Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has been noted on this forum before that over 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. When you really consider the implications of that number it would appear that if no new species evolved from any point in time that 100% of life would go extinct if you waited long enough and there was nothing new to replace it. Even though all plants and animals evolve into new species as they adapt to changing conditions in the long run they always appear to die out and new life forms take their place.
It seems to me that the most resilient forms of life are insects and microbes. Despite the apparent success of the human race I personally believe that we are at a much higher risk of becoming extinct than a common ant or cockroach for example. We really haven't been around for all that long and many insects are so perfectly adapted to almost any environment that they've barely changed over countless millions of years so they'd probably survive the longest.
So my belief is that it's highly likely that every single species will eventually go extinct and if it wasn't for evolution all life would die out completely. What do you think?
An interesting thought Montana. Conceptually I can see two ways of looking at your hypothesis.
Firstly, does the evolutionary function have an underlying purpose? This can be accommodated by a theistic solution or by the "blind watchmaker". Secondly, do the factors of time and chance inevitably lead to failure of every branch on the tree of life, yet at the same time the tree will set forth new shoots on existing branches or new branches altogether to ensure the survival of life.
I find the "purpose" argument more satisfying than the "chance" argument. It is not impossible to imagine our species being wiped out. Habitat destruction, climatic change, major conflict, meteorite impact etc. all provide plausable reasons why humanity could be eliminated or at least replaced as alpha animal.
Personally, my observation is that the universe and virtually all of the processes within it are heading from order towards chaos. This would suggest to me that not only will all life cease to exist at some point in the future, but our solar system, galaxy and eventually universe will fail to provide the precise set of conditions that make life possible.
An interesting side note is that authors of some religious texts recognised this process of decay and call for a future "new heavens and earth". I am slowly leaning towards this philosophy.
Firstly, does the evolutionary function have an underlying purpose? This can be accommodated by a theistic solution or by the "blind watchmaker". Secondly, do the factors of time and chance inevitably lead to failure of every branch on the tree of life, yet at the same time the tree will set forth new shoots on existing branches or new branches altogether to ensure the survival of life.
I find the "purpose" argument more satisfying than the "chance" argument. It is not impossible to imagine our species being wiped out. Habitat destruction, climatic change, major conflict, meteorite impact etc. all provide plausable reasons why humanity could be eliminated or at least replaced as alpha animal.
Well of course evolution will continue to function as it always has since life began but I think that the realization of what would happen if it stopped to be an interesting one. Personally I don't see a purpose in evolution because that would require intelligent direction, in other words, a God or some sort of intervening force. I think that once life gets started it tends to go off in every conceivable direction which is why we see such incredible diversity among living things and why it manages to keep on going. However, I don't see that as part of a purpose or plan.
Another interesting point about the 99% extinction rate is that if creationists were confronted with a realistic viewpoint regarding the fact that the earth has less than 1% of every species which has ever lived it would force them to contemplate a very crowded planet earth if there had ever been a time in which they all coexisted. They would also have to face certain facts such as tropical plants living in parts of the world that are now too cold for them to survive, deserts that once were filled with plants and animals that could only survive in a hot and moist climate such as parts of the Middle East and North Africa, etc. It is self evident that the earth is constantly changing and causing the extinction of huge numbers of species but it happens so slowly that it normally can't be observed within the lifespan of a human being.
It has been noted on this forum before that over 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. When you really consider the implications of that number it would appear that if no new species evolved from any point in time that 100% of life would go extinct if you waited long enough and there was nothing new to replace it. Even though all plants and animals evolve into new species as they adapt to changing conditions in the long run they always appear to die out and new life forms take their place.
It seems to me that the most resilient forms of life are insects and microbes. Despite the apparent success of the human race I personally believe that we are at a much higher risk of becoming extinct than a common ant or cockroach for example. We really haven't been around for all that long and many insects are so perfectly adapted to almost any environment that they've barely changed over countless millions of years so they'd probably survive the longest.
So my belief is that it's highly likely that every single species will eventually go extinct and if it wasn't for evolution all life would die out completely. What do you think?
Firstly, you forget the adaptability of human beings. Australian peoples survive in a desert-like environment that few animals have adapted to. The Inuit likewise in the frozen deserts of the artic region. Both long millenia before that advent of technology.
An interesting thought Montana. Conceptually I can see two ways of looking at your hypothesis.
Firstly, does the evolutionary function have an underlying purpose? This can be accommodated by a theistic solution or by the "blind watchmaker". Secondly, do the factors of time and chance inevitably lead to failure of every branch on the tree of life, yet at the same time the tree will set forth new shoots on existing branches or new branches altogether to ensure the survival of life.
I find the "purpose" argument more satisfying than the "chance" argument. It is not impossible to imagine our species being wiped out. Habitat destruction, climatic change, major conflict, meteorite impact etc. all provide plausable reasons why humanity could be eliminated or at least replaced as alpha animal.
Personally, my observation is that the universe and virtually all of the processes within it are heading from order towards chaos. This would suggest to me that not only will all life cease to exist at some point in the future, but our solar system, galaxy and eventually universe will fail to provide the precise set of conditions that make life possible.
An interesting side note is that authors of some religious texts recognised this process of decay and call for a future "new heavens and earth". I am slowly leaning towards this philosophy.
There is no inherent need for any guiding force or designer for Nature. Evoution takes care of itself quite nicely.
Also, human beings adapt quite readily to whatever environment, within reason, we happen to find ourselves in, from the frozen north to the harshest of deserts.
And I wouldn't exactly call the Universe "ordered", either.
Firstly, you forget the adaptability of human beings.
Not at all, in fact I think that human beings are probably the most adaptable species of all because we have the ability to alter our environment by means of technology, even in ancient times. What I'm saying is that even though we have large brains and an incredible ability to adapt to new environments that we also have a vulnerability that could lead to our extinction because of human nature. There seems to be a kind of race in which our self destructive behavior in terms of ever more powerful weapons such as nuclear bombs and an increasing knowledge of how to kill the most people in the most efficient manner is competing with the good side of human beings which has invented the most productive methods of growing crops, interacting with each other, and maintaining an orderly society. Our capabilities in technology and scientific progress could also be our downfall if we become so efficient at killing each other that we wipe ourselves out. It's not as far fetched as it sounds.
Not at all, in fact I think that human beings are probably the most adaptable species of all because we have the ability to alter our environment by means of technology, even in ancient times. What I'm saying is that even though we have large brains and an incredible ability to adapt to new environments that we also have a vulnerability that could lead to our extinction because of human nature. There seems to be a kind of race in which our self destructive behavior in terms of ever more powerful weapons such as nuclear bombs and an increasing knowledge of how to kill the most people in the most efficient manner is competing with the good side of human beings which has invented the most productive methods of growing crops, interacting with each other, and maintaining an orderly society. Our capabilities in technology and scientific progress could also be our downfall if we become so efficient at killing each other that we wipe ourselves out. It's not as far fetched as it sounds.
I'll have to respectfully disagree.
MAD is a thing of the past. If nukes ARE used in the future, it will be in the form of "dirty bombs".
Biological warfare lacks a viable delivery system, not to mention that, thanks to the variability of the human condition, there would be people immune to any created viruses.
MAD is a thing of the past. If nukes ARE used in the future, it will be in the form of "dirty bombs".
Biological warfare lacks a viable delivery system, not to mention that, thanks to the variability of the human condition, there would be people immune to any created viruses.
You make some excellent points but it's quite possible that mankind will develop completely new warfare technology which could change everything. It's happened many times in the past, machine guns in World War I slaughted people with casualties that the world had never seen before. World War II brought nuclear weapons and much deadlier weaponry and that was over sixty years ago. In a worst case scenario I could envision weapons say in a century from now that would obliterate entire populations using technology that we don't even know exists today. There would probably be pockets of survivors in various parts of the world but they could be reduced to stone age conditions which they might not survive. I hope that you're right and I'm wrong.
You make some excellent points but it's quite possible that mankind will develop completely new warfare technology which could change everything. It's happened many times in the past, machine guns in World War I slaughted people with casualties that the world had never seen before. World War II brought nuclear weapons and much deadlier weaponry and that was over sixty years ago. In a worst case scenario I could envision weapons say in a century from now that would obliterate entire populations using technology that we don't even know exists today. There would probably be pockets of survivors in various parts of the world but they could be reduced to stone age conditions which they might not survive. I hope that you're right and I'm wrong.
You forget one thing in your WW anologies. The entire world wasn't involved in those world wars.
And if we have managed to trudge through MAD in this centruy, I think perhaps that we will be that much more socially evovled a century from now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
