|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,079
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,079 |
Quote:
Man is responsible for an ungodly loss of wildlife habitat and the slaughter of animals near the point of extinction. To call it nonsense and to call those that recognize this "environmental nut jobs" is being ignorant to the facts at hand.
Posts such as these are why we need a "like" button on these boards.
In the absence of such, I'll simply say:
+1
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,581
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,581 |
Quote:
Quote:
This is little more than a rationalization of our pollution and destruction.
With that said... I'm not really looking to save the whales at this point. For what? A novelty? To feel better? So I can look at it in a box or listen to David Attenborough talk about them?
We've either destroyed or taken over a lot of these species ecosystems... there's not much point in keeping them around, sadly. We don't really interact with them outside of the fact that we want them to live for posterity.
Are you SERIOUS?!?!?! This could be one of the saddest things I have ever read on this board. 
You have to understand that Phil is pretty anal in his thoughts.
Though I do understand his point. It's not like we use whale oil to light our lamps and I'd say nearly none of us have eaten whale meat even once, let alone to sustain, but on the other hand I understand the other side of the coin. It isn't cool to exterminate a species.....
I wouldn't mind if we got rid of mosquitoes. I am not sure what they do as a benefit....knats are in the same boat IMO.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
I think what Phil is, perhaps, is pretty much emotionless. There are a couple of others like that here. They have no use for what many of us feel and sense and get excited about. If it can't be part of some intellectual exercise it's stupid and meaningless. All of us who allow emotion to be part of our perceptions or allow something other than cold hard "facts" to affect us are morons. I don't mean that as an attack, that's how he comes across to me. I don't dislike him at all, that's just the way he presents himself. I have a difficult time relating to those types of people.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
You have to understand that Phil is pretty anal in his thoughts.
Though I do understand his point. It's not like we use whale oil to light our lamps and I'd say nearly none of us have eaten whale meat even once, let alone to sustain, but on the other hand I understand the other side of the coin. It isn't cool to exterminate a species.....
I wouldn't mind if we got rid of mosquitoes. I am not sure what they do as a benefit....knats are in the same boat IMO.
I would choose ticks.  Thing is, there are far fewer whales than either of those insects. Just because they aren't "useful" to humans doesn't mean they are expendable, in my opinion. And, I believe every species is useful in some way (though those two insects, plus fleas) have me wondering. 
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
Quote:
Man is responsible for an ungodly loss of wildlife habitat and the slaughter of animals near the point of extinction. To call it nonsense and to call those that recognize this "environmental nut jobs" is being ignorant to the facts at hand.
Posts such as these are why we need a "like" button on these boards.
In the absence of such, I'll simply say:
+1
I agree....LIKE!
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Look, I'm not advocating that. It's just what's happening.
It's not being emotionless, it's being practical about a matter I have little control over.
If it were up to me, we'd put two of every species on an ark so that they can all survive.
But that's not going to happen. I've thrown some coins at some environmental groups, but in the long run, it's not going to do much in the way of helping the main root of the problem - the takeover and/or destruction of ecosystems.
We live in a society that's dictated by market-logic...if you don't need them, why extend yourself?
And again, let me say point blank that this isn't what I'm advocating, or how I feel. It's just what's happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
[EDIT: I posted this before I read your latest reply, PDR] Quote:
I think what Phil is, perhaps, is pretty much emotionless. There are a couple of others like that here. They have no use for what many of us feel and sense and get excited about. If it can't be part of some intellectual exercise it's stupid and meaningless. All of us who allow emotion to be part of our perceptions or allow something other than cold hard "facts" to affect us are morons. I don't mean that as an attack, that's how he comes across to me. I don't dislike him at all, that's just the way he presents himself. I have a difficult time relating to those types of people.
I always find PDR to be thought provoking. I doubt he is emotionless. He just places high value on rationality, as I do. So, if it can be rationally demonstrated that protecting endangered species is a valuable thing to do, he would probably change his opinion.
PDR wrote:
Quote:
We don't really interact with them outside of the fact that we want them to live for posterity.
I think this is simply wrong. If this was the extent of our interest in endangered animals, zoos would be deserted and we wouldn't have all of these animal shows on tv. People care about these animals for much more than simply preserving them for preservation's sake. I used to believe that there was no value in intervening to preserve animal species for the very reasons that Jake gave on page one. I have subsequently come to reject that belief on the grounds that it is aesthetically impoverished. The aesthetic sensibility, the part of us that responds in some way to sensations and experiences derived from sensations, is a necessary component for living well.
If you deny this, you probably haven't given much attention to just how crucial aesthetic experiences are in your life. It's easy to do in a culture that is so dogmatically utilitarian -- e.g., all that really matters is economic success, or something along those lines. Especially in the current American culture, all that is important is what you do. The passiveness of experiencing things that possess no material value seems pointless. But I think it only seems pointless because we take the enrichment of the spirit for granted. I very much doubt that PDR and Jake would want to live in a world deprived of the non-material pleasures in life; they just might not realize it because we often don't miss these things until they are gone.
Now, I know someone is going to respond with "But why do we need something specific like whales to indulge the aesthetic sensibility and enhancing spiritual enrichment?" My reply would be that variety is essential for a powerful and meaningful aesthetic experience, and while the loss of one whale species might seem insignificant amidst the number of things from which we can derive non-material value and spiritual enrichment, I am not keen on nonchalantly crossing things off the list without a good idea of the long term effects it will have on this very important aspect of our lives.
You might have noticed that this is basic conservative logic. Yes, it's true, real conservatives are naturally conservationists, not "environmental nuts" as Jake so cavalierly phrased it. Ironically, I take it from his other posts that Jake believes himself to be a conservative; but anyone who discounts the spiritual aspect of human existence cannot lay claim to that title, a lesson some of the "conservatives" on this board need to learn.
Last edited by Mantis; 07/31/13 09:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Well, I'm not surprised at your response....you were one of the others I was thinking about when I said that.  Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe someday you all will show me otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Haha, well I'm not so severe in person.... at least I don't think I am.  In my last post, though, I'm defending things like non-material values, spiritual enrichment, and irrational aesthetic experience. Doesn't that humanize me at all in your eyes?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Then again, they might invite you over for whale stew too,
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
I think lately I have noticed you've softened a bit. I hope that doesn't offend you. I guess I have a different perspective on this. I don't care if these things have an affect on my life. I don't care if they have a "purpose" for humans, or if they have any purpose at all. They live on this Earth and I think everything belongs. Now, I do understand that we kill things and that we need to control the population of some species, and we can all argue where the limit is, but I see no reason to destroy to the point of extinction, or real detriment, most of what we share the planet with....besides mosquitoes and fleas.....and Bengals fans. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Quote:
I think lately I have noticed you've softened a bit. I hope that doesn't offend you.
Hm... I wonder if that has anything to do with anarchy2day not posting as much lately. That guy brings out the worst in me... which is no excuse. If you ever think I'm being a jerk, call be out on it. It's too easy to slip into that persona on a message board, even when it's not intentional.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
We are all jerks in our own way. That's what makes us so loveable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
Just finished reading about mosquitos http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.htmlI figured since they are so abundant they must serve some ecological purpose. The long and short of it is that they are environmentally useless bloodsuckers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
So, if it can be rationally demonstrated that protecting endangered species is a valuable thing to do, he would probably change his opinion.
I never said it wasn't.
I said I'm not looking to save the whales. It doesn't mean I don't care, or don't see the value...I'm just waiving the white flag. That fight is a losing battle.
At this point, for a lot of species, victory is a zoo or a sanctuary. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I don't consider it 'saving the environment'. I understand that there are instances where it can help a species survive. I'm not crapping on it's value.
I'm merely saying at this point, it's pretty clear that most people don't care, and while I wish the 'save the whales' crowd well, I think there's bigger fish to fry (or save).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
Quote:
Mankind is responsible for a very tiny and insignificant percent of the extinctions on earth.
61 species according to Wikipedia. I think deforestation is the biggest player in potential biodiversity loss. Not even factoring in a rapidly changing climate, forests are subject to the needs of a constantly growing, consuming human population.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,581
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,581 |
Quote:
Just finished reading about mosquitos http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
I figured since they are so abundant they must serve some ecological purpose. The long and short of it is that they are environmentally useless bloodsuckers.
Pretty much what I thought. Kill 'em
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
Quote:
I figured since they are so abundant they must serve some ... purpose. The long and short of it is that they are ... useless bloodsuckers.
So, they're like Democrats?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
Quote:
Quote:
I figured since they are so abundant they must serve some ... purpose. The long and short of it is that they are ... useless bloodsuckers.
So, they're like Democrats?
And much of the Republican Party as well ..... especially the leadership.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,079
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,079 |
j/c It's impacting my profession, for sure. After hundreds of years of experimentation, archetiers discovered the perfect wood for use in the construction of bows. The perfect strength-to-flex ration, the perfect weight-to-responsiveness balance.... and it has been the industry standard for almost 450 years: Pernambuco.A dense, slow-growing hardwood, it's found in abundance in only one place on Earth- the Brazilian rain forest (of course). I don't need to tell any of you about the rate of deforestation that's going on down there, I'm sure. Well... ~20 years ago, pernambuco was officially placed on the international "threatened" species list- and it's becoming increasingly difficult for these artisans to get the materials they need. (it should also be noted that this same wood was being used for dye in commercial cabinet-making. It's hard to imagine completely breaking down this incredible, exotic hardwood into some red liquid that gets used on other more plentiful, easier-to-work-with wood. Madness.) I'm one of the lucky ones- my bowmaker has a 60-year-old stockpile of some of the most beautiful pernambuco I've ever seen. He inherited it from his mentor, when the latter retired and sold the atelier to Steve. My Boy has enough to comfortably carve up his "magic sticks" until retirement... but his lot is becoming increasingly rare. In response, modern ingenuity has come up with a passable alternative: carbon fibre. I've played on a few- and they've improved over the past 10 years- but there is still a world of difference in playing response. They're fine for rank-&-file everyday orch playing, but still can't cut the stringent demands of the solo repertoire. No doubt, the brains at Coda and Arcus will continue to close the gap, but for now- there's still no comparison. I'm glad I'm heading toward the backside of my career... I'd HATE to be seen with a Quintus carbon fibre cello, stroked with an Arcus carbon fibre bow. Why? 2 reasons: 1. I play better on the old stuff 2. Wood looks really, really good on me! It really is a shame. A 500-year-old craft/art that was perfected in France 250 years ago is in danger of becoming extinct because of the consequences of just 40 years of unchecked capitalism in a developing S.A. country. A classic example of "The Butterfly Effect." [shakes head slowly]
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,185
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,185 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Excellent illustration of the point I was making above. The music you play is a non-material benefit, and it is absolutely essential for a spiritually rich life. I'll say again, true conservatives are also conservationists. Those "conservatives" who aren't are nothing more than beggared libertarians, "materialists of the right," as Whitaker Chambers would say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
Speaking only for myself, I have advocated replanting forests that are harvested. Given the benefits of harvesting a forest, to people, and to the forests themselves, it is logical to do so in a careful manner, harvesting, clearing, and replanting forest lands.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,079
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,079 |
@ Mantis: I agree with your points about "non-material benefit" and the difference between true conservatism and this shallow, myopic neo-con mindset that seems so pervasive these days. I've heard many True Conservatives, both in the media and on this board, lament the passing of deep-thinkers like Wm F. Buckley.
@YTown: You are a prime case in point. In certain circles, you'd be branded by some as a "tree-hugging liberal environmentalist whack-job" just for your views on conservation alone. Sadly, our current national discourse leaves little room for nuance and insight.
IMHO, this goes way beyond conservative or liberal ideology... it's just plain common sense. If we equate natural resources as 'capital,' it's easy to see the logic. One does not burn through the entirety of one's savings just because it's there for the taking. Sensible people would strive to use their capital wisely, striking a balance between spending and holding back.
Sadly, our habits (and national policy) reveal our true values- and it seems that we've lost (or willingly abdicated) the common-sense moral imperatives of thrift, conservation and civic responsibility in favor of a fast buck and an "I'm in this for me only" attitude.
More often than not, a person who employs this mindset falls upon hard personal times due to myopia... and it's not much of a stretch to see that societies that adopt this as their prevailing policy are setting themselves up for a similar fate.
John Adams was correct, when he admonished his son with words to this effect: "Regulate your lifestyle... and practice moderation in all things." As a nation, we'd do well to heed those words in our daily dealings.
.02
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
Speaking only for myself, I have advocated replanting forests that are harvested. Given the benefits of harvesting a forest, to people, and to the forests themselves, it is logical to do so in a careful manner, harvesting, clearing, and replanting forest lands.
We are running out of old growth forests. I realize they would eventually fall anyway, but I don't think they should log them to speed up the process. There are many bird species that nest in old growth exclusively.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
Speaking only for myself, I have advocated replanting forests that are harvested. Given the benefits of harvesting a forest, to people, and to the forests themselves, it is logical to do so in a careful manner, harvesting, clearing, and replanting forest lands.
We are running out of old growth forests. I realize they would eventually fall anyway, but I don't think they should log them to speed up the process. There are many bird species that nest in old growth exclusively.
So, where would we get the wood for construction, etc?
Trees. They are an asset. A renewable asset. We know how to plant them, and grow them. It takes time, no doubt. But forests are renewable. I don't believe they are talking about strip foresting (i.e. cutting everything down), but rather, taking the good timber. Know what? When you clear out the old growth, new growth happens, and happens faster.
I know (or think I know) you're a nature lover. Ever been out in a wooded area, heavily wooded, and notice the seedling trees, and how they struggle to get sunlight?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138 |
I see Michelle's point, though. Have you ever been in an actual old growth forested area? The ones I've been in in the U.P. and the smokies (rather small, isolated patches) are quite remarkable. I'm no tree hugger, but I think these few remaining areas should be preserved.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
I see Michelle's point, though. Have you ever been in an actual old growth forested area? The ones I've been in in the U.P. and the smokies (rather small, isolated patches) are quite remarkable. I'm no tree hugger, but I think these few remaining areas should be preserved.
I don't know. I don't know if I've ever been in what is termed an "old growth" forest.
I have been in forests in Michigan - national forests. I've been in the middle of no where in W. Virginia - where, other than the trail you're on, it seems like civilization is 100 miles away. In reality, it's only about 20 miles. I've ridden atv's there (and Michigan) where logging roads are the only way in, or out. I've seen equipment sitting there..........and I've seen the replanted trees. Growing quite nicely, actually.
I've seen what "responsible" logging does. It harvests a product that we all use, every day. I've seen forests that have been harvested, and still are forests - because the loggers don't want to eliminate their jobs. Consequently, they take what is ripe, they leave little mark, and they replant.
But no, I can't say I even know what an "old growth" forest is, let alone if I've been in one.
I do know, forests, left alone, are ripe for fire from lightning.
I also know that a square mile is about 640 acres. And, one of the places I hunt, just behind my house, is about 100 acres of woods. And I know that the old trees are not being harvested, and are dieing. And I know that the seedlings are struggling for sunlight, and they are dieing.
I also know that woods is full of deer, coyote, a few fox, a bobcat or 2, coons, squirrels, snakes, woodchucks (along the ditch banks), mice, owls, a few red tailed hawks, etc. And, if anyone would care to give me $500,000 to $750,000, I would buy it, and sell off logging rights to a company that would treat it as it should be treated. And I do know that woods would be better off for it.
But again, no, I don't "know" what an "old growth" forest is. I only make my statements on what I see. In my back yard, in Michigan, and in W. Virginia.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Arch, I understand that old growth eventually dies, or burns, or whatever. But the more we cut down, the less there is for those animals to go to. I'm not sure about mammals, but I know some bird species need MANY acres per pair just to survive (depending on where you read, Pileated Woodpeckers need between 150-400 acres per pair...think about that). It's not like you can just "move" into an occupied area of forest. If there is forest on both sides of a road, and the side on the left burns down, the animals from that side probably have nowhere to go as the right already supports the population it can handle. I haven't read all of this, but it helps explain.... link.
Last edited by DawgMichelle; 08/01/13 09:58 PM.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138 |
Old growth forest is virgin timber that's never been logged. There are very few of these areas left in the lower 48. The trees are huge and magnificent. There's actually a stand of old growth forest right in your neck of the woods. It's in the Goll Woods State Nature Preserve just north of Archbold. I've been wanting to go there to check it out.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Old growth forest is virgin timber that's never been logged. There are very few of these areas left in the lower 48. The trees are huge and magnificent. There's actually a stand of old growth forest right in your neck of the woods. It's in the Goll Woods State Nature Preserve just north of Archbold. I've been wanting to go there to check it out.
Ironic that you said Goll Woods. I was going to mention that area but figured no one had ever heard of it.
Reason I was going to mention it is because a relative of mine used to work there. His job was cutting up the trees that died and fell over. And, cutting up the smaller trees that the big trees fell on and killed.. And removing the under growth so as to make the whole area less susceptible to wild fires.
If they allowed logging, the state wouldn't have had to pay my relative, and others, to do that. The loggers would've taken out the good, old trees and made use of them, other than firewood. And they would've left a minimal mark.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
If they allowed logging, the state wouldn't have had to pay my relative, and others, to do that. The loggers would've taken out the good, old trees and made use of them, other than firewood. And they would've left a minimal mark.
So you want to eliminate some of the oldest trees in our state for those reasons??? I'm sorry, Arch, but that's just lame. I guess these are the attitudes that have left us with basically nothing, though. I feel sorry for the children of today....what trees are they going to have? The ones replanted by logging companies that scar, pollute, and destroy land in their process. Enjoy. 
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Arch, I gotta say that I agree with Michelle on this one to a point. You are talking about cutting down hardwood trees that are hundreds of years old and replacing them with pine trees which grow faster, cheaper, and are easier to work with. Not every animal can live in a pine forest....
We need to take a much more long term look at the issue because forests, even those termed "old growth" forests are renewable in a relatively short period of time... I'm talking 100 years of so (which is short compared to how long it takes other resources like oil and gas to renew)
Construction has come a long way with the use of TJI's as floor joists and other things that reduce the amount of lumber it takes to build a house... problem is houses kept getting bigger so any benefit was offset. Almost all commercial construction uses very little lumber any more, it's all metal studs, steel, and concrete...
But somebody definitely needs to look at this problem from the perspective, not of where will be 5 years from now, but where will we be 100 years from now. Trees are a commodity, a resource, something we do need to use every day, we just need to be smart about it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
If evolution is real, why do so many species go extinct, or are in danger of doing so if we don't take extreme measures to protect them? There have been some pretty horrific disasters that have destroyed entire sections of the planet in the past, yet evolution says that species adapted to survive ..... yet man is killing off species in a wholesale manner, and not one of them can adapt at all, nor can they survive without our help.
You seem to have a misconception about what evolution is and how it works. It isn’t some magical thing that pokemon go through; it’s a random biological process that occurs throughout nature that is the result of changes in the prevalence of genes within different populations of an entire species. We’re not talking growing new limbs or anything drastic, just mutations in genes that pile up over time that eventually lead to new behaviors, abilities to withstand cold or heat just a little bit better than other populations, etc. The result is new species that arise from different populations of the same species.
For instance, I’ll give you a hypothetical story about how evolution works. Ohio has just passed a “No Deer in Corn Fields” rule, requiring that farmers surround their corn crops with 9 foot high fences. 9 feet was chosen because deer can only clear 8 feet of fence, even on a good day. So we’re going to assume that the deer need to get to that corn or else they won’t survive long. As a species, we would expect all the deer in Ohio the deer to die out due to these new fences. However, a couple populations have figured out ways to get to the corn. One population are exceptional jumpers by deer standards, instead of only clearing 8 feet, they can clear 9 sometimes. This allows them to get in and out of the fencesto feed, allowing them to live and reproduce, passing on their beneficial genes to the next generation. Pretty soon, all the other deer populations have died, allowing this population that has figured out a way to get to the food to reproduce back to the normal deer levels since there’s all those other potential deer homes around the state now. There’s no competition, they can fill the ecosystem back up to its carrying capacity of Deer.
If something like this happens over long periods of time, these differences in genetic makeup over time will lead to new species that is different enough from the ancestors that they won’t be able to breed with one another. Yes, it can take hundreds of thousands of years for this to occur, sometimes even millions, and that’s where the problems with extinction and getting species to fill in for others that go extinct. When a species dies out, it leaves it’s niche in the ecosystem wide open. At some point, another species will find its way into that niche and thrive, but that can be a very slow process.
The only sure thing in life is death, the same tired cliché holds true for whole species as well. It’s hypothesized that 99.99% of all species to live on this planet at one time or another are extinct. Those species all died from natural and unnatural causes, sometimes they were just unlucky (only one population on the side of a volcano when it decides to blow its top) or were forced into extinction by other species (over-predation or outcompeting them for resources). The way that new species come about is through these troubling times where the population of the species is in flux, allowing individuals with desirable traits to pass on those traits to their young, which may have other traits that help them survive more than their companions and on and on until what you have is so genetically different than the originator they can’t interbreed.
Quote:
Evolution over millions of years would be useless, because the climate changes more frequently than that over just thousands of years. Heck, in our recorded and verifiable history, we have gone through an ice age, a fertile warm period, a mini ice age, and global warming. How could/would any species evolve to new abilities over millions of years with the environment in such constant flux? They evolve to a warm climate, but 2 ice ages take place inside of a few thousand years .... so they adapt to the colder climate ..... but the ice age ends and ice caps recede to the polar caps ....... so the have to evolve back to being suitable in a warmer climate ......
Welcome to nature You’re right, climate’s change ( not nearly as fast as it is now, but change it has in the past) but the changes generally don’t occur over a few hundred years. The thing that happens is the range that species inhabit changes due to the changing climate. Deserts grow or shrink, tree ranges move, prairies move all in relation to what the climate is and how it changes. So they follow around the "pockets" of climate that are similar to what they’re used to which moves these species around geographically. For instance, right now we see the shift of certain bird populations in that used to be indigenous to the northern states into ranges in northern Canada because the temperatures cycles are more similar there than where they were a few decades ago. How did this happen? With each successive generation of individuals, they found better habitat to the north, rather than the south. They would reproduce in the new northern area and the next generation would do the same, until you see this shift in range. Now, is this evolution? No, it is not because these individuals are still genetically similar to the ancestors that started off in Minnesota. But, this outlines one way to alleviate what’s called an Evolutionary Constraint, or an evolutionary pressure, that if left unchecked would result in poor reproduction and potentially an extinction event. So animals don’t evolve or adapt with each gust of wind, it takes quite a bit more time and pressure than that.
Quote:
Anyway, for many animals, a single year can be multiple generations. I forget what animal it was ... but for some reason cat sticks in my head ..... who can have up to 4 litters per year. They go into heat before they hit 6 months old. You could probably have 20 generations of cats in a 5 year time period. We have had cats as part of our history dating back to ancient Egypt. Cats have been bred for certain traits, but they really haven't evolved. They have lived in many different climates .... been hunters and pets ..... but a cat is still a cat .... even ... man, what would that be ..... 6000 - 10,000 generations .... or more ...... later?
10k generations is an eyeblink in geographic time. Richard Lenski at Michigan State did an experiment a few years back where they set up a bacterial culture and ended up passaging it for 50 thousand generations. They eventually got a bacterial population that was able to utilize an energy source that it has never used before. This was the culmination of three beneficial mutations that allowed these bacteria to reproduce faster than the other populations around them, effectively out evolving them and out-competing them.
As for your Cat example, 3000 years just isn’t enough time for a animal that has been domesticated (as far as a cat is domesticated anyways) to change that significantly from its ancestor that it can no longer reproduce.
Quote:
Anyway ..... just something to think about. I would think that something, somewhere, would have evolved new and distinct abilities in response to massive environmental changes over the years ..... changes that we could catalog, and examine. (and for the record, I do believe that God could have used evolutionary processes in the creation of the earth. The Bible never said that God created specific animals out of thin air)
Again, we’re working in a geological timeset here. That’s hundred’s of thousands of years that it would take for us to be able to point and see a mouse become something like a rat, let alone a cat. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t test this in bacteria or plants like the study I mentioned above. There are many others as well.
And while we can’t observe for long periods of time, we can see the evidence that it has occurred. Giraffe’s have extremely long necks, but they didn’t always have them. They started off similar to a gazelle or antelope and eventually evolved longer and longer necks to reach farther up into trees for food. A byproduct of this stretching neck is a lengthening of a nerve (called the vagus nerve) that innervates the larynx. However, it also has an unfortunate placement in that it also wraps around one of the blood vessels that goes from the heart to the lower extremities. In every single mammal this is the case. Our vagus nerve goes down our neck to our heart, then back up to the larynx. In a giraffe this is the case as well, but instead of a 6 inch detour, it’s 15 feet. It’s extremely inefficient, but not quite detrimental to the animal at this length. Fish, don’t have this problem though. You see, their vagus nerve attaches to their gills and innervates them, making the gills move. In their body plan the vagus nerve still goes through the blood vessels just north of the heart just like a giraffes, but doesn’t have to loop back up and around because the gills are right there. This is one of the many reasons we believe that all life originated from a common ancestor at some point in the distant past. Over 3.5 billion years the progeny of that ancestor have been changing little by little until you get all the diversity of the past and present.
In a nutshell. Evolution is the result of many genetic mutations over long periods of time that allow some populations within a species to out-compete others and pass on their genes (procreate) more often. Passing on those mutated genes allows those populations a better advantage which eventually leads to the demise (or running off) of other populations. As this happens over even longer periods of time these mutations change the genome so much that the ancestor species and the daughter species can no longer reproduce and make viable offspring.
Think of it like this; you have a line. At the beginning of the line you have a prairie vole (Illinois and Kansas), at the other end of the line you have a Meadow Vole (ohio), and inbetween are all the populations that led from one species to the other. These are distinct, yet similar species that can’t interbreed. If you were to pick a spot anywhere inbetween those two points (Prairie or Meadow) you would see a population of individuals that is somewhere inbetween those two species genotypically. Not quite one or the other. All along that line you have population after population laid out with more than likely zero, but sometimes one, mutation that leads from the prairie to the meadow. All along that line if you were to take one population and try to breed it back to populations close to it on either side you would more than likely see that they are similar enough genotypically that they could interbreed with one another. However, move too far away and the gene differences pile up enough so that while sex may occur, procreation doesn't.
So why are there still prairie voles if meadow voles evolved, you’re probably asking. This is the same as asking why there are still chimps when we’re here now. The answer is the same in each case, whole species don’t evolve one into the other, populations within species separate from one another and acquire different mutations over time until they become so different they can’t interbreed. The voles share a common vole ancestor, but each current species represented different populations within the common ancestor species. The divergence of those populations (one specializing in prairie, the other in meadows) led to the buildup of genetic differences such that they can’t reproduce together. Humans and chimps are still around together but are 98.8% genetically similar because at one point we shared a common ancestor, but our two populations within the species separated and continued evolving into the two distinct species you see today.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Well done.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
The problem is, people look at "earth" from 5 to 100 years ago, and think that's the way it has to be "or else" ("else" meaning some catastrophic event)
Old growth forests were, 100 years ago, 200 years ago - NEW growth forests, and in time they became old growth. See how it works?
In my front yard, when we bought this house - there were 5 maple trees about as big around as my arm. They are now 40 to 42" around. That's in 13 years.
I'm not saying to clear cut forests. But I do believe in harvesting trees and clearing the way for new ones.
Or, we can let nature take care of itself. And it will, and does. Huge wildfires clear the way for new growth as well.
Just because something was "X" 10 years ago, or 100 years ago doesn't mean that is the way it has to be now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
Actually, climates do change rather quickly. In the rather limited recorded history of mankind has seen massive climate changes. Look at almost any area where mankind has lived, and compare it to 2000-3000 years ago, and the climate will be dramatically different. In many cases, the climate has changed several times over that time frame. As far as the deer ...... I used to have this neighbor, and they had this dog who kept escaping their yard. They had a 4' fence surrounding their yard, and the dog would size the fence up ...... and jump over it. The dog appeared to struggle to make it over the fence, like it was at the limits of his reach. They did the sensible thing, and put in a 6' fence. . (though I might have put the dog on a chain) Guess what the dog did? Yep, He made it over the fence once, learned he could do it, and then it was game on for him again. I think that the dog thought that it was a game. Back to the deer ...... was it that a few deer had a max leaping ability of 8' ..... or was it that once one deer got hungry enough to make 9', that others followed? Deer are like many animals, and they follow their leader. If their leader makes one jump, then others do the same. If he doesn't, then others don't. You say that evolution doesn't occur suddenly, yet use an example of "sudden evolution". I think that your example is one that challenges the limits of a species, and forces them to either push themselves, or starve. They don't evolve bigger muscles, at least to the best of my knowledge. They don't learn to fly. They have a limit, and like people, once those limits are challenged, they can be surpassed. Once limits are surpassed, then more and more do so. Look at what we once considered to be the upper limits of human performance as far as speed and strength are concerned. Did athletes evolve, or did they train, and adapt based on the need to be better? Did they refuse to believe what was once considered the "best", instead establishing new best levels of performance, or did they evolve new abilities? As far as the deer, frankly, I don't see evolution in your example. Hunger has always driven people, and creatures, to exceed their previous limits. I don't think that is evolution, but learned response.At one time a 4.4 40 was considered superhuman, and extremely rare, even among the fastest people in the world. Now it's almost commonplace among upper level athletes. Again, I do believe that we had some evolutionary forces earlier in our planet's history, because there would almost have had to have been some. Almost total extinction, and limited diversity would have required that species adapt. However, I have this notion in the back of my head that as species have become more and more entrenched in their DNA, it is harder for that DNA to change. The random elements either work their way into the larger population, or they die off. As a species becomes more established, those random elements become fewer and fewer, especially by comparison to the overall number of members of that species. A one in a hundred genetic change can be picked up to create something new. Maybe even one in a thousand. One in a million ... or 2 or 3 million ....? I think that's much harder. I can see a species facing extinction picking up a random genetic element and "evolving", but maybe it's just luck that a certain creature escaped a predator, while a different one did not. I can't prove it, but it's just something this little voice in the back of my head says. (Yeah, that's kind of a joke ..... before anyone asks)
Last edited by YTownBrownsFan; 08/03/13 01:29 AM.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Quote:
Just because something was "X" 10 years ago, or 100 years ago doesn't mean that is the way it has to be now.
I had no idea you were such a progressive thinker. Will you be voting Democrat in the next election? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,436 |
Animals are a selfish bunch as well. It's just part of nature. Nature itself is selfish.
As far as humanity. don't worry ...... within about 60,000 years or so of the final human's final breath, you'll be hard pressed to ever tell that a human lived anywhere on this planet. Every building will be completely gone ...... every trace of human activity will be wiped away from the face of the earth forever. Ever electronic media and messages sent into the great expanse of space will eventually become nothing more than background noise.
Perhaps gold bars buried in the ocean might survive for that long, or longer, a singular mystery for whatever strange visitor shows up, curious as to whether or not life ever existed here.
Nature will eventually destroy everything. It is all invasive, and ultimately destructive to everything that ever lives, grows and is built or created. Nothing survives nature, and its wrath, or even its peace, for long.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Wow... thanks buddy. Now I'm going to be brooding on my cosmic insignificance for the rest of the day.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Ohio to dissolve habitat
protections...
|
|
