Wednesday, September 12, 2007

extinction.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_re_eu/endangered_gorillas

every time i read an article like this i wonder why there is no evidence of an evolutionary process whereby a species exhibits survival mechanisms to turn into another species just in time in the face of real threats to it`s existance.

100% of the time the species becomes extinct when the treat is large and fast enough.


if darwin was right these gorillas could suddenly become a bird or a fish.

the only thing that happens is that the species becomes a slightly different shape or size of the same species and if that`s not enough to survive in the changing environment the species is doomed.

12 comments:

BBC said...

I'll never be extinct, but I may in the future not be a human anymore as they are so stupid and planet destroying.

I may just be a cockroach in the future, maybe the near future. It's not as interesting as being a human but it is still life.

It's an omnipresent spirit thing, if I'm not a human I'll be a cockroach again, I was that before I was a human anyway.

Maybe humans won't like it that they destroyed themselves with all their wants and greeds but the rest of nature will be relived. :-)

dr.alistair said...

typical judeo-christian materialistic viewpoint.

to seperate us out from all of the energy in the universe is typical of how we got to be a spiritually bancrupt culture.

when we include ourselves in the abundance of everything then we don`t look for excuses or reasons to be pissed off or blame others.

we just exist.

in the gnostic view the materialist seperated entity is known as the archon, or demi-god.

the type of vengful soul that would destroy an entire race of people for not worshiping him absolutely.

the god af the old testament for instance.

SJ said...

Actually this proves Darwin right? The survival of the fittest they couldn't adapt they are dying unlike say cats and dogs that moved in with us... or crows that use urban sprawl to their advantage.

dr.alistair said...

the contentiousness of darwin`s theory isn`t over survival of the fittest.

survival of the fittest works in many ways to preserve the genetic information of the optimum a species can provide.

it doesn`t explain the persistancy of liberalism though......

where darwin`s theory falls down, and where he was personally uncomfortable, is when it is used to suggest that one species becomes another one.

granted a species can adapt to environmental changes such as climate and food supply by literally changing physiologically to become better equipped to exist in the new environment......but where the proof fails is in saying something like; a chimp becomes a man.

no matter what happens, the chimp is still a chimp.

the idea of evolution as meaning a species can become another one through some environmental pressure or whatever has become so mythologised and accepted as fact that it creeps into serious debate as fact and distorts reality.

it is amazing to me that seemingly intelligent people repeat the evolution myth as fact and add it to thier reality equation without asking some simple questions in logic that can`t be reasonably answered by the theory as it stands.

oh yeah, and the missing link is still missing.

i guess that`s why it`s called the missing link.

someone figured it out early in the game.

dr.alistair said...

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2007/08aug/RICR-070809.html

and for those of you who can handle a shift in your paradigm away from dogmatic victorian thinking, try some lloyd pye with breafast.

the link above will take you to a radio interview, some video and links to more of lloyd`s work.

i am grateful to lloyd for putting a point on my pencil regarding the illogic of macro-evolution and i feel i owe it to my readers to clarify my points when i can.

X. Dell said...

That's not exactly what I learned in school under the heading of evolution. Gorilla's turning into birds over a single generation in order to survive an impending catastrophe sounds more like revolution than evolution.

I understand where you are coming from, in that many of the points you allude to have been associated with evolution, and when they are the shortcomings of Darwin and Huxley become magnified tenfold by every level of dogma. I find it particularly problematic as an explanation, such as one will find in "evolutionary psychology" or "social Darwinism."

Still, in the current understanding of evolution, the belief is that common ancestry exists amng diverse species, not a simplistic replacement of species. After all, most species don't simply have the ability to mutate into one thing, but the potential to mutate in a variety of ways (microorganisms seem particularly adept to this, thus microbiologists can see evolution in action, and in real time).

As for the missing link, its a concept that belongs in the scientific paradigms of the 19th Century, and in current day popular culture. Today's biologists think more in terms of a transitional fossil record that cannot possibly hope to descirbe the process, just little pieces of it.

From Wikipedia:

"A popular term used to designate transitional forms is 'the missing link.' The term is especially used in the regular media, but is inaccurate and confusing, partly because it implies that there is a single link missing to complete the picture, which must be discovered. In reality, the continuing discovery of more and more transitional fossils is further adding to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions. The term probably arose in the nineteenth century where the awaited discovery of a 'missing link' between humans and so-called 'lower' animals was considered to be the final proof of evolution. The Australopithecus afarensis fossil (more commonly known as 'Lucy'), a key transitional fossil, has often been represented as "the missing link.'

BBC said...

"typical judeo-christian materialistic viewpoint."

You are so full of shit, you don't know what you are talking about to label me that way.

"i feel i owe it to my readers to clarify my points when i can."

All ten of them?

dr.alistair said...

x, that about sums it up. but there are those who insist that we came from apes and suggest that we have common ancestry with them, which is what i really don`t buy.

bill, "Maybe humans won't like it that they destroyed themselves with all their wants and greeds but the rest of nature will be relived. :-)"

these are your words, and a smiley thing at the end doesn`t lessen the dogmatic judgement in it......

you are a human.....and a harshly judgemental one at that.

or an old testament demi-urge.

SJ said...

Reading your and X's comments makes me think that letting the masses tackle BIG questions is fraught with risk. If saying that makes me a snob so be it. I think people want to believe in THAT ONE THING. If religion has been myth busted they go create scientific myths.

dr.alistair said...

sj, out of a scientific and religious niavety comes a clear logic........

you are to be commended.

people are asked to believe "that one thing", and for the most part are better off for it.

nietzche warned of learning the truth too soon, what thomas hobbes refered to as a brief and brutal life.

for those of us with shoulders broad enough to carry such weight we don`t need dogma or myths, we can ask the obvious questions.......

and science and religion are fighting for a share of the same dollar after all.

speedbird said...

> these gorillas could suddenly become a bird or a fish.

I really don't think Darwin went that far.

It goes more like this: one species becomes two varieties in two environments. The varieties become different enough to be considered species. Then one environment is destroyed (or a strong variety of another species moves in) and one species becomes extinct.

Only very recently is it becoming generally appreciated that you can't separate a species and its environment. If we chop down the forest, we lose the gorillas.

dr.alistair said...

speedbird, you are right that darwin didn`t go that far.in his writings he agonised over this point. wereas species adapt clearly for survival and remain a finch for instance, none ever exhibit behaviours that show changing from one species to another.

ever.

including humans.

once one adds this fact to the formula then all sorts of other uncomfortable questions become asked......

which is why evolution of man is a useful tool for censorship of ideas.

and so i will ask again, how does a hairless underpowered homonid species exist without food, fuel and shelter and at the same time have a huge conscious brain suitable for tool-making, science, philosophy, art, etc?

huh?