Evolution? How?

real life wrote:

Why would the disappearance of a species of finch be tragic, Setanta?

If the existence of man is due to evolution, then any human influence causing the survival or nonsurvival of another species is also part of evolution, and therefore perfectly natural, right?

You wouldn't want humans to consciously try to stop or interfere with evolution would you? (Capt Kirk would be really ticked off if we violated the Prime Directive.)

Let humans be humans, and whatever effect they have on other species is what it is. If the other species can't cut it, then it's part of evolution that they disappear, right?

Twaddle. Apparently unique among critters, humankind has the intelligence to manipulate the environment in ways decidedly unatural, and whether or not so inclined, has the ethical and moral obligation to do no harm to the biosphere. A declaration such as you offer in that quoted post, rl, is ignorant, arrogant, and pathetic - biut then, given the source material from which you derive your propositions, arguments, defenses, and objections, nothing else is to be expected if one is to assume you would be given to consistency ... an assumption not at all inconvenienced by the voluminous available evidence here on these boards. ID-iocy is as ID-iocy does.

Darwin's finches are icons for those who are interested in speciation. The tragedy would arise because human settlement would have killed them--some, but not all species. The large influx of people to the Galapagos Islands results from "eco-tourism." The tragedy would lie in the irony that people who come to see them have created the conditions which may kill them off.

Play your witless word games with someone else, "real life," i'm tired of your sh!t. I really didn't appreciate you using my post to go off on C.I., and have little interest in talking to someone who obviously sees other members as just an opportunity to rant.

Set, the sky is blue but never green...

If the existence of man is due to evolution, then any human influence causing the survival or nonsurvival of another species is also part of evolution, and therefore perfectly natural, right?

Let humans be humans, and whatever effect they have on other species is what it is. If the other species can't cut it, then it's part of evolution that they disappear, right?

RexRed wrote:

Set, the sky is blue but never green...

A perfect example of just how divorced from reality you are. Not only does this piece of drivel have nothing to do with the topic of a theory of evolution, it shows just how limited your experience is. I guess you've never seen a tornado coming, have ya?

When you want to slam another member (that wasn't ribbing), don't use my posts as launch pad. That's plain language, even a self-deluded ranting religionist should be able to understand it.

As usual, Rex, you don't get it. Science has no interest in disproving your poofism--and if you expect it to be taken seriously, the burden of proof is on you. Good luck . . .

Got any basis for your poofism, Rex--i mean, other than your perfervid imagination?

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:

Why would the disappearance of a species of finch be tragic, Setanta?

If the existence of man is due to evolution, then any human influence causing the survival or nonsurvival of another species is also part of evolution, and therefore perfectly natural, right?

You wouldn't want humans to consciously try to stop or interfere with evolution would you? (Capt Kirk would be really ticked off if we violated the Prime Directive.)

Let humans be humans, and whatever effect they have on other species is what it is. If the other species can't cut it, then it's part of evolution that they disappear, right?

Twaddle. Apparently unique among critters, humankind has the intelligence to manipulate the environment in ways decidedly unatural, and whether or not so inclined, has the ethical and moral obligation to do no harm to the biosphere. A declaration such as you offer in that quoted post, rl, is ignorant, arrogant, and pathetic - biut then, given the source material from which you derive your propositions, arguments, defenses, and objections, nothing else is to be expected if one is to assume you would be given to consistency ... an assumption not at all inconvenienced by the voluminous available evidence here on these boards. ID-iocy is as ID-iocy does.

If man's actions are not natural, are you saying they are supernatural?

I don't think this is what you mean.

To be consistent, you must agree that all of man's actions are purely natural -- nothing more than products of evolution.

Does man have any obligation to another species? Are we not (according to evolutionary theory) competitors for space, food, and resources on Earth?

If man is better adapted to survive , even at the expense of another species, how is that inconsistent with evolution?

You want to claim a special status for mankind, but your inconsistency is glaring because the theory of evolution does not support such an idea.

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:

Why would the disappearance of a species of finch be tragic, Setanta?

If the existence of man is due to evolution, then any human influence causing the survival or nonsurvival of another species is also part of evolution, and therefore perfectly natural, right?

You wouldn't want humans to consciously try to stop or interfere with evolution would you? (Capt Kirk would be really ticked off if we violated the Prime Directive.)

Let humans be humans, and whatever effect they have on other species is what it is. If the other species can't cut it, then it's part of evolution that they disappear, right?

Twaddle. Apparently unique among critters, humankind has the intelligence to manipulate the environment in ways decidedly unatural, and whether or not so inclined, has the ethical and moral obligation to do no harm to the biosphere. A declaration such as you offer in that quoted post, rl, is ignorant, arrogant, and pathetic - biut then, given the source material from which you derive your propositions, arguments, defenses, and objections, nothing else is to be expected if one is to assume you would be given to consistency ... an assumption not at all inconvenienced by the voluminous available evidence here on these boards. ID-iocy is as ID-iocy does.

If man's actions are not natural, are you saying they are supernatural?

No.

Quote:

I don't think this is what you mean.

An individual endorsing the ID-iot proposition who uses the word "think" self referentialy in the active case and present tense proffers an oxymoron.

real life wrote:

To be consistent, you must agree that all of man's actions are purely natural -- nothing more than products of evolution.

While the product of evolution, humankind is uniquely capable of unatural action - witness religion, warfare, and pornography, for instance, along with such things as cities, farms, and game consoles. None of those may be termed "natural", yet all are products of humankind's intellectual capacities.

Give proof that any of these is not the product of natural processes. That is what you believe, isn't it? Then it should be easy for you to prove.

real life wrote:

Give proof that any of these is not the product of natural processes. That is what you believe, isn't it? Then it should be easy for you to prove.

Teflon ain't natural, and war, as practiced by humankind, religion, cities, and human etertainments and pursuits are observed in no other critters and require humankind's intelligence to effect.