Humanity's Future Role in Evolution and the Diversity of Life

I believe that humanity, despite our present role as the greatest single cause of extinctions on Earth, may yet become the greatest driving force behind the creation of new species that the Universe has ever seen.

There are two modern disciplines, and one historical practice, that may enable us to be instrumental in creating a new diversity of life, greater in variety and scope than anyone has ever witnessed.

These are, put simply: Genetics, Space Travel, and Selective Breeding.

Genetics is the study of the building block of life and, ultimately, the study of how to modify life and create life forms that have never existed before.

Selective Breeding will allow us to continue to direct the development of key species to fit particular environments or purposes.

Space Travel will open up new environments in which life can thrive and diversify.

Genetics

As our understanding of genetics and the processes of evolution increases, our power to affect the development of life becomes more and more profound. Eventually, when our understanding is complete enough, it is likely that we will be able to create new forms of life to meet specific needs or desires.

Presently, our genetic knowledge and skills are extremely limited. The gene sets of very few species have been fully mapped, and we are only now beginning to understand how to read those maps, and how to alter them to intentionally change the physiology or behaviour of an organism.

The current state of the art in genetics is a fast moving target. Nevertheless, relative to the ultimate goal of creating new species, progress is crawling.

There are currently two primary and significant barriers to progress: complexity and politics.

The complexity of genetics is formidable. For example, we have a map of the human genome, but the map is very large and it is written in a language that we are only beginning to understand. And full understanding will mean learning not only which bits of code create which proteins and control the development of which body parts, but also how genetics control reflex (what makes you pull your hand away from a fire before you can think of it), instinct (how do homing pigeons know to 'go home'), behaviour patterns (what makes one male more aggressive from birth than another), and more.

The politics of genetics research is volatile. There are those who want to forge full steam ahead and use any and all possible paths to complete mastery. At the other extreme are those who fundamentally oppose any and all genetic research, or 'tampering', as they may call it.

Mastery over genetics would open up a whole new world of possibilities, not limited to restoring the diversity of life on Earth, but extending into medical advancements, new food sources, and the bizarre world of living tools and entertainment products, designer pets, customized renewable resources, organic computers ('natural' artificial intelligence), and more. The genetic revolution will bring as much, or more change as the digital revolution--and may entirely supersede it by replacing digital devices with their neural counterparts.

Selective Breeding

Even if we never fully master the science of genetics, we can fall back upon an art that may be almost as ancient as mankind itself: selective breeding. By creating controlled, very long term, multi-generational programs of selective breeding for a variety of species, new variants and species can be developed to suit a variety of purposes and habitats. Historical success with domesticated animals and pets shows the potential for remarkable results. And all of this can be accomplished without need for the complex science and industry required to practice genetics in its purest forms.

The most significant challenge to a selective breeding program, aside from the core work of reshaping and repurposing an existing species, will be keeping the program operational long enough to get results, despite changes in politics, culture, and outlook that would be expected over the hundreds or thousands of years the program would need to run.

Space Travel

New environments offer new opportunities for species of all types, and there is a practically infinite supply of new environments beyond planet Earth.

To be sure, nothing in our own solar system is hospitable to life at this moment in a way that could be remotely construed as 'move-in ready', but once we establish a viable space presence, the process of learning to adapt to alien environments, and to adapt alien environments to suit our needs, will begin in earnest.

One of the most exciting possibilities contributing to the diversity of life in space will be the process of terraforming, by which an otherwise lifeless planet is seeded with life in a controlled manner, with the end goal being to transform the atmosphere and the landscape into an environment suitable for human habitation (and, by definition, suitable for a full ecosystem of other organisms from Earth). One key factor will be that whatever we seed the planet with will evolve over time to suit the planet’s unique environment, ultimately resulting in new planets with their own complete and unique ecosystems.

Humans will not escape the ever-present hand of natural selection. Just as human populations from various Earth environments differentiated as they adapted to their specific circumstances, so too will human populations that are established on new planets.

In fact, one intriguing development of space travel will be the establishment of human populations off of planets; these can be based on asteroids, comets, moons, and ultimately may consist of nothing more than what the sci-fi community calls generation ships--which are simply space ships that have been designed to carry self-sustaining communities and ecosystems across space for generations, if not indefinitely.

Given the distances that must be covered, and the speed of light limit, it is most certainly through the use of generation ships that humans will spread far and wide enough to find new planets and environments to colonize. Certain populations in generation ships will undoubtedly find that they prefer their ships over life on a planet, or in a hollowed out asteroid or comet. Much of humanity may become free-flying nomads.

Diversity Or Destruction?

Every one of the above factors assumes that humanity will survive long enough to contribute to the diversity of life in the manner specified. There are a number of known possibilities that could cut our time short--or to be more specific, that could result in the extinction of the human species. These possibilities include, but are not limited to: plague, nuclear holocaust, climate change, the Earth being struck by a sizable meteor/comet/asteroid, and the ever-growing likelihood that we will simply choke on our own poisons and garbage.

Personally, I am rooting for diversity. How about you?

More by this Author


Comments 83 comments

Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

You skipped a few steps and sort of made a blunder when you said "despite our present role as the greatest single cause of extinctions on Earth," considering all the massive extinctions that have occurred on this planet without our influence (which would kill the whole 'present' status), but all in all, this Hub was about the alien (ET) theory of creation, which is always interesting to ponder; cheers!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Mr.Mundane, forgive me, but I think you may have gotten a little confused:

"despite our present role as the greatest single cause of extinctions on Earth" equates to the statement "we are currently causing the most extinctions on Earth" which is of course true.

Therefore the "massive extinctions that have occurred on this planet without our influence" do not conflict with Jason Seale's statement since they are currently not occurring.

**** ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ****

Interesting hub Jason, I admire your large scale thinking concerning interplanetary inhabitation - it reminds me a lot of the computer game 'Sporcle' in which you end up terraforming planets to make them viable for life.

Well written overall but I suggest revising your usage of commas. Personally, I think that you've used them a little excessively, but I am just one writer - perhaps others would provide a second opinion?

Enjoyed it, despite, the commas though! ^^

Philanthropy,


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Oh, also be sure to add an eye-catching photo too, otherwise it will be your profile picture that sums up this hub in the "Evolution" section on Hubpages. That will put people off visiting the hub because having no picture is associated with being new or not spending time to make the hub aesthetic.

I hope that you won't waste a hub of good content by not snazzing it up a little bit!


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Philanthropy, I already thought of that possibility, before I said it.

In most cases, the past tense would be waivered, but not here... When you declare such a statement and use the terms "the greatest single cause of extinctions on Earth," it tends to be an accumulative figure that beckons for Earth research and the causes throughout history. It is not a normal statement, as we are dealing with "extinctions" that don't occur in a 'present' format since most of the species that have existed here, haven't existed in a very long while, as this event happens over time - and the entire Planet and the history of it therein, should be included... Common sense, mate... :D


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

"Despite our present role as the greatest single cause of extinctions on Earth": 'present role' sets the context to the present time, "greatest single cause" creates a superlative.

"present" in this context means this era and not only the 14th June.

Extinctions in this era have been primarily caused by humans hence:

"In this era (our present role), humans have caused the biggest amount (greatest single cause) of extinctions."

GG.

Jason, I suggest that you delete this and the previous comment as it does not benefit you to keep grammatical arguments on your hubs!


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Outside of grammatical differences, this simply isn't true, as nature has proven otherwise. In fact, we are still discovering new species today, and we sure as hell don't know who is causing what to go extinct before and after such discoveries, for the most part. Survival of the fittest, ain't that what y'all scream as the evolutionist's main motto? The biggest threat I see that humans cause, is to each other. Of course we don't help anything with our pollution and we definitely have the ability to cause mass extinctions, but I'm looking at things from a grand scale more than just petty crap (such as your 'past tense' babble) that's "currently" under my nose...


CJacksonSmith profile image

CJacksonSmith 4 years ago from Dudley

Genetics is not the study of the building blocks of life, genes are not building blocks they are an information store


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"I believe that humanity, despite our present role as the greatest single cause of extinctions on Earth..."

And we are the single greatest cause of bringing species back from the brink of extinction.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Nicomp, you must have read my mind because I was thinking that very same thing, after I re-read these comments the other day. :)


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

We are also the only species that builds hospitals for other species and studies how to heal them.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

[And we are the single greatest cause of bringing species back from the brink of extinction.] Species that we put into near-extinction... Also you're incorrect there, mutation is the single greatest cause of bringing species back from the brink of extinction.

["We are also the only species that builds hospitals for other species and studies how to heal them."]

Yet proportionally we are also the ones who have done the most damage. As the animals with dominion over the planet, it's not sufficient to say 'we do some good' and forgive ourselves. The good does not counter the bad.

If I shot your brother, you would not forgive me because I saved your sister...


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

@ Nicomp: Exactly!


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Oh, dear, Philanthropy still thinks he spawned from a monkey that came from a fish that arose from an ancient trilobite... Oh, my... How does one begin to explain?


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Logically ;)


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Oh and basic genetics - you may need to look in a book other than the bible to find out about this kind of stuff though, don't trouble yourself.

I'm sure the scientific community is garbage anyway, they've only dedicated their lives to this stuff for the past 4000 years and represent the epitome of human knowledge ;) Nothing to concern yourself with.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Your little religion is no different than my ... Oops, I don't have one, only my astute observations and intuition is at hand, within my forefront of knowledge and current level of awareness. Uh, I'm sorry for you, I guess? ...Poor chap, nonetheless......


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

"Intuition" is clearly what you base most of your arguments on ^^

Try science and logic sometime, I guarantee you it will work better ;)

If logic is a religion then I am a zealot for it, at least then the basis of the religion IS to make sense rather than to blur it (:


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

If you only knew how wrong you were about your so-called "logic," just as it has always been labelled down through the time-tables of history, you'd shut your face for once and actually listen to others. Intuition has nothing to do with religion or science, and if I have to explain much more, it is just going to make me look like I'm condescending toward you, and nobody wants that, right? LOL!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Pahahaha if you can explain how modern understandings of genetics is wrong then please, by all means, write a hub about it.

Even better, write a dissertation.

Enlighten us - you'll be a very rich man after it all ;)


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

I've always wanted to ask you this, why do you start your laughs with a capital P? Do you smoke pot?

You don't even understand modern genetics!

I'm all for genetics, as it proves against your silly evolution theory of utter baloney.

I think you are the one who needs to be writing Hubs and explaining your CRAZY idea about "magic."


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Phahaha- so you have nothing, as expected ;)

It's good to see such consistency from you Mr Mundane!


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Explain to me your belief in evolutionary magic, and I'll explain my logic behind your poppycock... :P


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

We can see evolution happen, we have seen evolution happen, we have it documented, it makes logical sense.

We fight against evolution every day, bacteria are evolving so fast that we no longer have vaccination for strains of super-resistant TB (tuberculosis) and it's also the reason we have no cure for the cold or the flu, which evolves so fast that by the time medicine is produced, it is obsolete.

In the present, we know 99.9% that genetic mutation is the cause of evolution, but even then, it doesn't matter, because we know 100% that evolution is happening because we can physically observe it happening.

Some animals survive better than others of their kind in their environment. The alternative is that every animal has equal chances of surviving. Much like saying a man with no legs has equal chances of winning a leg race. If every animal had the same chances of surviving due to "gods will" etc then certain innocent species would not go extinct.

Furry Example

Polar bears which are white will outcompete their brown counterparts in the arctic because they camouflage in the snow and can hunt easier. They live to reproduce. It's a simple fact.

Spiny Example

Catcti have evolved so that what was leaves on the previous ancestor are now spines to protect them from predators! Unlike most other plants, the stem is where plants photosynthesise, not the leaves which are now protective spines. Cacti also have long shallow roots so that when there is rain, the roots will capture as much of the water for the plant as possible. Deep roots would have meant a low surface area for catching the water


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Acclimation and adaptation has nothing to do with "creation," as even your dead Darwin figure would agree with that. Duh!

If I train at the gym and my muscles adapt to the load I keep putting on them, does that mean I used to be a monkey climbing trees because I can do pull-ups at a rate of 4 sets of 20 within 15 minutes without long breaks and without endless bananas?


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

"Adaptation" in organisms IS evolution.

Making your muscles stronger is a false comparison.

You are not an entire population. You are just part of a gene pool.

If you died because you were too weak to hold the minimum weight at the gym, then your weak genes wouldn't be passed on. That's evolution. Simple ;)

Try and dispute it ;) go on. I dare ya ;)


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Oh, if that's the case, then people, as a whole, wouldn't be that much weaker and dumb as opposed to their counterparts from a couple decades ago... Oh, please, ya can't be serious? You really think mankind is really getting stronger and more intelligent as a whole, during the last several years? Ha-ha-ha-ha! Dang, at least you dropped that "P-crap" with your laugh, so maybe you have evolved a little during the last couple of minutes?


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Phahahaha, there is no selection pressure on mankind to be strong, you can survive without being strong, that's why weak people live...

If you want a real example of mankind's evolution then you can take the fact that men are getting taller ;)

Height comes with higher chances of reproductive success for men. Tall genes are passed on and so mankind gets taller.

Explain that with your magical theory of nothing ^_^

Oh wait.. you can't ;)


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Hormones and the crazy additives in your food supply doesn't relate to weight gain and height from young children eating the swill and chemical-laced slop, in your book, either? Ha-ha! Never taking account for actuality, as you always believe in a magic God of evolution; oh, how so sad...

The only magic involved, is your mind, which you deny, but that would relate to something that science can't explain; oh, how so inconvenient...


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

"Hormones and the crazy additives in your food supply doesn't relate to weight gain and height from young children eating the swill and chemical-laced slop,"

That covers this trend in the West ONLY.

What about the height increase in almost every indigenous tribe in the world ;) ?

I don't think they have access to so called "chemical slop".

Check and mate Mr.Mundane ;)

You are not smarter than the world. You are not even smarter than me. Phaha!


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Didn't Dave already "slam" you on this issue, and yet you beckon for me to go over the same crap, that you know you can't defend. Ahhh... Dear retard, challenged one, or however you liked to be addressed nowadays, by you speaking about "smarter than me" babble, just shows how dumb you really are. Your theory for evolution, on other Hubs, is that black people can jump higher than whites... Oh, wow! You really nailed the creator, right there! Oh dear, fellow, moron... *sigh*


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"If you died because you were too weak to hold the minimum weight at the gym, then your weak genes wouldn't be passed on. That's evolution. Simple ;)"

Actually, it's not. Holding the minimum weight at the gym confers no survival advantage, therefore is not related to evolution.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Yet proportionally we are also the ones who have done the most damage. As the animals with dominion over the planet, it's not sufficient to say 'we do some good' and forgive ourselves. The good does not counter the bad."

Actually, we have not done the most damage. Not even close.

And no one suggested that we forgive ourselves. You must have some hidden guilt that you are projecting.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Height comes with higher chances of reproductive success for men. Tall genes are passed on and so mankind gets taller."

Actually, no. Most women are not attracted to 8 foot tall men.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Plus, you act like everybody is going to eventually be 9 foot tall or something! What is the point in that, Mr. Evolutionist! LOLOLOLOLOL!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Oh sorry i forgot you don't understand science: Women are attracted to men that are several inches taller than them. This leads to women being taller since taller men pass their tall genes on to their daughters as well as sons - this leads to women being taller and therefore the men they like will be taller than the ones women liked before. This has been happening for many generations and that is why men are getting taller, not because women fancy the tallest of all men automatically.

Keep your fallacious thinking out phaha

Like I said, check and mate mr mundane :)


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

You might have not been replying to me, but what? Are you saying that women hit a stagnant growth while males are trying to catch up? Ha-ha-ha! Your belief is hilarious!


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

This ain't chess! If you're wrong, you're wrong, as no other move can rectify it... Mr. P2012. LOL!


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Hey, if P2012 wants to think he spawnd from a fish that got all happy from an ancient trilobite, then so be it; more power to HER! Ha-ha-ha!


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Women are attracted to men that are several inches taller than them. "

Actually, no. Many women are attracted to shorter men also. A short rich guy has a better shot than a poor tall guy.


Jason Seale profile image

Jason Seale 4 years ago from Stratford, Ontario, Canada Author

I have enjoyed your 'rants'; thanks for sharing your ongoing discussion. For the record, when I said: "despite our present role as the greatest single cause of extinctions on Earth", I am refering to the PRESENT single cause, not the greatest single cause ever. Perhaps I could have been more clear on that, but I think the grammar of it is correct.

With regard to the comment suggesting we are presently doing as much good as harm ... I could not disagree more. We have the potential to do greater good, which is the point of this hub, but the few species that we bother to try to pull back from the brink of extinction are gererally the cuddly seals, cute whatevers, and top predators like tigers. Not much attention is given to plants, frogs, or lizzards. God help you if you are a fungus in need of help. What we do seem to want a lot of around in my neigbourhood anyway is grass, dogs, and cats.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

@Insane Mundane: ["You might have not been replying to me, but what? Are you saying that women hit a stagnant growth while males are trying to catch up? Ha-ha-ha! Your belief is hilarious!"] - No, that's not at all what I said. Try again.

@Nicomp: ["Actually, no. Many women are attracted to shorter men also. A short rich guy has a better shot than a poor tall guy."] Yes but that isn't due to the rich short man being short but rather him being rich. The woman would statistically prefer a rich tall man over her rich short man (disregarding personality).

@Jason Seale, thanks for jumping in and rectifying the other two, I agree with you wholeheartedly.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Yes but that isn't due to the rich short man being short but rather him being rich."

duh. The point is that he's not tall.

"The woman would statistically prefer a rich tall man over her rich short man (disregarding personality)."

Doesn't matter. The point is that wealth trumps height.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

P2012: Men may also be attracted to women with bigger boobs, but going by your logic, breast implants must be apart of the "theory of evolution," as well? What a joke you are, poor chap... But thanks for the laugh, mate; LOL!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

@Nicomp

["Yes but that isn't due to the rich short man being short but rather him being rich."

duh. The point is that he's not tall.

"The woman would statistically prefer a rich tall man over her rich short man (disregarding personality)."

Doesn't matter. The point is that wealth trumps height.]

This was in response to "'Women are attracted to men that are several inches taller than them.' Actually, no." by you, which you have just admitted to by saying "wealth trumps height" (where height is implicitly advantageous though in your opinion not as much so as wealth).

Therefore, as I said to Insane, the universal rise in height of the human being is an example of human evolution.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

@Insane Mundane,

["P2012: Men may also be attracted to women with bigger boobs, but going by your logic, breast implants must be apart of the "theory of evolution," as well? What a joke you are, poor chap... But thanks for the laugh, mate; LOL!"]

Actually large breasts that implants provide are not thought of as attractive by a majority of men and therefore there is no selection pressure for this trait.

There is however a selection pressure for women to have breasts that are larger than that of men and that is why the majority of women today have more muscle and fat built up on their chests than men.

All of these differences that you think came about from magic have a reason.

Some of us need logical answers to questions. Some of us use their "intuition" and find themselves trolling the internet with their time. The latter are useless to our society.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Oh dear, now you have confused mammary glands with muscle, estrogen with testosterone; oh my, do you need a whole semester of health lessons? You want logic while hating upon my intuition, yet you don't even have common sense to begin with! I'm going to have to start charging you for my knowledge, as I don't have very good patience, so teaching is not my forte; sorry! LOL!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

[now you have confused mammary glands with muscle, estrogen with testosterone]

The mass of the breast is not composed even largely of mammary glands and take up a relatively small space of the breast until pregnancy.

How many times must you be thwarted with facts and logic?


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Just to sum up then:

Argument 1.

Philanthropy argues that what the author meant in his hub was in reference to the present time period in his hub.

Insane Mundane forfeits the argument with "outside of grammatical differences."

The author of the hub clarifies that Philanthropy was correct.

Argument 2.

Philanthropy states that evolution is present and that humans becoming taller universally is a result of modern day evolution.

Insane Mundane fails to bring up any argument and drops the issue.

Argument 3.

Failing the previous argument, Insane Mundane creates a fallacious statement that artificial breast implants will be part of natural selection.

Philanthropy explains that this is fallacious.

Argument 4.

Insane Mundane drops the subject altogether and starts an argument about the composure of a female's breast but states falsely that the breast is made solely of mammary glands.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Lies, lies, lies...

Now you resort to lying and long, fictitious quotes, which always get everybody kicked off hubs; will you ever learn!???

Why does your comments usually consist of 50% quotes or more?

Can't think for your self?

Ever heard of massive mammaries?

LOL!

I try to add humor, but your lack of common sense is becoming quite boring... :/ And no, your lies above ^^^ doesn't help your case, in the slightest. Oh, how so sad...


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Only just read these Nicomp:

["If you died because you were too weak to hold the minimum weight at the gym, then your weak genes wouldn't be passed on. That's evolution. Simple ;)"

Actually, it's not. Holding the minimum weight at the gym confers no survival advantage, therefore is not related to evolution.]

Anything that prevents death is a survival advantage and therefore holding the minimum weight at the gym without dying confers a survival advantage because given the hypothetical situation where a human is forced at gunpoint to hold the minimum weight at a gym, if he dies he will no longer be able to pass on his genes in any manner.

I may note in advance that even if you think this is a ridiculous scenario it does not act as an argument. It does not take away from the fact that being able to not die from anything is a survival advantage.

["Yet proportionally we are also the ones who have done the most damage. As the animals with dominion over the planet, it's not sufficient to say 'we do some good' and forgive ourselves. The good does not counter the bad."

Actually, we have not done the most damage. Not even close.

And no one suggested that we forgive ourselves. You must have some hidden guilt that you are projecting.]

One of the most obtuse comments that have ever graced Hubpages - I urge you to name anything else that has caused more extinction of animals than humans in this era.

It should be very quick and easy for you considering you stated with such confidence that humans are "not even close" to doing the most damage.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

[Lies, lies, lies...

Now you resort to lying and long, fictitious quotes, which always get everybody kicked off hubs; will you ever learn!???

Why does your comments usually consist of 50% quotes or more?

Can't think for your self?

Ever heard of massive mammaries?

LOL!

I try to add humor, but your lack of common sense is becoming quite boring... :/ And no, your lies above ^^^ doesn't help your case, in the slightest. Oh, how so sad...]

None of my quotes were fictitious, any reader can simply press "ctrl + f" or "cmd + f" and type in any of the quotes and see that you said all of them. Trying to deny what you said is very weak.

Denying your arguments acts as a forfeit. I accept your resignation.

Other hubbers have commended me on the way that I embarrassed you the last few times, I'm sure they'll be pleased I got to do it again :)

Perhaps it's not your fault, poor upbringing and ignorance may have got the better of you. Let's hope.

Try not to spread your ignorance to other people though, it may damage their lives. It's good that there are many intelligent hubbers that will embarrass you time and time again so that other people don't start believing your gibberish.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

No, you always lie toward the end of your comments, once they go on, because you get desperate. Embarrassed? LOL! Now that's actually funny, right there... Who are these invisible hubbers that never help you in the comment field? I've never seen or heard from any of them... Hmm, that's odd...

For example, you said that I said the breasts are made "solely" of mammary glands, which I obviously did not say that. Just an example of the many lies that you tell, little boy...


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

"No, you always lie toward the end of your comments, once they go on, because you get desperate. Embarrassed? LOL! Now that's actually funny, right there... Who are these invisible hubbers that never help you in the comment field?"

Once again I must urge you to stop denying what you said, it's there to read for everyone. Anyone that has followed this train of comments will see that the conversation did indeed occur in the way I described.

These "invisible hubbers" don't need to help me because your arguments are very weak.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Your main argument for evolution has always been about tall black men who can jump high; that's weak! LOL!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

I've written several hubs about evolution entailing a large variety of clear cut, undeniable examples of evolution.

Since you clearly 'forgot' the examples I already gave you in my previous comments - here they are again:

Some animals survive better than others of their kind in their environment. The alternative is that every animal has equal chances of surviving. Much like saying a man with no legs has equal chances of winning a leg race. If every animal had the same chances of surviving due to "gods will" etc then certain innocent species would not go extinct.

Furry Example

Polar bears which are white will outcompete their brown counterparts in the arctic because they camouflage in the snow and can hunt easier. They live to reproduce. It's a simple fact.

Spiny Example

Catcti have evolved so that what was leaves on the previous ancestor are now spines to protect them from predators! Unlike most other plants, the stem is where plants photosynthesise, not the leaves which are now protective spines. Cacti also have long shallow roots so that when there is rain, the roots will capture as much of the water for the plant as possible. Deep roots would have meant a low surface area for catching the water

Bacteria

We fight against evolution every day, bacteria are evolving so fast that we no longer have vaccination for strains of super-resistant TB (tuberculosis) and it's also the reason we have no cure for the cold or the flu, which evolves so fast that by the time medicine is produced, it is obsolete.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

For one, bacteria is a lame example... Tell me when this bacteria is going to morph into a creature, by the way. Bacteria is always bacteria, and the humans that constantly pump antibiotics into animals and people, only cause this confusion you are going through.

Cacti will always be cacti.

Brown bears versus Polar bears? LOL!

Do you see Rhinos walking around in NYC?

You have no point. I once wrote a hub about evolution, but you never bothered visiting. I moved it to a blog of mine, due to advert issues, but if you'd like the link to it, I'd be glad to drop it down and you can rant on my own personal blog, so you don't have to hijack other people's Hub, etc.

Evolution goes back to the point to where you think you used to be a fish, at one time or another, and how ALL LIFE spawned from a single-cell amoeba... What a joke!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

You see, your issue is you don't understand what evolution is. Evolution is advantageous adaptation due to changes in the gene pool (most often caused by genetic mutation).

When you give a colony of bacteria an antibiotic and 99.9% of them die, why does 0.1% of them live?

Why do 100% of vast colonies of this 0.1% of bacteria live when the antibiotic is applied?

Because they contain a gene that transcribes a resistant factor.

The fact that this colony of bacteria has through luck attained a gene giving it survival advantages is evolution.

Evolution is a seen fact. We know that genetic mutations result in different species.

What you are talking about is the history of evolution. That is the HISTORY of evolution and like all history there are different theories.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

I totally understand adaptation and acclimation, and have no problem with it! My problem is simple: We got a new movement going around that claims they know the origins of life and that we all spawned from a single-cell amoeba via magic! These same people can't understand genetics and how an alien race and even us, in a few years, could also create life. Plus, not to mention (but only to mention), they think creationism is "magic," but a fish turning into a monkey, is not?


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Genetic adaptation and acclimation is evolution. I'm glad you agree with it.

But I think you are simply unlearned of the research that has been done into the history of our evolutionary pathway from primitive life.

Allow me to explain why the scientific community is so in favour of the primordial soup theory (that life came about from inorganic material)

The Miller-Urey experiment proved that in the conditions of early Earth, over 20 amino acids could be formed (they replicated the conditions and found the amino acids in the solution).

These amino acids are of course then perfectly capable of making proteins.

Phospholipid bilayers were and are (apparently) naturally present in the oceans and could have easily housed these proteins.

Given that there were billions of years for chemicals to mix and re-mix in very heavy tides (since the moon used to take up the horizon), it was only a matter of time before something akin to a cell was created.

This does not necessarily mean a cell with organised DNA or organelles but a prokaryote with a few bases of DNA that alllowed more DNA to be made from it from nearby nitrogen, hydrogen and phosphates that were entering this pseudo-cell.

This DNA would then leave the cell and eventually either enter another pseudo-cell phospholipid casing and repeat the process.

You see, all that was needed at the start was a particular chain of nitrogen, hydrogen and phosphates. After that, more bases would be formed off of the first chain and then more and more DNA will have been produced and populated the sea.

DNA is essentially a way of reproducing the same thing out of the same atoms. So after the first one there would be many more.

Then, since DNA is susceptible to mutation from EM radiation, it only took a small change in base sequence to make something new (which would have reproduced and made 2 different types of DNA).

You see, this is all very feasible and all makes sense. If the DNA eventually mutated into something that produced proteins from the DNA, then eventually one would have better reproductive rate or chances than the others and take dominance. This then would repeat for many millions of years until a prokaryote was formed with the simplest of cell characteristics.

You only need to google "how did the first cell come about" to learn more.

All I'm saying is that there is a very, very cohesive argument for the primordial soup theory and that I feel like you have not learned of it yet.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

As for a fish into a monkey, have you learned about mitochondrial mutation and the causes of speciation?


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

I've never really studied speciation very much, mainly because of all the conflicting theories and uncertainties within the ones hosting the theories, to begin with. But then again, I'm one of those guys who still say 2 + 2 = 4, and you should know, there are people who disagree with that.

Oh, as for the primordial soup theory, it sounds cute. However, it can never explain the consciousness and the mind behind all things.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Well the primordial soup theory is about how we came to be, it's not mutually exclusive from another explanation explaining consciousness.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

There is no 'primordial soup theory.' There are numerous theories that reference a just-right mix of chemicals and energy sources and environmental conditions, none of which are bullet-proof or have been demonstrated to spontaneously generate life under controlled conditions in a lab. Science has managed to cause a few amino acids to form in a beaker, but nothing remotely close to anything that could possibly be considered even pre-life has been observed.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Nicomp, Abiogenesis and the primordial soup theory are used synonymously though of course there are many theories of how (more specifically where) it happened. Again, those are history theories, the primordial soup theory is just the theory that states that inorganic material one day became organic materia and eventually this organic material organised itself in a self-replicating way, I don't know why you are denying its existence :L

And as for this whole "we've not made a cell under the conditions of the Earth spontaneously and therefore this theory is baloney" baloney - it took billions of years the first time, that's why no one is going to bother to do it again.

The amino acids that the Muller-urey experiment created was completely sufficient to tell us that complex biological material can be made out of simply non-biological materials spontaneously. That is no longer the question.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Nicomp, just think of an awesome soup you envy that somebody's granny made, while you keep failing to replicate it - even when told the recipe... Or, in simple terms, the "primordial soup" equates to a "magical" growing substrate that all life spawned from. Pretty simple, eh? And who said magic doesn't exist? What's next, talking rocks? LOL!


Jason Seale profile image

Jason Seale 4 years ago from Stratford, Ontario, Canada Author

I don't see a conflict between the complexity of life, including consciousness, and the possibility that it spontaneously arose from a primordial soup. As mentioned, the building blocks of life, such as amino acids, are found in great abundance in many environments. Comets are one 'surprising' source. Given that abundance, and the time periods involved, it would be suprising if life did not start in a great number of places and times throughout the universe. And as our understanding of the sublety of physics and reality at the lowest levels reveals that a simple mechanized view of the world is fundamentally flawed, arguments that consciousness could not arise from 'simple' chemical processes are negated. There are no 'simple' chemical processes. At the level of electrons and quarks, anything and everything can conribute to manifestions of consciousness, awareness and mystery.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

I hate quoting, but when you say "At the level of electrons and quarks, anything and everything can contribute to manifestations of consciousness, awareness and mystery," you inadvertently just said that "life has a reason and thoughts exist because of a greater mind behind the scene," basically, and your definition of divinity is 'everything and anything'... Interesting comment; kudos!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

@Jason Seale, me neither, especially since life isn't all that complicated when you get to know it!

@Insane, you will find and probably have already found that inquiring minds will not accept the idea of a "greater mind" because... where did the greater mind come from? Did he have an even greater mind create him? Where does it end?


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

It doesn't end, it IS. WE are ALL IT...

You said, "life isn't all that complicated when you get to know it!"

Ha-ha-ha-ha!

Oh, but the ones who say that are the most confused - seen it too many times; sorry, guys!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

It is? Oh, sorry, that's not an answer.

When you get to say "it is that way because I say it's that way" then people will stop listening to you :S


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Oh, well, the day you deny the unity of existence is the day you try to "vote yourself" out? It sucks, 'cause you're stuck here with the rest of IT, so sorry; LOL!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

If it doesn't end then where does it begin?

If we began with a creator - where did he begin?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"And as for this whole "we've not made a cell under the conditions of the Earth spontaneously and therefore this theory is baloney" baloney - it took billions of years the first time, that's why no one is going to bother to do it again."

Oh, my.

Formal science is now a 'bother?'

By this logic, the Miller-Urey experiments were also a 'bother."

Bummer.

So....we just lay back and drink the kool-aid. Replicating what

you are certain must have happened is not necessary.

I get it now. It's all so clear!


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"...you will find and probably have already found that inquiring minds will not accept the idea of a "greater mind" because... where did the greater mind come from?"

Argument from incredulity.


Jason Seale profile image

Jason Seale 4 years ago from Stratford, Ontario, Canada Author

@ Insane : I was not saying "life has a reason and thoughts exist because of a greater mind behind the scene"; I was saying that "reason and thoughts and greater minds are emergent properties of All that Is, Was, and Ever Shall Be". Mind is not behind the scene, mind is manifested by the scene. Intelligence is not by design, design is a possible activity of emergent intelligence.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

@Nicomp

"Formal science is now a 'bother?'" Waiting billions of years to replicate something that we are already sure about is a bother, yes. Especially since the experiment may take longer than the sun has before the sun keels over ;) Think it through m'boy.

"Argument from incredulity." Argument from incredulity is the fallacy of stating "this is true because it has not yet been proved false." It is not applicable to the statement you quoted.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Jason, we can play semantics all day long, but you know dang well, that rocks don't talk! We can play inorganic vs. organic babble, "substrate from a fabrication" hooey, primordial soup theories along with any other mind-creating theory ya want, but you KNOW it has never ever been defined and only felt!


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Argument from incredulity is the fallacy of stating "this is true because it has not yet been proved false." It is not applicable to the statement you quoted."

It's also the logical fallacy of claiming something to be impossible because you can't understand how it could be possible. Which you did. QED.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Pretending like your extended version of the fallacy is true (which it isn't, but I can see where you're coming from - you have stated that I claimed his argument was false because it hasn't been proven, which would be argument from incredulity)

"Which you did." False.

What I did was say that Insane's argument is a weak one because he has no explanation of how it could even happen, erego "inquiring minds will not accept the..."

That is a logical conclusion.

I never said it was impossible, I said it was weak. I said it was weak because not only does it not have evidence, it doesn't even have a hypothetical explanation.

Therefore it is not argument from incredulity, it is argument from lack of lack of logical explanation.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

If you really want me to explain what I KNOW from my memory, they would lock me up! Uh, uh, some of y'all will just have to find out later; remember me! LOL!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Insane, I promise, next week I will read your work (:


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Oh, no! That means I need to start writing Hubs! You'd be better off contacting me for details, links, etc. Other than that, it will always be a madhouse, here! :D


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Thanks guys, y'all helped inspire my new hub, entitled "Primordial Soup Theory or Primitive Chili without Beans?"

This ain't a hub promo, but Philanthropy seemed interested, so here ya go, for starters: http://insanemundane.hubpages.com/hub/Primordial-S...

Thanks again, Jason, for allowing an "open" comment field; cheers!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working