CDZ Three unanswered yet interesting questions pertaining to life

[sakinago]

Each animal has its own natural niche because everything else that overwhelming dominates an animal group or is dominated by it...is eventually eliminated. Usually in quick fashion. The "invasive species" you seem determined to ignore are examples of this being carried out. Your logic would make sense if nature was static. If nothing evolved, if nothing changed. Then you could argue that everything has its perfect niche and have a lot of evidence to support that. However, the evidence isn't even close to being on your side. Where are the dinosaurs? Why isn't there a place for them? Where is the dodo? Why do some things, like the rat, survive and populate itself almost anywhere, where something more specific, like maybe the quala, have to be highly protected as it likely won't be able to prevail in a more competitive environment. It isn't because of humans...it is because of nature. Nature is literally a dog eat dog world. Because that is what works.

You take some sort of position that doesn't actually have a base by using loosely interpreted language like "symmetry that if left alone works." You do realize that has no real meaning right? What, specifically, is symmetrical about nature. What, specifically, works? What, specifically, is not working in an "unnatural" environment.

I didnt ignore the invasive species. I pointed out that they were introduced by humans. I never claimed nature was static never evolved or changed. i said it was perfect.

The dinosaurs evolved and are now birds and reptiles. The dodo was killed off by humans. The rat is highly adaptable to different environments and one of natures strongest survivors along with roaches Nature can be a dog eat dog world. Has nothing to do with the point that its perfect.

Of course symmetry has meaning. Its a word. You may not like it but that doesnt mean you are convincing when you say it doesnt mean anything.

Your missing the part where dinosaurs died out, 3 different times. They didn't just evolve into birds because modern day birds are some higher form of evolution.

And the rat/mouse/rodent just globally spread on the backs of whales?

And if nature is perfect, and we are part of nature, then how can it be claimed we are destroying the earth? So either nature is not perfect since we came of it, or humans are not destroying the earth? Which is it?

Dinosaurs didnt die out 3 different times. If they died out they wouldnt have come back. Obviously there were still some dinosaurs around in the periods you claim they died out. Its pretty much a know fact that birds are the descendants of dinosaurs.

Who told you rats/mice etc spread on the backs of whales? I would have thought you were aware there were many land bridges to the different continents and animals moved freely. Other places that were cut off had humans introduce them.

Who claimed humans were destroying the earth? I said poisoning/damaging the earth for ourselves and other current life forms. Humans cant destroy the earth unless they cause it to disappear from existence. Your two options are silly due to the fact you cant limit me to them.

Ok if they didn't die out, then why the need for three different eras of dinosaurs? I guess they just progressively evolved into birds, because birds are a higher form of evolution. A chicken is more evolved than its stegosaurus ancestor? I think a lot of the dinosaurs would preform quite nicely in our modern day world. I also guess none of them went extinct or killed off other species, they just evolved into chicadees.

I never claimed they spread on the backs of whales. I obviously did not believe that, bc it's a ridiculous statement. Another one of those statements is that these species do not spread without our help, or that when they spread, they do not cause destruction in the environments they introduce themselves to.

I will re-word, if nature is perfect, and we are part of nature, then how are we going against natures perfection as a product of nature itself?

Sorry guy. Like I said its common knowledge.

Birds: The Late Evolution of Dinosaurs | Natural History Museum of Los Angeles

"Evidence that birds evolved from the carnivorous predators that ruled the Mesozoic ecosystems is plentiful and it comes from disparate lines of evidence. "


Thats correct. Invasive species did not spread without our help. If they did show me just one and stop stalling.

There is that word "if" again.

MOST OF THE SPECIES AROUND YOU GOT HERE BY SPREADING AND BEATING OUT COMPETITORS, OR HUNTING OTHER SPECIES TO EXTINCTION! WHEN THEY DO
THIS THEY CAUSES HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT! WHAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?

Do you not understand because it wasn't shown to you as a fund raising commercial on tv? Because it didn't happen in your life time?

 

[Never3ndr]

You must have missed it when I said checks and balances. That is the symmetry of nature.

I didnt ignore invasive species I have asked you several times to point out just one that was not introduced by humans but you keep ignoring that request. You keep saying "if" as if that makes a point but it doesnt. All it does is introduce a hypothetical.

You seem to be closing your ears and ignoring what I've pointed out. Regardless of how a species is introduced to an environment it only survives or becomes extinct as a result of how it interacts with that environment independent of human interaction. We can only point towards examples of humans introducing species to new environments because WE ARE HUMANS...we tended to only really record history and our interaction with animals for the past 200 years or so. The rest of our data is based off of fossils and conjecture for the most part. You don't have any evidence for your claim, which is that nature operates perfectly independent of human interaction either. Trying to point out a loophole in evidence...when your argument has the same loophole is about as intelligent as tying your shoe laces together and trying to run.

 

[RWS]

Apparently, all people posting thus far (except a few), understand that we don't know jack about shit.

But when we turn those arguments into logical arguments, the hurtful truth is that religion is wrong.

That doesn't mean there isn't a "god" or a "creator", it just means that it's not the "santa claus" religion you have been told from birth.

There is plenty of room for people who want to explore their spirituality, and none of these arguments negate that. There is a lot of stuff about ourselves that we still don't understand. But the important thing is to try to remain true and rational when doing that. The most important things are.... "Don't hurt anybody because of your faith", and "Don't make others have to believe".

If those two rules can be followed (which history has shown that they can't), the world would be a much better place!

So let's let go of the religion we were born with, and let's discuss much deeper things...

 

[RWS]

For instance... Is there intelligence outside of our body? When we die, is there something else? Or are we just worm food?

That's where to start...