Contradiction between ESA and Evolution, thoughts?

[James Riley]

Thanks James, if that is a fundamental principle then to my great regret I guess I do share some environmental opinions As I said, I do believe there is a place for wolves. I do however not believe there is a place for the Fairy Shrimp, also on the ESA, that cost developers thousands and thousands of dollars each year in mitigation costs. At what expense/level do we say, that species just didn't make the cut? It is at junctures like this that in my opinion we just let it them go. And the statement made earlier that the extinction of species is largely due to man, I don’t buy that. 95% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct. All those species existed long before man had his influence on this World.

I think seven billion human beings are the greatest threat to our species. The foot print of each individual in the west, particularly developers, is greater still. Let the Fairy Shrimp be as the flag on Mount Suribachi; in itself, as physical matter, it may not be crucial, but it could be. I could symbolize something.

 

[James Riley]

What do scientific facts not have in common with a gender-neutral locker room?

Policy.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I think I made a wise choice to reconsider my original answer. Enjoy your debate boys. Two days max till this thread descends past the threshold of tolerated rancor and is toasted.

I'm right there with ya bro. :W:

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

God bless Al Gore and his internet, that allows such important discussions.

 

[RobG]

Man is part of the evolutionary process. The players largely consist of
1) Idiots driven by greed and lack of consideration for future generations that have no problem wiping out a species so they can make a buck.
2) People who oppose those selfish idiots.

When people of 2 start cutting into people of 1's profit margins, people of 1 suddenly start talking about how they are on a mission from God and we should just let them have their way. However, if God was really on their side, I suspect they wouldn't have to buy politicians and cut funding to inconvenient science. God might also have blessed us with something better than cheat grass and wild boar as exemplary fittest species if that were really the case.

People taking an active role in saving species or preventing the next massive mine spill are just as much a part of the evolutionary process as the people who's actions put species at risk.

 

[James Riley]

People taking an active role in saving species or preventing the next massive mine spill are just as much a part of the evolutionary process as the people who's actions put species at risk.

Bingo! Now, who will win in the end? That reminds me of Robert Service: "Yet the Wild must win in the end."

 

[RobG]

Bingo! Now, who will win in the end? That reminds me of Robert Service: "Yet the Wild must win in the end."

Cockroaches.

 

[Pagosa]

Sweet. I'll have to remember that.

Nameless, so the main thought of uniformatism/evolution belief is, the past is the key to the future? That nature has regularly adapted to certain environmental conditions and various species have either gone extinct/evolved through means of natural selection, adaptive predation, and/or mass die-offs?

 

[James Riley]

Nameless, so the main thought of uniformatism/evolution belief is, the past is the key to the future? That nature has regularly adapted to certain environmental conditions and various species have either gone extinct/evolved through means of natural selection, adaptive predation, and/or mass die-offs?

I'm distracted by the first word in your post "Nameless"? Who is that or what does it mean?

I'm not a biologist and I'm not familiar with uniformatism and I'm not sure how that would relate to the notion that the past is the key to the future. I would not say that nature has adapted to certain environmental conditions. I would say environmental conditions are nature, and that they change. I would agree that various species have either gone extinct or evolved through means of natural selection in response to changing environmental conditions in which they play a part. Some have gone extinct due to mass die-offs. I'm not sure what adaptive predation is.

I would say that Christopher Stone's "ontological problem" does present us with food for philosophical thought though. But regardless of any end game conundrums, it has been shown that biological diversity enhances the odds of a continuity of life in general (in the face of comets, meteors, volcanoes, climate change, etc.) as well as the chances for any individual species. Indeed, some have argued that the greater the number of people (intraspecies diversity), the better our odds of survival since that one deformed, handicapped, mentally deficient person may hold the one gene combination that permits the survival of the species in the face of some unknown event, disease, etc. However, interspecies diversity would seem the preferable state if the intraspecies diversity is itself threatening the species.

It's like Scalia's concentric circles of care. Sure, we care more about those closer in. But there comes a point where that which would normally be considered to lie further out actually poses less of a threat to our existence than something closer in. My fellow man can be a greater threat to me and mine than, say, a snail darter somewhere. The evolution of smart people would see that coming.

People, this has been fun. But I'm off to a basket ball game.

 

[VAspeedgoat]

I think I made a wise choice to reconsider my original answer. Enjoy your debate boys. Two days max till this thread descends past the threshold of tolerated rancor and is toasted.

Agreed

 

[swmt]

"I do however not believe there is a place for the Fairy Shrimp, also on the ESA, that cost developers thousands and thousands of dollars each year in mitigation costs. At what expense/level do we say, that species just didn't make the cut? It is at junctures like this that in my opinion we just let it them go."

Take the above quote, replace "Fairy Shrimp" with "elk", "developers" with "ranchers" and you've got the argument for a shoulder seasons.

 

[The Hedgehog]

How is Noah any different than the ESA? He let the wolves on the boat right?

 

[Ben Lamb]

They were the smaller, native wolves on the Ark, not the mega-evil woofs.

 

[Ben Lamb]

On a completely different front I would like to pose a question for discussion. It is my argument that most environmentalists are probably evolutionists to a large degree. I may be completely off on this thinking, but I don’t think so. One of the main ideas behind evolution is natural selection and survival of the fittest. So if one believes in evolution and therefore by definition believes in natural selection and survival of the fittest, how can the same person fight for the reintroduction of a species that didn’t survive the cut by the fitter? This doesn’t just apply to wolves, but every species on ESA. It has always confused me how environmentalists want to play God in saving all these species from extinction, but believe in something that acknowledges that their extinction is part of the evolutionary process they claim to believer in. I would like to hear what others may think on this subject.

!

This was almost exactly what the lobbyist for a coal company said during a Western Gov's Association meeting on the ESA.

It's essentially a way to give yourself a pass for not caring about the world around you, and not trying to leave God's creation better than what you found it.

 

[RobG]

How is Noah any different than the ESA? He let the wolves on the boat right?

Good point.

 

[jzeck2]

Toast it! Pretty hard to convince anyone who will not believe scientific evidence.

 

[Ben Long]

Extinction is good and natural and inevitable. All species go extinct, just as all organisms die. That's just how nature works. What the Endangered Species Act attempts to address is the rate of extinction. Modern humans have turned up the octane on the extinction machine way beyond the "natural" background rate of that perks along over eons. Basically, passing the ESA, Americans said we're not going to push any species over the brink, if we can help it. The best way to prevent it is to protect habitat. That's my understanding, as a layman, anyway.

 

[NoWiser]

What confuses me most in this thread is Greenhorn's illustration. Why would a goose need a boat?

 

[The Hedgehog]

Shame on Noah for letting the wolves on the boat. And check out that buck in the photo - what a dinker. Just think if he'd only let a giant non-typical board the ark. Things would be so much better today.

But to stay on topic - I suggest watching Mr. Garrison's theory of evolution. If we came from monkey fish frogs, how did the wolves evolve?

 

[RobG]

Nice deflection from the goose issue Greenhorn.