Pangea and Gaia - The Next Dominant Species

Cockraoches.#1 (serious)

Squirrels? Aquatic species,Trees, fungii ? (serious)

Those bacterial slimes that grow in the deep ocean smokers at v high temperature will survive just about anything! (serious)

Accountants, Lawyers? (flippant)

Del (ambiguous...is this a signature ? Or do I think cat/people will survive?)

What on earth posesses so many people to want to live in Las Vegas for goodness sake. I cite it as a first class indicator of the problem.

I think you will all find this website rather disturbing...

Its a global counter indicating the population changes, environmental changes, and a load of other information that makes you feel very small indeed...

Worth a good look !!

http://www.worldometers.info/

John.

Thanks for that. It's recommended reading.

Agreed, its a sobering thought to see the global amount spent on healthcare equals the amount spent on illegal drugs etc...

Although how accurate the figures are must be questionable.

John.

I think your insight, "I think you will all find this website rather disturbing...," is rather accurate!

I agree with PW -- recommended!

One of the statistics I found most interesting is the amount of solar energy striking the earth (is this number correct?) compared with other sources. Makes one think that even 5% efficient solar energy conversions could solve one of the most insidious crises the next few generations will face.

Certainly gives one pause for thought . . .

We do need to start thinking about a change in our cultural habit of consume, consume, consume!

Fortunatley, I'm old enough to not worry too much about being in the massively exterminated crowd, but some of my progeny may.

If the human race is lucky, scientists and engineers will figure out a way to build Utopia on Mars where a small vestige of humans can live for a 100,000 years waiting for the Earth to recover from their ancestors' near destruction of it.

I think attorneys will be the only thing left.

Some people think it will be rats or cockroaches, but there are somethings that even rats and cockroaches won't do.

PW and Electroman : thanks for the info.

I am compiling a report to government on environmental issues for Monday, the info came exactly at the right time.

I find that government(s) is focusing on smoke screens rather than tackling the issues.

I find that government(s) is focusing on smoke screens rather than tackling the issues.

Hendrick, as a retired research professional at the Federal and State levels, I can vouch for your intuition. Government cares only about generating research projects, not finding answers. Jonas Salk taught the research community what happens when you solve a problem: you wipe out a research community. If you want to solve a problem, give it to private venture capital who can profit from the solution.

Government cares only about generating research projects, not finding answers.

I disagree on the basis of Governments need to know. Government does not only want to find answers, gov wants to find them FIRST. And then, follow it through to the very end in an effort to protect all possibilities from undesirable exploitation by others.

It would be curious to note the number of operatives employed in the 'private sector' who are reporting to DC.

cr3

Private Venture, Like Pharma Companies. Don't they address ways to maximize profits, not to solve problems, but rather to prolong them and make them liveable under the right on-going treatment. It seems only Government research is ever directed at addressing a solution to a problem by looking at the roots causes. Private efforts are alway directed at addressing effects through continuous activities, which they must be reimbursed. I have worked for environmental engineering/geology coroporations, and the preferred contract are those that offer long term monitoring/remediation impacts of pollution with minimal immediate remediation of the cause of the pollution. Monitoring/remediation of the impacts usually takes a very long time if the cause is left in place to continue impacting an environment of concern. You generate more revenue and have a nearly guaranteed source of revenue over a long period of time to keep an office afloat and reduce marketing overhead.

On a more serious side, I am skeptical about the whole thing because of the amount of political gamesmanship that is applied to this issue and more. It is almost impossible to pull out fact from exaggeration (or even lies) when this happens and we are the losers.

Looking at the first article, the first thing that caught my eye (after seeing it was a UN/BBC story) was " and per capita income has gone up by 40%..." What does that have to do with climate change? Are we earning too much now and this has an adverse effect on the planet? What's that foul smell?

The other article in Science Daily stated "evidence shows that global biodiversity is relatively low during warm 'greenhouse' phases and extinctions relatively high..." Okay, so this has happened before. Here is another cycle, presumably. However, just a quick look at the source of this article shows that it is a simple reprint of an article from York University (David Gardner to be exact), who also authors all the papers listed in the university web site. Hmmm, hear drumming. Digging a few tads further shows York University is on a mission of their own. Okay, I don't have a problem with that and having a geopolitical view, but where is the other side of the story? Everything presented here seems to point at "we" are earning too much money and the poor are going to get hurt the most.

What the heck? So the premise is: Mankind is going Extinct - Poor and Homeless to be hit the Worst!

So, should the title here be "Socialist Scientists are Bemoaning the lack of Urgency on Environmental Issues"?

I am not trying to bash PWSlack, please don't misunderstand. I just don't like politics in science.

"What the heck? So the premise is: Mankind is going Extinct - Poor and Homeless to be hit the Worst!"

I don"t believe the poor and the homeless will be hit the worst. The fact is they have all ready learned how to survive with less. I imagine some of the homeless would survive the best. Most have already learn to live with little shelter and to live off the land. I believe the ones that would suffer the most are the wealthy.

Read the two posted articles. They both mention the poor as the ones that suffer in one form or another.

Even the UN reports that the climate change is going to impact the poor.

Strangely, I think what they are trying to say is that the 3rd world nations are the ones contributing to the over population growth and basically see a "redistribution" of wealth as a means to bring these people up to a developed country status. As you may be aware, one mark of a developed country is steady state population growth (i.e., Sweden).

While I see the point they are making, the way they are promoting their point is disturbing and rings too much of politics, but then again, this is the UN.

All in all, this type of reporting does a huge disservice to the issue.

Redistribution of wealth is one of the main points of continuous contention in the UN. Everyone wants it, but only a few make substantial efforts towards achieving it. There were at one time a number of reasonably wealthy african nations, but the overthrow of government deemed unjust to the masses has lead many of those nations to becoming some of the poorest. Simply, if you feed the cats, they keep coming around and bring buddies, they breed prolifically, and continue like life is good. Soon you can barely feed yourself and the cats until eventually you are all starving, and you are still working your ass off just to feed the cats now.

"Most have already learn to live with little shelter and to live off the land."

You are being flip, right?

Most homeless sadly have mental disorders and they don't live off the land, but from the waste and the crumbs society leaves behind. Contrary to what you stated, they don't hunt, fish, and grow food like settlers in the wild west.

"Most homeless sadly have mental disorders"

I think that you just insulted the homeless or you are ignorant of the facts

Yes there are a lot of homeless that have mental disorders. They are the most noticed because they walk society. There is a larger portion that are homeless you don't see. They live in camps in a family type structure for protection. Most migrating with the change in climate. They stay pretty much hidden because they know if found out some one would complain then they would be run off. Most are there because they fell on hard times. Lost their jobs and put out of their homes. With out an address they can't receive aid from the state.

There is a work by Henry Miller that I cannot recall which discusses the hobo/vagabond issue throughout history. A very good piece of work!

It just may be that man's extinction may have nothing to do with the environment, but from a more insidious virus such as HIV. If that would happen then what species would become dominate. I would say the rat.

Rats

If man gone then that means so will all of the large animals be gone. The rat is intelligent i believe it could make it.

In the year 2271 we sent an explorer into a black hole. It appeared as a near earth object in 2053. Since then we have taken all measures necessary to prevent extinction.

It works a bit like a video game. We proceed until the end is imminent and then start over. Sending bits of newly acquired info about how to avoid untimely demise back through the hole where the knowers of truth retrieve and make adjustments, primarily through social manipulation. It is all very profound, and difficult to explain. But nonetheless as true as day. I dreamt it so it must be.

Now about that hologram on a photon.....where did that guy go?

cr3

Wood lice .

cockroaches would rule the planet.

Which birds would survive?

Ones that eat cockroaches ????

there are birds that eat cockroaches? where can I get them? you should see the size of the beast down here in the Keys they could eat the birds.

In reality the point is mote. Humans are a mutation upon mutations and thus survivors that is why we are the dominate species as to screwing things up, we can live just about anywhere and breed into survival mode for that area, increased fat count for the cold, skin pigments to protect us from the sun, increased lung capacity for altitudes. And the ability to make things that will protect us from out environment that is constantly changing as it has been for recorded history and evidenced by fossil records

Gee, and I thought it was 'cos we are agressive, greedy, promiscuous bastards!

that helpped alot

Survival of the fittest?

politicians no doubt would survive.....oh yeah forgot, they are cockroaches!

what eats cockroaches?

well if cockroaches are politicians than journalists would eat them.

Shit I do not want to live in a world like that, the two most loathsome things on earth will survive!

Why do you think that humany will be extinct totally?

If you look at today existing different abilities: some can survive at below zero temperature with almost nothing to eat, some can swim 20miles, some canwalk for 70 miles a day and so on.

These are likely to be among survivors of any thinkable crash.

They find ample food where everybody else will not survive for a week or two.

So a total crash will result in a few surviving humans to be founders of a next civilisation. If that will rely on our technology? certainly not but the technology of iron and steel and archery and hunting, of simple ceramic pottery, of horse riding and some domesticated animals will survive.

If you think the not so deep fall then you will result in a much more likely scenario: the fall of our electronic culture back to agricultural roots, a little bit similar to the situation of the end of the west-roman empire.

For the next 400 years no one of the ruling people knew how to read or write. But they lived their living including wars with neighbors from agriculture and a little bit of trade.

The effort needed to reach this level again will be big but possible.

The nexxt likely scenario will be bad only for western civilisation: dying of civilisations is quite common after some 100 years of blossoming, and if western civilisation will fall then eastern countries and may be south america will come up.

This is the most likely way.

And we speed up this way as any of the western states (may be except the scandinavian) is neglecting not only education but also investing in science and technology.

Typical western european government spending in these fields is equal to Mexico if compared on the basis of total value of produced goods.

So I think it very likely that the western states will be no longer very important because of lack of educated people and worthwhile products of science and technology.

RHABE

I agree with you on those points as we will not all die as a result of any catastrophy and some will survive to start again. I think we should have posted our foolish notions as off topic, sorry we didn't.

With regards to your comment "dying of civilisations is quite common after some 100 years of blossoming,", are you dure you mean 100 and not 1000 years?

Without looking it up I thought most civilisations of any lasting importance were there for several 1000 years before it all went pear shaped. Some of the pear shaping was done by other civilisations which then continued the trend but went down for their own reasons.

Maya and aztec

romans

greek

vikings??

chinese dynasties

mongols

were they not around for longer than just hundreds of years?

Interesting points none the less.

So I've been wrong all this time, we are (or will be) still subject to natural selection.

Don't we all know it everytime a girl turned us down for a date?

I see that someone has come up with the old "Dark Ages" chestnut!

<>In actual fact the average survivor of the fall of Rome was a good deal better off. Sure plagues like Typhus had killed off a lot of the population, but this left more room for the rest.

<>It was certainly a major reason for the cities being abandoned. They often had a degree of freedom that Rome had never given them, no longer a slave or tied to the same family job for ever.

<>Less people meant less labour, which meant that technology leapt ahead. It is no accident that the waterwheel, windmill and other local natural power sources were put to use in a way that hadn't been seen since the rise of Imperial Rome. Despite their propaganda Rome was a society based on military power which was technologically inferior to Celts, Parthians, Scythians and most of the other "barbarians".

<>I hate to point this out on a US based discussion group, but the common US admiration for Rome I find worrying. At its very worst the US often seems to try and emulate the old Empire.

<>The difference betwen legions and money can be rather academic when one is on the receiving end. That applies to both foriegn and domestic policy too.
Crite40

<>

<>

<>

<>

<>

"I hate to point this out on a US based discussion group"

I think we have a very global following here on cr4. It may be a US website that drives this forum but if you read some posts on different threads you will find out that our readers and contributors are from all over the world and in quite equal measures.

Anyway, that is not why I reply. We have had mixings of engeneering discussion and politics before and concluded that the 2 do not make a good marriage.

Just a thought

Least we forget that there were thriving cultural groups already on this contentment before Europeanization ever arrived, they thrived, grew and advanced in many areas now forgotten. The Mayan and Aztecs were mentioned. If left to their own means their cultural advances would have encompassed the whole of north and south America. If a "crash" came, just like global warming is said to be near, tribal cultures would again thrive and survive out of necessity. With or with out the hundred years cycles Asia is bound to gain global dominance again because they are so well populated and even a massive level of loss could only make things better for them, fewer mouths to feed, less resources needed, near primitive existence already in place. The same could be said of south America but the western cultures will not pass lightly due to the greater resources, the cultural expansiveness and the amount of tillable lands already in place. The existences of a well educated adaptable population will surely out last any "crash" be it economic, political or catastrophic event. We will survive because of our adaptability to almost any environment or situation that may arise.

joshua

Actually most americans seem to think more in terms of a romanticized version of imperial Athens, before the end of the pelopennesian wars. The US was set up to operate a little more like Republican Rome, than Imperial Athens, because Democracy is a bad thing (actually was worse than the tyranny of the Spartans initially). The politician behave similarly to those of imperial Athens, a lot of demagogues and false pandering to the masses while supporting special interest for personal gain (Republican Rome suffered from some of this effect, but the military aspect of their society kept some stability to offset politics). Sparta, a purely ordered military society was excessively stable and could not adapt or change, this was good for long term political investments, poor when opponents/conditions changed.

More woodlice?

pardon?

When man is no longer the "dominant species" then there will no longer be any need for the earth so it also will cease to exist. The rest of the species don't even know that they are a species and never will!

Yeh right?...And the portion of the room behind me cesaes to exist until I turn around to see it?

A cat knows that other cats exist, and that dogs, squirrels, birds and people exist!

A mouse knows a cat exists.

Birds know that worms exist...

And every spring males of every species seem to know that females of their species exist.

I just hope you were being funny ... but you signature is rather scarey .

We aren't so much different to the other critters...a bit smarter in some ways but dumber in others.

I don't suppose animals are daft enough to invent religion.

Down Kitty.

When I said politics should not be mixed with engineering I forgot to mention the religion thing as well.

Maybe we were not talking engineering enough.

Still whatever turns your crank I suppose but I don't buy it either.

He started it...

wrong again!

He will say that god did

This is actually what he said,

"The rest of the species don't even know that they are a species and never will!"

Your rant was totally knee-jerk because of your distaste for religion. His point was relating to self awareness of animals, not whether animals know other animals or humans exist. If you think cats ponder their existence then there is a place for a discussion, but snapping like a lion at someone because of your own pressuppositions is unnecessary.

ps. I don't agree with his first premise either.

His point was relating to self awareness of animals,

Are you telling me that an injured animal isn't self aware? Surely if it can feel pain, fear, sexual drive it is self aware...(which is pretty much what I said)... what do you feel that is so 'special'?

Regardless of this it is hardly a logical step to say that the world would cease to exist.

I think my rant is fairly well constructed as rants go...maybe should ask the panel to score it? Or maybe you should read it again and ponder? But do we reall want to discuss it?

(Your first sentence is pretty astute tho' )

Del

What I wrote is out of place in this thread!

I'd have thought it rather concise ,lucid and well tempered to qualify as a rant....

'If man isn't there to see it .... it ceases to exist???????' You expect such assertions to be ignored?

Read #3 in this thread if you want a Del rant!

Hear, hear! If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does . . .

If you call a rant a rant, is it? Of course it is . . .

If we don't ever get off this thread, will it live forever? Of course it will . . .

I haven't heard (read) such bickering since my kids fought over the last piece of Halloween candy 25 years ago . . .

"Roaches" is the answer . . . But they won't live long -- they're not cannibals . . .

I'm going to 'unsubscribe' from this thread to give my email program a break, but not immediately -- I want to see how badly I get slammed.

LOL!

I haven't heard (read) such bickering since my kids fought over the last piece of Halloween candy 25 years ago . . .

Oh yes you have.... haven't ..have....havn't etc

Ill see your Roaches and raise you a hand full of woodlice,and a rat!

Del

Del, Bill, et al the usual suspects,

Perhaps 'tis the wintry air that has made a recent whipping of keystrokes as of late. Seems to be a large amount of what-not coursing through the threads.

Cheers to 'yall. See you on the next one.

cr3

I did not mean to imply that existence is a matter of some esoteric perception. I know that we exist in a very real physical universe with natural laws that remain constant and are, for the most part inviolable. There have been well documented instances throughout history of things that seem to defy the natural laws and yet those that witnessed them, sometimes in great numbers, will swear to the truth of their experience. Many people call these incidents "miracles". It doesn't matter what you call them. They are still unexplainable. There is a lot we don't know. Don't close your mind if you want to learn more than you already know.

And then after a few hundred years, somebody stumbles on the answer and the miracle is no longer a miracle. in fact it turned out to be quite a simple solution!

The next dominant race will all be wearing kilts and Doctor Martins Boots!!

The next dominant race will all be wearing kilts and Doctor Martins Boots!!

Now that's funny!

I didn't say the other species weren't aware of each other. I said that they didn't know that they are a species. I am not aware of any conclusive scientific evidence that would lead me to believe that any species on this planet has the capacity to classify the others except man. Man would be the only one who is aware that he is a species.

I don't know why my signature should be scary. My faith is my faith. It influences my worldview and my perspectives, but it doesn't suck out my brain and make me unable to think critically. It also does not drive me to do violence to my fellow man, so you don't have to be afraid. Or are you afraid of other ideas that don't necessarily line right up with your own?

This whole thread is speculation. I just happen to base my speculations on different information and experiences than yours. Why is my opinion less valid?

My faith is my faith.

Fine...so why ram it down our throats?

Let's keep our religious beliefs to ourselves.

If I signed.

Allah is Lord... Praise the Lord.

or Bastet is lord etc...

or the Devil is Lord etc.

Or The absence of a Diety rocks...

Wouldn't that irritate you?

Your signature is a blatant incitement to drag religion into the forum which is not the place for it.

I said that they didn't know that they are a species.

You are putting man made labels on them... doubtless animals don't categorise species the same way as us (which is somewhat arbitary) they probably categorise them as prdators, food, mates etc.

I'm not afraid of other ideas...you don't seem to be putting any reasoned arguments forward, and that is why I judge your opinion as less valid. I'm sure others will make their own judgement.

Del

Believe what you want to believe about religion. I thought we were discussing what might be the dominant species on the planet should man someday become extinct. There are many well qualified scientific researchers who don't necessarily believe that we are the product of millions of years of evolution. There is not a person alive today who was there when man changed from ape to man as the theory goes. For that matter no one today was there when Adam and Eve were created in the garden as the Bible says.

The fact is we don't really know either way. We only believe. So believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. I'm not the least offended by what you believe since you don't expect me to believe it just because you do. Or do you?

Back to the original discussion. Since we are speculating, I don't think that man will ever cease to be the dominant species on this planet. We will inhabit this planet until it is destroyed. We may likely be the cause of that destruction considering the state of world affairs, but if the earth is destroyed there will be nothing to be the "dominant species".

Do you see how you consistently DO NOT answer the points raised???...

Every time you raise objections I ANSWER THEM.

This is the problem with 'Faith and Belief' it is impossible to hold a reasoned discussion which is why it is out of place in an Engineering Forum.

I thought we were discussing what might be the dominant species on the planet should man someday become extinct.

Yup...and you still haven't answered that! (Clue it's the Woodlice ! )

I'll believe what I want. I'm not the least offended by what you believe since you don't expect me to believe it just because you do. Or do you?

Nope, I don't care what you believe, I would however prefer it if you didn't press it on the rest of us with an exhortation to praise a man who has been dead for about 2000years.

Del

Hail Cesar!

You are putting man made labels on them...

Uh--Duh... I'm a man. What kind of label should I put on them? Martian labels?? Why don't you go ask some other species just what it wants to be called? If you get a response I'll be happy to call it that.

Now whose not putting forth reasoned arguments?

Simeon for me.

I shall exhort your own beliefs by saying for Christ sake read my responses!!!

Why don't you go ask some other species just what it wants to be called?

I explained they would see eachother as 'food' 'predator' 'mate' etc.

Just beacause these terms aren't vocalised in 'American English' doesn't mean they don't exist.

The alarm call of a blackbird may anounce the presence of a predator.

Are you so tied up with your beliefs thet you can't even appreciate the beauty and diversity of nature??

Del

Prehistory 200000 BCE~3500 BCE and later

indigenous civilizations of Americas during the classical antiquity

the Athabaskan or Athabascan languages base and where it comes from in the very first word spoken or heard by fellow man to change into what from what?

900 B.C Later Andean civilization

1200 Later Mesoamerican civilizations

even the conclusions of History are biased because of accepted starting point that narrows the search. Much like a listing of "Birds that can only walk" the list is narrowed to a scattered list of reference points and a vague list of names, pages and pictures. If you were only to see the "Birds that can Only walk"as a beginning reference point when did birds first appear? On even a basic cell level the birds began as one such form of "bird" that later evolved into, after many layers of the soil, to a form that we now see as chickens, a measurable time line? But based on accepted points of origin: as to what, when and where that item became encased in that rock stratification, How do we measure that point in time, burn carbon it has a measured point that is an acceptably point in time?

How did the tribal remnants, of some tribe or another get from, Africa to Asia and europe to north and south America on foot in such a short time frame? When did the land masses arrive in their locations? All acceptable points in time as reference points held in common we know it was not sudden, instantaneous? Each of these tribal groups arise from a distinctively human group reflective in their sun reflective colorations be it north, south, east and west. That took an amount of time to reach, then in that region expand into that number of cycles that reaches that, one on the "now" point line in that sphere of time that we call "now" and it is oblivious as to what we call the "now". To me it is all amazing. I knew a long time ago I was on for the ride of my life my beliefs told me so, my experiences, my point of view made/make it so!

The narrow line to follow and be repainted even wider

joshua

Let's come at this from another angle. Is it even possible, and in what scenario would it occur, that man would cease to be the dominant species? I would submit that man's instinct for survival would preclude him from completely destroying his own habitat, so unless some other species climbs over us on the evolutionary ladder, we will be the determining factor in the ultimate destiny of the planet. If we're not going to destroy the planet then we will dominate it. So long as there is a planet to dominate we're the ones who will run it. If we destroy it there will be nothing to run. If it gets destroyed by circumstances beyond our control I doubt there is another species able do do anything about it. Here we still wind up with no venue for any species to dominate. Not being a zoologist or an archeaologist or anthropologist or any other kind of learned scientist or scholar, maybe I'm not qualified to even discuss this, but I can't think of species on this planet more able to adapt to and overcome obstacles to it's continued existence than man. If you stay within the bounds of the theory that evolution takes millions of years to produce significant changes, then there is not enough time for some other species to step in to take over from man. Man is the furthest along in his development. He will continue to do what ever is necessary to control his habitat so that he will continue to have a place to live. The earth is ours to either manage responsibly or to use up and destroy. On the one hand we continue to rule on the other, there is nothing to rule. I would try to develop this further but it takes me some time to coherently express things and I'm out of time because I have to go to work to try to ensure my own survival.

I'm sure you can show me where the flaws in my reasoning are.

The cockroackes, bateria, woodlice and many other creatures can live where we can't. Plenty of aqautic creatures can live at depths which would be lethal to us.

There are plenty of scenarios whereby mankind would be wiped out but some creatures would survive and become dominant.

The Original Quetsion was...what creatures would these be? Your answer is 'none' if I understood your post correctly.

...ok...

There are plenty of scenarios whereby mankind would be wiped out but some creatures would survive and become dominant

Maybe you can describe....perhaps one...., in some detail? Since there are plenty of them.

"There are plenty of scenarios whereby mankind would be wiped out but some creatures would survive and become dominant"

"The cockroackes, bateria, woodlice and many other creatures can live where we can't. Plenty of aqautic creatures can live at depths which would be lethal to us."

The birds and the bees would still be here. Flowers, trees, cacti, wood boring worms , beetles and ants would still be here. Lice, ticks, fungi, Apes would still be here. sharks, dolphins, rays, trout and catfish. many microbial life forms will also survive in the absences of man. I hope that clarifies some of the myriad of creatures that would survive and perhaps become the dominate life form.

to put it in terms of a religious vent God would still be evident to the beast of the fields, water and air, just because man does not exist does not mean that God would cease to exist. That is unless your saying that God exist because of man!

joshua

Brilliantly put....

Especially the last sentence...maybe that says more about religion than my posts have managed to.

Five star answer!

Del

Religion again? Go back and read this thread from the beginning and see if I have brought up religion at all. I think you will find that there is nothing in any of my posts (other than my signature, which is more intended to tell others about me than it is the topics under discussion) that refers to religion or what I believe. An intelligent person, which you obviously are, will be able to deduce from my opinions just where I'm coming from, which you obviously have, but I hardly think that qualifies as "ramming it down your throat". So, just for the record, I didn't start the religious discussion. It was very tempting, though, and I am always eager to discuss and debate those subjects, but this is not the forum for that.

p.s. I do think it interesting that as soon as some people find out what they think my religious beliefs are, that I and my opinions are immediately considered irrelevant. With that, I digress.

(other than my signature,...

And the thinly veiled references to creationism..which is frankly bonkers.

I hardly think that qualifies as "ramming it down your throat".

That's hardly relevan, as the signature isn't there for your benefit..it's aimed at the rest uf us. Unless my understanding of the English language is somehow amiss I believe 'Praise the Lord' is an exhortation for us to do so. Which I take as 'ramming it down my throat' and I actually find it offensive.

I don't exhort anyone else to 'Praise my beliefs'...

My signature merely warns that my views my be considered slightly whacky....

Maybe your PS is telling you something?

Del

I can see some kind of love thing going on here between you two, so if we could all get back to the question it may be a bit more productive in the long run!

Personal opinions about the existence of a god or any other form of idol (Beer references included) should be placed on another thread and not this one! We were all born equal and shall all die equal! We all have our personal ideas, be they good or bad or even ugly. If we can learn to be accepting of others, then maybe we can also learn to be accepting of other ideas and not just blast them because they do not follow our own view! Open your eyes a bit wider and respect the views of others with a more humane approach! Christ! I'm not perfect, but I can't be doing arguments over the beliefs of one and the beliefs of another! This argument has been going for centuries and it will go on for centuries even if we stop now!

If I have offended the Buffmyster or the clawed one, then tough shit! Put this one to bed and move on! It will only end in bitterness between grown adults (that is if you are grow adults!)

PS.

Any how post #82 was not a reply to you it, was a reply to a post mentioning 'God' it is difficult to respond to such a post with out recourse to mentioning reigion.

Big asteroid impacts, causing a 'nuclear winter'

Big chunk of an Island falls into the sea (can't remember which one it is that due to do this in thext few hundred years) sending massive Tsunami right around the world. (Remember how well US Govt dealt with Katrina...?)

Outbreak of Global nuclear/chemical war, caused by fighting for oil, water or triggered by any of the above.

Pandemic of some nasty virus.

Ok they are unlikely to wipe out the entire population, but without our infrastructure most of us would be pretty helpless, especially if we were plunged into another ice age....oooh yes, one of those is due shortly. This would render us no longer the dominant species.

Failing any of the above the Sun will evenually cool down (or explode first) can we adapt/evolve quick enough to cope with that?

BTW we probably aren't the 'dominant species' in numerical terms at the moment, there are doubtless many insect which outnumber us. We are probably the most arrogant species however.

Take your pick, or mix n match.

Del

Would those people left act like the contestants of Survivor and self destruct in an environment that would be more hostile than anything modern man has seen or could fathom? If some isolated group survives,that has lived the same for thousands of years; it would probably take another million years for humans to become dominant again.

What is that old song: "We've done it before and we'll do it again"

joshua

Fiddler Crabs.

They're adaptable in wide ranges of moisture and salinity. Oceans can rise and fall, temperatures can rise. Even then, their habitat will always be there for them. And anything people do to disrupt shorelines only seems help the fiddlers.

Sorry cricket! Nobody got it.

I think that some people think that humans can adapt to any situation and that technology will be part of it. There may be an event, that is too catatropic or happens to quickly for us to able to adapt. Can human bodies adapt to changes in the atmosphere. I haven't heard of anyone, not reacting to certain levels of Ozone. What happens if the concentration of O2 changes to the point that not even a Sherpa can breathe?

Prehistory 200000 BCE~3500 BCE and, later being that time frame of up to now? Based upon our vigorous past survival as the means of archiving it, Now? I would say, yes we would make it. Some mutations will survive, asthmatics will have progeny that are low carbon absorbers that will have hydrogen breathing mutations of their own. Those that are thought abnormal, shall become the norm, that blue-green color to your eye filters, out certain colors to the never bundle which allows you to see clearly in an oxygen mixture or the sun of your skin pigmentation coating reflects light that prevents carcinomas of the skin. Our knowledge advances and regresses, transmutes, Changes. Our blood becomes more salty because the bodies need more calcium potassium salts or some such transformation to met the changing environment as we have done for a great number of years and for some strange reason I think we shall continue to do so, come what may of disease, famine or plague. Even God in all his righteousness has commuted the sentence of our pending doom by making us so.

joshua

Do you in that time believe that man has evolved those things you mentioned or were they pretty much part of the primate genome before we became Homo Sapien? I don't think you know how the lung cells work. I do not think is has anything to do with carbon or hydrogen absorption. I am saying this because I have just seen recently, a presentation on lung cell function in asthmatics.

No not at all. just what might come about given time and necessity. From the time line mentioned man was already man, civilization was just beginning to evolve.

joshua

my reference to God, should be seen in light with the advances of cultural when tied as it should have been to the reference of time Prehistory 200,000 Before the common era to what we vaguely call Now, by reading what the word means the connection is not religiously applicable but as were the words Pangaea as well as Gaia mere points in times advancement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

the concept of mutational replacement a dinosaurs reptilian with feathery remnants to what is now a chicken or a turkey sure why not they even look a like.

Where we came from, the same pool of water as the reptilian okay but not necessarily the same mixture or even the same batch but I can see the idea where we combined together some 200,000 years before we started even counting, advanced through the stone age into the biological age, yep again I can see it. Sitting here believing that this was the only place that it happened, not that egotistical.

Science is science and it evolved just along the same lines as mankind, has science ceased advancing, not that I have seen. Will it portend our end mayhaps, no one knows Nostradamus is gone no new letters have been discovered, pestiferous as all get out!

That they did not evolve, is not found in the records, nor is the evolutions full trail why is that? again reference Pangaea or Giai thus seperating the records as well as the evolution.

joshua

Evolution happens in man too!

Why do we have a cocksix and what is the purpose of the appendix? And why is only 25% of our brain used? (20%-30% or whatever!)

What was the question again? Seems there are only two answers here.

<<hooter goes of in the background>>

Presenter steps in the line of the camera and says, "sorry man, times is up, you are now extinct! Sorry, bye bye!"

I don't think you would make it if you ask me.

If all dinosaurs went extinct 65,000,000 years ago, how is it we have birds today? I think, if one uses the proper time scale, one can conclude that in 61,000,000 years or so, our decendients will not acknowledge that we are the same species...

will cockroaches?

Seems reasonable, but for all the wrong reasons. Let's start with the premise.

To say that birds are in the evolutionary line of dinosaurs does not mean dinosaurs are their ancestors. There were "dinosaurs" in which were evolved gliding and primitive (meaning, first-known-about) flight habit; and it is quite possible that the proto-dinosaur which gave rise to those also gave rise to feathered birds. But a bird, then or today, would not "recognize" flying dinosaurs - or any other - in its ancestry. It would see the proto-dinosaur as a successful ancestor, and the dinosaur, flying or not, as a distinct and separate order that failed....

For those same reasons, the posited future (literate) beings would ("will") not recognize themselves as our evolutionary legatees. They, too, might reach a point when their species, like Homo sapiens today, are not longer evolving. They, too, might come to understand the preponderant part that extinctions play in the rise of new life forms. They too might come to understand that a previous intelligent and social animal arose and became extinct--perhaps even paving the way (relinquishing or even creating the niche) for themselves. The point is, however, they will not not claim us as ancestors...only because we will not be their ancestors.

Finally, to answer the obvious question in advance-- Yes, it is conceivable that circumstances could arise in which Homo sapiens might devolve and, from there, begin to evolve once again. But that is in the realm of science fiction, not current science fact. Insofar as is known, there is no record of such an occurrence.

With such broad statements, it would suit you well to establish an online persona other than 'Guest'.

Please elaborate on the following:

But a bird, then or today, would not "recognize" flying dinosaurs - or any other - in its ancestry.

Are you suggesting some intellect, some sense of self that the birds are capable of?

It would see the proto-dinosaur as a successful ancestor, and the dinosaur, flying or not, as a distinct and separate order that failed....

How is it both successful and failed? What are the criteria by which this quantitative statement is measured?

For those same reasons, the posited future (literate) beings would ("will") not recognize themselves as our evolutionary legatees. They, too, might reach a point when their species, like Homo sapiens today, are not longer evolving.

Do I understand this to mean literate birds? You seem to be differentiating and combining in the same statement. You suggest that Homo-sapiens have reached their evolutionary apex? That we are no longer evolving?

They, too, might come to understand the preponderant part that extinctions play in the rise of new life forms. They too might come to understand that a previous intelligent and social animal arose and became extinct--perhaps even paving the way (relinquishing or even creating the niche) for themselves. The point is, however, they will not not claim us as ancestors...only because we will not be their ancestors.

For brevity, I will ask just one question here. Why will they (who or whatever they is/are I can't discern) not claim us as ancestors? (is that an intentional double neg in your post?)

respectfully anticipating elaboration,

cr3