Real Sorceror
New member
Stegosaraus could not have evolved into a bird. It would have been the smaller, lighter dinosaurs that likely evolved into modern birds.
Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
C
cattyfan
Guest
So...does that mean that those types of atmospheric changes are just part of evolution, and therefore should be embraced? If yes, why fight "global warming?"
Real Sorceror
New member
The idea behind global warming is that we are causing it. If so, then its not all that natural. If it is indeed a natural climate change (and if its even happening at all), then I don't see any reason to try and fight global warming, unless of course it causes global floods/droughts and whatnot. That would be bad (for us).
mighty_duck
New member
For the same reason we fight viruses, bacteria, tigers, earthquakes, hurricanes etc from killing us off. Just because something is "natural", doesn't mean we have to submissively accept it and let it hurt us.
icilian fenner
New member
On a purely evolutionary stance, I'd say if global warming threatens us and we have the power to stop it threatening us, and we do that, then we are the fittest.
If we can't do anything about it, then it sucks for us. Evolution isn't some kind of moral stance. It's not like what happens is either right or wrong, just or injust, laudable or disgraceful. It proposes that things just are.
I think you're creating a hybrid with your thought that 'everything must happen for a reason' + 'evolution'. No?
C
cattyfan
Guest
Hey!!! That's the same argument some people use for being anti-gay! Just because it may be naturally occurring doesn't make it good.
It's called the naturalistic fallacy. And you're right, just because something is natural does not mean that it's good. Otherwise pedophilia would have to be acceptable. There are other reasons that homosexuality is acceptable, but that seems out-of-scope for this thread.
icilian fenner
New member
Doesn't make it bad either.
A lot of the "gay is natural" argument stems from the anti-homo argument that goes that it's un-natural. So hopefully having put paid to that, the anti-homo crowd now try to make out that the only reason people who don't have a problem with gay people is that it's natural.
:doh:
It's not a problem because homosexual relationships with adults don't intrinsically differ from a lot of heterosexual relationships - and although they may differ proportionally in certain tendencies, both groups run the gamit from vanilla to Häagen Dazs's white chocolate raspberry truffle, sexually.
In essence, if a man is naturally violent, that would be a problem, even so. But if a man is pleasant, naturally, that's not a problem.
Theres no problem where there's no problem... :cow:
Are you trying to tell us something? :flamer:
I'll leave that to your imagination for now.
MrRadish
New member
Other way round, surely?
Uh, we are getting way off topic here but I think it's pretty safe to say homosexuality is unnatural. That really isn't much of a stretch is it.... I mean... even a basic understanding of biology can make that clear. (please, please, lets not explore this much further because it gets too gross very quickly). :vomit:
All I will say is... certain body parts are obviously made to fit with other body parts. As my dad used to say about homosexuals.... "it's no different than trying to breath through your liver." ....errrrr.... something like that.
icilian fenner
New member
And sure, let's reign back on the argument - the most important point I was making is that the reason people argue for homosexuality being accepted isn't exclusively on the grounds of 'it's natural'.
Whether or not that belief is in error doesn't change that the argument isn't'it's not a problem, since it's natural'.
DISCLAIMER: I'm sure people argue sometimes exclusively on this basis, as all sides of a debate have it's share of foolish remarks.
All I will say is... certain body parts are obviously made to fit with other body parts. As my dad used to say about homosexuals.... "it's no different than trying to breath through your liver." ....errrrr.... something like that.
:chuckle:
That's a case against sodomy (and oral sex?). Whoops.
C
cattyfan
Guest
Sorry, Knight. I didn't mean to derail the conversation. I was just pointing out the aforementioned argument has been used in other circumstances.
My apologies.
Mr Jack
New member
Other way round, birds are descendents of dinosaurs.
Personally I think the asteroid theory of the Late Cretaceous extinction is rather... unconvincing. At least as a primary cause. There almost certainly was a major impact around the time of the KT boundary - Iridium and glass in the intervening layer strongly point to it, and we've found a pretty damn big crater dating to the period.
However, the Late Cretaceous event is only one of a number of major extinction event (one of five referred to as 'the big five') and not one of the others has corresponding evidence for an major impact at the same time. I find it more likely that there is an underlying explanation for all extinction events.
Moreover, the nature of the extinctions doesn't seem to me to match with any sudden cause. In fact, the number of dinosaur genera was already falling well before the KT boundary, with several major groups going extinct well before the impact and others in decline. The same is true of other less striking groups that disappeared around the same time. Even those that disappeared 'suddenly' at the end of the KT probably disappeared over the course of some 100,000-250,000 years - an eyeblink in geological time but a much longer period that any particulates from the impact would have remained in the atmosphere. And, yes, there probably would have been a more lasting climatic shift as a result of the impact, but there the dinosaurs had been around for 100 million years and weathered a great many climatic shifts before their end. Finally, there is no clear pattern in terms of body size, habitat or apparent lifestyle among those that did or didn't get wiped out - something that an extinction event precipitated by a meteor strike would be expected to produce.
Oh, and one last point: computer simulations of evolution produce extinction events without any external input.
PlastikBuddha
New member
No, birds are the descendants of SOME dinosaurs, the smaller ornithischians.
PlastikBuddha
New member
Let's hear a round of applause for the advance of knowledge that is science!
Comparing the skeletal structure of extinct animals with those of living ones. Making models based on what we DO know and drawing conclusions. Revising what DO know as new fossils are discovered. Nobody said it was easy.
As provisional "fact", rather- taking into account that we haven't actually observed them alive and are basing our conclusions on a limited amount of information.
PlastikBuddha
New member
It doesn't necessarily make it bad, either. We must take other factors into consideration- in the case of global warming or cooling for example, our own survival could possibly be concern to some of us. Maybe it would be a good thing in terms of the evolution of some other species that could move into niches now held by us bossy humans, but I sure ain't planning on throwing in the towel so some cockroaches can live easier.
Real Sorceror
New member
Gays are the leading cause of hurricanes. And drama llamas.