Panda urine: evolutionist says let the Pandas die out.

[SuperSlartibartfast]

If all of nature was created in this beautiful balance by a god why have so many other animals died out without mans intervention. Dinosaurs, amonites, trlobites etc. And please don't try drowning in the flood.

[perfacetus]

@SuperSlartibartfast

Well, since man has a habbit of killing everything around him (starting with the largest first since they provide food for the most people, for the longest period). I'd say most of the large organisms like dinosaurs, we killed.

Smaller ones, I'm not so sure about.

[CliffM85]

@perfacetus Humans weren't around when dinosaurs were. *head/desk*

[perfacetus]

@CliffM85

You know this how?

[CliffM85]

@perfacetus *slams head on desk harder* Seriously? Seriously, dude?

Are you trolling? We can tell from layers of fossilized remains in the strata of the Earth. Estimated: Humans came around roughly 65 million years after dinosaurs.

[perfacetus]

@CliffM85

Fossils don't prove anything apart from something that was once living is now dead. In order to fulfill the scientific method something has to be observed tested and repeatable. Since we cannot possibly test obeserve, test and repeat for the existence of dinasaurs without humans it must come from inference. Which is questionable.

[CliffM85]

@perfacetus And we can test the age of the bones, however you've heard all the arguments before. You choose, actively, to just ignore scientific discoveries. Go ahead and yell out the tired carbon dating creationist nonsense that has been rampantly debunked now, as that's how these conversations go. I've been in enough to pinpoint precisely what topics pop up next, what evidence goes ignored, and then the follow up of religious doctrine.

[perfacetus]

@CliffM85

Interesting, how does one test the age of a fossil?

I'm glad you're so experienced though with all the 'creationist' arguments.

[1StoryImageFigure1]

I love the strawmen in the video's description.

[perfacetus]

@1StoryImageFigure1

Explain why it is a straw man and not a logical consequence of believing in evo?

[1StoryImageFigure1]

@perfacetus Please name a person who supports the theory of evolution who supports your idea of "evolutionist's" logic. How can an animal be badly evolved?

Here is a strawman of my own. Creationist logic; animal is doing poorly, God wants it to die out. Eco-system gets destroyed, clearly god wanted it to happen. God works in mysterious ways, who are we to question, understand, and/or change his plan?

[perfacetus]

@1StoryImageFigure1

Sure that is easy. This whole video was inspired by the fact that Chris Packham, a wild-life conservationist said that Pandas are in a 'evolutionary cul-de-sac' and should be allowed to die out. That was the first seed for this video in the first place.

Your second point is, as you say yourself, a straw man. God gives man a task to take care of his surroundings in Genesis, chapter 2:15.

[1StoryImageFigure1]

@perfacetus God also wanted people to sacrifice animals to him. Abel (Gen. 4:4; Heb. 11:4), Noah (Gen. 8:20-21) and Abraham (Gen. 22:12-14). Should we start sacrificing pandas to god?

You also missed the question about an animal being badly evolved. How can an animal be badly evolved? That is apart of the evolutionist logic paragraph.

[perfacetus]

@1StoryImageFigure1

The animals that were sacrificed to God (in the OT law, so it wouldn't apply today anyway) were specified. It was usually sheep or bulls, neither of which are in danger.

Organisms have to be 'badly evolved' for evo to work. The badly evolved ones die out allowing the 'better evolved' to propagate. Of course this doesn't really happen, but that's because evo is wrong.

[APDurrant]

I think I have a good Analogy to your stance on what Evolution say's about species long term.

All along the North Norfolk coast, coastal erosion occurs. It is Natural, and inevitable, eventually, the theory of coastal erosion states that the whole area where I grew up will be eroded.

Should we then not bother to put up sea defenses? The Land is clearly Crap, and as it is eventually doomed, it's a 'waste of the earths resources' to try and save it.

See the Flaw? long term =/= short term.

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

No that is not accurate for the following reasons:

1) land does not adapt;

2) the dying off of species does not have immediate impact on humans, the erosion of the land near your house/roads causing them to cave into the sea, will most certainly effect your survival... especially if you're still in it.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

1. New land will be formed, eventually, where it is eroded, other places, land is deposited, other theories, such as plate tectonics, and Vulcanism also have methods of land formation. It won't be the same land, and It'll take a lot of time, but that goes for your example about a replacement for panda's too.

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

1) Yes, but that land will not have your house on it.

2) That doesn't change my second point

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

1. And the Panda's replacement species won't have the iconic status it does, they won't be the same as the panda, even if it fits the same niche.

2. How does it not? You said that human impact is important, yes? Panda's extinction will have a Human impact. Or is it only direct survival that's important (if so why?), and the possibility is there that Panda's hold some great key to medcine, and so we should prevent their extinction on those survival grounds.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

2.The extinction of Species most definitely does impact humans. Think how many people will be upset that such a cute animal as the panda no longer exists.

There are other, better reasons to save it, but that's the reason most of us want too. Indeed, the silliness of preserving species just because they are cute was what Packham was talking about when he said it should be let to go extinct, he'd rather see the money go to saving more potentially useful, or more promising projects

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

It will not effect out survival or out chance of reproducing. In fact, ploughing money into the animals reduce our chance of survival, because they are wasted resources.

You haven't given any other reasons because there are none that make sense and can be reconciled with a belief in evo.

He was basing his logic on evo, that is what counts.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

He was basing his logic on the cost effectiveness laws. The Cost of preserving the panda is very big. The effect is not very great (preserving one species.) Compared to the possible effectiveness of that same amount of resources, spent on different, less cuddly conservation efforts.

He then justified his position with claims that are not backed up by other conservationist's, let alone evolutionary biologists.

And you still confuse is for ought.

If I get time, I'll do you a Vid.

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

Cost effectiveness = allocation of resources

Allocation of resources defines who and what has a better chance of survival, thus it is evo in motion. What we spend our resources on should be things that increase OUR societies chances of survival and OUR chances of reproduction.

You cannot separate the way we behave from evo because the way we behave have been shaped by evo (supposedly).

I do not confused is for ought, I just say that you cannot ignore info or you're irrational.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

Okay, you are assuming, that someone who believes in evolution then accepts that mankind should only act in what is his evolutionary best interest. This isn't the case.

Apart from the small but remote possibility that the Panda is the key to a medical advance as a reason for preserving the species from a standpoint of evolutionary success.

Humans do not have to blindly follow evolutionary laws, even if they accept that they are subject to them.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> I do not confused is for ought

Yes, you do. Your whole argument is based on the notion that "Because evolution is, it ought to be left to run its course, in this case being that the panda should be let become extinct" which, as APDurrant wittily pointed out, is similar to saying that "Because gravitation is, it ought to be left to run its course, in this case being that the falling baby should be let to hit the ground." You mistake an explanation for a commandment.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

No, it is like saying Gravity teaches us that if we jump up we will fall down. That means if we jump out of a plane we use this knowledge to impact how we act (we take a parachute).

If we follow evo to its logical conclusion it shows us that there is no point protecting animals. Just like gravity teaches us there is no point jumping and expecting to fly.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

Preservation is the biological parachute.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

Preservation doesn't make sense however. Why would you fight something that is required for all organisms to advance? Something that has supposedly been going on for millions of years and supposedly benefits the gene pool?

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> Why would you fight something that is required for all organisms to advance?

Because advancement does not necessarily mean improvement.

> Something that has supposedly been going on for millions of years

There have been five mass extinction events on the earth. Is that a good reason to let a sixth happen?

> supposedly benefits the gene pool?

That what benefits another species' gene pool could very well harm my species' gene pool.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

Advancement does not mean improvement? Really, they are pretty much synonyms. Yep, just check the Oxford Thesaurus... advance and improve are synonymous.

Depends whether the extinction will kill us, if we survive, then according to evo, it makes no difference about the rest of the earth.

Lol, other creatures gene pool advancing would just be all the more reason to let creatures die out, because each is a potential threat.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> advance and improve are synonymous

Advancement of a species' gene pool is its development through time. Improvement depends on a metric to measure it by. Context matters to words' semantics.

> Depends whether the extinction will kill us

Whether we'd do is uncertain. That life would change is certain. My question still stands.

[perfacetus]

@ElProximo

Thanks ElProximo, excellent points!

[APDurrant]

Your application of the Law of Natural Selection is fundamentally flawed and akin to saying that because the Law of Gravity say's that there is no reason to stop a baby falling and hitting it's head on the floor.

Okay, that''d hyperbole, but Evolution doesn't state anything about what should happen, or what we as humans should allow to happen, just what does happen. Just because extinction is a natural process, doesn't mean we must allow it to happen. Natural =/= Good or Right.

[APDurrant]

And when you mentioned useful, what sense? Evolution says nothing about wether or not a species will be useful to humans or not, save that in a situation where humans predominate there will be selective pressure towards being useful for them, as they will ensure you continue to propagate.

Thanks for giving a source have recently founded it out, with any luck, we can start captive breeding and save the population.

[APDurrant]

On what grounds did Packham declare Pandas and Evolutionary Dead end, and did the scientific community accept this statement, and give up? Or was it possibly the words of someone a bit miffed about seeing years of effort and money spent on a single species of large mammal, when there are so many whole environments being decimated, that hold thousands of species and possibly, useful drugs.

[APDurrant]

Oddly enough, your delicate Balance argument is not supported by many of your fellow creationists, who usually hold that as god created the world, and as hes all powerful, anything that happens in nature is his plan, and we cant, or shouldnt try and stop it.

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

I don't know any creationist that adhere to that logic, if they did they could use the same to justify anything, including murder... which they don't. Most people see the verses in Genesis 2 (off the top of my head) about Adam in the Garden being told to tend said Garden as instruction to look after the plant, not ruin it.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

Then you haven't spoken to many creationist's who would consider global warming a hoax on the basis that it's under gods control.

Oddly enough, you seem to be confusing Nature and Human Actions quite a lot. 'Anything that happens in Nature' were my words. Most creationist's follow the difference placed by the bible between man and animals, and so don't regard human action, as part of nature, but as a free choice so you couldn't justify murder. Not that I hold the position anyway.

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

I know a couple of people who think that global warming is a hoax, I do not know anyone who says that it is ok because everything is under God's control (if they do they haven't read Rev that is for certain).

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

No worries, I'm quite pleased they have found out what the problem (most probably) is, who would have though it could be something so minor.

[garouHH]

@APDurrant

> Okay, that''d hyperbole

No, it's not. It is *exactly* what perfacetus did: Taking a law of nature and making it into a moral prescription, commiting the fallacy of deriving what ought to be from what is.

[APDurrant]

@garouHH

Thanks for the support, but I thought my simile took it a little bit far with the baby dropping comment, I just didn't want to loose the visual image either.

Your description is much more elegant, is it your own, or a quote?

[garouHH]

@APDurrant

I think I paraphrased Spinoza.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

No, it is just simple logical application of what natures laws supposedly are under evolution.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

You're still not getting the one simple, but crucial distinction.

Left to its own machinations (to be precise, "from now on", as it was human interference that destroyed panda habitats), nature will make the panda extinct. That follows from the theory of evolution, insofar you're right.

But where does it say that humans *should not* interfere? To use APDurrants example, where does the theory of relativity say that one *should not* stop the baby from falling to the floor?

[garouHH]

Another way to sum this up is to look at the actual formula of evolution: "The frequency of alleles in a populations gene pool changes due to mutation and selection", "selection" here being the relevant part (as a mutation to increase reproduction rate does not seem to be coming forth). Humans are part of nature and the selection process. Humans effected nature to select against pandas when destroying the bamboo forests in which they lived. Why should humans not effect nature differently now?

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

If evo is right, then we 'should not' interfere because there is no point. It is just part of the natural course. It is just holding back progression. And if it dies out then another animal will evolve to replace it. There is no logical reason to try and support it... if evolution was true.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> If evo is right, then we 'should not' interfere because there is no point.

From which part of "mutation + selection = the next gene pool" do you derive the "should"? From which part of it do you derive that there is "no point", or what the point *is*?

> It is just holding back progression

And where in "mutation + selection = new gene pool" does it say "This process should be hastened"?

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

You can't just pretend that 'knowledge' does not effect how you will behave. That is like saying "I know that a car is going to hit me but that doesn't mean I *should* get out of the way". Logically it is what one should do, if there really is a car.

Let us put it another way, give a single logical reason to supporting animals that are dying out?

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> That is like saying "I know that a car is going to hit me but that doesn't mean I *should* get out of the way".

Correct. "That car is going to hit me" is what follows from Newtonian theory; mass, inertia, forces. And that by itself really does not say that I should get out of the way. It's my instinct for self-preservation, my will to avoid bodily harm, that does that. And that instinct does NOT follow intrinsically from Newtonian physics.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> Let us put it another way, give a single logical reason to supporting animals that are dying out?

...or, to rephrase your question: "Why should (or should not) humans act to preserve species?" To emphasize, _should_. I can't derive an answer from natural laws and theories about them, I can only use those to estimate the result of actions taken or not taken, not which result *should* be aimed for. And that's the whole point of this discussion.

[garouHH]

To actually answer the question why I think that some species *should* be preserved (as irrelevant as it is to the theory of evolution):

I think that pandas are just too cute to let them die out, and they make a great symbol for preservation efforts in general. Yup, that's all.

Then there's the honey bee. While not cute, it's an important part of the ecology that I live in, which I'd rather see stabilized than actually finding out how it'd transition once the bees are decimated.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

You haven't answered the question. Logically, knowing what you do about evolution why would we prevent animals from dying out?

If you can't give an answer then it appears our actions are irrational. If they are irrational then you must ask the question why do we instinctive do it.

You're just separating them because they don't make sense when they are put together. Our behaviour does not make sense in the evo context. Either we're mad or evo is wrong.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> Logically, knowing what you do about evolution why would we prevent animals from dying out?

I've stated it over and over again: From the theory of evolution it can not be derived whether or not species should be preserved. It's a theory about how nature works. It makes claims in the form of "If A happens, B happens, otherwise C happens." It does NOT make statements of the form "B should happen". Is that really so hard to get?

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

It doesn't matter whether it says B should or should not happen. As you have said it cannot comment on what 'should' happen. However a logical understanding of evo can say that 'it is irrational/pointless to carry out B'. Which is what I am arguing.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> However a logical understanding of evo can say that 'it is irrational/pointless to carry out B'. Which is what I am arguing.

Aah, so your point is that no action, whatever it may be, can lead to the preservation of the panda species? Okay, that one you can debate with biologists/zoologists actually working in the field. I'm just glad to see that you finally got rid of the "Evolution says X should be done"-nonsense,

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

Evolution demonstrates that seeking X is futile, is effectually the same as saying X ought not to be done.

The video demonstrated that evo-ists came to the conclusion that pandas could not be saved. But they were wrong.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> X is futile, is effectually the same as saying X ought not to be done.

I would agree, but there is one unstated assumption that you made to which I don't agree: That preservation is only to be considered successful if it preserves the species in question for eternity. If the case was like that of using flu medicine ("The flu will go away in one week, but with the medicine, in only seven days."), you'd be correct, but I doubt very much that that is the case with pandas.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

Fine allow me to rephrase, there is not logical benefit to X is roughly the same as saying X ought not be be done.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> there is not logical benefit to X is roughly the same as saying X ought not be be done

Depends on what you consider a "logical benefit". If that one ends up as meaning "cute animals don't deserve to be preserved for their cuteness alone", I'd have to disagree, as seeing cute animals is benefit enough for me. But I assume that you intend to go the Vulcan way and insist on everything to be derived from some axioms? What would they be? What makes something a "logical benefit"?

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> If you can't give an answer then it appears our actions are irrational.

Your understanding of what a theory is, is flawed. Also you seem to assume that I, knowing the theory of evolution, reduce everything to it. Which I don't. As I said, I prefer pandas to be preserved because they're so adorable, and bees to be preserved because I prefer the stability of the current biome over the uncertainty of its change. What more do you want?

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

Who said anything about you personally. We are talking generally.

Preserving Pandas because they are 'cute' is not rational, esp if more cute creatures will evolve as a result.

Also if changes to the current biome are not bad because everything will just adapt, then it is illogical to spend vast resources and preserving the status quo.

But the reality is, evo is wrong. We know this, which is why we know once we've ruined this planet, we're screwed.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> We are talking generally.

I don't think that there can be an objective argument for or against preservation.

> Preserving Pandas because they are 'cute' is not rational

It is to me. I like watching cute animals.

> if more cute creatures will evolve as a result

...which isn't guaranteed at all.

> changes to the current biome are not bad because everything will just adapt

It might just as well crash and humans may have to adapt to eating tofu every day. Would YOU like THAT?

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

There is a clear argument against preservation. It is a waste of resources on something that is not sufficiently evolved, ie backward.

If cute animals have a survival advantage over non-cute animals, evo says there will be more cute animals in future.

"It might just as well crash and humans may have to adapt to eating tofu every day. Would YOU like THAT"

I wouldn't because I know I was designed to eat real meat. But if I really, genuinely believed in evo, I wouldn't care.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> But if I really, genuinely believed in evo, I wouldn't care.

By example you now demonstrated again your lack about how evolution works and condemned humanity to go the way of the panda. Humanity is not adapted for an all-tofu diet and probably couldn't make the switch quickly enough.

> not sufficiently evolved, ie backward.

"not adapted well to the current changed environment", to be precise (as there's no "more" or "less evolved").

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

"your lack about how evolution"

This doesn't make sense, I'll read it with the words "of knowledge" into the sentence, correct me if I'm wrong.

Humanity would adapt. That is what evo is about. Besides, we are a special case, because we should care about our own survival (according to evo) where as we should care about the Panda's.

Re the second part: the point is the same regardless.

[garouHH]

Yes, I left out the words "of knowledge". Sorry.

The whole scenario is exaggerated anyways; biomes seldomly collapse so completely. Nevertheless the point remains that humans are parts of those biomes, and if those change, it has effects on the humans, be they negligible or disastrous. Preservation is about preventing such changes, especially those that could have unforeseen but far-reaching consequences. Now tell me how that is a waste of resources, even if it just keeps...

[garouHH]

...honey in the markets (and with the occurrence of Colony Collapse Disorder, the necessity of the preservation of honey bees becomes an actual possibility). Personally, I'm not adapted to honey vanishing, or the plants that bees pollinate, or the unknown changes that happen after that and after that.

You could call that an attempt to stabilize the process of evolution at the current state, and "just" because I/we like this state. I don't see how that contradicts the theory of evolution itself.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

Why would we try to stabilize something, that is tatamount to stopping it improve!

Unless of course we are already at its zenith, because it was created this way.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

if evo is true is is pointless because if the biomes collapse something else will evolve to take its place that will be superior.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

If a nuke goes off everything will be destroyed. There will be no benefit.

If something that isn't adapting is destroyed, then something that IS adapting will take its place and that means it will be better.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

No.... when something weak dies out in evo... it benefits the other stronger creatures, thereby promoting the evolution of the eco-system. Bomb something and everything gets incinerated and there is no benefit to any organism. The analogy does not follow.

Takes the place in my life? What place in my life? Please give a valid scientific example.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> when something weak dies out in evo... it benefits the other stronger creatures

"Survival of the fittest" does *not* mean "survival of the strongest" and has never done so. It means "Survival of those best adapted (fitting) to their environment". Nor does it mean that the survival and adaptation of one species necessarily benefits any other species. It means that the process of selection changes, and that could have *any* consequence.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

When the creature dies out, all the resources that it depends on will then be distributed among the remaining creatures, that is a benefit... nay, it is the basis of evo!

Whether you use the word weakest or worst adapted, in this scenario at least makes no difference.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus How is it a benefit to the creature that died out? How is it a benefit to those creatures who derived a benefit from the creature who died out?

[perfacetus]

@garouHH It doesn't benefit the creature (but we shouldn't care about that) it benefits all others people there is then more resources and less competition.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus What about the second question? What about those creatures for which the one that died out was itself the resource?

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

Well as a creationist I'd say that everything is created in a delicate balance and therefore if you damage one part of the eco-system you could destroy the rest (the logical and practical answer)

however if I was an evo-ist I would say that things have being dying out for billions of years and without them dying out nothing will progress, so who cares! Let them die out. They will adapt (supposedly)

[garouHH]

@perfacetus So basically you claim that according to both sides, when a species dies out, the rest of the ecosystem undergoes the aftershock; that according to creationism, you, being part of that ecosystem, are royally screwed, and that according to evolution you're still royally screwed, but that the ecosystem as a whole will probably go on, yes?

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

No, my point is that according to evo when something dies out, it doesn't matter at all. Things, supposedly, have been dying out since time began and that is what is required for things to progress. So we shouldn't worry about it at all.

According to creationism, God created the earth in a delicate balance, of which we should take care, because once something is gone, it is gone forever and our planet is a little bit less diverse.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus So we shouldn't worry about dying out because life will go on? I'd like to see the textbook defending that position. I'd also like to know what that claim has to do with the theory of evolution and how it derives from it.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

You won't find a text book saying that, because if they said it people would realise how wrong evo is. So instead they just tell people about it and hope they don't work out the illogical consequences.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus Okay, let me get this straight... You claim that no one makes certain claims about the theory of evolution not because they don't see how those claims would follow from the theory, but because it'd make the theory look absurd?

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

People like the theory because it explains away God, but they don't want to think about it too much otherwise they will realise/have to accept it is absurd.

So people talk about evo as if it doesn't effect anything we do now, it is just something that happened in the past to get us here and now we don't have to think about it.

In reality if it was what happened to get us here we would be wise to still apply it no in order to advance appropriately.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> People like the theory because it explains away God

I see you conveniently did not address my question while adding another straw man argument. Let's stay in science for the moment.

> otherwise they will realise/have to accept it is absurd.

YOU are making that claim. You admitted that no one but YOU makes that claim, and you showed NO argument by which "Life goes on, so we shouldn't worry about ours" follows from "mutation and selection produces adaptation and speciation."

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

I didn't avoid the question. I explained why.

"no one but YOU makes that claim" nope, this very film is about an 'environmentalist' evo-ist who claims the same thing.

It isn't a 'claim' either, it is just the logical consequence if evo were actually true. It is just a case of if E then B and C. People just don't like thinking about the B and C.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> nope, this very film is about an 'environmentalist' evo-ist who claims the same thing.

That guy says that the resources spend to keep the panda species going should be reallocated to saving other species. I don't agree, but that doesn't matter much, as that's a *should*. The claim that you made was that evolutionary species claims that one shouldn't worry about ones own or ones own species survival as life at large goes on.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> It is just a case of if E then B and C.

Then show what E, B and C are and how B and C derive from E. Establish a chain of logical necessity without using external assumptions.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> So people talk about evo as if it doesn't effect anything we do now,

It affects how we act. It doesn't affect why we act. A theory is a tool for reasoning about the world and predicting its processes, it's a description about how the world seems to work. It does not make implications about how we act, only about what happens when we do or don't do something.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

"It does not make implications about how we act"

Of course it does, it says if you act in this way your species will continue to advance rapidly. If you act in this way (B) then you will become stagnant and you may get wiped out.

Now saying that won't effect how we act is nonsensical. Unless you want to get wiped out (which you won't) or you don't want to advance (which is illogical) it WILL effect how you act. Unless you don't really believe it but just don't want to believe in God.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> Of course it does

I see you've gone from strawmanning to quotemining. If you'll reread the comment from which you quoted half a sentence, you'll see that all of it is about the theory of evolution providing predictive scenarios, but no mechanism to choose from them.

> your species will continue to advance rapidly

You still haven't provided an explanation of what you'd consider advance, why you do so and how it could be implemented.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> Unless you want to get wiped out (which you won't) or you don't want to advance (which is illogical) it WILL effect how you act.

But it won't make suggestions about how I *should* act. Maybe I do want humanity to be wiped out. Maybe I want it to go on as it does now. Maybe I want it to adapt to high-radiation-low-pressure environments to colonize Mars. Either way there's no way to deduce from evolutionary theory which way the species *should* go.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> it is just something that happened in the past

Evolution happens *permanently*. Each living being in this world is part of its workings.

> it is just something that happened in the past to get us here and now we don't have to think about it.

Why do you think that preservation occurs at all? In terms of evolutionary biology, preservation is a change of selective pressures.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

Good. Glad we're straight on that one.

Now we can consider what implications that has on people. Such as if someone wants to wipe out competing species then that is fine. Or if people want to be racist that is just a natural extension to the self-gene theory.

And helping a creature from which we get no direct benefit, it totally illogical.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> Good. Glad we're straight on that one.

On what? Quoting reference helps.

> Such as if someone wants to wipe out competing species then that is fine.

Where do you derive a measure for acceptable and unacceptable actions from?

> Or if people want to be racist that is just a natural extension to the self-gene theory.

I see you didn't even bother to actually read "The Selfish Gene".

> And helping a creature from which we get no direct benefit, it totally illogical.

Same as above.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> In reality if it was what happened to get us here

The proof for that is in the fossils, so yes, go on...

> we would be wise to still apply it no in order to advance appropriately.

Aaah, and finally the topic of eugenics rears its ugly mind. Well, I refer to my commentary on what theories are, but as science doesn't make wise, I'd be thrilled to hear what you'd call "appropriate advance", why you think that your ideas are wise and what you'd suggest to be done about it.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

Really? What do the fossils show? That something was alive and now it is date. It does not tell us the date. It is just evidence that something existed.

It isn't what is my idea, it is simply logical conclusion. But since this is addressed in the other post, I will leave the discussion for that one, for the sake of clarity.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> What do the fossils show?

Geographical distributions, morphological differences and similarities, age, sometimes causes of death, illnesses... The list goes on.

> It isn't what is my idea, it is simply logical conclusion.

Then show it. Show the steps of logical deduction and where they lead. You've claimed at least a dozen times that there is a logical connection, but you haven't shown it.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> Takes the place in my life? What place in my life?

Honey. Seafood. Building material. Medicine to be discovered. Any of the really not few few things that humankind takes from the ecosphere.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

Well since millions of different creatures have died out and have being dying out through the whole of history (according to evo) then they are obviously not important and there is or new substitutes will develop.

Of course, if we were created in a delicate balance where each loss of a creature is something hasn't happened before and cannot be replaced... then animals really should be protected for our benefit. But then that isn't what you believe.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> then they are obviously not important

To life going on? Correct. But while I don't know about you, I for one am not some kind of disembodied form of lifeforce. I'm an individual being that very much depends on other lifeforms.

> But then that isn't what you believe.

For one who knows what I believe you make a lot of claims about my believes that don't reflect what I believe at all.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> If cute animals have a survival advantage over non-cute animals, evo says there will be more cute animals in future.

No, it doesn't... It says that if a species already has the survival advantage, it'll prosper. And as a matter of fact, being cute now *is* a survival advantage, as pandas demonstrate. After all, humans invest a lot of resources into stabilizing their population. Evolution does not plan ahead.

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

It is just a logical application of evolution. If some thing is dying out... let it die out, it is obviously just a crap organism and therefore you would be wasting the earths resources in trying to sustain it.

We know deep down that isn't right... and that is because evo isn't right.

[Kai1999az]

"Nature is in a delicate balance, mess with one thing and it can ruin a whole eco-system."

Amazingly this is what people who excepted evolution have concluded.

[perfacetus]

@Kai1999az

You cannot conclude that from evolution. They are mutually exclusive concepts. Evo says that things have been dying out and coming into being for the past 300 million years (and longer)

the concept of there being a delicate balance that should not be upset is the complete opposite.

They go as hand in hand as a vegetarian running a pig farm....

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

What Kai1999az said:

> "Nature is in a delicate balance, mess with one thing and it can ruin a whole eco-system."

What you said:

> the concept of there being a delicate balance that should not be upset is the complete opposite.

You're both correct, because you said very different things. Kai said what *is*, and that can be derived from theory, as that models what is. You make claims about what *should* be, and that has nothing to do with it.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

No, we're both disscussing what the status quo 'is'.

If evo were true there would be no delicate balance, because things have been changing since day one. Which means that no balance has every been maintained and no delicate balance ever will be maintained.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> If evo were true there would be no delicate balance, because things have been changing since day one.

The balance is temporary, called an "unstable equilibrium" or "metastable state". And you've evading the point that Kai made claims about "is" and you make claims about "should".

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

Whatever you call it, the fact is it cannot be sustained, therefore there is no logical reason to sustain it. If you want to act in contravention with logic go ahead, but then I seriously don't know why you bother learning anything at all if you aren't going to then use that information to make logical decisions.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> Whatever you call it, the fact is it cannot be sustained, therefore there is no logical reason to sustain it.

Ecology can't be held in stasis, that's correct. That's no reason not to influence it in a way that it develops on a path that is preferable to other paths.

> I seriously don't know [...] to make logical decisions.

Logic needs a basis to draw conclusions from. Evolution alone is not a sufficient basis to act for or against preservation.

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

Supporting creatures survival IS influencing the way ecology develops!

Evolution is a perfectly good basis to go against preservation because it says it it futile. It says you're chasing A, but you can never get A.

We just say we believe evo and then act in a way that shows we know it is wrong really.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

'the fact is it cannot be sustained, therefore there is no logical reason to sustain it'

This goes back to my point about Erosion. it cannot be stopped, or halted. You cite the survival of my home as reason enough to try and slow it, but, eventually, my house would not be there, it's 'futile'.

1But you haven't advocated that we abandon any attempt to save the land. Why not? 1. Because you recognise that permenance is not essential to make something worthwhile

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

No it is because if we let erosion take place it doesn't mean that the land will improve and get better. If we let evolution take place it should make everything better.

But it won't... because we didn't evolve, we were created.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

2. You recognise that just because something is the result of a natural law (like the extinction of panda's, or the erosion of my house), doesn't mean humans have to obey it, without try to alter the factors, and change the result.

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

Nothing to do with 'obeying' evolution. It is just if you let it take its course things will gradually improve. I you stop it then we are stuck and the system is weakened.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

You cannot stop evolution. You can change the selection criteria. As I said, Alter the factors and change the result.

Evolutionary improvement is in that organisms become better adapted to their environment, but that isn't necessarily an improvement for us Humans.

Returning to Panda's and their eventual replacement. That Eventual would be a long time away. Even accepting there is no long term point in saving them (which I don't), isn't the short term good enough?

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

Why would you want to slow down the process of evolution? Giving valuable resources to something that is going to die out?

From the perspective of someone who truely believes in evolution is appears totally pointless.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

Why would it be pointless? Are you deliberately ignoring my point? Even if in the long term a Panda replacement arose to fill the ecological niche (which though fitting the same niche, would not be the Panda), in the short term, people would be without the panda, and some people don't want that to happen. even Ignoring the permanent loss of diversity that the panda's extinction would be, can you see my point?

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

People would be without the Panda? Riiiiiight, so why is that bad? If we were creatures that have evolved through the extinction of thousands of creatures we wouldn't care.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

Well, there's the possible loss of unfound cures or information we haven't yet gleaned from the Panda.

And then there's caring, our emotions are not always rational, nor always founded in sensible reasons, thus, people seek to preserve species because they find them cute, or because they want to preserve them for their children to see one day. Indeed, this irrational basis in preserving the panda was what packham was on about, that the money could be better spent elsewhere.

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

Cures? From a plant maybe but I don't think you're likely to find grinded Panda bones cure the common cold.

Our emotions have been developed wholly and purely by millions of years of evolution. Therefore they would (if evo were true) work in harmony with evo, not against it. The fact that our emotions don't support evo whatsoever, is the perfect evidence that evo doesn't work.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

BullCrap, and just belies how little you understand about evolution. Our Emotions did indeed develop over millions of years, But why the hell should that make them in harmony with our scientific understanding of it? Something which we have not evolved with. Our Emotions are there as adaptions to, or by products of, adaptions that help us survive, and in that they do harmonise with evolution.

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

Why should they evolve in harmony? Surely that is obvious? Those whose mentalities mirror evolution would survive and have an advantage over those who don't. This means they would be alive now (us) and those whose mentalities don't mirror evo would have died out years ago.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

Do you not see the nonsense you are saying? Mirror Evolution? Their emotions relevance to science would have no benefit for survival in the world that we evolved in, a world of small groups of hunter gatherers, using stone tools would actually have a pressure towards preserving species when the numbers got low, stopping hunting and switching to a different game species when they got scarce.

How would Mirroring your Is/ought fallacy help a species survive?

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

Very simple. The animals are our competition. If we let them survive they eat our food and life on land we wish to live on. We don't eat Pandas neither do we gain anything from them (this goes for a multitude of animals). All they do is consume the earths scarce resources... which according to evolution, we're all equally competing to obtain.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

Animals aren't our competition, they are our resources. And if you look at those animals where the resources we could get from them (Fur from wolves, say) is not outweighed by the damage they do to our other resources (Our Sheep), then the common emotion is hate and extermination. It's only when we step back from being in such a situation, other emotions can arise.

Evolution does not perfect you, it does not produce something ideal, it produces something better adapated to survive.

[perfacetus]

@APDurrant

"Animals aren't our competition, they are our resources"

No, now you're slipping into the (accurate) creationist mindset. In the Bible we are set to rule above the animals, in evolution every animal is a competitor.

You'll find that most people wouldn't want wolves to be extinct either.

Evolution should favour those who act in accordance to it, because they will adapt faster than everyone else and become prevalent while those who don't die off. But that doesn't happen.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus Gah! You don't listen. "In accordance with evolution" makes no sense as an argument, because it's trying to assign our understanding of natural laws via scientific theory, to the result of those natural laws. working on the basis it dosn't matter if I hunt X to extinction, something like X will evolve again, isn't beneficial, because it's too long term to be selected for.

Most people don't live with livestock killed by wolves anymore, or know people who do.

[garouHH]

@perfacetus

> Why would you want to slow down the process of evolution? Giving valuable resources to something that is going to die out?

Because that something that dies out might be us or taking a positive influence on human life with it. Even it it's just the knowledge that there are no more cute bears in the Chinese bamboo forests. Haven't we been over this a few dozen times now?

[perfacetus]

@garouHH

Cute bears in forests do not aid survival, therefore a infatuation with then would never have been selected for.

[APDurrant]

@perfacetus

However, you are forgetting misappropriation of affection. A Cookoo chick looks nothing like those it mimics, but the parents still feed the intruder. Why? Because it fits certain criteria that evolved to aid them in rearing chicks. Humans evolved to be especially affectionate to children, but this is transferred onto other young animals (which may itself be an adaption for domestication), and even onto adult animals of some varieties.

[Kai1999az]

@garouHH Thank you... Well said