Global Warming?
- Thread starter Bird
- Start date
- Views: 334488
- Status
Have you seen what over grazing of cattle does?
Yes, but sheep eat grasses down below the point of regrowth.
Egon, I'm no fan of cattle or the processes, hormones, daily injections, damage to land, etc. that goes into "Beef, it's what's for dinner.".... Heart attack, it's what's for breakfast. What do you guys think all this Viagra is all about? It's about clogged arteries.
But only wimps and tree huggers eat veggies. I had this guy who used to laugh at me and say I ate like a bird. Now he has a bad heart and a lot less to say.
Rob
Short Game
Veteran Member
Have you seen what over grazing of cattle does?
Much of the present day northern Senoran and Chihuahuan Deserts were grasslands with year-round streams and rivers, with beaver marshes, elk, bison, pronghorn, etc., when the Spaniards arrived with their sheep and longhorns. With the loss of the grasses to grazing, and with the trapping of the beaver, the water tables fell, the creeks dried up, killing the trees along the creeks, which are now arroyos that flash-flood with the monsoon rains.
Last edited:
crash325
Elite Member
:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:
EE_Bota
Veteran Member
Slow down...
Look at what you said....
Evolution is a process from simple to complex.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
What I said
Evolution is not necessarily a process of development from simple to complex.*
And you find that basis to question whether I had coffee?
My comment is correct. It is should not be a major point of contention. You were taking me to task for using an anthropomorphism. I like them, as I find them fun, and have heard them used by many a professor when discussing these topics. It is easy, and somewhat instructive too to use them regarding evolution. I have studied evolution for a long time, and an anthropomorphism is not inconsistent with the concept of life being for the purpose of carrying genes.
Do genes suffer? Creatures suffer tremendously to pass genes forward. Why? Genes told us to do so. An anthropomorphism? Are genes alive? Do that talk? Are we told things by genes?
But...we can always wait and let evolution give us its answer.
Pat is not far off in what he said at all, and neither is Schweitzer. Pat is closer to what evolution involves, in my view. Schweitzer seems to be getting further from genes propagating themselves, and citing places where genes would be least concerned.
Well, in the time of your life when you are least useful to your genes, a man has to look out for himself, as your genes are not looking out for you.
They got what they wanted when you had your children, and they only need you to make sure the children can reproduce. And yes, it is easiest to use an anthropomorphism here...consider the genes to be devious and out for themselves...since they truly are out for themselves, and by any standard, quite devious. They make you work for them all your life in such a way that they will survive after you are dead. That devious enough for you?
Slow down...
Look at what you said....
Evolution is a process from simple to complex.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
What I said
Evolution is not necessarily a process of development from simple to complex.*
And you find that basis to question whether I had coffee?
My comment is correct. It is should not be a major point of contention. You were taking me to task for using an anthropomorphism. I like them, as I find them fun, and have heard them used by many a professor when discussing these topics. It is easy, and somewhat instructive too to use them regarding evolution. I have studied evolution for a long time, and an anthropomorphism is not inconsistent with the concept of life being for the purpose of carrying genes.
Do genes suffer? Creatures suffer tremendously to pass genes forward. Why? Genes told us to do so. An anthropomorphism? Are genes alive? Do that talk? Are we told things by genes?
But...we can always wait and let evolution give us its answer.
Pat is not far off in what he said at all, and neither is Schweitzer. Pat is closer to what evolution involves, in my view. Schweitzer seems to be getting further from genes propagating themselves, and citing places where genes would be least concerned.
Well, in the time of your life when you are least useful to your genes, a man has to look out for himself, as your genes are not looking out for you.
They got what they wanted when you had your children, and they only need you to make sure the children can reproduce. And yes, it is easiest to use an anthropomorphism here...consider the genes to be devious and out for themselves...since they truly are out for themselves, and by any standard, quite devious. They make you work for them all your life in such a way that they will survive after you are dead. That devious enough for you?
Very Richard Dawkins, I have issues with Dawkins perceptions and his atheism, not my favorite thinker. Which reminds me of George Moore's argument on "Naturalistic Fallacy" as applied to evolution which is still a stumbling block for evolutionists in classic debates.
Here's another definition of evolution, pretty close to the one I initially stated:
evｷoｷluｷtion/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun:
1.The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
2.The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
I asked you if you had coffee because you kept attributing caring to science which is anthropomorphic and incorrect.
Bringing up suffering, as you did, introduces compassion. Evolution has no place for compassion basically because science has no place for compassion. Science doesn'rt care if we pour DDT on crops, destroy the environment and in turn bring cancer and suffering to people. Science only tells us that DDT kills certain living things.
As far as a vegetarian diet, you are reflecting to Pat and Schweitzer theoretically, have you been both a vegetarian and a non vegetarian for a long period of time? In application Max Planks "ultraviolet catastrophe" was completely different than what he expected theoretically.
Rob
EE_Bota
Veteran Member
I don't care for Dawkins myself. My comments are not from his work, but generally from my Animal Science degree...not attributable to any particular author or researcher.
Yes, we need another one, since what I said survived the first one, so let's go shopping.
Let's skip the one that is about what we were actually discussing, and use the one that applies to everything from the evolution of Wankel engine designs to evolution of screw-ups: ...dang...is "esp." averse to my "not necessarily?"
The world may never know.
patrick_g
Elite Member
State of Himalayan glaciers less alarming than feared
Posted: 19 Apr 2012 11:31 AM PDT
Several hundreds of millions of people in Southeast Asia depend, to varying degrees, on the freshwater reservoirs of the Himalayan glaciers. Consequently, it is important to detect the potential impact of climate changes on the Himalayan glaciers at an early stage. Glaciologists now reveal that the glaciers in the Himalayas are declining less rapidly than was previously thought. However, the scientists see major hazard potential from outbursts of glacial lakes.
Posted: 19 Apr 2012 11:31 AM PDT
Several hundreds of millions of people in Southeast Asia depend, to varying degrees, on the freshwater reservoirs of the Himalayan glaciers. Consequently, it is important to detect the potential impact of climate changes on the Himalayan glaciers at an early stage. Glaciologists now reveal that the glaciers in the Himalayas are declining less rapidly than was previously thought. However, the scientists see major hazard potential from outbursts of glacial lakes.
Oaktree
Super Member
34 years is not even a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Accurate weather records only go back 150 years or so...again, a very small snapshot.
Yes, during that time the average temperature has been climbing, but how many times over the past however many millenia has the climate varied by similar or greater amounts? Witness the ice ages.
You have to look at climate changes over tens of thousands of years, and even then due to lack of record keeping for much of the world it's not going to tell you much.
I don't care for Dawkins myself. My comments are not from his work, but generally from my Animal Science degree...not attributable to any particular author or researcher.
Yes, we need another one, since what I said survived the first one, so let's go shopping.
Let's skip the one that is about what we were actually discussing, and use the one that applies to everything from the evolution of Wankel engine designs to evolution of screw-ups: ...dang...is "esp." averse to my "not necessarily?"
The world may never know.
First, you disputed my definition, I showed that it is a valid definition of evolution.
Let me recall what transpired, here is what I said:
"Evolution is a process of development from a simple to a complex organism. Evolution is science, science doesn't weight whether things matter.
Does it matter to science that gravity exists? No."
The point I made is that evolution is science and science doesn't care, my definition of evolution was only introduced to show that science is not capable of caring, thus the statement that followed, "science does not weight whether things 'matter'".
So why you said,"Let's skip the one that is about what we were actually discussing" is not correct because this is exactly what we were discussing and that was whether science could care.
Secondly, I don't care for anthropomorphisms, like Dawkins' "selfish genes" because they infer that science is capable of 'feelings' and thus compassion. A very clever ploy by the atheist Dawkins, science is not capable of compassion, love or agape'. It's not that I'm a religious fanatic for I am surely not but let's "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's".
As far as your statement:
"Evolution doesn't care about vegetarian diets or meat diets. Evolution cares about propagating genes. If a pregnant woman in hard times has a strange craving to eat earth worms, that would be a fine thing."
Evolution doesn't care BUT evolution is affected by diet because evolution is affected by the environment the species exists in. The period of time that a species adapts to its environment may be tens of thousands of years but it is still affected and it still adapts.
A starving man in the wilderness might eat raw meat to survive AND it might make him sick because his body is no longer capable, after millenniums of time, of eating and digesting that raw meat. He might even have a craving for something that his physiology can not digest and indeed, again, it might make him sick because of his physiological change over time.
So the woman eating worms may or may not be a fine thing but more importantly it is less about evolution and more about Abe Maslow's human needs and the priority of those needs.
Rob
- Status