Man, this is like teaching a class--I should be getting paid.
Ah well, here we go:
bossel said:
Natural, maybe, but not very common. Species hunted to extinction almost only happens when a new predator is suddenly introduced to a new environment, eg. cats on some island.
Actually, that's a common misconception. Life is a constant struggle for survival--this is one of the mechanisms that makes evolution work. As a result, there is a continious shifting of dominace up and down the various food chains--some species are edged out quickly, others thrive for long periods of time. True, the effect is more noticable--and gets more press--when we are directly or indirectly responsible for it, so we generally only hear about situations where humans have introduced a new species and changed the balance of the local ecosystem. But contrary to common belief, evolution is a constant process that occurs by small incriments with each generation--it does not sit still for centuries and then create entirely new species overnight, but rather it is redesigning the existing species every day, and it only takes a small advantage to tip the balance one way or another, leading one species to extinction, and another to dominance.
bossel said:
As what I put was in reaction to your "ends all life on earth..." this doesn't hold water in this regard. Dire consequences for mankind is by far not as improbable as you seem to think, if part of the marine ecosystem collapses.
True, but the marine ecosystem is quite simply not going to collapse without someting much more drastic than whaling behind it. While it is essentialy the first step in the global ecosystem, it is also the oldest and most refined--and not an easy thing to throw out of balance.
To be honest, I only put that "end of all life on earth" scenario in there to avoid having one of these uninformed environmentalists bring it up. I figured I'd just point out it's irrelevancy to the argument and avoid having to challenge one of the key faiths upon which environmentalism is built with
logic as my only weapon.
bossel said:
I see where you're coming from.
I hope so--many people are sadly misinformed about quantum physics and veiw those who study it with the same suspicion usually reserved for religious cults...
...but as I said before--that's a heated debate for another thread.
bossel said:
Can't see your point. Do you mean we should stop thinking about evolution? Or that we shouldn't interfere with evolution (which is almost impossible)?
Not that we should stop thinking about it--just that we should stop trying to
act on those thoughts without a complete understanding...
...I should point out that a complete understanding of the global ecosystem is likely to be far beyond us at this point.
bossel said:
Nope, didn't misunderstand, I extrapolated your point.
That wasn't an extrapolation--that was a distortion. Survival of the individual without concern for the species is nearly a complete reversal. You could argue that--extrapolating outward--survival of the species at the expense of the ecosystem is just as harmful, but ecosystems are not as fragile as most people seem to think they are.
Being a species that reproduces sexually, individual survival actually works against us--as it causes older, entrenched versions to compete with the new, more evolved generation.
bossel said:
Actually, you're mistaken on that--this is precicesly the reason why death became nessecary in the first place. Although a more evolved species
should be able to win out in a struggle for survival against a less evolved version--that being one of the reasons it is said to be "evolved", rather than a genetic dead end--if the older generation never dies off, the pressure for space and food would eventually kill both versions of the species, and likely take out a good number of other species in the proccess.
As such, it is nessecary for members of a sexually-reproducing species to survive, reproduce, and then make room for the next generation. The test of the next generation is not competing against it's predicessors directly, but rather in surpassing their performance...
...ah.
I've just read the rest of your responses--apparently this is another matter that discussion will not solve.
While you are correct in that whales are an
order and not a single species, I deliberately chose to
not use exact teminology in the interest of conversation.
The differance between a
species and an
order is not a part of common vernacular--and for the purposes of that statement it was not nessecary to be quite so technical:
Someone not intimately familiar with the subject would still understand my meaning--and someone who recognized the differance should have been able to see my point remained valid regardless of my using less than formal terminology...
...however, judging from the rest of your statements after this point, you seem more interested in finding a flaw of grammar to attack than in actualy having a rational debate--and your lack of understanding about the principles of evolution doesn't help either.
I'm fresh off dealing with strongvoicesforward, and though you aren't
nearly as bad, I really don't feel like attemting once again to have a debate with someone who doesn't fully understand what he's talking about and yet is unshakeably convinced of the validity of his own opinions...
...surely they didn't teach you that "Evolution is in most cases a matter of 100,000s if not millions of years." in school? I know schools here in the US are in a pretty sad state--but it can't be
that bad all over?
Well, for my peace of mind, I'll assume you got that little falsehood from one of the X-Men movies.
Anyway, I really don't feel like spending the energy necessary to prove you wrong on this--please read a current book on evolution and PM me when you're ready to continue the debate--or just call me a pompus *** who doesn't know what he's talking about, I really don't care.
I
am more than a little arrogant--but the books in my library say I'm also more than a little
right.