Where's The Cambrian Explosion In This Graphic?

[juvenissun]

Because once they are gone that little bit on uniqueness is gone from the world.

That is very sentimental. An atheist who is familiar with the "tree of death" should not have that much emotion. The earth is unique all the time since the Precambrian time. Without the past extinctions, we will not emerge. Why don't we make more and better chance for the evolution of future species by killing some current species off?

 

[Shemjaza]

When ever we have used anything on endangered animals? We nearly ate some fishes off the earth. I say just finish them and go for other fishes. Make more room for the rest of the fishes to evolve. This "tree of death" strongly suggests this idea.

When we kill off the last few of an endangered species, we should try to preserve their skeletons as fossil record for future intelligent species after human.

And, in order to preserve other species as you suggested, we SHOULD kill more of ourselves. Reduce 99.9% of human population so the remaining 0.1% could start to evolve faster.

I think life and diversity has inherent value. But I also think humanity and freedom have value, so it's up to us to find a balance.

There's a Christian attitude that always appealed to me, stewardship. I may not believe in God, but I think humans have a responsibility to use our intellects to preserve the rest of the ecosystem not merely exploit it.

That is very sentimental. An atheist who is familiar with the "tree of death" should not have that much emotion. The earth is unique all the time since the Precambrian time. Without the past extinctions, we will not emerge. Why don't we make more and better chance for the evolution of future species by killing some current species off?

Evolution works from diversity. It's also not a god we need to help along.

Evolution happens, and I'm sure life will live on after humanity is dust, but I'd rather the world be verdent and interesting rather then a polluted, almost lifeless mess.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not impressed by your made up math problem.

I can't imagine why!?

 

[AV1611VET]

Navels are not observed in animals that come from eggs.

Jobs aren't either.

If Job were to exist today, doctors would be trying to treat this man with their medicine and wondering why they couldn't.

If you take the Bible literally that animal clearly had to be a mammal, not a dinosaur.

It was a mammalsaur.

 

[AV1611VET]

When is your math ever correct when you are dealing with evolution?

When is anything correct when dealing with evolution?

 

[juvenissun]

I think life and diversity has inherent value. But I also think humanity and freedom have value, so it's up to us to find a balance.

There's a Christian attitude that always appealed to me, stewardship. I may not believe in God, but I think humans have a responsibility to use our intellects to preserve the rest of the ecosystem not merely exploit it.

Evolution works from diversity. It's also not a god we need to help along.

Evolution happens, and I'm sure life will live on after humanity is dust, but I'd rather the world be verdent and interesting rather then a polluted, almost lifeless mess.

I agree with you.

However, Christian and Humanist may have a critical emphasis on this issue. For a Christian, we should use the resources of the earth mainly for human welfare. So if there is a conflict of using resources by human and by animals, human has the priority.

For a humanist, we should use the resources of the earth for the benefit of all lives on the earth, in which, human is only a small part of it. So, there will be many cases for environmentalist in which human's welfare may be denied due to the interference of animal's life.

If a wolf gets close to my farm, I will kill the wolf first before the wolf started to kill my sheep. Some environmentalist may want to put me into jail for doing that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

One thing stroke me when seeing this graph.
There are much much more extinct species than the current existing species. If so, why are we so nervous about endangered species today?

Because it would disrupt our current eco-system, which has a tendency of resulting in snowball effects.

I don't see a single reason to spend any resources on the preservation of those species.

Most likely, that's because you are as ignorant as you are superstitious.

It is even possible that we should kill off more current species to make room for future species.

See? Extremely ignorant.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't believe that.

Your beliefs are rather irrelevant when it comes to the facts of reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree with you.

However, Christian and Humanist may have a critical emphasis on this issue. For a Christian, we should use the resources of the earth mainly for human welfare. So if there is a conflict of using resources by human and by animals, human has the priority.

And with that mentality, future generations will hate you for what you've done to the planet.

For a humanist, we should use the resources of the earth for the benefit of all lives on the earth, in which, human is only a small part of it.

In an eco-system, everything is interconnected.

For example, if bees would completely disappear, this would have disastrous consequences for the eco-system. It's like a house of cards.

All life today is dependend on this eco-system. There is a balance there and we depend on that balance. We, or other species, might survive or we might not.

Either case, if you can avoid the snowball effect, why shouldn't you?

So, there will be many cases for environmentalist in which human's welfare may be denied due to the interference of animal's life.

Again, it's all interconnected. The distruction of one species might remove the natural enemy of others or the sole foodsource for others. Again, the snowballing effect can be huge and quite unpredictable.

If a wolf gets close to my farm, I will kill the wolf first before the wolf started to kill my sheep. Some environmentalist may want to put me into jail for doing that.

That's a ridiculous example. But I don't expect anything other from someone with this level of ignorance on what eco-systems are and how the balance therein is kind of important.

 

[JacksBratt]

In an eco-system, everything is interconnected.

For example, if bees would completely disappear, this would have disastrous consequences for the eco-system. It's like a house of cards.

All life today is dependend on this eco-system. There is a balance there and we depend on that balance. We, or other species, might survive or we might not.

Either case, if you can avoid the snowball effect, why shouldn't you?



Again, it's all interconnected. The distruction of one species might remove the natural enemy of others or the sole foodsource for others. Again, the snowballing effect can be huge and quite unpredictable.



That's a ridiculous example. But I don't expect anything other from someone with this level of ignorance on what eco-systems are and how the balance therein is kind of important.

I'm pretty sure that you could remove mankind from this earth and the ecosystems would balance out and function perfectly

 

[juvenissun]

Because it would disrupt our current eco-system, which has a tendency of resulting in snowball effects.
Most likely, that's because you are as ignorant as you are superstitious.
See? Extremely ignorant.

Warning. I might report you.

 

[fat wee robin]

And with that mentality, future generations will hate you for what you've done to the planet.



In an eco-system, everything is interconnected.

For example, if bees would completely disappear, this would have disastrous consequences for the eco-system. It's like a house of cards.

All life today is dependend on this eco-system. There is a balance there and we depend on that balance. We, or other species, might survive or we might not.

Either case, if you can avoid the snowball effect, why shouldn't you?



Again, it's all interconnected. The distruction of one species might remove the natural enemy of others or the sole foodsource for others. Again, the snowballing effect can be huge and quite unpredictable.



That's a ridiculous example. But I don't expect anything other from someone with this level of ignorance on what eco-systems are and how the balance therein is kind of important.

But ultimately the bible says there will be a new heaven and earth for believers

 

[Shemjaza]

I agree with you.

However, Christian and Humanist may have a critical emphasis on this issue. For a Christian, we should use the resources of the earth mainly for human welfare. So if there is a conflict of using resources by human and by animals, human has the priority.

For a humanist, we should use the resources of the earth for the benefit of all lives on the earth, in which, human is only a small part of it. So, there will be many cases for environmentalist in which human's welfare may be denied due to the interference of animal's life.

Many humanists will agree with you, hence the "human"-ist. Personally I think human lives have more value then animals, but human convenience does not.

In the long term an conservationist mind set is profitable, purely because there is less unnecessary waste of resources.

If a wolf gets close to my farm, I will kill the wolf first before the wolf started to kill my sheep. Some environmentalist may want to put me into jail for doing that.

This is a very realistic and very sad example. In this scenario an endangered animal, possibly one o the few in a region is dead, and the risk was a potential loss of income for you the farmer.

Obviously it's up to individuals and countries to work out where their moral boundaries lie, but I think we can do better then that.

 

[Herman Hedning]

So, can we close the thread now, after the question in the OP has been answered?

 

[justlookinla]

So, can we close the thread now, after the question in the OP has been answered?

Well, not really. Now that we've found the Cambrian explosion on the graph, questions arise concerning the alleged life forms previous to the Cambrian explosion evolving into life forms after the Cambrian explosion.....per the graph.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When is anything correct when dealing with evolution?

Almost everywhere. You seem to be conflating evolution and creationism. Creationism can almost always be shown to be wrong when they make a positive claim. That is why creationists only attack. They know that their ideas are nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism can almost always be shown to be wrong when they make a positive claim.

Really?

Then let me make a basic claim:

The plan of salvation is in the stars.

Sic'em!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really?

Then let me make a basic claim:

The plan of salvation is in the stars.

Sic'em!

Yes, pure nonsense that you cannot support with viable evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, pure nonsense that you cannot support with viable evidence.

So much for "shown to be wrong."

At least you said, 'almost always.'

My example must have fallen into that perimeter, eh?

 

[orangeness365]

I think if you read Isaiah 24 and Revelation, you can see that the earth is in for some serious trouble in the future, and I think the word inhabitants refers to the animals too, and about how even the beer will be bitter, and the vines won't grow. The bible though, points out the reason for the calamity is rebellion against God, and that a curse goes throughout the earth because of the rebellion against God. If you think about it, even now, sin is distracting everyone from doing good in the world, whether it's greed or sloth, or whatever. Almost all our resources end up spent on war instead of inventing clean energy.