth of a task (excuse the pun).
- b) then, you try to intervene. A bigger mammoth of a task.
So, if we can't control ourselves and stop killing each other, there's no chance for ecological sustainability...
.
In 50 years, if all the insects disappeared, life would cease. If all the humans disappeared, life would flourish
This quote is useless because humans are not capable of destroying even 1 species of important insects, let alone all. If they all disappeared, it wouldn't be us that did it. They are much better at the survival game then we are.
The point of this quote is stupid because it's comparing the usefulness of one species with another. Being a part of the system, humans got here the same way as any other species: through Evolution. More specifically, we're a result of the process of Natural Selection. Humans are as natural as any other species here and nature is much larger than us. Stop thinking that we can control nature somehow.
I understand the fact of life that species do go extinct and appreciate the cycle. In the past I would have agreed with the latter because I just accepted it as that. But I can also agree with saving the few endangered species out there because it says on a whole that we humans can be compassionate creatures willing to give some species their second chances due to habitat changes and being shot down by poachers so often. The habitat out there isn't very fair and hasn't been fair ever since humans went Industrial, so I think there's a point in saving a few endangered species. At least just give them the chance since we can be merciful.
Stopping all efforts to save endangered species is stopping all efforts to save ourselves. We have put ourselves in a position where we can destroy our species, as well as life on Earth. Furthermore, as David Attenborough says, "Our planet, the Earth, is, as far as we know, unique in the universe; it contains life. Its continued survival now rests in our hands."
Our species is like a blind tree trimmer, cutting the complex tree that represents the history of life. All life is related, and connected by the branches of the tree. We are blind because we do not know whether we cut a twig, a branch, or even the entire network. Not only is it our responsibility to maintain life, it is quite obviously in our best interests. As much as we like to think that humans are the best, that the universe revolves around us, we are measly beings on the pale point of light that we call home. We are no better than any other species, and we should consider them just as we consider ourselves. Jane Goodall, one of the most animal experienced people in the world, says this about our anthropocentric views: "There is no sharp line dividing humans from the rest of the animal kingdom; it's a very wuzzie line and it's getting wuzzier all the time. We we animals doing things that we, in our arrogance, used to think were 'just human'". In order to save ourselves, we must save every insect, every bird, and every speck of life that is endangered by human activities.
are you kidding me who would want to stop saving animals they cute and help our environment. Think if bees were not to exist whi would pollinate all the flowers. If there were no humans would there be this site. SO the weirdos on the other side have got to change their mind. Continue saving animals. they have rights too
You can't kill all the bees... if humans don't exist, species will still go extinct, it's natural to go extinct when your species can no longer adapt to changes in the environment.
Animals have rights? Rights can only be taken, they cannot be given. Just as gifts can only be given, never taken.
are you kidding me who would want to stop saving animals they cute and help our environment. Think if bees were not to exist whi would pollinate all the flowers. If there were no humans would there be this site. SO the weirdos on the other side have got to change their mind. Continue saving animals. they have rights too
I think if the endangered species are ment to vanish they will, and nothing humans can do to stop that.....so it is very difficult to answer that question because the human kindness will answer with NO
Supporting Evidence:
SEO Software
(www.skyhighlinker.com)
I actually agree with you here, people can find meaning in life as an individual if they make a meaning of it. Meaning for human existence as a whole? I don't think so however.
I think the solution is to find ecological sustainability in agriculture. For instance, the metric of a good fish farm is in the number of fish predators. If the predators are plentiful, that means the fish are a good supply of food.
Supporting Evidence:
best diet pills
(www.online-phentermine.com)
We should help to save them because we have evolved beyond just protecting ourselves. To only worry about humans would be selfish and would be bad for humans in the end because life is all interconnected. We can't only think of survival of the fittest because if we did, we'd have to let handicaps and retards die and or suffer.
We are the "lucky animals" to have evolved with judgement and the potential to cultivate our environments. We are basically the World's keepers. A lucky thing to have happened if those on the FOR side argue that its "survival of the fittest" otherwise we'd be on the other end of the stick and something else would discuss this..
But,
If we stop caring, we will all be doomed. The planet would die, and so would we..
we are causing an unnaturally rapid rate of extinction, because we have caused the damage, we have a moral responsibility to to mitigate the problem. There is also an anthropocentric argument insofar as biodiversity is one of the best ways to understand the health of an ecosystem. By preventing the extinction of as many species as we can, we maintain that the environment might be capable of rebounding once we have gotten our act together.
The world is like honeysuckle. One tendril chokes the other to reach for the light, believing they grow from seperate stems. When the sun shines, young leaves fight for its warmth. The struggle makes the bush strong, each branch seeking out the light and climbing ever higher. But when there is no sunlight, when the leaves begin to fall and the branches wither one by one, the stem must look to its roots for nourishment. The world is one like the moon and the sun. Like yin and yang. Push and pull. The world seems different to many but to the few who sees it as connected it is the same. Open your eyes and look around. Open your heart to nature and listen to the wind. Go into the woods and hear the words of the wise old trees. You will see.
OK anyone who is dumb enough to say that we should stop saving endangered species should be forbidden because think the human evolved from the monkey so "humans" are technically an animal so what happens when the human race starts going instinct would you want someone to help us if we were endangered. I think you would.
Animals and plants has provided us with the medications we need in order to survive. For example, the rosy preiwinkle has saved countless children with leukemia and other diseases. Most likely has saved someone in your family. They try their best to maintain the pest control that we created by killing all of the predators that eat the prey. Take for instance, the mosoquitofish and dragonflies. Both of them eat mosoquitoes, and is on the verge on being classified extinction because of us. If these insects would still be blossoming in our area, we wouldn't be having the mosoquito problem and the deadly diseases they carry everyday. The problem is that people don't take the time out to see why these animals are so valuable to us. They can help us uncover so many cures, remedies, and even herbs that can keep us alive to live another day, but we can't discover their mystery if they are extinct.
are you kidding me who would want to stop saving animals they cute and help our environment. Think if bees were not to exist whi would pollinate all the flowers. If there were no humans would there be this site. SO the weirdos on the other side have got to change their mind. Continue saving animals. they have rights too
yay, :) did you post on the debate about animal rights? you should if you havent, i think the debate is new but the positions are tight, but the issue seems pretty clear, animals should have rights.
