Man vs Nature

[DarkRyter]

Dammit, I was gonna make a Matrix joke, but I was ninja'd in the first damn post.

 

[Danny Ocean]

humans are not actually mammals, they are a virus.

No. Really, what were you thinking when you decided to make this topic?

Don't state that out of context. He is correct. In some ways we do behave to the earth as a bacterial infection behaves to humans. The actual bacteria don't really harm you, but all the crap it leaves in it's wake as it uses up your resources does. Of course, like your body, the Earth has it's own "Immune System", too. Although imagine having all your white blood cells rendered redundant by the strength of the bacteria. All you've really got is the climate control- the equivalent to a human temperature. It'll rise until it either dies or we do. Or we figure a way to make the relationship symbiotic.

The problem comes when the infection destroys it's host. It needs to find a new one.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Evolution occurs because an animal will have a slightly mutated baby, if the baby does well it will mate and produce more, similar babies to itself, if these animals are superior to their predecessors they will out breed them or kill them off. That is how evolution works, there is no concious decision making.

Yes yes, the freak babies slowly cause change, we all know that, congratulations on pointing that out. But how one set of freak babies become an entirely different offset of the species is the annoying bit. What we praise as being an evolutionary marvel is an inbred creature that's the result of a receding pool of genetic material, and has resulted in a freak happenstance that just happens to benefit the species. But the thing I don't understand is how that freak mutation can actively adapt to looking exactly like something else. Yes, it occurs over hundreds, if not thousands, of years, but that still doesn't explain how it adapts to look precisely like a similar adaptation for survival on a plant.

 

[Kriptonite]

Nature will have her revenge. Just wait. There will be some huge event. Black Plague, Smallpox, Hurricane Katrina(although you are just dumb if you don't MOVE YOUR ASS!), Spanish Flu. There will be something soon... The list could go on...

 

[DeathArtist]

WE ARE VIRUSES BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA NOICE!

but no, viruses need to infect to reproduce (and don't go brining up stuff about how in reproduction people can pass on aids or something)

but yeah, we are mammals. we're also the product of evolution. intelligent evolution.

we are destiny MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA

ok, i'm done laughing.

 

[FastFoot92]

This is what seperates men from animals!We are godlike in the respect that we can influnce the enviroment around us!

 

[lostclause]

We cause widespread damage to the environment, destroying huge areas of forest, dumping toxic waste in landfills and bodies of water, and spewing out greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere; even if you don't believe in global warming, you cannot deny that because of us the planet is in a very unhealthy state.

"Us"? Don't you mean, America?

I very much doubt he does. Per capita my country, New Zealand, is one of the most polluting countries and China is the winner overall (though quite low per capita). No one country is to blame here.

 

[CD-R]

Humans are a part of nature. Therefore Everything humans do is natural.

/thread

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Evolution occurs because an animal will have a slightly mutated baby, if the baby does well it will mate and produce more, similar babies to itself, if these animals are superior to their predecessors they will out breed them or kill them off. That is how evolution works, there is no concious decision making.

Yes yes, the freak babies slowly cause change, we all know that, congratulations on pointing that out. But how one set of freak babies become an entirely different offset of the species is the annoying bit. What we praise as being an evolutionary marvel is an inbred creature that's the result of a receding pool of genetic material, and has resulted in a freak happenstance that just happens to benefit the species. But the thing I don't understand is how that freak mutation can actively adapt to looking exactly like something else. Yes, it occurs over hundreds, if not thousands, of years, but that still doesn't explain how it adapts to look precisely like a similar adaptation for survival on a plant.

Well heres where you seem to underestimate your own (and my own) point.

So you belive that in over 50,000,000 years an insect might not coincidentally match its surroundings and survive due to that? Need I remind you of the black vs white spotted moths?

If the point was so obvious I would have thought you would have read a little into the connotations it holds.

Sure, over such a period, it might change to match its surroundings, I'm sure, but over even a few thousand years the drop in genetic diversity should create various genetic problems, things intrinsic to the creature that would be detrimental to further development. Over such a period the genetic abnormalities should accrue to the point that it would be impossible to identify its predecessor. But you reference coincidence, and that point is where I have issue. The level that the insect patterns match the surrounding environment is a bit too close for me to think it coincidence. Even if the pointy carapace was the only genetic abnormality, the the repeated progression and repetition of that mutation shouldn't be controlled in a specific way, which leads to think there is some kind of shaping that happens, somewhere down the line. It just seems like it wouldn't be natural that the specific pattern used by plants matches exactly the carapace structure on the insect.

 

[Insanum]

if there is any sudden population growth or decline it is quickly curbed by an insufficient food supply, thus killing off the necessary number of the problematic species, returning things to normal

Has it not occured to you that we may be in the middle of this?

As far as i can see things cannot last as they are doing, Lets enjoy it while it lasts

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Evolution occurs because an animal will have a slightly mutated baby, if the baby does well it will mate and produce more, similar babies to itself, if these animals are superior to their predecessors they will out breed them or kill them off. That is how evolution works, there is no concious decision making.

Yes yes, the freak babies slowly cause change, we all know that, congratulations on pointing that out. But how one set of freak babies become an entirely different offset of the species is the annoying bit. What we praise as being an evolutionary marvel is an inbred creature that's the result of a receding pool of genetic material, and has resulted in a freak happenstance that just happens to benefit the species. But the thing I don't understand is how that freak mutation can actively adapt to looking exactly like something else. Yes, it occurs over hundreds, if not thousands, of years, but that still doesn't explain how it adapts to look precisely like a similar adaptation for survival on a plant.

Well heres where you seem to underestimate your own (and my own) point.

So you belive that in over 50,000,000 years an insect might not coincidentally match its surroundings and survive due to that? Need I remind you of the black vs white spotted moths?

If the point was so obvious I would have thought you would have read a little into the connotations it holds.

Sure, over such a period, it might change to match its surroundings, I'm sure, but over even a few thousand years the drop in genetic diversity should create various genetic problems, things intrinsic to the creature that would be detrimental to further development. Over such a period the genetic abnormalities should accrue to the point that it would be impossible to identify its predecessor. But you reference coincidence, and that point is where I have issue. The level that the insect patterns match the surrounding environment is a bit too close for me to think it coincidence. Even if the pointy carapace was the only genetic abnormality, the the repeated progression and repetition of that mutation shouldn't be controlled in a specific way, which leads to think there is some kind of shaping that happens, somewhere down the line. It just seems like it wouldn't be natural that the specific pattern used by plants matches exactly the carapace structure on the insect.

I often find myself wondering the same things, (albeit with a smaller vocabulary), perhaps the insect serves a purpose on the plant, such as pollination or protection and as such the probability of the evolutionary camoflauge would increase.
I hope that makes sense, I find myself strugling to find a way to describe it.

You have a good point but I can't imagine a way that things could work without it being coincidence. Quite the pickle.

Quite so. That would actually make sense, and would imply a bit of a learned evolution via a process of symbism, which would definitely fit with the rest of nature. And if you were struggling to describe it, you accomplished your point quite well, as I think I know exactly what you're talking about.