DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Why extinction is good and natural...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 13 of 13, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/21/2007 11:03:32 PM · #1
Why extinction is good and natural...

Peole repeatedly oppose humanity's progress and decry the extinction of other animals. However, evolution and the survival of the fittest....bear the ultimate end to have the fittest survive.

This by necessity will result in a single fit organism to survive. Yes, there is much symbiotic life but by definition such should eventually cease. With one population eventually evolving to achieve the means of any symbiotic state so as to further themselves and their evolution.

Is this not the basis of multi-celluar evolution. I often hear evolutions express these concepts but shy away from the end result. Why?

Why are evolutionists afraid of their own beliefs?

The same goes for genetic advancement of the human race. Evolution will eventually further certain population segments beyond others. You cannot say this is "untrue" while touting it's truthfulness for every event in the past. To deny such a foundation of your faith for mere political correctness' sake is quite the heresy.

Especially when so well evident the development differences of population groups. Simply compare any equatorial population group with a northernly population group. Substantial differences are apparent. So how does one deny the possible existence of any other differences?

Of course, everyone knows that evolutionists are "scientific" and just concerned about science fact. They'd never let personal bias, beliefs, values etc influence them.

No...just science.

---

The truth, IMHO, is that it is very clearly evident that no one is purely unbiased, just scientific, and solely logical. We are whether evolved or created as such, emotional beings. We will often weight certain facts heavier and dismiss others based on personal preference.

We can all sit around and toss muck and express how illogical the other side is. Furthermore, we can pick the kooks in each other's groups or past failings in history and exclaim the failings in general. But such usually entails ignoring large aspects of either side's more well founded viewpoints.

Both sides have their failings. Millions have been killed by religious regimes. And millions have been killed by atheistic regimes. One can choose to ignore either set of data. Or one can re-evaluate to a more correct statement of "millions have been killed by human regimes".

Most everyone believes their views to be logically sound and scientific. If we didn't, we wouldn't hold to them.

- Saj

PS - I actually have a number of personal reasons I endeavor to stop extinction. One in particular is that I want my children and their children that follow to be able to see all the beauty that is this world. It may merely be an aesthetic reason...but it's a very important reason to me!
07/21/2007 11:07:13 PM · #2
Originally posted by theSaj:

Why extinction is good and natural...

Peole repeatedly oppose humanity's progress and decry the extinction of other animals. However, evolution and the survival of the fittest....bear the ultimate end to have the fittest survive.

This by necessity will result in a single fit organism to survive. Yes, there is much symbiotic life but by definition such should eventually cease. With one population eventually evolving to achieve the means of any symbiotic state so as to further themselves and their evolution.


We already have that. It is called "Gaia", the earth as a single, evolved organism. Individual species wax and wane, but the earth abides.

R.
07/21/2007 11:25:32 PM · #3
HAAHAHA. I thought that said Gala. I will spell it like this and understand now. Gaea.
07/22/2007 12:01:03 AM · #4
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

HAAHAHA. I thought that said Gala. I will spell it like this and understand now. Gaea.


"The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis that proposes that living and nonliving parts of the earth are viewed as a complex interacting system that can be thought of as a single organism. Named after the Greek earth goddess, this hypothesis postulates that all living things have a regulatory effect on the Earth's environment that promotes life overall."

R.
07/22/2007 12:06:50 AM · #5
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

HAAHAHA. I thought that said Gala. I will spell it like this and understand now. Gaea.


"The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis that proposes that living and nonliving parts of the earth are viewed as a complex interacting system that can be thought of as a single organism. Named after the Greek earth goddess, this hypothesis postulates that all living things have a regulatory effect on the Earth's environment that promotes life overall."

R.


Does that make humans the equivalent of Flesh Eating Bacteria or Ebola?
07/22/2007 01:06:07 AM · #6
There aint nothin fit about the fat cats that sit around planning for, and carry out, the destruction of the earth's environment, ecology, and life in the name of getting fatter.

And I think you got it wrong...evolution does not portend the eventual extinction of all life but one superior species, but rather the stable flux of populations for a given environment whereby variation and diversity are the keys to health of the planet. One surviving species that was so complex to take on all the symbiotic relationships currently existing in nature would be very fragile and could easily wind up extinct.
07/25/2007 09:42:58 PM · #7
"There aint nothin fit about the fat cats that sit around planning for, and carry out, the destruction of the earth's environment, ecology, and life in the name of getting fatte"

BTW...I recall reading a while back that something like 40%-60% of oil stocks are owned by mutual retirement funds. So those fat cats are us!

Just like we're the ones driving around, watching TV, using air conditioners - burning energy.

"evolution does not portend the eventual extinction of all life but one superior species"

Never said extinction of all life. Rather, the filtering down to a single superior species.

"One surviving species that was so complex to take on all the symbiotic relationships currently existing in nature would be very fragile and could easily wind up extinct."

Unless it was more adaptable than any of those symbiotic relationships on their own. Case in point...multi-celluar species which essentially superseded the symbiotic level to a joint level.
07/25/2007 09:59:50 PM · #8
Originally posted by theSaj:

I often hear evolutions express these concepts but shy away from the end result. Why?


because evolution is not "survival of the fittest". evolution is simply a process where a life form adapt to its new environment and evolve to survive.

if what you assumed is true, then the male sex would have been long gone and there's only women on the planet, lol!
07/31/2007 12:19:11 PM · #9
I cannot resist responding to this any further. It is too infuriatingly misconstrued to be left alone…

Originally posted by theSaj:

This by necessity will result in a single fit organism to survive. Yes, there is much symbiotic life but by definition such should eventually cease. With one population eventually evolving to achieve the means of any symbiotic state so as to further themselves and their evolution.


Such confused thinking. Evolution is a description of what has happened and what happens all the time around us. It reflects the ongoing competition for limited resources between many billions of types of life in billions of different environmental settings which have encouraged specialisation. Given the billions of different environments found on our planet, why do you suppose that just one type of creature could be the fittest in every one of them?

Originally posted by theSaj:

The same goes for genetic advancement of the human race. Evolution will eventually further certain population segments beyond others. You cannot say this is "untrue" while touting it's truthfulness for every event in the past. To deny such a foundation of your faith for mere political correctness' sake is quite the heresy.


If you think for just a moment, you may realise that modern humanity can be distinguished from every other species: it controls large parts of its environment, it controls large numbers of critical resources, and is in the process of controlling the means of evolutionary inheritance (gene control). Evolution will operate, but in a very different context for humanity going forwards.

Please also bear in mind that humans have existed in recognisable form for around 150,000 years – 140,000 years before the first permanent settlements of the earliest kind. So don’t expect to see changes quickly.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Peole repeatedly oppose humanity's progress and decry the extinction of other animals. However, evolution and the survival of the fittest....bear the ultimate end to have the fittest survive


Why do you think that people have this outcry? Is it, perhaps, in large part for the exact same reason that you give yourself? Remember, you are not unique. Understanding the reasons why creatures become extinct (inability to adapt to quick changing environments) does not prevent people from bemoaning our ability to force those quick changes on other creatures with disastrous results (for them, and sometimes for us).

Originally posted by theSaj:

The truth, IMHO, is that it is very clearly evident that no one is purely unbiased, just scientific, and solely logical. We are whether evolved or created as such, emotional beings. We will often weight certain facts heavier and dismiss others based on personal preference. We can all sit around and toss muck and express how illogical the other side is.


Acknowledging human frailties and taking them into account in any argument is perfectly respectable, indeed laudable. However, the purpose of this is (as far as possible) to minimise the irrational, personal, and small minded attitudes from the argument. Not as an excuse for perpetrating them.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Furthermore, we can pick the kooks in each other's groups or past failings in history and exclaim the failings in general. But such usually entails ignoring large aspects of either side's more well founded viewpoints. Both sides have their failings. Millions have been killed by religious regimes. And millions have been killed by atheistic regimes. One can choose to ignore either set of data. Or one can re-evaluate to a more correct statement of "millions have been killed by human regimes".


Ah – a straw man argument. Recast a totalitarian regime intent on domination of other power centres (such as the church) as “atheistic” and then blame the absence of belief in god as a reason for the deaths.

I think, however (even ignoring logical inadequacies), that your argument works against you. The fact that other types of regime have been brutal does not justify your supporting a regime that kills and persecutes millions.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Most everyone believes their views to be logically sound and scientific. If we didn't, we wouldn't hold to them.


Erm – I thought that you were openly scathing of the scientific method, preferring to believe theories for which there is no objectively identifiable evidence and to trust in the stories of your forefathers, your internal feelings, anecdotal evidence and "self evident truths" over the evidence that does exist?

Message edited by author 2007-07-31 12:21:58.
10/05/2007 01:55:36 AM · #10
Originally posted by Matthew:



Such confused thinking. Evolution ... reflects the ongoing competition for limited resources between many billions of types of life in billions of different environmental settings which have encouraged specialisation.


Even this is not quite right. Both you and Saj, I think, have the common misperception about evolution that comes from the unfortunate phrase "Survival of the Fittest".

Many people incorrectly construe this as a competition between individuals or species over limited resources, or that it results in fewer species over time.

Neither of these ideas is really correct.

What evolution is about is how some populations develop traits that allow them to more successfully out procreate other members of a population.

This can come about by developing an adaptation to the environment, or it can even be be the development of traits that make competing for survival more difficult, but that increase the odds of passing on more copies of their genes than the previous version, if you will.

An example of the latter would be showy plumage, or large antlers, or even small size. There things are attractive to potential mates, or allow a sneaky male to impregnate a female while larger males fight it out. So, the trait outperforms the increased potential of the individual to be predated upon. Eventually, you end up with Birds of Paradise.

As different species emerge, it does not necessarily mean that the previous versions disappear, or disappear quickly. Evolution looks like the branches on a bush. Sometimes the branch just keeps splitting, but much of the time lines die out.

And sometimes the original branch doesn't split much at all. You see this in animals like crocodiles and turtles, for example. They looked the same 250 million years ago as they do now. Which is pretty intriguing.
10/05/2007 02:06:01 AM · #11
Originally posted by gingerbaker:

There things are attractive to potential mates, or allow a sneaky male to impregnate a female while larger males fight it out.


Food for thought :-)

Leroy 5'6 or 1.68 meters :-D

Message edited by author 2007-10-05 02:11:11.
10/05/2007 03:52:39 AM · #12
Food for thought...' . substr('//www.kpriest.com/dpchallenge/sm/popcorn.gif', strrpos('//www.kpriest.com/dpchallenge/sm/popcorn.gif', '/') + 1) . '
10/05/2007 04:46:53 AM · #13
If interested in evolution I'd suggest reading the The Selfish Gene. Although the fields of genetics and memetics have moved on considerable since it was written, it still provides valuable food for thought and is accessible by the layperson. If people are going to comment on issues I think it only fair they do a bit of research first. Hey, you never know, this could be the start of a DPC book club...

Message edited by author 2007-10-05 04:58:30.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/28/2021 10:53:09 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/28/2021 10:53:09 AM EDT.