Humans and Evolution

[Humiliation]

I would like to reenforce my statement made in the other thread. We're NOT special. We're another creature created by ature. Because we have "intelligence" (given to us by nature as a means to survive) does NOT mean that we exceed nature.

We aren't better than everything else in nature. The only way you could possibly think this is from not seeing the bigger picture. If a meteor hits the earth humans will most likely be wiped out. But guess what? Superior organisms can and will survive. It is all about survival. I strain to say it but cockroaches are superior to humans because look at them, they're EVERYWHERE because they breed effectively to help the continuation of the species.

People need to understand this

[Medellia]

If a meteor hits the earth humans will most likely be wiped out.
Actually earth gets hit quite often and the human race is still here. (http://www.space.com/reference/debris/meteors.html) But I know what you were saying though.

[Qdrop]

he correct in his sentiment.

we are NOT a higher being.

we are just another animal on this planet.

we are more complex in many ways, and our abilities of self awareness (consciousness) and forethought/planning have allowed us to shape the world to our liking (to some degree).
but our current "fitness" is dependant on the environment, and what benchmarks you use for "successfull".

a distinct change in the enviroment, and we wouldn't be the most fit anymore, or the most dominant.

[EN[i]GMA]

I would like to reenforce my statement made in the other thread. We're NOT special. We're another creature created by ature. Because we have "intelligence" (given to us by nature as a means to survive) does NOT mean that we exceed nature.

We aren't better than everything else in nature. The only way you could possibly think this is from not seeing the bigger picture. If a meteor hits the earth humans will most likely be wiped out. But guess what? Superior organisms can and will survive. It is all about survival. I strain to say it but cockroaches are superior to humans because look at them, they're EVERYWHERE because they breed effectively to help the continuation of the species.

People need to understand this

We ARE better.

We won evolution.

We're the dominant species.

We're BETTER because we say so.

Might makes right is the law of evolution, and we're kicking ass.

EDIT: Perhaps I should change 'won' to 'are winning'.

[racer5.0stang]

I would like to reenforce my statement made in the other thread. We're NOT special. We're another creature created by ature.

Can you prove this theory?

We aren't better than everything else in nature. The only way you could possibly think this is from not seeing the bigger picture. If a meteor hits the earth humans will most likely be wiped out. But guess what? Superior organisms can and will survive. It is all about survival.

So what is the point of survival?

[Qdrop]

So what is the point of survival?

to pass on your genes.

genetic suvival.

it's not a conscious desire. (or subconscious).
but it IS what we've evolved to do.
that is the driving force (goal?) behind our existance and all that we have evolved to do.

[Ali]

GMA']We ARE better.

We won evolution.

We're the dominant species.

We're BETTER because we say so.

Might makes right is the law of evolution, and we're kicking ass.

EDIT: Perhaps I should change 'won' to 'are winning'.Tell that to the Ebola Virus, buddy.

We are not top of the food chain.

[Schmeltz]

So all the achievements of human civilization, none of which could have possibly been attained by any of the millions of other species on this planet - the complexity of our many and varied forms of social organization, our manipulation of the biosphere (as opposed to our hapless subjection to it), our construction of completely abstract entities and forms of thought detached from mere reality, our ability to ponder our own existence - none of this makes us better than the animals we domesticate or hunt to extinction?

I simply cannot see by what benchmark we are not the single most successful species on this planet. You guys must have some real self-esteem issues. It must suck to go through life thinking you're no better than a rat.

[Qdrop]

So all the achievements of human civilization, none of which could have possibly been attained by any of the millions of other species on this planet - the complexity of our many and varied forms of social organization, our manipulation of the biosphere (as opposed to our hapless subjection to it), our construction of completely abstract entities and forms of thought detached from mere reality, our ability to ponder our own existence - none of this makes us better than the animals we domesticate or hunt to extinction?

I simply cannot see by what benchmark we are not the single most successful species on this planet. You guys must have some real self-esteem issues. It must suck to go through life thinking you're no better than a rat.

so, am i to understand that you use achievement as a benchmark of hierarchy among species?
or is it the ability for achievement?

[Schmeltz]

Either/or, I suppose. What ability do cockroaches possess that will enable them to build cities, or compose music, alter their natural environments, or achieve any of the things we have? This guy thinks they're superior to us because there's more of them, which is pretty lame if you ask me. There's more chickens than there are people, but we're the ones with KFC.

May I ask what benchmarks you use to rank species hierarchically?

[cosmo105]

it's not about "better" or more "acheived."

it's about who will survive, who is more adapted to the environment.

viruses will beat us all out eventually anyway.

[Schmeltz]

I don't get you folks who think meteors or virii are going to knock us all off. If it was just naked humans living in the desert or the jungle vs. the virii and the meteors, then yeah, we'd probably have a tough time of it. But it's not merely about physical biology these days. Not only could we quite conceivably survive a meteor or a pandemic through our own physical adaptation, we also possess the means to think our way through the problem and devise solutions based on our increasing mastery of the natural environment. No other species has recourse to these abstract forms of survival. Only us.

Man, you guys are down on yourselves something fierce today.

[bb_bboy]

However Schmeltz, to survive for very long after either of those events, we'd most likely have to bring some other species with us.

It's time to make friends with humans you other creatures of the biosphere, or else you ain't riding in our post cataclysm bubbles.

[bb_bboy]

Because we have "intelligence" (given to us by nature as a means to survive) does NOT mean that we exceed nature.

We aren't better than everything else in nature.

I think that there are multilple questions being posed here that have somewhat exclusive answers. You can value humans over other species without saying that we have transcended the realm of the natural world. I don't know if I understand your specific stance here.

[cosmo105]

I don't get you folks who think meteors or virii are going to knock us all off. If it was just naked humans living in the desert or the jungle vs. the virii and the meteors, then yeah, we'd probably have a tough time of it. But it's not merely about physical biology these days. Not only could we quite conceivably survive a meteor or a pandemic through our own physical adaptation, we also possess the means to think our way through the problem and devise solutions based on our increasing mastery of the natural environment. No other species has recourse to these abstract forms of survival. Only us.

Man, you guys are down on yourselves something fierce today.
of course we could devise all we want and create all the technology you could ever imagine.

but we are very fragile creatures. we have a relatively narrow range of temperature and air pressure within which we can survive. microbes, especially viruses, are much hardier than we. and all our conventional science and medicine has done to fight them off has only made them stronger and more resistant. we're not the pinnacle of evolution, you know. we've only been here in our present form for the last hundred thousand years or so.

[Qdrop]

Either/or, I suppose. What ability do cockroaches possess that will enable them to build cities, or compose music, alter their natural environments, or achieve any of the things we have?

well, that's the thing: if you base your hierarchy of species on achievments and ability, then why can't we do the same WITHIN our species as well?
Our species, *devoid of race or gender differances* has differances in ability (smart vs. dumb, motivated vs. lazy, creative inginuity vs. stagnation) as well as achievments.
Granted, geography plays a role and should be taken into account when measuring nation vs. nation...
but on individual and societal differances....shouldn't you use this same benchmarking?
you certainly CAN'T claim equality among all people if that's the case.


May I ask what benchmarks you use to rank species hierarchically?
pretty much what you stated.

though, as others are explaining....
it ain't all about building skyscrapers....
viruses have adapted and thrived to the global enviroment even better than us....just in a very differant way.
what abilities do you value the most?
survival or industrial inginuity?

[brewstercraven]

of course we could devise all we want and create all the technology you could ever imagine.

but we are very fragile creatures. we have a relatively narrow range of temperature and air pressure within which we can survive. microbes, especially viruses, are much hardier than we. and all our conventional science and medicine has done to fight them off has only made them stronger and more resistant. we're not the pinnacle of evolution, you know. we've only been here in our present form for the last hundred thousand years or so.

i think homo-sapians hav been around for bout 4million years but thats nither here nor there in evolutinary terms.
ur point is right however, people have pretty much stoped trying 2 wipe out mosquitoes enmass bcos some will survive and bcome stronger and wen we run out of new chemicals to use we will be left will super strong mosquitoes with highly formed socities will will rise up and destroy all humans!!!!MWHAAHAAHAAHAA!!!! :D

[EN[i]GMA]

Tell that to the Ebola Virus, buddy.

We are not top of the food chain.

Viruses are not alive, according to my High School Biology textbook.

[cosmo105]

um, no. Homo Sapiens have only been around the last 150-100,000 years or so. before that it was Homo Erectus, and numerous others up to Australopithecus Africanus around 5 million years or so (it's been a while since biological anthro, so that might be spelled wrong). some even contend that bipedalism (the hallmark of our genus) originated as far back as 6 or even 7.5 million years ago. but homo sapiens are not that old.

today we call ourselves homo sapien sapien, because we're just that much wiser.

[EN[i]GMA]

it's not about "better" or more "acheived."

it's about who will survive, who is more adapted to the environment.

viruses will beat us all out eventually anyway.

Viruses are not alive.

They are just bits of genetic code, not living organisms.

They are more like rocks than people.

[brewstercraven]

um, no. Homo Sapiens have only been around the last 150-100,000 years or so. before that it was Homo Erectus, and numerous others up to Australopithecus Africanus around 5 million years or so (it's been a while since biological anthro, so that might be spelled wrong). some even contend that bipedalism (the hallmark of our genus) originated as far back as 6 or even 7.5 million years ago. but homo sapiens are not that old.

today we call ourselves homo sapien sapien, because we're just that much wiser.

something new everyday then....... :)

[cosmo105]

GMA']Viruses are not alive.

They are just bits of genetic code, not living organisms.

They are more like rocks than people.
true. i suppose bacteria are a better example of simple yet efficient life. as far as viruses...they'll still be the end of us.

[Qdrop]

true. i suppose bacteria are a better example of simple yet efficient life. as far as viruses...they'll still be the end of us.

i say the rats are just biding thier time.

once they join forces with the cockaroaches....we are FUCKED!!

[cosmo105]

i'd say rats are more fragile than cockroaches.

[Schmeltz]

if you base your hierarchy of species on achievments and ability, then why can't we do the same WITHIN our species as well?


Because I know my history and I know what happens when people try to do that. We're all people, irrespective of who builds the taller skyscraper. Maybe instead of benchmarking each other and comparing penises all the time, we could see how to go about providing a decent standard of living for all of us. I'm not talking about rigidly enforced social equality across the globe, I'm talking about the strong giving a hand up to the weak so we can produce really stable, peacefully interacting societies in which people can live decent lives.

The abilities I value the most are those that encourage people to work for a better and brighter collective future, instead of counterproductive pissing contests that do nothing to solve the problems afflicting our species at the moment.

[Funkaloyd]

What use would Treponema pallidum have for theatres, or pi to billions of decimal places?

[yeahwho]

This thread has too much homo talk.

[cosmo105]

Because I know my history and I know what happens when people try to do that. We're all people, irrespective of who builds the taller skyscraper. Maybe instead of benchmarking each other and comparing penises all the time, we could see how to go about providing a decent standard of living for all of us. I'm not talking about rigidly enforced social equality across the globe, I'm talking about the strong giving a hand up to the weak so we can produce really stable, peacefully interacting societies in which people can live decent lives.

The abilities I value the most are those that encourage people to work for a better and brighter collective future, instead of counterproductive pissing contests that do nothing to solve the problems afflicting our species at the moment.
these are such good points.

[Humiliation]

GMA']Viruses are not alive.

They are just bits of genetic code, not living organisms.

They are more like rocks than people.
That is only a hypothesis. Some believe they aren't alive. But they act very much like they are. Replace virus with bacteria and you get the same effect

[Humiliation]

GMA']We ARE better.

We won evolution.{

How so. OTher species will out live us. That then makes them better no?

We're the dominant species.

Now this is just plain stupid. There is a hell of a lot more bacteria than humans. And they sure as hell can kill us

We're BETTER because we say so.

Might makes right is the law of evolution, and we're kicking ass.

EDIT: Perhaps I should change 'won' to 'are winning'.

Now this is just stupid...

And what's the point of being able to make huge skyscrapers and cities. Beyond our species they won't mean anything. If we're dead no need for cities anymore

[Qdrop]

Because I know my history and I know what happens when people try to do that.
you are taking extreme circumstances from history and holding them up to current sentiments, claim the same thing will happen...you just "know it".
see, that is my point.
it is not "facts, logic, or science" that dictate your beliefs.
just sentiment.
you believe what you believe NOT based on objective epistimology....but rather a personal, self righteous agenda which you feel NEEDS to be right.
if science doesn't agree with it...then science is wrong...or the scientists are morally flawed in some way...or, something...you don't know...but you just know that you NEED to right for the good of mankind.

We're all people, irrespective of who builds the taller skyscraper. okay, then why can't i say "we're all animals...no matter who builds skyskrapers...so we are all equal. no animal is better than the next" and so forth.

see, your logic is flawed.

if you can create a hierarchy for animals, you must be able to do the same for the human species itself. you must carry the logic through to the end...

you're trapped, man.

we could see how to go about providing a decent standard of living for all of us. I'm not talking about rigidly enforced social equality across the globe, I'm talking about the strong giving a hand up to the weak so we can produce really stable, peacefully interacting societies in which people can live decent lives. and that's the conflict i was talking about in the other thread.
that sounds great on paper....
but it conflicts with our innate sense of competition, kinship, and even greed.
liberal intellectuals can write all the books and articles they want about a need for such actions....they are banging thier heads against the wall.
imposed equality is a pipe dream.

there will always be charity, aid, *SEEMINGLY* selfless altruism...
but in the long run, individuals, groups, societies, and nations must fend for themselves and create their own fortune.

humans are not NEARLY as noble as you think.
no matter how much you want to beleive it.
that won't make it so.

The abilities I value the most are those that encourage people to work for a better and brighter collective future, instead of counterproductive pissing contests that do nothing to solve the problems afflicting our species at the moment.wow, with a dichotomy like that...HOW CAN ANYONE NOT AGREE WITH YOU!? WOW!

if only it was that cut and dry....

so i'm a pessimist?
maybe.
tough shit.

that doesn't make me wrong....or you right.

[cosmo105]

humans are not NEARLY as noble as you think.
no matter how much you want to beleive it.
that won't make it so.
and that's why we won't survive.

[yeahwho]

Do you actively wish harm to others that you may get ahead?
I don't.
Do others, yes, but a collective consciousness of society has tried to imprison these people rather than raise them properly.
We all have these dark places within us with primal forces bubbling just below the surface, sometimes so powerful we cannot suppress them.

This is why Tom Cruise got divorced.

[brewstercraven]

the problem is there is no right and wrong. mayb this morality most of us seem to be aflicted with is actually a step back.

pretty much every other animal bumps off its rival and it seems like a horrible idea but in a place where there is no right and wrong it makes the most sense.
but we live in a place where there is right and wrong so simply murdering everyone who pisses you off would build so much fear that life might be intorable.

so we are left with the paradox that is life.

[racer5.0stang]

This is why Tom Cruise got divorced.

Why, because he "knows the history behind psychology"?

[racer5.0stang]

Now this is just plain stupid. There is a hell of a lot more bacteria than humans. And they sure as hell can kill us

Bacteria may have the ability to kill humans, but they don't make a conscience effort to do so. Or maybe they do which is why some bacteria are good. Maybe they have the same morality issues as we monkeys err... I mean humans.

[Humiliation]

Bacteria may have the ability to kill humans, but they don't make a conscience effort to do so. Or maybe they do which is why some bacteria are good. Maybe they have the same morality issues as we monkeys err... I mean humans.
That may well be true but does having a conscience actually matter? Bacteria obviously don't need it

This also brings up another point. Some organisms are almost totally self reliant (with the exception of the sun) but humans still need bacteria to survive. How could we possibly be dominant if we rely on microscopic organisms for survival

[racer5.0stang]

That may well be true but does having a conscience actually matter? Bacteria obviously don't need it

Let me say this another way. The bacteria that is harmful to humans is not going to gang up one day in a collective, conscience effort and destroy the human race. Their only goal is to survive, nothing more.

This also brings up another point. Some organisms are almost totally self reliant (with the exception of the sun) but humans still need bacteria to survive. How could we possibly be dominant if we rely on microscopic organisms for survival

Humans have the ability to improve or hinder themselves through technology. I'm not quite sure but I don't believe I have ever seen a cockroach use a hammer or any other tool to assist it. Just because we may physically have less tolerances does not mean we couldn't create something to make those conditions habitable for humans.

Besides we could wipe them out if the human race took a collective effort to do so. But what was the last thing the human race did collectively?

[synch]

Get drunk on new years eve?

[cosmo105]

whoa whoa whoa. we can't apply human ethics and morality to nature. Read Stephen Jay Gould's Nonmoral Nature (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_nonmoral.html).

[Qdrop]

whoa whoa whoa. we can't apply human ethics and morality to nature.

word up, sister.


too bad the late Gould talked out of both sides of his mouth, though.

his stance almost flip-flops when he talks about human nature.

[ledbatz]

i saw a bumper sticker that said 'growing the economy is shrinking the ecosystem.' we're gonna get the mic tossed back at us, folks. can't anyone see this coming? the environment will be wiped out in 500 years at the rate we're going, then no more oxygen. then no more breathing. no breathe, no live. buy all the oxygen tanks ya want, how you gonna refill em without no trees? and how intelligent will we look lying around dead?

[sam i am]

to pass on your genes.

genetic suvival.

it's not a conscious desire. (or subconscious).
but it IS what we've evolved to do.
that is the driving force (goal?) behind our existance and all that we have evolved to do.

So why do many families die out due to lack of children?

Why is the population of Europe slowly dropping? Are women and men now turning off their genetic impulses?

What happens to those who override this "genetic survival?"

I look around and see a lot of Mormons and Christians having big families while those who are more "educated" and well-off tend to have little or no families. Their genes die off.

Maybe the Republicans and the poor will win by attrition, eh?

[sam i am]

That may well be true but does having a conscience actually matter? Bacteria obviously don't need it

This also brings up another point. Some organisms are almost totally self reliant (with the exception of the sun) but humans still need bacteria to survive. How could we possibly be dominant if we rely on microscopic organisms for survival

Explain how we need bacteria to survive....

Betcha can't.

[sam i am]

i saw a bumper sticker that said 'growing the economy is shrinking the ecosystem.' we're gonna get the mic tossed back at us, folks. can't anyone see this coming? the environment will be wiped out in 500 years at the rate we're going, then no more oxygen. then no more breathing. no breathe, no live. buy all the oxygen tanks ya want, how you gonna refill em without no trees? and how intelligent will we look lying around dead?

Sure. And population will outstrip resources.

And Y2K will kill off the world economy.

And Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Don't ply you're foolishness here. Your post is a prime example of lazy thinking.

Humans do have survival INSTINCT. But, it is often overridden by measures of spirit like nobility, self-sacrifice, duty, honor, etc. Men and women take bullets for others, DESPITE the loss of their own lives. How does genetics explain this?

Also, as to the trees all dying out - try that there are more trees in the world now than there were 40 years ago. Know how? People PLANT more trees.

See? We have a survival INSTINCT and we also take many measures to EXCEED our nature.

[cosmo105]

Explain how we need bacteria to survive....

Betcha can't.
you can't be serious.

for one thing: there's such a thing as healthy bacteria in the body. without them in our intestines, we wouldn't be able to absorb nutrients.

[Funkaloyd]

Humans do have survival INSTINCT. But, it is often overridden by measures of spirit like nobility, self-sacrifice, duty, honor, etc. Men and women take bullets for others, DESPITE the loss of their own lives. How does genetics explain this?
The most likely explanation is that selfishness and altruism (which is seen in other animals too) are both on essentially the same level, working towards the same ends; both being instinctual means of continuing the species. Alternatively, some would argue that there's no such thing as true altruism, that people donate to charity because it feels good, and people take bullets for others because society dictates that such acts should be considered (very) "good", and those who are "good" will fare better socially in numerous ways, increasing their likelihood of successfully mating.

[synch]

Also, as to the trees all dying out - try that there are more trees in the world now than there were 40 years ago. Know how? People PLANT more trees.

See? We have a survival INSTINCT and we also take many measures to EXCEED our nature.
I don't have the facts here so I might be wrong but I doubt that we plant more trees than we cut down rain forest.

Oh and planting an apple tree in your garden doesn't count.

[Qdrop]

So why do many families die out due to lack of children?

Why is the population of Europe slowly dropping? Are women and men now turning off their genetic impulses?

What happens to those who override this "genetic survival?"

I look around and see a lot of Mormons and Christians having big families while those who are more "educated" and well-off tend to have little or no families. Their genes die off.

Maybe the Republicans and the poor will win by attrition, eh?

Birth control....
extrainious circumstances....

many many reasons....

[Qdrop]

The most likely explanation is that selfishness and altruism (which is seen in other animals too) are both on essentially the same level, working towards the same ends; both being instinctual means of continuing the species. Alternatively, some would argue that there's no such thing as true altruism, that people donate to charity because it feels good, and people take bullets for others because society dictates that such acts should be considered (very) "good", and those who are "good" will fare better socially in numerous ways, increasing their likelihood of successfully mating.


(y) (y)

[Qdrop]

Humans do have survival INSTINCT. But, it is often overridden by measures of spirit like nobility, self-sacrifice, duty, honor, etc. those, too, are likely genetic instincts...

Men and women take bullets for others, DESPITE the loss of their own lives. How does genetics explain this?
kinship....and the extension of the kinship circle.
this is pretty basic stuff, sam.

[Qdrop]

you can't be serious.

for one thing: there's such a thing as healthy bacteria in the body. without them in our intestines, we wouldn't be able to absorb nutrients.

exactly, among a million other things...

serioulsy, sam....just pick up a highschool science textbook...

[racer5.0stang]

Get drunk on new years eve?

I'm sure that is what people in third world countries do.

[ledbatz]

Sam I am said: "Don't ply you're foolishness here. Your post is a prime example of lazy thinking."

Sam you're a dumbass. You're is a contraction for "you are" it is not the possessive of "you." Until you reach the level of third grade grammar class don't accuse others of being stupid. As for the rest of your bullshit, it is equally moronic, but it's hard to take anything U saye seriussly cause yer un ideote who don't know hes eenglishh.

[ledbatz]

Just in case anyone on here is still blind enough to think that we don't have a global ecosystem problem, including specifically the United States, please read http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0496/et0496s13.html. There are plenty of other sources of factual information about the problem but this is a start. And don't talk smack that you can't back up.

[Qdrop]

Sam I am said: "Don't ply you're foolishness here. Your post is a prime example of lazy thinking."

Sam you're a dumbass. You're is a contraction for "you are" it is not the possessive of "you." Until you reach the level of third grade grammar class don't accuse others of being stupid. As for the rest of your bullshit, it is equally moronic, but it's hard to take anything U saye seriussly cause yer un ideote who don't know hes eenglishh.

dude, take your spelling nazi bullshit and cram it up your ass.

fucking dead horse.....

[ledbatz]

Hey q-drop, here's another lesson--eat my shit, bitch. You like how i spelled that?

[Qdrop]

Hey q-drop, here's another lesson--eat my shit, bitch. You like how i spelled that?

yeah, loved how you spelled your screen name too.

go back to general beastie...

[Humiliation]

Explain how we need bacteria to survive....

Betcha can't.
Wow I'm actually blown away at how stupid that actually was. I mean seriously... WOW. And i'm not just being cruel here that was stupid...

Nitrogen fixing bacteria put nitrogen into the soil which is needed to create proteins for everything to grow. It is also needed in breaking down dead organisms to recycle the nutrients which is in fact needed because we only get energy, heat and light from space the rest we have to re-use. Bacteria in our gut is needed to help digestion as cosmo said earlier. And that's only what I still remember.

You just got shamed by a 14 year old. Good job ;) (y)
















And WOW

[EN[i]GMA]

i saw a bumper sticker that said 'growing the economy is shrinking the ecosystem.' we're gonna get the mic tossed back at us, folks. can't anyone see this coming? the environment will be wiped out in 500 years at the rate we're going, then no more oxygen. then no more breathing. no breathe, no live. buy all the oxygen tanks ya want, how you gonna refill em without no trees? and how intelligent will we look lying around dead?

At least attempt to logic this shit out before you go off on a sensationalistic tirade.

What is going to happen to our oxygen in the next 500 years?

Is it going to up and leave?

Do you have any proof of this?

[EN[i]GMA]

Explain how we need bacteria to survive....

Betcha can't.

Two words: nitrogen fixation

[EN[i]GMA]

Wow I'm actually blown away at how stupid that actually was. I mean seriously... WOW. And i'm not just being cruel here that was stupid...

Nitrogen fixing bacteria put nitrogen into the soil which is needed to create proteins for everything to grow. It is also needed in breaking down dead organisms to recycle the nutrients which is in fact needed because we only get energy, heat and light from space the rest we have to re-use. Bacteria in our gut is needed to help digestion as cosmo said earlier. And that's only what I still remember.

You just got shamed by a 14 year old. Good job ;) (y)
















And WOW


Damn. Beat me to it.

[synch]

I'm sure that is what people in third world countries do.It was a joke.

[sam i am]

GMA']Damn. Beat me to it.

OK. What would happen WITHOUT nitrogen fixation? Has nitrogen fixation ALWAYS been necessary to the survival of human beings? Have you looked at core samplings of the Earth's environment from 2-4 million years ago?

Take your "shaming" and shove it up your collective rears. You have NO basis for your "belief" that bacteria is a "necessity" for human survival. The species survived for milennia WITHOUT the process that you have described.

Like the return humiliation? Does it taste good going down your tight throats?

[QueenAdrock]

Aren't there good bacterias and bad bacterias, too? I know that there's been a controversy over those "kills 99.9% of germs" anti-bacterial cleansers, because the good bacterias die too, which we need to fight off infection.

There's good bacteria in yogurt too. Speaking of which, I'm gonna go get some.

[Humiliation]

OK. What would happen WITHOUT nitrogen fixation? Has nitrogen fixation ALWAYS been necessary to the survival of human beings? Have you looked at core samplings of the Earth's environment from 2-4 million years ago?

Take your "shaming" and shove it up your collective rears. You have NO basis for your "belief" that bacteria is a "necessity" for human survival. The species survived for milennia WITHOUT the process that you have described.

Like the return humiliation? Does it taste good going down your tight throats?
HAHAHAHAHAHA



HAHAHAHAHAHA


WOW

DId you even read what I said. Nitrogen fixation is need to get nitrogen into soil which plants turn into protein. Protein is an ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY NUTRIENT. No plant or animal could grow without it. The process has been going on for millions of years since long before the dinosaurs.

That was sheer lack of research on your part.

[sam i am]

HAHAHAHAHAHA



HAHAHAHAHAHA


WOW

DId you even read what I said. Nitrogen fixation is need to get nitrogen into soil which plants turn into protein. Protein is an ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY NUTRIENT. No plant or animal could grow without it. The process has been going on for millions of years since long before the dinosaurs.

That was sheer lack of research on your part.


Really. How about the environments of the Artic regions (where there is little to NO nitrogen fixation going on and yet animals and humans survive without it?) How about those animals and humans who solely subsist on fish?

Your argumentation is even more funny when your lack of knowledge is truly demonstarted to you.

Nitrogen fixation is NOT necessary for human survival. Bacteria are NOT necessary for human survival. End of story.

[EN[i]GMA]

Really. How about the environments of the Artic regions (where there is little to NO nitrogen fixation going on

Look what a quick Google netted me: http://www.bio.umass.edu/micro/nusslein/nifasme/main.htm

What is Nitrogen Fixation? It is the transformation of nitrogen gas from the air in to ammonia. Ammonia is an available form of nitrogen for plants and all other higher organisms as well as a key component of proteins. This transformation is exclusively perfomed by bacteria and archaea, whether it is in symbiosis with plant roots or as free-living organisms.

Why study Arctic ecosystems? Imagine an extreme environment where temperatures remain below water's freezing point throughout most of the year, making organic matter decomposition a slow, demanding process. However, polar soils are more active than is believed. A thick organic matter layer in arctic soils, that can reach up to 40 cm in Alaskan soils, contains up to 14% of the global soil carbon pool. These active soils are also responsible for the production of greenhouse gases.

How does nitrogen get introduced into Arctic soils? Arctic soils face two handicaps in terms of their Nitrogen budget: a) a thick permafrost leads to the loss of Nitrogen through denitrification and b)decomposition of the scarce dead flora and fauna is slowed down by low temperatures. Nitrogen-fixing microorganisms must play a key role in making Nitrogen availble in these soil ecosystems.

How does Nitrogen get lost and regained in the environment? Below, we have included a very summarized version of the Nitroge cycle.

Nitrogen gas is incorporated into bacterial and plant tissue as ammonia through nitrogen fixation. Ammonia can be oxidized to nitrates which are also taken up by plants. Nitrate can be reduced to nitrite and to nitrous oxide, or back to nitrogen gas. Through it all, a lot of nitrogen is also incorporated into proteins, nucleic acids and organic compounds present in all living organisms, which will eventually become organic matter to be recycled through the system.



Response?



Your argumentation is even more funny when your lack of knowledge is truly demonstarted to you.

Nitrogen fixation is NOT necessary for human survival. Bacteria are NOT necessary for human survival. End of story.

It seems rather necessary from what I've gathered...

Either you're far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, or you're not educated on it at all.

[sam i am]

GMA']This transformation is exclusively perfomed by bacteria and archaea

Response?
It seems rather necessary from what I've gathered...

Either you're far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, or you're not educated on it at all.

OK. Good researched response.

Here's mine : http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/archaea/archaea.html.

Note the source : an accredited university. Note in the article that they did not even know about archaea until VERY RECENTLY. Until then, ALL biologists and scientists had a "theory" that nitrogen fixation came exclusively through bacteria, as you have so eloquently defended above.

BUT, they did not know of archaea. So, archaea COULD be responsible for much more of the nitrogen fixation cycle than "science" has yet come to understand.

However, this still does not address ancient readings of the environment that show MUCH LESS nitrogen in the soil and air, yet the flourishing of proto-human lifeforms, such as 2-4 million years ago, as I originally argued.

See? I AM well-informed on the subject, but I am open to more education if you have some for me....

[Qdrop]

sam,
you're splitting hairs just to avoid a rather small defeat.

bacteria are necessary for life...for human life.
this planet's ecosystem would crumble without it.

we could not digest food without it.

let it go.

[sam i am]

sam,
you're splitting hairs just to avoid a rather small defeat.

bacteria are necessary for life...for human life.
this planet's ecosystem would crumble without it.

we could not digest food without it.

let it go.

I still don't 100% agree, Qdrop, but I'll let it go because I respect you.

Peace out.

[Schmeltz]

If you managed to eliminate all the bacteria in your intestines, you would starve to death no matter how much you ate as you would be unable to digest anything.

Bacteria, as the most numerous form of life on the planet, also play a fundamentally crucial role in the maintenance of all the planet's ecosystems. Take away the bacteria and we'd be up to our ears in shit in a matter of days.

I learned these facts as a child. What's your problem?

[sam i am]

If you managed to eliminate all the bacteria in your intestines, you would starve to death no matter how much you ate as you would be unable to digest anything.

Bacteria, as the most numerous form of life on the planet, also play a fundamentally crucial role in the maintenance of all the planet's ecosystems. Take away the bacteria and we'd be up to our ears in shit in a matter of days.

I learned these facts as a child. What's your problem?

Absorption of nutrients is not solely predicated on bacteria in your intestines. Digestion of nutrients takes place without bacteria as well, so your argument is unfounded.

[Humiliation]

But bacteria is still required in the overall process.

I'll say it again. Nitrogen fixation is turning nitrogen from the air into the soil so it can be absorbed through bacteria and a little from lightning striking the ground. Nitrogen is necessary in creating protein. Protein is necessary to create new cells. Fish get their protein from eating other fish which get theirs from seaweed or eating krill for example which will feed on the bacteria that are involved in nitrogen fixation.

And since when is the arctic a good basis for how humans can survive without nitrogen fixation?

[Ali]

No other species has recourse to these abstract forms of survival. Only us.Only us humans have the astounding ability to kill one another in huge numbers and totally fuck up our environment.

We don't need viruses or meteors (hollywood does) we can wipe ourselves out perfectly well, thank you very much.

And after we're gone,
Only bacteria will remain,
Life will start again,
Without us!

Hey! We evolved from Bacteria, right? Does that mean that goD is a Bacterium? hE did 'create' us, right? hE is a part of us, right?

:p

[sam i am]

Only us humans have the astounding ability to kill one another in huge numbers and totally fuck up our environment.

Ali goes off the deep end......

Ever heard of natural predation killing off species? Did you miss that day in all your sundry anthropology and biology courses, Ali?

[WildBaldMonkey]

Hey! We evolved from Bacteria, right? Does that mean that goD is a Bacterium? hE did 'create' us, right? hE is a part of us, right?:p


Humans were created in the image of God, not in the image of bacteria.

[synch]

Said a wild bald monkey ;)

[cosmo105]

seeing as how so many human civilizations absolutely thrive in Antarctica

[catatonic]

Humans can reflect on things on a deeper level, giving life more meaning, since there's someone to think about it and really understand it.