CDZ Three unanswered yet interesting questions pertaining to life

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by sakinago, May 7, 2016.

  1. sakinago
    Online

    sakinago Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,403
    Thanks Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +973
    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?
     
  2. Never3ndr
    Offline

    Never3ndr Silver Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2016
    Messages:
    971
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Ratings:
    +508
    Symmetry does have a meaning, yet you refuse to specifically apply it and interpret it for us. I've literally just told you I have no clue what you mean when you apply it to nature and asked you to give me a specific case. So, for the ignorant, please specifically define it as you mean for it to apply.

    You have ignored invasive species. Humans may or may not have introduced an invasive species (you really act like this has never happened historically rather than just in modern times where we have better evidence and examination of such a phenomena), but humans have little to no interaction with it after just acting like a form of transportation. It is literally nature interacting with nature that determines how the species interacts with its environment. If we transported a rat from North America to China and every rat we brought over died because it couldn't survive in that environment...we wouldn't be sitting around and arguing anything. However, when we transport a species (usually unintentionally) and it prevails in a new environment and eliminates other animals or plants or heavily alters the environment...we view it as invasive. Yet, it is literally just nature interacting with nature. It isn't like we have a squad of people that follow invasive species around and eliminate all threats to them.

    You ignore invasive species because you claim that because humans may have had a hand in transporting them...then all of a sudden all consequences of their interaction with their new environment is unnatural. Again, you are applying a logic chain that doesn't even begin to make sense here. When we leave nature alone it is "symmetrical" or "perfect"...unless it doesn't sound good to you. Then you look for reasons that you can discredit such an event instead of examining nature interacting with itself.

    The least you could do is actually take a substantive position based upon specific, defined language and apply a broad based logic chain that you don't make special efforts to apply only in special cases that fit your biased view of the subject.
     
  3. Asclepias
    Offline

    Asclepias Work Hard Play Hard

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    72,678
    Thanks Received:
    6,095
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Breathing rarified air.
    Ratings:
    +20,686
    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.
     
  4. sakinago
    Online

    sakinago Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,403
    Thanks Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +973
    So life just started all around the earth? There was no migration? An elephant just popped up in Africa, and another type of elephant popped up in Asia? A deer like creature popped up in Africa, and similar but different deer like creatures popped up everywhere else on the planet? A large predatory cat popped up in Asia, and similar large predatory cats popped up in north and South America? A monkey popped up in Asia, and monkeys popped up in South America and Africa? Is this what you are suggesting.

    And a zebra and a donkey are close enough genetic relatives to mate and produce offspring, but since one is largely found domesticated, and one is largely found feral...this excludes them from being seen as similar creatures? So I guess pigs and feral pigs are too different to compare as well?

    Since no one recorded the horse invasion 11,000 years ago...when they were reintroduced in America they were seen as invasive, so one could assume they were probably invasive then. Doesn't matter, your point was that this did not happen without humans...which is also why I had to type that first paragraph...because species do not invade without humans according to you. The only reason I'm talking about invasive species in the first place is because you claimed that animals were smarter than us since they do no harm to their environment.

    As for beavers, damning destroys plant life, prevents fish migration, cuts off water to creatures plants and fish downstream, is a hot bed for diseases to wildlife and human life, changes water temperature which further kills plant life. But I guess if your a frog you're quite happy with that result, as long as there's no spread of disease that will effect you.
     
  5. Asclepias
    Offline

    Asclepias Work Hard Play Hard

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    72,678
    Thanks Received:
    6,095
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Breathing rarified air.
    Ratings:
    +20,686
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2016
  6. Asclepias
    Offline

    Asclepias Work Hard Play Hard

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    72,678
    Thanks Received:
    6,095
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Breathing rarified air.
    Ratings:
    +20,686
    Youre very binary in your arguments which lets me know a couple of things. One being you dont know what youre talking about according to some of your earlier claims. Of course there were migrations. Animals move. However, like most things that wasnt the only method. Animals popped up all over the place and migrated into other areas.

    You've moved the goal posts in an attempt to make your point which is a weak move easily seen through. Your claim has gone from cattle to "cattle like" now your deflecting about donkeys. Please stay on point. Your attempts to muddy the waters is amusing but sad.


    Who told you there was a horse invasion? Who told you that horses being brought to the americas was seen as invasive and since people did it what is your point? Again youre attempting to move the goal posts. I never said animals dont migrate. I said invasive animals are intoduced by humans. The weird thing is that I have asked several times for you to prove your point by showing me just one invasive species not introduced by humans but you keep failing to do so. Why are you stalling?
     
  7. sakinago
    Online

    sakinago Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,403
    Thanks Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +973
    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?
     
  8. Asclepias
    Offline

    Asclepias Work Hard Play Hard

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    72,678
    Thanks Received:
    6,095
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Breathing rarified air.
    Ratings:
    +20,686

    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.
     
  9. sakinago
    Online

    sakinago Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,403
    Thanks Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +973
    There's no moving of any goal posts to make my points here, nor am I being binary, what's binary is saying humans are bad, and nature is good. I am simply following your logic, being that nature is perfect and has symmetry, and animals do not cause destruction to their environment, and are therefore smarter than us. That's how this whole discussion started. You started out with animals are smarter than us, since they do not harm their environments, which is when I pointed out they don't give a damn about their environments, because they don't have the cognitive ability to care about their environments, all they care about is surviving and spreading. You asked me to give you examples of animals surviving and spreading in a manner detrimental to the environment, which is why I brought up invasive species (not to mention the entire history of life on this planet) [and this point in the conversation is a goal post moved, but not by me]. You then said invasion does not happen without human help [goal post moved again], while I tried to point out the spread of animals across the globe happened long before humans came into the picture, and that these species were putting other species out of business all the time. You attributed this spread to parallel paths of evolution [moved goal post], and then later moved to migration and land bridges. At the same time as the original goal post was moved, I talked about the UNs climate papers and the amount of emissions from cattle, to help with my point that animals do cause harm to the environment. You then claimed cattle wouldn't be so numerous if it weren't for humans [another goal post]. I then explained cattle weren't the only CO2 emitters, just the only taxable ones, (since the main plan for global warming is to try to limit consumed resources by putting a tax on them). And since cows and wildabeast are similar, just like zebras and donkeys, just like pigs and boars, these feral creatures must be emitting similar levels of CO2...causing harm to the environment, (domestic cattle alone is almost double the emissions of transportation). To which I was not allowed to compare the two because cattle cannot be compared to similar looking feral creatures [another goal post moved], which is a highly questionable statement. This part of the conversation also got deep into horses for some reason [goal post moved], all from me asking about how well wild horses did without the help of humans, so that the numbers of cattle like creature cannot be fully blamed on humans. Not that that point should matter anyway since animals are everywhere emitting CO2. All of these points I should not have to make since nature clearly does not give half a damn about the environment. AND saying nature is perfect is a binary statement, since perfection leaves no room for imperfection. So do not blame me for framing your binary statement (a statement I do not agree with) in a different way.
     
  10. sakinago
    Online

    sakinago Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,403
    Thanks Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +973
    Never said that birds weren't descendent of dinosaurs, it is common knowledge and I did know that. My claim was they did not evolve into birds through some natural progressive path of evolution, as if the modern day bird is some higher form of evolution. Something happened, that caused them to DIE OUT...to where they once ruled land, air and sea, and now their only remaining descendants are modern day birds, and mammals are now pretty much the new rulers of the earth. You are mis-representing my point, this is called a straw man argument, you misrepresent my point on dinosaurs saying that I did not believe that birds are their decendants, when that was clearly not the point I was making.

    You also made an appeal to
    Ignorance argument by trying to shift the burden of proof onto me, with "how do you know horses were invasive when they left North America?"
     

Share This Page