Intelligent Design is Dead! Long Live the Intelligent Designer!

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: JeffM Yes, I do barts. Why not just admit that you were totally out of line with that comment I picked up on. Then you go and suggest that humans are the only life form to be considerd! And again I'll help you understand why you were so wrong.

Haven't you seriously misunderstood what Barts said? Read it again, it means the opposite of what you think you saw.

Deer for one example are much more plentiful because of human influence. Crows and seagulls are also much more plentiful. Need I get down to the lower forms of life?

You don't care about all the animals presently on the endangered species list? - endangered almost entirely as a result of destructive human activity on the planet. Who cares if we have no tigers, orang outangs or chimpanzees as long as we have crows?

I think we must live in parallel realities on different planets.

How about you tell me which animal is not so plentiful now as it was in some distant past you are imagining?

Please be serious...

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Deer for one example are much more plentiful because of human influence. Crows and seagulls are also much more plentiful.

I was on a field tour with a van full of ecologists a few years ago, and I posed the question to the group: When you take an overall view of the extinctions that are ongoing, and of the species that are doing the opposite (i.e. expanding), do you think it's accurate to say we're headed towards a planet populated primarily by niche generalists?

After much discussion, by the time we had arrived at our destination we all agreed. The answer seems to be, yes we are.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus I was on a field tour with a van full of ecologists a few years ago, and I posed the question to the group: When you take an overall view of the extinctions that are ongoing, and of the species that are doing the opposite (i.e. expanding), do you think it's accurate to say we're headed towards a planet populated primarily by niche generalists? After much discussion, by the time we had arrived at our destination we all agreed. The answer seems to be, yes we are.

Generalists are hard to kill. They're not dependent on any one other species so even if the food web is in total collapse they're just fine. Think cockroaches.

Oh, and for those who haven't put two and two together yet JeffM is a troll.

[Cruella]

We're not here to discuss other posters, merely their posts. Personal insults have no place on this forum, please cease and desist from commenting on other posters.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[GeminiBrian]

A troll is a person who has no positive contribution to make to a debate and can take many disguises.

They are ever in our midst, unfortunately.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus Interesting topic. Ecologists argue that we're in the midst of another mass extinction, but it's primarily our fault. I tend to agree (being one myself). The vast majority of extinctions we've caused and are currently causing is due to habitat destruction. Will it be our demise? I don't think so. I do think at some point there will be some kind of major event that will severely reduce our population, but I doubt that we'll end up extinct any time soon.

We won't need anything so dramatic as a major event to cause chaos and probably millions of deaths, both human and non-human.

With the world's human population multiplying exponentially, and predicted to double in the near future, it is basic resources such as fresh water that are destined to run out.

Technology or not, the logistics of irrigating an expanded agriculture and a world human population on that scale are never going to be sufficient... livestock will also need to be watered on a vastly greater scale - so the whole thing is literally impossible to contemplate.

Those are the sort of things that threaten our survival the most, IMO.

[JeffM]

Some people can distinguish between the earth's capacity to support life and the human caused extinction of certain species. And then some others.......

Well what can you say when people don't, or can't pay attention.

(or just want to spew pseudo-intellectual claptrap)

[barts]

Quote by: JeffM Some people can distinguish between the earth's capacity to support life and the human caused extinction of certain species. And then some others....... Well what can you say when people don't, or can't pay attention. (or just want to spew pseudo-intellectual claptrap)

Was there something of substance you were intending to add to this thread?

[JeffM]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Haven't you seriously misunderstood what Barts said? Read it again, it means the opposite of what you think you saw. You don't care about all the animals presently on the endangered species list? - endangered almost entirely as a result of destructive human activity on the planet. Who cares if we have no tigers, orang outangs or chimpanzees as long as we have crows? I think we must live in parallel realities on different planets. Please be serious...

Yes indeed I care very much about endangered species and no doubt whatsoever that human activity is responsible for the loss of many species. But to attempt to say that the earth is less capable of supporting life now than it was before is just pure insanity. Maybe he doesn't understand that while virgin forests are capable of the desired biodiversity, they aren't capable of supporting life pound for pound.

But really, I just mostly object to some people sounding off to hear themselves think or see themselves thinking on their monitors.

[JeffM]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Haven't you seriously misunderstood what Barts said? Read it again, it means the opposite of what you think you saw. You don't care about all the animals presently on the endangered species list? - endangered almost entirely as a result of destructive human activity on the planet. Who cares if we have no tigers, orang outangs or chimpanzees as long as we have crows? I think we must live in parallel realities on different planets. Please be serious...

Quote by: barts Was there something of substance you were intending to add to this thread?

ACtually I may have something to say on topic if you ever lead it back there. It's your thread you know. However I am still a little suspicious of what motivated you to start another thread which is nothing but a duplicate of an already existing one. Is it an attempt to kill the other thread? If this was my forum I would delete this thread as being repetitious and an attempt to spam the forum. Alas, it's not mine and I'm not even a donor! Therefore I understand why it still stands.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: JeffM Maybe he doesn't understand that while virgin forests are capable of the desired biodiversity, they aren't capable of supporting life pound for pound.

Could you re-phrase that, please - I'm slightly baffled by it.

[barts]

Quote by: JeffM ACtually I may have something to say on topic if you ever lead it back there. It's your thread you know. However I am still a little suspicious of what motivated you to start another thread which is nothing but a duplicate of an already existing one. Is it an attempt to kill the other thread? If this was my forum I would delete this thread as being repetitious and an attempt to spam the forum. Alas, it's not mine and I'm not even a donor! Therefore I understand why it still stands.

This isn't my thread and I don't lead it it anywhere. I merely introduced the notion of human beings having evolved to become an intelligent designer. Which other thread is considering that concept? Perhaps you can point it out. I would like to follow it.

Add what you will to this thread. Nothing's preventing you. So far you've added nothing of substance here. You've merely made unsupported, ill-informed, petulant emotional objections. And, even worse, your invectives don't even rise to the level of amusing.

This thread is not a duplicate of any other thread that I'm aware of. Perhaps you could explain where and how you got that idea. Certainly not from any postings here on volconvo that I'm aware of. But perhaps you can show how this thread is a duplicate of another. That should be easy; every post remains extant. If it is a duplicate, point that out to the moderators and they will merge it with the other thread, as they've done routinely, as a matter of housekeeping, to many threads in the past.

What does "spam the forum" mean? Do you know what spam is? And, what does me being a donor have to do with anything? But more importantly, exactly what are you accusing the moderators and forum owner of?

Perhaps you should become a donor yourself. That way you can test whatever it is you think the moderators are guilty of.

This is a debate forum for enlightenment, amusement, and social exchange. Perhaps you should pause and consider why you let these non-critical exchanges disturb you so much.

At any rate, if you'll acquaint yourself with the rules that you agreed to honor when you joined volconvo, you'll learn that the comments in some of your posts are inappropriate.

Now, you had something of substance to add to this thread?

[barts]

Quote by: JeffM Maybe he doesn't understand that while virgin forests are capable of the desired biodiversity, they aren't capable of supporting life pound for pound. But really, I just mostly object to some people sounding off to hear themselves think or see themselves thinking on their monitors.

You think a rain forest converted to a monoculture to support beef production is not reducing the capacity of this planet to support life?

You think polluting the atmosphere is not reducing the capacity of the planet to support life?

You think the massive reduction of biomass in the oceans by commercial fisheries is not reducing the capacity of the planet to support life?

You think the toxic run off from agriculture into waterways is not reducing the capacity of the planet to support life?

Need I go on?

I would truly love to be shown how I wrong I am. Perhaps other than merely characterizing such views as insane, you have something of substance to offer which shows that the human impact is actually making the planet better able to support life, as you seem to believe.

Lastly, if you object to people sounding off why are you participating in a debate forum?

[JeffM]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Could you re-phrase that, please - I'm slightly baffled by it.

Yes. Virgin forests are relatively sterile environments for large herbivores. Manmade christmas tree size plots of land support much more large mammal life but aren't as biologicallly diverse. Biodiversity is preferred of course but it can't be chosen at all costs. We have turned the earth into a planet which is capable of supporting over 6 billion human beings and we can never turn back. Virgin forests on a 2000 year old earth just couldn't fill the bill.

Sad that barts keeps arguing with me as if I'm not environmentally conscious. Maybe he thinks he's talking to an American instead of a Canadian?

[JeffM]

You think the toxic run off from agriculture into waterways is not reducing the capacity of the planet to support life?

A good example because it's going to upset you even more and we know that's when people start losing credibility. It reduces life which is important to you and maybe me too but it doesn't necessarily reduce life. In fact some life forms thrive in pollution. Phosphates for instance has caused trout populations to sky rocket in some river and lake systems.

Why not just go back to your original erroneous statement, revise it to make it correct, and stop your whining. Here, I'll help you:

Because of us, earth is less able to support life than it was before the rise of Homo sapien,

Align your talking points around that statement and maybe I'll continue to entertain you. If you can that is. If it now embarrasses you then walk away from it before you get yourself in any deeper.

[barts]

Quote by: JeffM A good example because it's going to upset you even more and we know that's when people start losing credibility. It reduces life which is important to you and maybe me too but it doesn't necessarily reduce life. In fact some life forms thrive in pollution. Phosphates for instance has caused trout populations to sky rocket in some river and lake systems.

The issue isn't whether or not some species thrive in environments that human activity has degraded. The issue is whether or not the overall capacity of earth to support life is diminished or enhanced. And, for this thread, how humans who have evolved to have the capacity, in theory, to be an "intelligent designer" might respond to these issues.

We have countless examples of humans and non-human species altering environments. The former can reduce an ecosystem's capacity to support life, the latter can't. Indeed, species not only participate in the environment, but also they are the environment.

For example, the African savannah exists only because of the interaction of elephants with the flora that would encroach on it.

Is your argument that human activity increases the robustness, fecundity, and biodiversity of life on this planet, reduces it, or merely changes it nature?

I'm interested, particularly, in an example you offered. Can you point me to or provide a reference for "Phosphates for instance has caused trout populations to sky rocket in some river and lake systems."

Lastly, why would you assume that anything you had to offer would upset me? I think you may be overestimating your influence on others or the degree to which they might care about your comments.