Nature target 'will not be met'
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 367.9: 3-Dimensional Generalization of Catalan Numbers By France (applications to Quark Triples)
Next: Reckless the Reason
From: 1141 on 22 May 2010 13:43 >> ### - our planet seems to be going baldy heh (you say evolving, i say >> devolving, i >> wonder who's correct :) > > The intricate interplay allows for both to happen simultaniously. Devolving? Honestly, did sleep through high school biology? Or heaven forbid, pass a college-level biology course? "Evolution" is the selection of species in response to environmental pressures. It's taking WHAT'S ALREADY THERE and KILLING OFF THE WEAK. I'm not saying reducing biodiversity is a good thing, but I can tell you the species that come out of it will be better able to cope with whatever nature (or us) throws at them. I'm all for preserving the environment, but honestly, no matter what we do, nuclear holocausts included, nature will survive us, it will adapt, and ultimately it will return whatever damage we do to normal. Our CO2 footprints are nothing compared to ice ages and giant asteroids. 1141
From: slider on 22 May 2010 13:58 1141 wrote... >>> ### - our planet seems to be going baldy heh (you say evolving, i say >>> devolving, i wonder who's correct :) >> >> The intricate interplay allows for both to happen simultaniously. > > Devolving? Honestly, did sleep through high school biology? Or heaven forbid, > pass a college-level biology course? > > "Evolution" is the selection of species in response to environmental pressures. > It's taking WHAT'S ALREADY THERE and KILLING OFF THE WEAK. I'm not saying > reducing biodiversity is a good thing, but I can tell you the species that come > out of it will be better able to cope with whatever nature (or us) throws at > them. ### - artificial radiation is not good, but then well they 'do' say that 'two' heads are much better than one! ;-) > I'm all for preserving the environment, but honestly, no matter what we do, > nuclear holocausts included, nature will survive us, it will adapt, and > ultimately it will return whatever damage we do to normal. Our CO2 footprints > are nothing compared to ice ages and giant asteroids. ### - hmm i dunno, sterilisation doesn't exactly bode well for diversity, but i guess you're basically right though in that given a couple of billion years or so everything would be just about back to where it was before we humans ever happened upon the scene to naff it all up with our ridiculously avaricious ways... so yeah no biggie, i mean what's a couple billion years here or there :) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Androcles on 22 May 2010 14:37 "1141" <japlin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bc7d5$4bf817bf$40eeac9d$9198(a)gru.com... | "Evolution" is the selection of species in response to environmental | pressures. True. | It's taking WHAT'S ALREADY THERE and KILLING OFF THE WEAK. False. All species survive until something kills them off. The mammoth was not weak, it succumbed to environmental pressures. The Bengal tiger is not weak, it is succumbing to environmental pressures. The strong, cunning and fleet-of-foot fox is adapting to city life by foraging black plastic bags of discarded food instead of hunting, leaving the weak rabbits to multiply in the countryside as the fox gets fat. Evolution is survival of the serendipitous.
From: 1141 on 23 May 2010 01:36 > | It's taking WHAT'S ALREADY THERE and KILLING OFF THE WEAK. > > False. All species survive until something kills them off. The mammoth > was not weak, it succumbed to environmental pressures. The Bengal tiger > is not weak, it is succumbing to environmental pressures. The strong, > cunning and fleet-of-foot fox is adapting to city life by foraging black > plastic bags of discarded food instead of hunting, leaving the weak > rabbits to multiply in the countryside as the fox gets fat. > Evolution is survival of the serendipitous. > It's a matter of terms; I chose a bad one. My point was, in any environmental change, such as an ice age, those least able to deal with the change will die out first. The "weakness" is only in regard to that circumstance. In an ice age, for example, those not able to survive in the cold or find food in the snow will be the "weakest" in that particular circumstance. The evolution here is those members of a species that are able to survive in the new conditions reproducing and passing on those genes which allowed them to survive, thus creating a population better suited to the current conditions. Similarly, human pollution and environmental destruction will kill off susceptible individuals and species, leaving the "stronger" (i.e., able to survive in these conditions) to reproduce and create "evolved" races. Seeing how even the worst of nuclear holocausts could never completely sterilize the planet, anything we do will eventually be overcome by nature. Life goes on. 1141
From: slider on 23 May 2010 03:13
1141 wrote... > Seeing how even the worst of nuclear holocausts could never completely sterilize > the planet, anything we do will eventually be overcome by nature. > > Life goes on. ### - in the worst of nuclear holocausts all that would likely survive would be nothing bigger than cockroaches and ants or something no? and so okay not 'total' sterilisation, but just how long it would take for mammals the size of elephants and humans to again evolve from insects and bacteria/viruses, would probably be a very long time indeed, if at all... quite apart from the fact that the rise of mammalian life originally was just a lucky fluke... so life doesn't necessarily just "go on" :) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |