CDZ Three unanswered yet interesting questions pertaining to life

[sakinago]

It requires what we consider a lower level of intelligence to drive a car, a feat that we couldn't even train animals to do as a trick. You also are implying that animals have some inherent knowledge to the evils of automobiles, and this is their reason for not driving a car. Also that they have some concept of being environmentally conscious, which is not based in reality. They react simply in a way to survive, not in a way to preserve their environment. If the cattle population is cause for 30% of carbon emissions (think about that), what are the carbon emissions from every other aerobic organism on the planet? What sort of damage is the out of control wildabeast, rodent, cat, or vulture populations doing? Do they have any concept of what they are doing?

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

When an invasive species comes into a new environment, does it show any remorse, signs of hesitation, signs of putting itself in check? A better question is why have the term invasive species if nature is "perfect"? They do not care what damage they do to the environment. And before you blame humans for invasive species, it happens in nature, naturally all the time. Do beavers show any remorse for damning? What natural predator did the bison have before humans to keep them in check? And would there be any less cattle had there been no humans? Like I said bison were doing quite well. Wildabeast are dominating Africa. Do they care? Noooo, they're quite happy. They are too stupid to have any idea or concept of what they are doing in the realm of the environment, again "environment" a concept that they have no grasp of. Are they still somehow smarter than us now? Because they might have some unknown knowledge of running on four legs that we just can't grasp?

And if you recognize that all animals do emit co2, then what percentage do the wild animals in the us emit over the domesticated? Is it more or less than cattle? Now apply that number to the entire animal animal population of the entire planet.

What proof do you have that animals act with intent to preserve the environment? You haven't mentioned your proof, just your assertions that nature is perfect. Yet 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. A vast majority before us evil humans came into the picture. Humans, the only species ever with the ability to save the planet from some of the cataclysmic events that have decimated "perfect" nature in the past.

Co2 is not bad. Plant's require it, and the Ocean absorbs all of the excess...that is, before industrialization.

Yes and yes. The oceans absorbing it part is something our genius climate scientist just recently found out. But do you believe the biggest alarmist on co2 emissions are doing anything real about it?

 

[Never3ndr]

I brought it up to illustrate a point. A bird won't get injured driving a car, not bc it thinks cars are unsafe, but bc it simply can't. What you suggested is that we are less intelligent than animals, bc animals do not harm the environment (cattle alone make up for 30 or so percent of carbon emissions according to the UN), implying they do so out of some sort of altruism.

You are also implying that we have no way to measure animal intelligence, since we can't know all of the types of intelligence. So we can understand the functions of each section of the brain in the animals, but we cannot accurately measure the intelligence on animals that have no concept of intelligence, nor a section of their brains dedicated to conceptualization?

Why would driving a car be a sign of intelligence? It kills people and emits poisonous gases which birds are intelligent enough not to do. Cattle only make up 30% of Co2 emissions because of humans. Without humans their numbers would be naturally kept in check by predators.

I'm mot implying we cant measure animal intelligence. I am saying its subjective because we are biased in what we regard as intelligence. We simply dont have the intellect to say what intelligence consists of for anything. My mention of the IQ test was to illustrate the inherent bias. What we know right now is bias in itself because we can discover a new form of intelligence tomorrow. During the dark ages in europe it was believed by "intelligent" people that water contained evil spirits so people rarely bathed.

It requires what we consider a lower level of intelligence to drive a car, a feat that we couldn't even train animals to do as a trick. You also are implying that animals have some inherent knowledge to the evils of automobiles, and this is their reason for not driving a car. Also that they have some concept of being environmentally conscious, which is not based in reality. They react simply in a way to survive, not in a way to preserve their environment. If the cattle population is cause for 30% of carbon emissions (think about that), what are the carbon emissions from every other aerobic organism on the planet? What sort of damage is the out of control wildabeast, rodent, cat, or vulture populations doing? Do they have any concept of what they are doing?

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

You do realize that humans are animals right? You do realize that we are part of nature. A bird may build a nest, a beaver may build a damn, we may build a city...these are all examples of animals and nature...yet most would argue that the human animal does destroy its environment. Claiming nature is perfect is a belief system built off of watching Bambi too many times.

If you want specific examples of animals destroying environments all you really have to do is look at the myriad of invasive species as prime examples of animals destroying their environment. You argue that human intervention may offset this balance...but you wouldn't argue if they found some other way to migrate to new areas and cause mass extinction of other species that they may have been "superior" to...you would call it "nature's way of checks and balances." If you have a logic chain you have to apply it in all cases, not just the specific cases that fit your skewed world view. Nature is not perfect. It isn't that Disney movie you have on repeat. Nature is harsh, chaotic, constantly changing, constantly evolving, unforgiving, and ugly. If you want to feed yourself...something has to die (whether you eat plants or eat animals you are killing something else). If you cannot compete with other species in your environment, you die. If you cannot handle the climate or surrounding you live in, you die. Nature is about as harsh as it gets. Your idyllic view of it suggests you haven't actually lived in "nature" enough to actually understand it in the slightest.

10 Animal Invaders That Are Destroying Habitats

 

[Asclepias]

Why would driving a car be a sign of intelligence? It kills people and emits poisonous gases which birds are intelligent enough not to do. Cattle only make up 30% of Co2 emissions because of humans. Without humans their numbers would be naturally kept in check by predators.

I'm mot implying we cant measure animal intelligence. I am saying its subjective because we are biased in what we regard as intelligence. We simply dont have the intellect to say what intelligence consists of for anything. My mention of the IQ test was to illustrate the inherent bias. What we know right now is bias in itself because we can discover a new form of intelligence tomorrow. During the dark ages in europe it was believed by "intelligent" people that water contained evil spirits so people rarely bathed.

It requires what we consider a lower level of intelligence to drive a car, a feat that we couldn't even train animals to do as a trick. You also are implying that animals have some inherent knowledge to the evils of automobiles, and this is their reason for not driving a car. Also that they have some concept of being environmentally conscious, which is not based in reality. They react simply in a way to survive, not in a way to preserve their environment. If the cattle population is cause for 30% of carbon emissions (think about that), what are the carbon emissions from every other aerobic organism on the planet? What sort of damage is the out of control wildabeast, rodent, cat, or vulture populations doing? Do they have any concept of what they are doing?

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

You do realize that humans are animals right? You do realize that we are part of nature. A bird may build a nest, a beaver may build a damn, we may build a city...these are all examples of animals and nature...yet most would argue that the human animal does destroy its environment. Claiming nature is perfect is a belief system built off of watching Bambi too many times.

If you want specific examples of animals destroying environments all you really have to do is look at the myriad of invasive species as prime examples of animals destroying their environment. You argue that human intervention may offset this balance...but you wouldn't argue if they found some other way to migrate to new areas and cause mass extinction of other species that they may have been "superior" to...you would call it "nature's way of checks and balances." If you have a logic chain you have to apply it in all cases, not just the specific cases that fit your skewed world view. Nature is not perfect. It isn't that Disney movie you have on repeat. Nature is harsh, chaotic, constantly changing, constantly evolving, unforgiving, and ugly. If you want to feed yourself...something has to die (whether you eat plants or eat animals you are killing something else). If you cannot compete with other species in your environment, you die. If you cannot handle the climate or surrounding you live in, you die. Nature is about as harsh as it gets. Your idyllic view of it suggests you haven't actually lived in "nature" enough to actually understand it in the slightest.

10 Animal Invaders That Are Destroying Habitats

Humans are animals that manipulate their environment in harmful ways to themselves and other creatures. No one ever claimed humans were not animals. When we say animals the generally understood concept is that we are excluding humans for comparative reasons.

Someone should be able to point me to a invasive species not introduced by man that is destroying their environment. We know that is impossible because each animal has its natural niche and only human intervention will mess that up. If a cow had nuts it would be a bull. That fact is that no animal has found another way at least as far as we know. Perfect has nothing to do subjective terms such as chaos, unforgiving, harsh etc etc. Perfect means there is a symmetry that if left alone works.

Each and everyone of the animals in your link was introduced by humans.

 

[sakinago]

It requires what we consider a lower level of intelligence to drive a car, a feat that we couldn't even train animals to do as a trick. You also are implying that animals have some inherent knowledge to the evils of automobiles, and this is their reason for not driving a car. Also that they have some concept of being environmentally conscious, which is not based in reality. They react simply in a way to survive, not in a way to preserve their environment. If the cattle population is cause for 30% of carbon emissions (think about that), what are the carbon emissions from every other aerobic organism on the planet? What sort of damage is the out of control wildabeast, rodent, cat, or vulture populations doing? Do they have any concept of what they are doing?

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

When an invasive species comes into a new environment, does it show any remorse, signs of hesitation, signs of putting itself in check? A better question is why have the term invasive species if nature is "perfect"? They do not care what damage they do to the environment. And before you blame humans for invasive species, it happens in nature, naturally all the time. Do beavers show any remorse for damning? What natural predator did the bison have before humans to keep them in check? And would there be any less cattle had there been no humans? Like I said bison were doing quite well. Wildabeast are dominating Africa. Do they care? Noooo, they're quite happy. They are too stupid to have any idea or concept of what they are doing in the realm of the environment, again "environment" a concept that they have no grasp of. Are they still somehow smarter than us now? Because they might have some unknown knowledge of running on four legs that we just can't grasp?

And if you recognize that all animals do emit co2, then what percentage do the wild animals in the us emit over the domesticated? Is it more or less than cattle? Now apply that number to the entire animal animal population of the entire planet.

What proof do you have that animals act with intent to preserve the environment? You haven't mentioned your proof, just your assertions that nature is perfect. Yet 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. A vast majority before us evil humans came into the picture. Humans, the only species ever with the ability to save the planet from some of the cataclysmic events that have decimated "perfect" nature in the past.

Invasive species are always introduced by....you guessed it. Humans. When do invasive species happen in nature without the assistance of man? Why would a beaver show remorse by damming? Bisons had wolves, bears, and cougars to keep them in check. Yes there would be less cattle had there been no humans. Yes i say they are smarter than us because they dont poison their environment.

Are you claiming that without humans the CO2 emitted by animals would endanger the earth?

So before the age of shipbuilding in humans, I guess animals were introduced across bodies of water by riding on the backs of whales? Or did they just emerge into existence through what's considered statistically impossible by parallel paths of evolution? And how did all of these animals go extinct? Was it always through some cataclysmic event, bc last time I checked those are few and far between. Or was it because of the introduction of some new predator, or competitor? And I guess when animals run short of a food source, they dont migrate to new areas for survival, they just lay down and die? If that's the case then why spread to all corners of the planet?

Damning is a very destructive act on the environment, so beavers are one of the most destructive animals on the planet. So if they were environmentally conscious as you claim, they would feel remorse for that.

Bears and Cougars do not hunt bison, bison are too big for Cougars, too quick and big for bears. Wolves occasioanally in a pack would tire out an injured one. Other than that bison aren't regularly hunted in nature.

And if there would be less cattle without humans, that doesn't seem to be the case in Africa. Also wild horses were a lot more prominent in America before we colonized the land.

And yes, according to the UNs climate report number they would, if your extrapolating those numbers and applying it to the entire animal population.

 

[Never3ndr]

It requires what we consider a lower level of intelligence to drive a car, a feat that we couldn't even train animals to do as a trick. You also are implying that animals have some inherent knowledge to the evils of automobiles, and this is their reason for not driving a car. Also that they have some concept of being environmentally conscious, which is not based in reality. They react simply in a way to survive, not in a way to preserve their environment. If the cattle population is cause for 30% of carbon emissions (think about that), what are the carbon emissions from every other aerobic organism on the planet? What sort of damage is the out of control wildabeast, rodent, cat, or vulture populations doing? Do they have any concept of what they are doing?

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

You do realize that humans are animals right? You do realize that we are part of nature. A bird may build a nest, a beaver may build a damn, we may build a city...these are all examples of animals and nature...yet most would argue that the human animal does destroy its environment. Claiming nature is perfect is a belief system built off of watching Bambi too many times.

If you want specific examples of animals destroying environments all you really have to do is look at the myriad of invasive species as prime examples of animals destroying their environment. You argue that human intervention may offset this balance...but you wouldn't argue if they found some other way to migrate to new areas and cause mass extinction of other species that they may have been "superior" to...you would call it "nature's way of checks and balances." If you have a logic chain you have to apply it in all cases, not just the specific cases that fit your skewed world view. Nature is not perfect. It isn't that Disney movie you have on repeat. Nature is harsh, chaotic, constantly changing, constantly evolving, unforgiving, and ugly. If you want to feed yourself...something has to die (whether you eat plants or eat animals you are killing something else). If you cannot compete with other species in your environment, you die. If you cannot handle the climate or surrounding you live in, you die. Nature is about as harsh as it gets. Your idyllic view of it suggests you haven't actually lived in "nature" enough to actually understand it in the slightest.

10 Animal Invaders That Are Destroying Habitats

Humans are animals that manipulate their environment in harmful ways to themselves and other creatures. No one ever claimed humans were not animals. When we say animals the generally understood concept is that we are excluding humans for comparative reasons.

Someone should be able to point me to a invasive species not introduced by man that is destroying their environment. We know that is impossible because each animal has its natural niche and only human intervention will mess that up. If a cow had nuts it would be a bull. That fact is that no animal has found another way at least as far as we know. Perfect has nothing to do subjective terms such as chaos, unforgiving, harsh etc etc. Perfect means there is a symmetry that if left alone works

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.

 

[sakinago]

Why would driving a car be a sign of intelligence? It kills people and emits poisonous gases which birds are intelligent enough not to do. Cattle only make up 30% of Co2 emissions because of humans. Without humans their numbers would be naturally kept in check by predators.

I'm mot implying we cant measure animal intelligence. I am saying its subjective because we are biased in what we regard as intelligence. We simply dont have the intellect to say what intelligence consists of for anything. My mention of the IQ test was to illustrate the inherent bias. What we know right now is bias in itself because we can discover a new form of intelligence tomorrow. During the dark ages in europe it was believed by "intelligent" people that water contained evil spirits so people rarely bathed.

It requires what we consider a lower level of intelligence to drive a car, a feat that we couldn't even train animals to do as a trick. You also are implying that animals have some inherent knowledge to the evils of automobiles, and this is their reason for not driving a car. Also that they have some concept of being environmentally conscious, which is not based in reality. They react simply in a way to survive, not in a way to preserve their environment. If the cattle population is cause for 30% of carbon emissions (think about that), what are the carbon emissions from every other aerobic organism on the planet? What sort of damage is the out of control wildabeast, rodent, cat, or vulture populations doing? Do they have any concept of what they are doing?

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

You do realize that humans are animals right? You do realize that we are part of nature. A bird may build a nest, a beaver may build a damn, we may build a city...these are all examples of animals and nature...yet most would argue that the human animal does destroy its environment. Claiming nature is perfect is a belief system built off of watching Bambi too many times.

If you want specific examples of animals destroying environments all you really have to do is look at the myriad of invasive species as prime examples of animals destroying their environment. You argue that human intervention may offset this balance...but you wouldn't argue if they found some other way to migrate to new areas and cause mass extinction of other species that they may have been "superior" to...you would call it "nature's way of checks and balances." If you have a logic chain you have to apply it in all cases, not just the specific cases that fit your skewed world view. Nature is not perfect. It isn't that Disney movie you have on repeat. Nature is harsh, chaotic, constantly changing, constantly evolving, unforgiving, and ugly. If you want to feed yourself...something has to die (whether you eat plants or eat animals you are killing something else). If you cannot compete with other species in your environment, you die. If you cannot handle the climate or surrounding you live in, you die. Nature is about as harsh as it gets. Your idyllic view of it suggests you haven't actually lived in "nature" enough to actually understand it in the slightest.

10 Animal Invaders That Are Destroying Habitats

Thank you, this conversation was driving me mad. It is this Bambi view of nature that has people applying ONLY balance and beauty, to something that in reality is often more chaotic and very ugly. There is no good death nature. And probably some of the happiest creatures, when you read their cortisol levels, are creatures in captivity at your local zoo.

 

[Asclepias]

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

When an invasive species comes into a new environment, does it show any remorse, signs of hesitation, signs of putting itself in check? A better question is why have the term invasive species if nature is "perfect"? They do not care what damage they do to the environment. And before you blame humans for invasive species, it happens in nature, naturally all the time. Do beavers show any remorse for damning? What natural predator did the bison have before humans to keep them in check? And would there be any less cattle had there been no humans? Like I said bison were doing quite well. Wildabeast are dominating Africa. Do they care? Noooo, they're quite happy. They are too stupid to have any idea or concept of what they are doing in the realm of the environment, again "environment" a concept that they have no grasp of. Are they still somehow smarter than us now? Because they might have some unknown knowledge of running on four legs that we just can't grasp?

And if you recognize that all animals do emit co2, then what percentage do the wild animals in the us emit over the domesticated? Is it more or less than cattle? Now apply that number to the entire animal animal population of the entire planet.

What proof do you have that animals act with intent to preserve the environment? You haven't mentioned your proof, just your assertions that nature is perfect. Yet 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. A vast majority before us evil humans came into the picture. Humans, the only species ever with the ability to save the planet from some of the cataclysmic events that have decimated "perfect" nature in the past.

Invasive species are always introduced by....you guessed it. Humans. When do invasive species happen in nature without the assistance of man? Why would a beaver show remorse by damming? Bisons had wolves, bears, and cougars to keep them in check. Yes there would be less cattle had there been no humans. Yes i say they are smarter than us because they dont poison their environment.

Are you claiming that without humans the CO2 emitted by animals would endanger the earth?

So before the age of shipbuilding in humans, I guess animals were introduced across bodies of water by riding on the backs of whales? Or did they just emerge into existence through what's considered statistically impossible by parallel paths of evolution? And how did all of these animals go extinct? Was it always through some cataclysmic event, bc last time I checked those are few and far between. Or was it because of the introduction of some new predator, or competitor? And I guess when animals run short of a food source, they dont migrate to new areas for survival, they just lay down and die? If that's the case then why spread to all corners of the planet?

Damning is a very destructive act on the environment, so beavers are one of the most destructive animals on the planet. So if they were environmentally conscious as you claim, they would feel remorse for that.

Bears and Cougars do not hunt bison, bison are too big for Cougars, too quick and big for bears. Wolves occasioanally in a pack would tire out an injured one. Other than that bison aren't regularly hunted in nature.

And if there would be less cattle without humans, that doesn't seem to be the case in Africa. Also wild horses were a lot more prominent in America before we colonized the land.

And yes, according to the UNs climate report number they would, if your extrapolating those numbers and applying it to the entire animal population.

You are doing a lot of guessing which is my point. You nor anyone else knows. Your assuming life started in a central space and spread out when it just as easily could have started in different spots.

How is the damning beavers do destructive to the environment? Does it poison the water or something?

Yes bears and cougars do hunt bison. Did you even check before making this claim?

How is it not the case in Africa? You do realize there are people in Africa dont you? No there were not wild horses in America before europeans colonized the land.. They were introduced by the Spaniards The last prehistoric horse in North America died out almost 11K years ago. Thats why europeans riding horses looked like gods to the natives. They had never seen it before.

 

[Asclepias]

You could say flying requires a lower level of intelligence, a feat that birds couldnt train humans to do as a trick. I'm not implying animals have inherent anything. No one knows what they are thinking and no one can prove they are not thinking about keeping their environment clean. Of course they act in a way to preserve their environment. They dont do anything to mess it up. You keep bringing up cattle which I have already pointed out is a problem caused by humans not the animals. Left to their own devices they wouldnt cause that much Co2 emmisions. Human cause this by over breeding by force and manipulating nature.

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

You do realize that humans are animals right? You do realize that we are part of nature. A bird may build a nest, a beaver may build a damn, we may build a city...these are all examples of animals and nature...yet most would argue that the human animal does destroy its environment. Claiming nature is perfect is a belief system built off of watching Bambi too many times.

If you want specific examples of animals destroying environments all you really have to do is look at the myriad of invasive species as prime examples of animals destroying their environment. You argue that human intervention may offset this balance...but you wouldn't argue if they found some other way to migrate to new areas and cause mass extinction of other species that they may have been "superior" to...you would call it "nature's way of checks and balances." If you have a logic chain you have to apply it in all cases, not just the specific cases that fit your skewed world view. Nature is not perfect. It isn't that Disney movie you have on repeat. Nature is harsh, chaotic, constantly changing, constantly evolving, unforgiving, and ugly. If you want to feed yourself...something has to die (whether you eat plants or eat animals you are killing something else). If you cannot compete with other species in your environment, you die. If you cannot handle the climate or surrounding you live in, you die. Nature is about as harsh as it gets. Your idyllic view of it suggests you haven't actually lived in "nature" enough to actually understand it in the slightest.

10 Animal Invaders That Are Destroying Habitats

Humans are animals that manipulate their environment in harmful ways to themselves and other creatures. No one ever claimed humans were not animals. When we say animals the generally understood concept is that we are excluding humans for comparative reasons.

Someone should be able to point me to a invasive species not introduced by man that is destroying their environment. We know that is impossible because each animal has its natural niche and only human intervention will mess that up. If a cow had nuts it would be a bull. That fact is that no animal has found another way at least as far as we know. Perfect has nothing to do subjective terms such as chaos, unforgiving, harsh etc etc. Perfect means there is a symmetry that if left alone works

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.

 

[sakinago]

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

When an invasive species comes into a new environment, does it show any remorse, signs of hesitation, signs of putting itself in check? A better question is why have the term invasive species if nature is "perfect"? They do not care what damage they do to the environment. And before you blame humans for invasive species, it happens in nature, naturally all the time. Do beavers show any remorse for damning? What natural predator did the bison have before humans to keep them in check? And would there be any less cattle had there been no humans? Like I said bison were doing quite well. Wildabeast are dominating Africa. Do they care? Noooo, they're quite happy. They are too stupid to have any idea or concept of what they are doing in the realm of the environment, again "environment" a concept that they have no grasp of. Are they still somehow smarter than us now? Because they might have some unknown knowledge of running on four legs that we just can't grasp?

And if you recognize that all animals do emit co2, then what percentage do the wild animals in the us emit over the domesticated? Is it more or less than cattle? Now apply that number to the entire animal animal population of the entire planet.

What proof do you have that animals act with intent to preserve the environment? You haven't mentioned your proof, just your assertions that nature is perfect. Yet 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. A vast majority before us evil humans came into the picture. Humans, the only species ever with the ability to save the planet from some of the cataclysmic events that have decimated "perfect" nature in the past.

Invasive species are always introduced by....you guessed it. Humans. When do invasive species happen in nature without the assistance of man? Why would a beaver show remorse by damming? Bisons had wolves, bears, and cougars to keep them in check. Yes there would be less cattle had there been no humans. Yes i say they are smarter than us because they dont poison their environment.

Are you claiming that without humans the CO2 emitted by animals would endanger the earth?

So before the age of shipbuilding in humans, I guess animals were introduced across bodies of water by riding on the backs of whales? Or did they just emerge into existence through what's considered statistically impossible by parallel paths of evolution? And how did all of these animals go extinct? Was it always through some cataclysmic event, bc last time I checked those are few and far between. Or was it because of the introduction of some new predator, or competitor? And I guess when animals run short of a food source, they dont migrate to new areas for survival, they just lay down and die? If that's the case then why spread to all corners of the planet?

Damning is a very destructive act on the environment, so beavers are one of the most destructive animals on the planet. So if they were environmentally conscious as you claim, they would feel remorse for that.

Bears and Cougars do not hunt bison, bison are too big for Cougars, too quick and big for bears. Wolves occasioanally in a pack would tire out an injured one. Other than that bison aren't regularly hunted in nature.

And if there would be less cattle without humans, that doesn't seem to be the case in Africa. Also wild horses were a lot more prominent in America before we colonized the land.

And yes, according to the UNs climate report number they would, if your extrapolating those numbers and applying it to the entire animal population.

You are doing a lot of guessing which is my point. You nor anyone else knows. Your assuming life started in a central space and spread out when it just as easily could have started in different spots.

How is the damning beavers do destructive to the environment? Does it poison the water or something?

Yes bears and cougars do hunt bison. Did you even check before making this claim?

How is it not the case in Africa? You do realize there are people in Africa dont you? No there were not wild horses in America before europeans colonized the land.. They were introduced by the Spaniards The last prehistoric horse in North America died out almost 11K years ago. Thats why europeans riding horses looked like gods to the natives. They had never seen it before.

Parallel paths of evolution... that is what you are suggesting by life just popping up in different spots. Go ahed and try to prove that one.

And yes horses did quite well after they were introduced in the great plains, by themselves...without the help of humans, until the plains were more extensively colonized. And horses did not originate in Europe, they INVASIOUVLY spread from another location...without the help of humans. And yes there are people in Africa. There's also less industrialization and lots of wild cattle like creatures roaming around without humans herding and caring for them.

As for beavers, look at never ends post, I'm sure his article will answer that.

 

[Asclepias]

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

When an invasive species comes into a new environment, does it show any remorse, signs of hesitation, signs of putting itself in check? A better question is why have the term invasive species if nature is "perfect"? They do not care what damage they do to the environment. And before you blame humans for invasive species, it happens in nature, naturally all the time. Do beavers show any remorse for damning? What natural predator did the bison have before humans to keep them in check? And would there be any less cattle had there been no humans? Like I said bison were doing quite well. Wildabeast are dominating Africa. Do they care? Noooo, they're quite happy. They are too stupid to have any idea or concept of what they are doing in the realm of the environment, again "environment" a concept that they have no grasp of. Are they still somehow smarter than us now? Because they might have some unknown knowledge of running on four legs that we just can't grasp?

And if you recognize that all animals do emit co2, then what percentage do the wild animals in the us emit over the domesticated? Is it more or less than cattle? Now apply that number to the entire animal animal population of the entire planet.

What proof do you have that animals act with intent to preserve the environment? You haven't mentioned your proof, just your assertions that nature is perfect. Yet 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. A vast majority before us evil humans came into the picture. Humans, the only species ever with the ability to save the planet from some of the cataclysmic events that have decimated "perfect" nature in the past.

Invasive species are always introduced by....you guessed it. Humans. When do invasive species happen in nature without the assistance of man? Why would a beaver show remorse by damming? Bisons had wolves, bears, and cougars to keep them in check. Yes there would be less cattle had there been no humans. Yes i say they are smarter than us because they dont poison their environment.

Are you claiming that without humans the CO2 emitted by animals would endanger the earth?

So before the age of shipbuilding in humans, I guess animals were introduced across bodies of water by riding on the backs of whales? Or did they just emerge into existence through what's considered statistically impossible by parallel paths of evolution? And how did all of these animals go extinct? Was it always through some cataclysmic event, bc last time I checked those are few and far between. Or was it because of the introduction of some new predator, or competitor? And I guess when animals run short of a food source, they dont migrate to new areas for survival, they just lay down and die? If that's the case then why spread to all corners of the planet?

Damning is a very destructive act on the environment, so beavers are one of the most destructive animals on the planet. So if they were environmentally conscious as you claim, they would feel remorse for that.

Bears and Cougars do not hunt bison, bison are too big for Cougars, too quick and big for bears. Wolves occasioanally in a pack would tire out an injured one. Other than that bison aren't regularly hunted in nature.

And if there would be less cattle without humans, that doesn't seem to be the case in Africa. Also wild horses were a lot more prominent in America before we colonized the land.

And yes, according to the UNs climate report number they would, if your extrapolating those numbers and applying it to the entire animal population.

You are doing a lot of guessing which is my point. You nor anyone else knows. Your assuming life started in a central space and spread out when it just as easily could have started in different spots.

How is the damning beavers do destructive to the environment? Does it poison the water or something?

Yes bears and cougars do hunt bison. Did you even check before making this claim?

How is it not the case in Africa? You do realize there are people in Africa dont you? No there were not wild horses in America before europeans colonized the land.. They were introduced by the Spaniards The last prehistoric horse in North America died out almost 11K years ago. Thats why europeans riding horses looked like gods to the natives. They had never seen it before.

Parallel paths of evolution... that is what you are suggesting by life just popping up in different spots. Go ahed and try to prove that one.

And yes horses did quite well after they were introduced in the great plains, by themselves...without the help of humans, until the plains were more extensively colonized. And horses did not originate in Europe, they INVASIOUVLY spread from another location...without the help of humans. And yes there are people in Africa. There's also less industrialization and lots of wild cattle like creatures roaming around without humans herding and caring for them.

As for beavers, look at never ends post, I'm sure his article will answer that.

I think you need to prove life started in one spot before you ask me to prove it didnt.

Who said horses originated in europe? They originated in north american and spread over the land bridge to europe. Why do you say invasively? What animal did they cause to die out when they spread? When humans reintroduced them into the americas (like you just go through claiming they didnt) the horse did great.

Cattle like? Youre not making sense. Cattle like doesnt mean cattle. Thats like claiming the Zebra is a horse because its horse like.

No his article didnt answer that.

 

[sakinago]

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

You do realize that humans are animals right? You do realize that we are part of nature. A bird may build a nest, a beaver may build a damn, we may build a city...these are all examples of animals and nature...yet most would argue that the human animal does destroy its environment. Claiming nature is perfect is a belief system built off of watching Bambi too many times.

If you want specific examples of animals destroying environments all you really have to do is look at the myriad of invasive species as prime examples of animals destroying their environment. You argue that human intervention may offset this balance...but you wouldn't argue if they found some other way to migrate to new areas and cause mass extinction of other species that they may have been "superior" to...you would call it "nature's way of checks and balances." If you have a logic chain you have to apply it in all cases, not just the specific cases that fit your skewed world view. Nature is not perfect. It isn't that Disney movie you have on repeat. Nature is harsh, chaotic, constantly changing, constantly evolving, unforgiving, and ugly. If you want to feed yourself...something has to die (whether you eat plants or eat animals you are killing something else). If you cannot compete with other species in your environment, you die. If you cannot handle the climate or surrounding you live in, you die. Nature is about as harsh as it gets. Your idyllic view of it suggests you haven't actually lived in "nature" enough to actually understand it in the slightest.

10 Animal Invaders That Are Destroying Habitats

Humans are animals that manipulate their environment in harmful ways to themselves and other creatures. No one ever claimed humans were not animals. When we say animals the generally understood concept is that we are excluding humans for comparative reasons.

Someone should be able to point me to a invasive species not introduced by man that is destroying their environment. We know that is impossible because each animal has its natural niche and only human intervention will mess that up. If a cow had nuts it would be a bull. That fact is that no animal has found another way at least as far as we know. Perfect has nothing to do subjective terms such as chaos, unforgiving, harsh etc etc. Perfect means there is a symmetry that if left alone works

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?

 

[Never3ndr]

They do not act in a way to preserve their environment! They act in the opposite manner!! You have this Bambi view of nature where it's all perfect, and animals have these great intentions. THAT IS NOT REALITY. They only act in a way to survive and reproduce. The only reason I brought up cattle and their CO2 emissions is because that's been the only quantified animal on CO2 emissions, because they are the only taxable one. ALL AEROBIC ANIMAL ORGANISMS ARE EMITTING CO2. There is no study of wildabeast, lion, bison, elk, wolf, deer, etc emissions. If we weren't here they'd still be emitting. All the animals I listed would completely extinct any and all species around them in order to spread more.

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

You do realize that humans are animals right? You do realize that we are part of nature. A bird may build a nest, a beaver may build a damn, we may build a city...these are all examples of animals and nature...yet most would argue that the human animal does destroy its environment. Claiming nature is perfect is a belief system built off of watching Bambi too many times.

If you want specific examples of animals destroying environments all you really have to do is look at the myriad of invasive species as prime examples of animals destroying their environment. You argue that human intervention may offset this balance...but you wouldn't argue if they found some other way to migrate to new areas and cause mass extinction of other species that they may have been "superior" to...you would call it "nature's way of checks and balances." If you have a logic chain you have to apply it in all cases, not just the specific cases that fit your skewed world view. Nature is not perfect. It isn't that Disney movie you have on repeat. Nature is harsh, chaotic, constantly changing, constantly evolving, unforgiving, and ugly. If you want to feed yourself...something has to die (whether you eat plants or eat animals you are killing something else). If you cannot compete with other species in your environment, you die. If you cannot handle the climate or surrounding you live in, you die. Nature is about as harsh as it gets. Your idyllic view of it suggests you haven't actually lived in "nature" enough to actually understand it in the slightest.

10 Animal Invaders That Are Destroying Habitats

Humans are animals that manipulate their environment in harmful ways to themselves and other creatures. No one ever claimed humans were not animals. When we say animals the generally understood concept is that we are excluding humans for comparative reasons.

Someone should be able to point me to a invasive species not introduced by man that is destroying their environment. We know that is impossible because each animal has its natural niche and only human intervention will mess that up. If a cow had nuts it would be a bull. That fact is that no animal has found another way at least as far as we know. Perfect has nothing to do subjective terms such as chaos, unforgiving, harsh etc etc. Perfect means there is a symmetry that if left alone works

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.

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.

 

[Asclepias]

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

You do realize that humans are animals right? You do realize that we are part of nature. A bird may build a nest, a beaver may build a damn, we may build a city...these are all examples of animals and nature...yet most would argue that the human animal does destroy its environment. Claiming nature is perfect is a belief system built off of watching Bambi too many times.

If you want specific examples of animals destroying environments all you really have to do is look at the myriad of invasive species as prime examples of animals destroying their environment. You argue that human intervention may offset this balance...but you wouldn't argue if they found some other way to migrate to new areas and cause mass extinction of other species that they may have been "superior" to...you would call it "nature's way of checks and balances." If you have a logic chain you have to apply it in all cases, not just the specific cases that fit your skewed world view. Nature is not perfect. It isn't that Disney movie you have on repeat. Nature is harsh, chaotic, constantly changing, constantly evolving, unforgiving, and ugly. If you want to feed yourself...something has to die (whether you eat plants or eat animals you are killing something else). If you cannot compete with other species in your environment, you die. If you cannot handle the climate or surrounding you live in, you die. Nature is about as harsh as it gets. Your idyllic view of it suggests you haven't actually lived in "nature" enough to actually understand it in the slightest.

10 Animal Invaders That Are Destroying Habitats

Humans are animals that manipulate their environment in harmful ways to themselves and other creatures. No one ever claimed humans were not animals. When we say animals the generally understood concept is that we are excluding humans for comparative reasons.

Someone should be able to point me to a invasive species not introduced by man that is destroying their environment. We know that is impossible because each animal has its natural niche and only human intervention will mess that up. If a cow had nuts it would be a bull. That fact is that no animal has found another way at least as far as we know. Perfect has nothing to do subjective terms such as chaos, unforgiving, harsh etc etc. Perfect means there is a symmetry that if left alone works

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.

 

[sakinago]

When an invasive species comes into a new environment, does it show any remorse, signs of hesitation, signs of putting itself in check? A better question is why have the term invasive species if nature is "perfect"? They do not care what damage they do to the environment. And before you blame humans for invasive species, it happens in nature, naturally all the time. Do beavers show any remorse for damning? What natural predator did the bison have before humans to keep them in check? And would there be any less cattle had there been no humans? Like I said bison were doing quite well. Wildabeast are dominating Africa. Do they care? Noooo, they're quite happy. They are too stupid to have any idea or concept of what they are doing in the realm of the environment, again "environment" a concept that they have no grasp of. Are they still somehow smarter than us now? Because they might have some unknown knowledge of running on four legs that we just can't grasp?

And if you recognize that all animals do emit co2, then what percentage do the wild animals in the us emit over the domesticated? Is it more or less than cattle? Now apply that number to the entire animal animal population of the entire planet.

What proof do you have that animals act with intent to preserve the environment? You haven't mentioned your proof, just your assertions that nature is perfect. Yet 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. A vast majority before us evil humans came into the picture. Humans, the only species ever with the ability to save the planet from some of the cataclysmic events that have decimated "perfect" nature in the past.

Invasive species are always introduced by....you guessed it. Humans. When do invasive species happen in nature without the assistance of man? Why would a beaver show remorse by damming? Bisons had wolves, bears, and cougars to keep them in check. Yes there would be less cattle had there been no humans. Yes i say they are smarter than us because they dont poison their environment.

Are you claiming that without humans the CO2 emitted by animals would endanger the earth?

So before the age of shipbuilding in humans, I guess animals were introduced across bodies of water by riding on the backs of whales? Or did they just emerge into existence through what's considered statistically impossible by parallel paths of evolution? And how did all of these animals go extinct? Was it always through some cataclysmic event, bc last time I checked those are few and far between. Or was it because of the introduction of some new predator, or competitor? And I guess when animals run short of a food source, they dont migrate to new areas for survival, they just lay down and die? If that's the case then why spread to all corners of the planet?

Damning is a very destructive act on the environment, so beavers are one of the most destructive animals on the planet. So if they were environmentally conscious as you claim, they would feel remorse for that.

Bears and Cougars do not hunt bison, bison are too big for Cougars, too quick and big for bears. Wolves occasioanally in a pack would tire out an injured one. Other than that bison aren't regularly hunted in nature.

And if there would be less cattle without humans, that doesn't seem to be the case in Africa. Also wild horses were a lot more prominent in America before we colonized the land.

And yes, according to the UNs climate report number they would, if your extrapolating those numbers and applying it to the entire animal population.

You are doing a lot of guessing which is my point. You nor anyone else knows. Your assuming life started in a central space and spread out when it just as easily could have started in different spots.

How is the damning beavers do destructive to the environment? Does it poison the water or something?

Yes bears and cougars do hunt bison. Did you even check before making this claim?

How is it not the case in Africa? You do realize there are people in Africa dont you? No there were not wild horses in America before europeans colonized the land.. They were introduced by the Spaniards The last prehistoric horse in North America died out almost 11K years ago. Thats why europeans riding horses looked like gods to the natives. They had never seen it before.

Parallel paths of evolution... that is what you are suggesting by life just popping up in different spots. Go ahed and try to prove that one.

And yes horses did quite well after they were introduced in the great plains, by themselves...without the help of humans, until the plains were more extensively colonized. And horses did not originate in Europe, they INVASIOUVLY spread from another location...without the help of humans. And yes there are people in Africa. There's also less industrialization and lots of wild cattle like creatures roaming around without humans herding and caring for them.

As for beavers, look at never ends post, I'm sure his article will answer that.

I think you need to prove life started in one spot before you ask me to prove it didnt.

Who said horses originated in europe? They originated in north american and spread over the land bridge to europe. Why do you say invasively? What animal did they cause to die out when they spread? When humans reintroduced them into the americas (like you just go through claiming they didnt) the horse did great.

Cattle like? Youre not making sense. Cattle like doesnt mean cattle. Thats like claiming the Zebra is a horse because its horse like.

No his article didnt answer that.

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.

 

[Asclepias]

Animals dont act in a manner that destroys their environment. if you have an example please explain. Youre claim that they do is not sufficient evidence. Yes nature is perfect. Of course all animals including humans emit CO2. You were citing the percentage of CO2 cattle emit as an example that animals harm their environment but neglecting to realize it was a direct result of human intervention, breeding, and clearing of forests. I think your mistaken. if those animals extincted each other their own extinction would swiftly follow. Nature has checks and balances.

You do realize that humans are animals right? You do realize that we are part of nature. A bird may build a nest, a beaver may build a damn, we may build a city...these are all examples of animals and nature...yet most would argue that the human animal does destroy its environment. Claiming nature is perfect is a belief system built off of watching Bambi too many times.

If you want specific examples of animals destroying environments all you really have to do is look at the myriad of invasive species as prime examples of animals destroying their environment. You argue that human intervention may offset this balance...but you wouldn't argue if they found some other way to migrate to new areas and cause mass extinction of other species that they may have been "superior" to...you would call it "nature's way of checks and balances." If you have a logic chain you have to apply it in all cases, not just the specific cases that fit your skewed world view. Nature is not perfect. It isn't that Disney movie you have on repeat. Nature is harsh, chaotic, constantly changing, constantly evolving, unforgiving, and ugly. If you want to feed yourself...something has to die (whether you eat plants or eat animals you are killing something else). If you cannot compete with other species in your environment, you die. If you cannot handle the climate or surrounding you live in, you die. Nature is about as harsh as it gets. Your idyllic view of it suggests you haven't actually lived in "nature" enough to actually understand it in the slightest.

10 Animal Invaders That Are Destroying Habitats

Humans are animals that manipulate their environment in harmful ways to themselves and other creatures. No one ever claimed humans were not animals. When we say animals the generally understood concept is that we are excluding humans for comparative reasons.

Someone should be able to point me to a invasive species not introduced by man that is destroying their environment. We know that is impossible because each animal has its natural niche and only human intervention will mess that up. If a cow had nuts it would be a bull. That fact is that no animal has found another way at least as far as we know. Perfect has nothing to do subjective terms such as chaos, unforgiving, harsh etc etc. Perfect means there is a symmetry that if left alone works

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.

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.

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.

 

[Asclepias]

Invasive species are always introduced by....you guessed it. Humans. When do invasive species happen in nature without the assistance of man? Why would a beaver show remorse by damming? Bisons had wolves, bears, and cougars to keep them in check. Yes there would be less cattle had there been no humans. Yes i say they are smarter than us because they dont poison their environment.

Are you claiming that without humans the CO2 emitted by animals would endanger the earth?

So before the age of shipbuilding in humans, I guess animals were introduced across bodies of water by riding on the backs of whales? Or did they just emerge into existence through what's considered statistically impossible by parallel paths of evolution? And how did all of these animals go extinct? Was it always through some cataclysmic event, bc last time I checked those are few and far between. Or was it because of the introduction of some new predator, or competitor? And I guess when animals run short of a food source, they dont migrate to new areas for survival, they just lay down and die? If that's the case then why spread to all corners of the planet?

Damning is a very destructive act on the environment, so beavers are one of the most destructive animals on the planet. So if they were environmentally conscious as you claim, they would feel remorse for that.

Bears and Cougars do not hunt bison, bison are too big for Cougars, too quick and big for bears. Wolves occasioanally in a pack would tire out an injured one. Other than that bison aren't regularly hunted in nature.

And if there would be less cattle without humans, that doesn't seem to be the case in Africa. Also wild horses were a lot more prominent in America before we colonized the land.

And yes, according to the UNs climate report number they would, if your extrapolating those numbers and applying it to the entire animal population.

You are doing a lot of guessing which is my point. You nor anyone else knows. Your assuming life started in a central space and spread out when it just as easily could have started in different spots.

How is the damning beavers do destructive to the environment? Does it poison the water or something?

Yes bears and cougars do hunt bison. Did you even check before making this claim?

How is it not the case in Africa? You do realize there are people in Africa dont you? No there were not wild horses in America before europeans colonized the land.. They were introduced by the Spaniards The last prehistoric horse in North America died out almost 11K years ago. Thats why europeans riding horses looked like gods to the natives. They had never seen it before.

Parallel paths of evolution... that is what you are suggesting by life just popping up in different spots. Go ahed and try to prove that one.

And yes horses did quite well after they were introduced in the great plains, by themselves...without the help of humans, until the plains were more extensively colonized. And horses did not originate in Europe, they INVASIOUVLY spread from another location...without the help of humans. And yes there are people in Africa. There's also less industrialization and lots of wild cattle like creatures roaming around without humans herding and caring for them.

As for beavers, look at never ends post, I'm sure his article will answer that.

I think you need to prove life started in one spot before you ask me to prove it didnt.

Who said horses originated in europe? They originated in north american and spread over the land bridge to europe. Why do you say invasively? What animal did they cause to die out when they spread? When humans reintroduced them into the americas (like you just go through claiming they didnt) the horse did great.

Cattle like? Youre not making sense. Cattle like doesnt mean cattle. Thats like claiming the Zebra is a horse because its horse like.

No his article didnt answer that.

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.

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?

 

[sakinago]

You do realize that humans are animals right? You do realize that we are part of nature. A bird may build a nest, a beaver may build a damn, we may build a city...these are all examples of animals and nature...yet most would argue that the human animal does destroy its environment. Claiming nature is perfect is a belief system built off of watching Bambi too many times.

If you want specific examples of animals destroying environments all you really have to do is look at the myriad of invasive species as prime examples of animals destroying their environment. You argue that human intervention may offset this balance...but you wouldn't argue if they found some other way to migrate to new areas and cause mass extinction of other species that they may have been "superior" to...you would call it "nature's way of checks and balances." If you have a logic chain you have to apply it in all cases, not just the specific cases that fit your skewed world view. Nature is not perfect. It isn't that Disney movie you have on repeat. Nature is harsh, chaotic, constantly changing, constantly evolving, unforgiving, and ugly. If you want to feed yourself...something has to die (whether you eat plants or eat animals you are killing something else). If you cannot compete with other species in your environment, you die. If you cannot handle the climate or surrounding you live in, you die. Nature is about as harsh as it gets. Your idyllic view of it suggests you haven't actually lived in "nature" enough to actually understand it in the slightest.

10 Animal Invaders That Are Destroying Habitats

Humans are animals that manipulate their environment in harmful ways to themselves and other creatures. No one ever claimed humans were not animals. When we say animals the generally understood concept is that we are excluding humans for comparative reasons.

Someone should be able to point me to a invasive species not introduced by man that is destroying their environment. We know that is impossible because each animal has its natural niche and only human intervention will mess that up. If a cow had nuts it would be a bull. That fact is that no animal has found another way at least as far as we know. Perfect has nothing to do subjective terms such as chaos, unforgiving, harsh etc etc. Perfect means there is a symmetry that if left alone works

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?

 

[Asclepias]

Humans are animals that manipulate their environment in harmful ways to themselves and other creatures. No one ever claimed humans were not animals. When we say animals the generally understood concept is that we are excluding humans for comparative reasons.

Someone should be able to point me to a invasive species not introduced by man that is destroying their environment. We know that is impossible because each animal has its natural niche and only human intervention will mess that up. If a cow had nuts it would be a bull. That fact is that no animal has found another way at least as far as we know. Perfect has nothing to do subjective terms such as chaos, unforgiving, harsh etc etc. Perfect means there is a symmetry that if left alone works

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.

 

[sakinago]

So before the age of shipbuilding in humans, I guess animals were introduced across bodies of water by riding on the backs of whales? Or did they just emerge into existence through what's considered statistically impossible by parallel paths of evolution? And how did all of these animals go extinct? Was it always through some cataclysmic event, bc last time I checked those are few and far between. Or was it because of the introduction of some new predator, or competitor? And I guess when animals run short of a food source, they dont migrate to new areas for survival, they just lay down and die? If that's the case then why spread to all corners of the planet?

Damning is a very destructive act on the environment, so beavers are one of the most destructive animals on the planet. So if they were environmentally conscious as you claim, they would feel remorse for that.

Bears and Cougars do not hunt bison, bison are too big for Cougars, too quick and big for bears. Wolves occasioanally in a pack would tire out an injured one. Other than that bison aren't regularly hunted in nature.

And if there would be less cattle without humans, that doesn't seem to be the case in Africa. Also wild horses were a lot more prominent in America before we colonized the land.

And yes, according to the UNs climate report number they would, if your extrapolating those numbers and applying it to the entire animal population.

You are doing a lot of guessing which is my point. You nor anyone else knows. Your assuming life started in a central space and spread out when it just as easily could have started in different spots.

How is the damning beavers do destructive to the environment? Does it poison the water or something?

Yes bears and cougars do hunt bison. Did you even check before making this claim?

How is it not the case in Africa? You do realize there are people in Africa dont you? No there were not wild horses in America before europeans colonized the land.. They were introduced by the Spaniards The last prehistoric horse in North America died out almost 11K years ago. Thats why europeans riding horses looked like gods to the natives. They had never seen it before.

Parallel paths of evolution... that is what you are suggesting by life just popping up in different spots. Go ahed and try to prove that one.

And yes horses did quite well after they were introduced in the great plains, by themselves...without the help of humans, until the plains were more extensively colonized. And horses did not originate in Europe, they INVASIOUVLY spread from another location...without the help of humans. And yes there are people in Africa. There's also less industrialization and lots of wild cattle like creatures roaming around without humans herding and caring for them.

As for beavers, look at never ends post, I'm sure his article will answer that.

I think you need to prove life started in one spot before you ask me to prove it didnt.

Who said horses originated in europe? They originated in north american and spread over the land bridge to europe. Why do you say invasively? What animal did they cause to die out when they spread? When humans reintroduced them into the americas (like you just go through claiming they didnt) the horse did great.

Cattle like? Youre not making sense. Cattle like doesnt mean cattle. Thats like claiming the Zebra is a horse because its horse like.

No his article didnt answer that.

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.

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?

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.

 

[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.

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.

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?"