RE: Why do evolutionists protect endagered species???
April 4, 2012 at 4:57 pm
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2012 at 5:04 pm by Anomalocaris.)
Fundamentally, there is nothing contradictory whatsoever between human intervention to protect species, and the understanding that species have evolved into more or less their present form under the selection pressure of "survival of the fittest".
At its core it has nothing to do with empathy, although empathy can superficially seem like a tangential reason.
Fundamentally, we are part of the natural world in which other species operate, and out selection is part of the selection pressure they face in the "survival of the fittest". Those other species supports a ecosystem that has also been part of the natural world in which we operate, and they have been part of the selection pressure we humans have faced, and continue to face, in our "survival of the fittest".
Natural selection through interaction of other species is certainly continuing to shape us through survival of the fittest in the most profound ways in all aspects of our world - politics, demography, epidemiology.
If you don't think our social, economic, and biological evolution is ongoing in modern era and continue to be shaped by other species, ask yourself why American civil war waged a crossed the Mason Dixon line, which happen to mark the boundary between the warmer regions in the south in which malaria easily transmits through mosquitos, and cooler regions in the North where malaria has a difficult time spreading by mosquito; while taking into consideration the war was waged over slavery, and black africans are genetically much more resistant to malaria compared to whites, and thus enjoy competitive advantage over whites as heavy day labor in mosquito infested south, but no such advantage in the North, thus slavery south of mason dixon line, free states north of it.
We like to make good use all of the good tools in our arsenal, include our brains, technology, and probably not bibles and fundamentalists, to allow use to most easily survive through reasonable stability in our established social, economic and biological order.
This means protecting species which either directly and indirectly shaped our established social, economic and biological order.
Species evolve in response to whatever dictates the survival advantages of their various traits. We like to keep the benefits of such traits which, in the presence of the ecosystem and species we've laboriously adopted ourselves over the millenniums, had been advantageous to us. This means keeping the eco system we adapted to intact. we like to keep species around that supported the ecological systems we've laborious adapted to.
Species evolve according to survival of that which is the fittest to the environment, we protect species useful to our ecosystem by shaping environment such that the existing traits of useful species makes them fit.
To assert a contradiction is a to grab at a straw of ignorance.
At its core it has nothing to do with empathy, although empathy can superficially seem like a tangential reason.
Fundamentally, we are part of the natural world in which other species operate, and out selection is part of the selection pressure they face in the "survival of the fittest". Those other species supports a ecosystem that has also been part of the natural world in which we operate, and they have been part of the selection pressure we humans have faced, and continue to face, in our "survival of the fittest".
Natural selection through interaction of other species is certainly continuing to shape us through survival of the fittest in the most profound ways in all aspects of our world - politics, demography, epidemiology.
If you don't think our social, economic, and biological evolution is ongoing in modern era and continue to be shaped by other species, ask yourself why American civil war waged a crossed the Mason Dixon line, which happen to mark the boundary between the warmer regions in the south in which malaria easily transmits through mosquitos, and cooler regions in the North where malaria has a difficult time spreading by mosquito; while taking into consideration the war was waged over slavery, and black africans are genetically much more resistant to malaria compared to whites, and thus enjoy competitive advantage over whites as heavy day labor in mosquito infested south, but no such advantage in the North, thus slavery south of mason dixon line, free states north of it.
We like to make good use all of the good tools in our arsenal, include our brains, technology, and probably not bibles and fundamentalists, to allow use to most easily survive through reasonable stability in our established social, economic and biological order.
This means protecting species which either directly and indirectly shaped our established social, economic and biological order.
Species evolve in response to whatever dictates the survival advantages of their various traits. We like to keep the benefits of such traits which, in the presence of the ecosystem and species we've laboriously adopted ourselves over the millenniums, had been advantageous to us. This means keeping the eco system we adapted to intact. we like to keep species around that supported the ecological systems we've laborious adapted to.
Species evolve according to survival of that which is the fittest to the environment, we protect species useful to our ecosystem by shaping environment such that the existing traits of useful species makes them fit.
To assert a contradiction is a to grab at a straw of ignorance.
