Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
05-22-2003, 10:27 AM | #41 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,504
|
Quote:
Peez |
|
05-22-2003, 10:31 AM | #42 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,504
|
Quote:
Quote:
Peez |
||
05-22-2003, 11:00 AM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 719
|
Quote:
*diabolical laughter* Yeah, it actually seems that humans might very well be able to cling to life even if the majority of the species were wiped out. Our intelligence allows us to plan, scheme, make tools, and survive. Our language allows us to pass on our knowledge to our offspring and to coordinate efficiently with other survivors. We might just be as robust as, dare I say it, the cockroach (I know, I know, that's some pretty elite company) and the twinkie. Then again, who knows what will happen in the future...we very well might find a way to make the planet unsuitable for any life. Or we might live in a happy communist Star Trek world (no reason to be overly pessimistic, right?). |
|
05-22-2003, 11:35 AM | #44 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SouthEastern US
Posts: 1,165
|
Quote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong... |
|
05-22-2003, 11:39 AM | #45 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NCSU
Posts: 5,853
|
Quote:
|
|
05-22-2003, 11:46 AM | #46 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SouthEastern US
Posts: 1,165
|
So competition among individuals in a population override competition with environmental factors?
For the record, I'm not a geneticist or a biologist. My gig is distributing electrons in an orderly, controlled manner. However, one of the last articles I read on Neanderthals suggested their extinction was due to the inability to adapt to climactic change. Another example that comes to mind. The Starling.. (referred to in this area as the 'black bird'). It was introduced into our environment to rid the area of some sort of nuisance insect. The environment suited it so well... the dammm things have taken over. So.. which predominates natural selection? competition among indiviuals within a population, or competition with environmental factors? Just curious. If we were attacked with an advance strain of black plague, wouldn't survival be determined by resistance to the disease, rather than competition among each other? |
05-22-2003, 11:49 AM | #47 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SouthEastern US
Posts: 1,165
|
Quote:
What do we do with those pesky Klingon thingies????? |
|
05-22-2003, 12:07 PM | #48 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NCSU
Posts: 5,853
|
Quote:
|
|
05-22-2003, 12:11 PM | #49 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SouthEastern US
Posts: 1,165
|
Quote:
yep.... And since mankind is doing quite a number on fucking up our environment... Back to my original assertion... Extinction or near-extinction would be our next evolutionary step... |
|
05-22-2003, 12:52 PM | #50 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Just another hick from the sticks.
Posts: 1,108
|
Quote:
The starling was introduced in the 1800s by a homesick (and wealthy) immigrent, who wanted to have all of the birds mentioned by Shakspear around him. As I recall, it took several tries and a number of years to get a stable population going. I think the guy's name was Emil something. It's been a lot of years since I read that, and I have no ready reference. But, it sounds like something an idiot, H. sapiens would do. Near extinction is really only pre-extinction. If our population(s) becomes too small and/or isolated from others,, our species is history. We survive so well because we are the among the greatest non-specialists this world has ever seen. It does put us up there, close to the cockroach, doesn't it? doov |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|