| | | quote | Originally posted by MadMark:
You would think that those who believe in Darwin's theories of evolution would be alright about species becoming extinct since that would be
normal.
But, you would be wrong. The leftist socialists who predominantly believe in evolution somehow are always trying to go against Darwin.
Kind of makes you wonder doesn't it? |
|
Biologists--not one, myself, but I read about it--converse about a "background rate" of species going extinct. That would be the rate, expressed in the number of species known to have become extinct during a given period of time. But not just
any period of time. It only makes sense to talk about a "background" rate of extinction within the context of a period of time during which the surrounding environment or ecosystem does not change very much in terms of climate, or sea levels, or any of what could be summarized as "mega" factors. From the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the waters in oceans and lakes, to the speed of the Earth's diurnal (daily) rotation about its axis. All of the
mega factors have to remain constant throughout a given period of time, for there to be a background rate of extinction that fairly characterizes that period of time. Otherwise, it's like comparing Apples and Oranges, and there is no sense in thinking about any background rate of extinction, or background rate of species differentiation or Darwinian (neo-Darwinian) Evolution, for that matter.
We are living in what is more and more coming to be known among biologists as the
Anthropocene epoch of the Earth's long-running natural history. It's unlike any previous time in the Earth's history, because of the capability and the proclivity of one species--homo sapiens--to "monkey" with these aforementioned "mega factors" that impact all life and all living species on the planet. In the case of forest areas that are being rapidly deforested or reduced in size, because of human activities involving road building and other development projects, or for the sake of agriculture and logging, that is an intentional kind of "monkeying" around with a mega factor. In the case of large amounts of artificial polymers (plastics) that are rapidly accumulating in oceans and across other natural expanses from the breakdown of discarded plastic products and packaging, and purpose-engineered plastic microbeads (in products like face scrubs and skin cleansers)--that's not an intentional kind of monkeying around, but an
unintentional kind. It's the Law of Unintended Consequences in action.
This is why I started this message by emphasizing the word "normal" in the message that I quoted from MadMark.
It's a word that needs very careful attention in this context.
Are we humans the new "normal" for the planet? And could it be, that by just accepting our own human-focused
normality all too easily--just "getting over it", as the current President's acting chief of staff might say--we create a certainty, in the not too distant future, that the Anthropocene will give way to a new epoch in the Earth's natural history, in which humans, having already gone extinct themselves, will have no part?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-13-2019).]
!
.
