Charles Robert Darwin

[Tone]

Sorry ... my bad!

I actually like it...kinda grew on me...

 

[Yttrium]

So, are human beings the apex of the evolutionary process?

I suppose you could say we're an apex, at least as far as intellect is concerned. Other species have their specialties.

 

[Tone]

I suppose you could say we're an apex, at least as far as intellect is concerned. Other species have their specialties.

Well,we're the only species that is doing the natural selection right?

 

[Tone]

Well,we're the only species that is doing the natural selection right?

"There are other types of selection, in addition to natural selection, that are out there in the world. Think about some decisions you make about the types of pets you want or what kind of foods you prefer to eat. Artificial selection, also called "selective breeding”, is where humans select for desirable traits in agricultural products or animals, rather than leaving the species to evolve and change gradually without human interference, like in natural selection."
Evolution: Natural selection and human selection article

I found the above, but why distinguish between "human interference" and natural selection if we are nature?

 

[Yttrium]

Well,we're the only species that is doing the natural selection right?

No... Predators, for example, inflict natural selection on their prey. Some critters even do some breeding on other species.

 

[Shemjaza]

Why do we seek to save endangered species and remove non-native plants from regions,if it is survival of the fittest? Shouldn't we let the natives die off so that we can evolve to the next level?

Evolution and extinction are natural consequences of how the world works, not a moral imperative for us to follow.

So, are human beings the apex of the evolutionary process?

I guess we are the most dangerous for a very long time, but as evolution isn't a moral imperative it also doesn't provide any ranking. The only measure of evolution is survival and the reproduction of your genes.

Well,we're the only species that is doing the natural selection right?

We're the only species with the ability to reason long term consequences. But also the species with the biggest need to understand them.

 

[Ophiolite]

I found the above, but why distinguish between "human interference" and natural selection if we are nature?

Humans are capable of discerning the long terms and geographic impacts of their actions in a way that is not available to other animals, or certainly not to anything like the same extent.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well,we're the only species that is doing the natural selection right?

What does that mean?

 

[Tone]

What does that mean?

We're the only ones consciously acting on nature.

*To either destroy or preserve.

 

[Astrophile]

I suppose you could say we're an apex, at least as far as intellect is concerned. Other species have their specialties.

Perhaps we should call our species 'Ape X'.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We're the only ones consciously acting on nature.

*To either destroy or preserve.

True, but that's not "doing natural selection."

 

[Shemjaza]

Perhaps we should call our species 'Ape X'.

(For now.)

 

[pitabread]

Why do we seek to save endangered species and remove non-native plants from regions,if it is survival of the fittest?

We are dependent on ecosystems in which we live; disruption of those ecosystems can have negative consequences for us.

Here are some examples of the impact invasive species can have:

Emerald ash borer - Wikipedia

Damage and efforts to control the spread of emerald ash borer have affected businesses that sell ash trees or wood products, property owners, and local or state governments. Quarantines can limit the transport of ash trees and products, but economic impacts are especially high for urban and residential areas due to treatment or removal costs and decreased land value from dying trees.​

Zebra mussel - Wikipedia

Congressional researchers have estimated that the zebra mussel has cost businesses and communities over $5 billion since their initial invasion. Zebra mussels have cost power companies alone over $3 billion.​

Shouldn't we let the natives die off so that we can evolve to the next level?

There are no "levels" in evolution. Species either survive or they don't.

 

[Tone]

There are no "levels" in evolution. Species either survive or they don't.

Has there been better than human beings in the past?

 

[Tone]

We are dependent on ecosystems in which we live; disruption of those ecosystems can have negative consequences for us.

So species are always self serving?

 

[pitabread]

Has there been better than human beings in the past?

Better at what exactly?

If we're talking about long-term survival, there are species much better than us in that regard.

For example: Tardigrade - Wikipedia

Tardigrades are thought to be able to survive even complete global mass extinction events due to astrophysical events, such as gamma-ray bursts, or large meteorite impacts. Some of them can withstand extremely cold temperatures down to 1 K (−458 °F; −272 °C) (close to absolute zero), while others can withstand extremely hot temperatures up to 420 K (300 °F; 150 °C) for several minutes, pressures about six times greater than those found in the deepest ocean trenches, ionizing radiation at doses hundreds of times higher than the lethal dose for a human, and the vacuum of outer space. They can go without food or water for more than 30 years, drying out to the point where they are 3% or less water, only to rehydrate, forage, and reproduce. Tardigrades that live in harsh conditions undergo an annual process of cyclomorphosis, allowing for survival in sub-zero temperatures.​

 

[Tone]

Better at what exactly?

Better at manipulating the environment...on a global scale?

 

[pitabread]

So species are always self serving?

I'm simply pointing out there are consequences for humans of invasive species. I wouldn't necessarily over-generalize from that.

 

[pitabread]

Better at manipulating the environment...on a global scale?

We seem quite good at that. I wouldn't call that a good thing though.

And as pointed out, there are species much better suited at survivability than us.

 

[Tone]

I'm simply pointing out there are consequences for humans of invasive species. I wouldn't necessarily over-generalize from that.

Do you think that maybe humans are the most invasive?