http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YU82RS5elI&e
If they are not fittest then making them survive is not act against natural selection?
Edited by Nabi, 30 January 2009 - 07:57 AM.
Posted 30 January 2009 - 07:57 AM
Edited by Nabi, 30 January 2009 - 07:57 AM.
Posted 30 January 2009 - 08:24 AM
Our country has a serious deficiency in lighthouses. I assume the main reason is that we have no sea.
I never trust anything that can't be doubted.
'Normal' is a dryer setting. - Elizabeth Moon
Posted 30 January 2009 - 09:23 AM
Posted 30 January 2009 - 01:48 PM
Posted 30 January 2009 - 02:43 PM
Do we really rule the earth?
Are humans, and everything we do, and everything we make, not part of the natural world?
Posted 30 January 2009 - 02:53 PM
But haven't we already made that very basic of all definitions- anything produced by man is artificial or man-made and not natural?It depends on the definition of 'natural' that is in use.
Posted 30 January 2009 - 03:41 PM
But haven't we already made that very basic of all definitions- anything produced by man is artificial or man-made and not natural?It depends on the definition of 'natural' that is in use.
Posted 30 January 2009 - 03:47 PM
Posted 30 January 2009 - 06:00 PM
Pandas have one very usefull feature for their survival. They're so cute that they made humans to help them reproduce. Very clever, since humans nowadays rule the Earth
The "natural" distinction is bull. They are surviving by fitness - to human emotion.
In one sense it is the power to destroy but looking at the present age, there are groups that have power to destroy our habitat but we refuse/fight to accept that they rule. Taking evolution into consideration, is it right to say that the one who is most evolved (or who is fittest to survive) is the ruler?One could argue that in the crudest sense, power over something is the ability to destroy it where and when one desires. With the advent of nuclear weapons, humanity could destroy the Earth. And thus by this definition we do rule it.Do we really rule the earth?
Of course, there are other definitions of what it means to rule a planet. If ruling meant being able to govern it, fix it and improve it... well humanity may no more rule the world as a 2 year old may rule a town.
Posted 01 February 2009 - 11:24 PM
What does it mean to be "most" evolved? Either a species is evolved in a certain environment, or it isn't. Even using the "fittest to survive" definition (and couldn't we open a can of worms over that definition?), I could argue that anywhere that H. sapiens occurs in numbers, Rattus spp are most evolved, and therefore rule. And let's not forget ants and cockroaches.Pandas have one very usefull feature for their survival. They're so cute that they made humans to help them reproduce. Very clever, since humans nowadays rule the Earth
The "natural" distinction is bull. They are surviving by fitness - to human emotion.
This is a form of symbiosis?In one sense it is the power to destroy but looking at the present age, there are groups that have power to destroy our habitat but we refuse/fight to accept that they rule. Taking evolution into consideration, is it right to say that the one who is most evolved (or who is fittest to survive) is the ruler?One could argue that in the crudest sense, power over something is the ability to destroy it where and when one desires. With the advent of nuclear weapons, humanity could destroy the Earth. And thus by this definition we do rule it.Do we really rule the earth?
Of course, there are other definitions of what it means to rule a planet. If ruling meant being able to govern it, fix it and improve it... well humanity may no more rule the world as a 2 year old may rule a town.
Posted 21 August 2009 - 07:21 AM
"Most evolved" makes little sense. How do you measure how "evolved" a species is in this context? You can claim humans "rule" the planet, but there are a lot more bacteria and insects than humans. If one looks at populations, this planet is ruled by bacteria and has been for billions of years.In one sense it is the power to destroy but looking at the present age, there are groups that have power to destroy our habitat but we refuse/fight to accept that they rule. Taking evolution into consideration, is it right to say that the one who is most evolved (or who is fittest to survive) is the ruler?
Posted 21 August 2009 - 07:07 PM
Posted 03 December 2009 - 09:13 AM
Are there really?Consider also that there are more microbial cells in and on the human body than human cells.
Posted 03 December 2009 - 09:58 AM
Posted 30 March 2010 - 11:28 AM
Home
- About
- Terms of Service
- Privacy
- Contact Us
©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved. |