Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Quality > quantity.
An uber-species has emerged so other species must give ground.
An evolution question
- Thread starter Homie
- Start date
Quality > quantity.
An uber-species has emerged so other species must give ground.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I think the emergence of man doesn't register in millions of years.
And the source you provided earlier stated they're not rare.
edit: For your new post, so now you agree that there's less biodiversity?
I'm not following you at all.
And the source you provided earlier stated they're not rare.
edit: For your new post, so now you agree that there's less biodiversity?
I'm not following you at all.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
When dinosaurs ruled the Earth, mammals struggled to survive, digging holes in the ground to avoid being eaten.
Now the mammals strike back.
Of course we should preserve all of these species which are useful.
Now the mammals strike back.
Of course we should preserve all of these species which are useful.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
A mammal. Singular. We're still happily killing of other mammals.
And fish. You're going to blame dinosaurs on fish now? That's unfair!
And fish. You're going to blame dinosaurs on fish now? That's unfair!
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
NO! I really love fish.
============================
Don't get me wrong - we should take care of our environment. Mostly because we live in it, and we can't live without it.
And of course I like the diversity of animals - who doesn't?
Nature is beautiful and we like observing it, so we need to preserve it for future generations. But humans are a priority.
Fish can be nasty too! Watch River Monsters with Jeremy Wade.
Spoiler :
============================
Don't get me wrong - we should take care of our environment. Mostly because we live in it, and we can't live without it.
And of course I like the diversity of animals - who doesn't?
Nature is beautiful and we like observing it, so we need to preserve it for future generations. But humans are a priority.
Fish can be nasty too! Watch River Monsters with Jeremy Wade.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
The we better make sure there are enough flavours to go around 
Gary Childress
Student for and of life
There have been more than a couple "mass-extinctions" in the fossil history. However, the mass extinctions were followed by new branches of evolution. The dinosaurs gave way to mammals. The fact that species become extinct does not disprove evolution. QED.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
True, true. There are efficient methods of ensuring this. No-fishing zones have proven themselves to work well.
Fish can safely reproduce in such zones, and then they happily migrate to other areas, not expecting anything.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Life is life anyway. A human shares as much as 30% - 40% of DNA even with an onion. We are all built from the same "blocks of life". Classification of living things into species and sub-species is always a bit arbitrary. It is especially hard to draw the line when you are dealing with several similar species.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I think ability to reproduce is the distinction. Not really that arbitrary. Might be wrong though. Happened once before.
And think about ordering fish in a restaurant. You'd like to get the right one. You must keep in mind the menu when thinking of the importance of classifying species. At least according to taste
And think about ordering fish in a restaurant. You'd like to get the right one. You must keep in mind the menu when thinking of the importance of classifying species. At least according to taste
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
That's because we've essentially stepped out of the food pyramid and said to the rest of nature: "Listen up everyone, humanity is no longer an animal. We can now talk and use our opposing thumbs to do what we want. We need lebensraum for our species, so move aside you stupid panda."
And of course being human we didn't have an actual plan for how we wanted to rebuild the planet in our image, we've just sort of been building a city here and there, maybe a bridge, hoping that it'll all somehow magically fit and work and that we'll end up with a civilization. And we've somehow done it against all odds... but it hasn't gone so brilliantly for the plants and the animals. They are now our servants, our food, and whatever the hell we really want, and for the most part we've taken a big giant dump on the entire food pyramid and mother nature itself.
So I guess what I'm trying to say, is that we need some sort of a plan. We're here, we're still multiplying, and we need a plan. Otherwise a lot of stuff is going to die out and life will survive, but it won't be nearly as interesting and amazing. Because really, isn't nature amazing? I mean, look at it.. Butterflies, frogs, leafs.. Plants that eat insects! It's almost a miracle. Maybe we should figure out how to not destroy it all with our crap.
I share this sentiment. It's one of those things you need to be careful when you say it, 'cause people will try to misinterpret it.
The value of an ecosystem to me is through its ability to enable human flourishing. Now, I care about sustainability, so the co-opting of an ecosystem (including causing extinctions) needs to have both short-term benefits for people while still being able to provide the ecosystem benefits in the future. So, if a set of extinctions will cause a long-term deficit, those extinctions probably shouldn't be allowed. But, if they're harmless in the long run and beneficial in the short-run? Ehn. And if they're beneficial in both the long and short run (I'm looking at you, polio), double ehn.
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
Here here! Although to be fair don't people argue things like polio and other viruses aren't actually alive?
We should do what we can to protect species biodiversity but not at major risk to humans overall. And as for the OP (yea I know years ago) - there have been "new" species classified over the last hundred years that didn't exist before, most of those have been insects at abandoned nuclear plants/sites.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
We don't have a plan for the species or the planet. At best we have regional plans. For the most part each human is doing as he/she wishes, and doesn't contribute to some sort of a grand vision for humanity.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Behold! The evolution of the Zombie Thread...
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
And I thought I was going senile for not remembering this thread when I have apparently made some posts here.
Well that kind of cuts to one of the big debates in evolutionary biology, right? What is the fundamental unit of evolution? Is it the individual as represented in his specific genome? Or is it the individuals genes that thrive or die in the ecosystem comprised of the other genes they find themselves with?
I still haven't finished Selfish Gene or Extended Phenotype, but I'm finding the gene's eye view of evolution very compelling.
Well, if we keep on keepin' on like we've done so far we will definitely leave an ugly scar in the fossil record. Millions of years from now biologists will be able to assign a cause to the massive changes in the biosphere we've already wrought. Our extinctions don't compare to the level of the Permian or K/T, but it's already far more than a footnote.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I would say our genes. After all, all we are are transport vessels for the genes, and not much else, from an evolutionary point of view. I've read the Selfish Gene, maybe that's where I'm getting that from.
Similar threads
- Poll
