Question about mankind.

[aborgman]

Living in constructed homes means that not only have we eliminated most of our natural predators, but we can thrive in environments that were too harsh for our ancestors to survive in.

Humans post civilization don't survive anywhere that pre-civilization humans did not.

 

[aborgman]

Have you or your fruends ever conducted an experiment whereby something evolved and you got repeatable results as compared to the control?

Yes.

I've personally observed speciation in a microbiology lab.


We basically recreated this:

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

It involves the speciation of Chlorella vulgaris by predation from Ochromonas sp. It goes from being a unicellular blue-green algae to a multi-cellular Coelosphaerium (which is a cyanobacteria).

 

[stankepanck]

The Earth is in no way being harmed by us. We may be making it worse on ourselves (all living beings not just humans) but the earth will still be here when we are gone. That is until the sun burns it up (which IS going to happen eventually). So all of this "save the earth" crap is more like we need to save ourselves crap. The Earth will probably do just fine without us inhabiting it.

 

[slobake]

The Earth is in no way being harmed by us. We may be making it worse on ourselves (all living beings not just humans) but the earth will still be here when we are gone. That is until the sun burns it up (which IS going to happen eventually). So all of this "save the earth" crap is more like we need to save ourselves crap. The Earth will probably do just fine without us inhabiting it.

I still don't want to crap in my bed, I would like to keep things here on earth clean and healthy for me and my children. I know there are some things I can't do anything about but there are other things I choose to do.
Simple stuff like not throwing my garbage around for others to pick up, riding my bike when I can, turning off lights when I am not using them, recycling. I also try and conserve water mainly by paying attention to what I am doing. If I am shaving or washing dishes I turn the water off when I am not using it. When I take a shower I get wet, turn off the shower, soap up then turn the shower back on and rinse.
These are some of the things I do others may do different things. All I can do is my part.

 

[aborgman]

Just for the record (for people with a genuine interest in biology), humans are more genetically similar to African species of apes than those apes are to Asian apes. We share a more recent common ancestor. For example, we are more closely related to both gorillas and chimpanzees than those apes are to orangutans. Given four individuals, one from each of those species, the orangutan would be the odd one out.

Invalid Link Removed

There is also more genetic variation among Africans in Africa than there is total in all the other human ethnicities in the world.

In other words - Europeans are likely to be more closely genetically related to Asians than one tribe of Africans is to another tribe of Africans just a small geographic distance away.

 

[BassyBill]

A great, and often under appreciated mind, taken too soon.

Yes, true. He was a hero of mine for so many reasons. Very sadly missed here, more than I can put into words.

People often knock the film adaptation of his HHGTTG, and it certainly had its weak points. But one of the ways it succeeded was by reflecting the real concern Douglas had for conservation and biodiversity (as revealed in his book "Last Chance To See").

It's so tragic Douglas never got to see the film, he would have loved some aspects of it (while being angry to the point of apoplexy about others ).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc6aufHz-i0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylUsrEuryJ0

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

Yeah, it really wasn't an argument. Just some insight into what I've thought about, and generally how I explain those thoughts when asked, although modified due to what this forum does/doesn't allow. Let's face it, we are not the first people to discuss this and we're probably not the brightest minds that have ever done so. At least I know I'm not.

I have enjoyed this thread immensely, though. It's great to see what people are thinking, and it's been pretty tame so far.

I hold an opposing viewpoint but it's really nice to see somebody who has thought about this and expresses it in a way that is courteous and discussive.

Both sides are very swamped in their viewpoint and it does get out of hand. I've not participated in this thread much because I can get pretty heated (and I know it) but allow me to praise you on your manner - if I could be so bold!

As for Douglas Adams? I quote his work constantly. Such a wonderful mind.

 

[BayStateBass]

I hold an opposing viewpoint but it's really nice to see somebody who has thought about this and expresses it in a way that is courteous and discussive.

Both sides are very swamped in their viewpoint and it does get out of hand. I've not participated in this thread much because I can get pretty heated (and I know it) but allow me to praise you on your manner - if I could be so bold!

As for Douglas Adams? I quote his work constantly. Such a wonderful mind.

Well, to put it "delicately", I am where I am and believe what I believe because I opened myself up to listening to things that, in the past, I had written off. I'm always open to considering what others have to say, especially in philosophical discussions. Where I draw the line is when the conversation tries to justify hate or harm, for the most part. Those I can't get behind.

"Only Sith deal in absolutes".....

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

What is thy bidding, my master...?

 

[-Asdfgh-]

So what is science's answer for the origin of the universe prior to its Big Bangy?

The conventional answer is that space and time did not exist therefore prior has no meaning.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

When I take a shower I get wet, turn off the shower, soap up then turn the shower back on and rinse.

I had never even thought of this as an option until now.

 

[BawanaRik]

I still don't want to crap in my bed, I would like to keep things here on earth clean and healthy for me and my children. I know there are some things I can't do anything about but there are other things I choose to do.
Simple stuff like not throwing my garbage around for others to pick up, riding my bike when I can, turning off lights when I am not using them, recycling. I also try and conserve water mainly by paying attention to what I am doing. If I am shaving or washing dishes I turn the water off when I am not using it. When I take a shower I get wet, turn off the shower, soap up then turn the shower back on and rinse.
These are some of the things I do others may do different things. All I can do is my part.

Save water. Shower with a friend.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Wait... you guys shower... on purpose?

Around these parts nature provides that every other day on the way to work :-/

 

[Tituscrow]

Yes, true. He was a hero of mine for so many reasons. Very sadly missed here, more than I can put into words.



People often knock the film adaptation of his HHGTTG, and it certainly had its weak points. But one of the ways it succeeded was by reflecting the real concern Douglas had for conservation and biodiversity (as revealed in his book "Last Chance To See").



It's so tragic Douglas never got to see the film, he would have loved some aspects of it (while being angry to the point of apoplexy about others ).



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc6aufHz-i0



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylUsrEuryJ0

Douglas Adams was a giant of a man. A phenomenally intellectual yet deeply humble man, who had such a beautiful way of using the gift of language to engage people in thought about the universe and our place in it.

His humour was gut-crunchingly funny, and his ability to phrase the most ridiculous of ideas was utterly peerless.

He may be dead, but his work had - and still has - a profound effect on me.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

This would be a fairly compelling argument if:

A) Our existence had significance (we like to think we're important, admittedly but I haven't heard too many non-humans saying that humans aren't very important)
B) It didn't fall into the same traps as other examples of the "anthropic principle."

...and of course, if the watch were created by an intelligent being, who was intelligent enough to create that being?

 

[bluesblaster]

Douglas Adams was a giant of a man. A phenomenally intellectual yet deeply humble man, who had such a beautiful way of using the gift of language to engage people in thought about the universe and our place in it.

His humour was gut-crunchingly funny, and his ability to phrase the most ridiculous of ideas was utterly peerless.

He may be dead, but his work had - and still has - a profound effect on me.

"Life ? dont talk to me about life" ................. classic !!!

 

[Unrepresented]

...and of course, if the watch were created by an intelligent being, who was intelligent enough to create that being?

"And in further concern about the accuracy of the film, wouldn't Jabba the Hutt's attraction to Leia be considered bestiality?"

 

[96tbird]

Well, this is essentially what leads me to say that global warming or climate change, whatever it is this week, is fundamentally inconsequential whether humans are causing or not. The earth has endured many catastrophes far greater than glacials and interglacials. There have been several extinctions of most life on earth, all prior to the evolution of us, arguably the most advanced life form ever.

So, bottom line, the earth doesn't care about global warming. Humans are concerned with humans, and some humans play like it's about the earth as a whole, but really it's about humans. In the long run, humans can't even begin to impact the earth as much as one large asteroid or a massive volcanic eruption would.

Now I will say it one more time: If this is natural warming, there's not a single thing we can do about it but move to higher ground. My personal opinion is that whether or not humans are causing it or contributing to it, the scales have already been tipped, and reversing it is probably not possible. If that's the case, we're better off spending our time planning for it than figuring out ways to reverse it.

I know you just said that.

Thank you sir Geologist. Last time I proposed this idea, it was not taken seriously and frankly discarded because some here think they are correct about anything that can't be cited. They apparently aren't open to the ponderings of a finance officer that looks at the catastrophic past earth events and says "Hey, perhaps the world ain't gonna die from us belching the same crap a volcano (or hundreds at once, as in the past epochs) does.

Finally someone with decades if experience and observation AND CREDENTIALS has weighed in and given an educated opinion.

The idea applies to evolution as well, no matter what the source pressures in a population, species come and go; another adapts to the niche. If pressures are from an ice age, so be it. If from a predator; so be it. If from encroachment of a food or range competitor, so be it.

In no way am I suggesting that trophy hunting is acceptable. I'm not saying poisoning wetlands is acceptable. The developed world no longer supports or allows over harvesting or trophy hunting. It is sad when impressive species dissapear, but it is not outside the limits of nature itself, that is at once, both supporting life and tearing life down.

 

[Unrepresented]

Thank you sir Geologist. Last time I proposed this idea, it was not taken seriously and frankly discarded because some here think they are correct about anything that can't be cited. They apparently aren't open to the ponderings of a finance officer that looks at the catastrophic past earth events and says "Hey, perhaps the world ain't gonna die from us belching the same crap a volcano (or hundreds at once, as in the past epochs) does.

Finally someone with decades if experience and observation AND CREDENTIALS has weighed in and given an educated opinion.

The idea applies to evolution as well, no matter what the source pressures in a population, species come and go; another adapts to the niche. If pressures are from an ice age, so be it. If from a predator; so be it. If from encroachment of a food or range competitor, so be it.

In no way am I suggesting that trophy hunting is acceptable. I'm not saying poisoning wetlands is acceptable. The developed world no longer supports or allows over harvesting or trophy hunting. It is sad when impressive species dissapear, but it is not outside the limits of nature itself, that is at once, both supporting life and tearing life down.

Are you familiar with the term "confirmation bias?"

You've had pages of experts on the field cited and then the one who you agree with suddenly is the lone trustworthy expert?

 

[96tbird]

Nothing cited here specifically addressed Munji's thoughts on earth history, rather, the time period of fossil fuel use through to future projections. None of it has addressed the idea that nature itself is a heavy duty bone crusher as evidenced in past cataclysms and as evidenced in the geological and fossil records, therefore your objection is moot.