Lungfish petition

Online petitions are worth the paper they aren't printed on. They're just too easy to fake tons of signatures to.

If you want to be noticed, send a letter. A ten-page, handwritten letter. Nobody's going to fake that!

Maybe it is just me, but I find it ironic those who frequent a site devoted to evolution who, presumably, appreciate what the theory implies, would support measures to conserve and/or protect a given specie. Here's my thinking: evolution indicates that should a species get wiped out do to man's activities, the niche created will present opportunity for another specie or many species.

Don't get me wrong - I realize the impact of man's activities exceeds that of other natural disasters, however, our existence is (in truth) a natural activity and as such, our impact is governed by the same processes and laws as all other impacts to life on this planet. I don't wish to sound heartless or uncaring (believe me when I say that contrary to my statement here, I tend to go way out of my way to "save" even the smallest organisms I find in distress), but it does seem to me that such activities imply either a misunderstanding of evolution or a complete lack (dare I say the word?) faith that evolution will ultimately accommodate our impact.

Maybe it's just me...

My bad - "species" not specie. Sorry.

My bad - "species" not specie. Sorry.

"Maybe it is just me, but I find it ironic those who frequent a site devoted to evolution who, presumably, appreciate what the theory implies, would support measures to conserve and/or protect a given specie."

Don't worry, I'm sure there's PLENTY of creationists who would agree with you.

There is a certain irony there, which has amused me from time to time.

However, what it boils down to is, what kind of world do we want to live in? Our knowledge of science tells us what world will result from our current practices: the world will be reduced to a number of low-diversity habitats.

Look at modern cities. They are environments with their own ecosystems, food webs, and, yes, evolution. Some species will thrive in the world we create, just like cockroaches, gracles and rock doves (aka. pigeons) do now.

But low diversity environments aren't really stable and aren't very aesthetically pleasant from the perspective of someone looking for nature. A world covered by same doesn't appeal to me. I want to keep our high-diversity environments.

measures to conserve and/or protect a given specie[s]

misunderstanding of evolution or a complete lack (dare I say the word?) faith that evolution will ultimately accommodate our impact

called get this...lungfish

Here's my thinking: evolution indicates that should a species get wiped out do to man's activities, the niche created will present opportunity for another specie or many species.

These other Australian animals are no longer endangered thanks to other petitions, on-line and paper based:

1) The Swan River Anus Pig
2) The Southwest Australian Kidney Kangaroo (always given birth to in pairs)
3) The Desert Liver Plant (unfortunately cannot regrow after pruning), and
4) The Tasmanian Pancreas Devil (native to Queensland)

These other Australian lifeforms needs YOUR support to survive for at least the next four years and requires paper-based petitioning:

1) Members of the Australian Labour Party

Extinct Australian lifeforms no longer requiring petition assistance:

1) The Australian Democratic Party, and

We need petitions to make these lifeforms extinct, Australian or otherwise:

1) One Nation Party
2) Family First Party
3) Kent Hovind
4) Dembski and co.
5) Reality television.

Thank you all for your attention.

ARRGH! "DUE to", not "do to"!

"AAARGH!", not "ARRGH!"

Thanks for the comments/criticisms, in particular to Michael Suttkas who most eloquettely defined the difference between the a given natural law/process and what we choose to do within that context. Thanks Michael. I'd note Popper's ghost, however that criticism would have been more effective had you simply put - The fact of evolution is no reason at all to either preserve or ignore the lungfish; the reasons for preserving the lungfish are given in the petition - such would have been more than sufficient to make me think about my question. Regardless, I appreciate the response and all other statements.

I'd note Popper's ghost, however that criticism would have been more effective had you simply put - The fact of evolution is no reason at all to either preserve or ignore the lungfish; the reasons for preserving the lungfish are given in the petition - such would have been more than sufficient to make me think about my question.

either a misunderstanding of evolution or a complete lack (dare I say the word?) faith that evolution will ultimately accommodate our impact

Actually, the rewrite of the one relevant statement in your comment serves to demonstrate two points:

1) That conservation of words more effectively conveys a thought in such a medium,

2) That your ability with written English leaves something to be desired.

Oddly enough, none of the other posters who responded indicated that my question was insulting. The fact that you chose to be insulted by my piece is, I think, indicative of your particular take on Internet discussions - e.g., that such are forums for arguments and insults rather than for the exchange of thoughts and ideas, and that you want to argue for the sake of it. That you use a pseudonym in such a forum further indicates that you tend towards such an adolescent expression mode.

The fact that you overlooked my entire comment about saving numerous organisms makes your second response rather moot. But no matter; a single anonymous ruffled poster of dubious authority stating I'm a shallow and shoddy thinker in the midst of board of many others, most of whom appear to be gifted intellectuals, does not bother me. In fact, I would have been surprised to the contrary.

Robin Lee-Thorp said:

"Oddly enough, none of the other posters who responded indicated that my question was insulting."

Well, I wouldn't say I was insulted but I did think your first post was a bit daft. Hence my reaction.

Maybe it's just me...

I certainly won't deny being daft at times, or that the thinking behind my post didn't come from left field. Thoughts from outside the mainline acceptance of "what we should be doing" sometimes lead to the deepest and most honest inspection of cognative theories though, and that was what I'd hoped to gain here. It seems Mr. Suttkas was on the same page at least (maybe it isn't just me, eh?), but I do appreciate that there are likely a lot of Creationists who'd like the world to think that what I proposed is what ET implicitly points to. I figured such would be moot on an Evolutionary proponent site. My bad.

Yeah, Robin, it was just you. :-)

Maybe I should elucidate what I find ironic.

I find people all too often make the mistake of assuming what nature is is good. That is, we should preserve forests *because* they are natural. We should save the lesser red-breasted European crested barn warbler (differing from the greater red-breasted European crested barn warbler by two yellow feathers and a half inch of average length) because it's natural.

But extinction is natural. The human/nature dichotomy is a false one. We are an animal species. We are doing what every species in history has done: Consuming resources without concern for its effects on other species. You think atmospheric pollution is something new? A few billion years ago, cyanobacteria evolved and released tons of the deadliest poison in history, a gas called oxygen, into the atmosphere! Environmental devestation on a global scale resulted. A few freaky species managed to adapt to the stuff. They were sorta successful in the long term, but they weren't anymore careful.

History is a record of extinction; species wipe each other out with casual aplomb. What we're doing is as natural as what happened with rodents first invaded Australia (Hint: It was millions of years before humans arrived and it caused massive extinctions).

Eventually, nature recovers. That's what she does. Won't do us any good, of course, but there you go.

Any species that we wipe out has lost the game. Extinction is the fate of all species sooner or later. Those we're driving under went sooner than some, later than most!

Now, one could be a bitter cynic and say, "Oh well, so sorry, lesser red-breasted European crested barn warbler, you didn't make it. You weren't worthy. We don't really need you. We've still go the greater red-breasted European crested barn warbler, and, HEY! It looks like it might last until at least 2020. We don't really need it either, of course." This would be a fairly "natural" philosophy, and yet, the very people who are most concerned with nature, most likely to slap the label of "Natural" on their ideas, would be the first to condemn it.

That's the irony.

I choose to oppose such an idea not because I'm concerned with what's natural but because I just plain like the species that we have. We're not going to drive ourselves to extinction if we pave over the rainforests no matter what the radical environmentalists tell you. I'm not really worried that we'll happen to lose a cancer cure.

I just like rainforests. I even like the lesser red-breasted European crested barn warbler, and I just made him up.

As I said, we are the only species on the planet capable of deciding what kind of planet we want to live on and making it so. I don't want to live on a world where the closest thing we get to nature is McDonald's.

The problem is, people who don't like evolution confuse the term 'evolutionary proponent'. They dislike the idea of 'survival of the fittest' because they think it's immoral. We 'proponents' of evolution are not proponents because we LIKE evolution, we simply observe it. We don't see the zebra's being munched on by hyenas and go "YAY, HYENAS!". Whether it occurs naturally or is guided by the dude upstairs makes no difference - it happens anyway. And we no-more draw any kind of moral standing from it than when we observe boiling water.

And yes, it is possible for believers and non-believers alike to see the harsh side of nature (expecially if the cause is anthropogenic) to make a moral choice and try to change things because, well, they just like their rainforests and lesser red-breasted European crested barn warblers just they way they are. :-)

we are the only species on the planet capable of deciding what kind of planet we want to live on and making it so

I second that. Me likes lemonade and vodka (don't laugh) when not on the beer.

For me, the argument for preserving species that otherwise might go extinct due to human activities boils down to humility. Who are we to decide what species stays or goes? Especially since the extinctions usually happen as a result of ignorance (the dodo) or greed (passenger pigeon) or both. (Can't say that I mourn Smallpox, though)

What always amazes me, though, is the attitude of many of the religious conservatives who constantly fight against environmental or conservation initiatives. Doesn't it make sense to try to preserve God's creation? How dare we bring ruin to it.

I have heard, in recent months, more arguments by Christians that we should do just that, so perhaps there's hope there.

By the way, I'm still holding out for a world with bear volcanos and flaming tigers.

That conservation of words more effectively conveys a thought in such a medium

That your ability with written English leaves something to be desired.

I typed quickly and left out a couple of words. That, of course, does not make Ms. Lee-Thorp any less of a silly goose.

That you use a pseudonym in such a forum further indicates that you tend towards such an adolescent expression mode.

I certainly won't deny being daft at times, or that the thinking behind my post didn't come from left field. Thoughts from outside the mainline acceptance of "what we should be doing" sometimes lead to the deepest and most honest inspection of cognative theories though, and that was what I'd hoped to gain here.

I do appreciate that there are likely a lot of Creationists who'd like the world to think that what I proposed is what ET implicitly points to. I figured such would be moot on an Evolutionary proponent site. My bad.

Who are we to decide what species stays or goes?

— GvlGeologist

(Can't say that I mourn Smallpox, though)

— GvlGeologist

What always amazes me, though, is the attitude of many of the religious conservatives who constantly fight against environmental or conservation initiatives. Doesn't it make sense to try to preserve God's creation? How dare we bring ruin to it.

— GvlGeologist

I have heard, in recent months, more arguments by Christians that we should do just that, so perhaps there's hope there.

— GvlGeologist

M. Suttkus wrote: Yeah, Robin, it was just you. :-)

M. Suttkus wrote: The human/nature dichotomy is a false one. We are an animal species. We are doing what every species in history has done: Consuming resources without concern for its effects on other species. You think atmospheric pollution is something new? A few billion years ago, cyanobacteria evolved and released tons of the deadliest poison in history, a gas called oxygen, into the atmosphere! Environmental devestation on a global scale resulted. A few freaky species managed to adapt to the stuff. They were sorta successful in the long term, but they weren't anymore careful. ... Eventually, nature recovers. That's what she does. Won't do us any good, of course, but there you go.

M. Suttkus wrote: we are the only species on the planet capable of deciding what kind of planet we want to live on and making it so.

M. Suttkus wrote: Now, one could be a bitter cynic and say, "Oh well, so sorry, lesser red-breasted European crested barn warbler, you didn't make it. You weren't worthy. We don't really need you. We've still go the greater red-breasted European crested barn warbler, and, HEY! It looks like it might last until at least 2020. We don't really need it either, of course." This would be a fairly "natural" philosophy, and yet, the very people who are most concerned with nature, most likely to slap the label of "Natural" on their ideas, would be the first to condemn it. That's the irony.

Your elucidation is quite good (lesser and greater red-breasted barn warblers aside) and while I think you might be right in many people's association of nature = good, I've found that there are a number of folk out there who make the opposite association - that nature = bad and it must be tamed, controlled or destroyed. Personally I'm less fond of it than nature = good, but such is irrelevant since they are both variations on the false human/nature dichotomy.

— Robin Lee-Thorp

That nature eventually recovers is the point I was driving at in my observation of irony in conservation activities.

— Robin Lee-Thorp

That nature eventually recovers is the point I was driving at in my observation of irony in conservation activities.

By "recover", I meant "restore the diversity the environment could support."

By "recover", I meant "restore the diversity the environment could support."

M. Suttkus wrote: I favor nature=nature myself. There are a large number of people who associate "natural" with chaotic, untamed, and dangerous, but I think it's clear that the opposite view has cultural dominance, at least to the public. Just look at how often you hear products being advertised as "all natural" as if that was somehow a meaningful selling point.

M. Suttkus wrote: Keep in mind that this recovery could take thousands of years (longer, depending on the type of damage). From my selfish perspective, that's just not fast enough!

"Is the ironic thing about 'Ironic' that it's not actually filled with ironies?"

Oops, that should be "because Ms. R L-T is sure that there are issues and problems associated with the alternatives that she's ignorant of". How ironic that I made that mistake.

And for the really really slow ... what would be ironic is if substitutes for pollutants actually were shown to be worse for the environment than the pollutants themselves, but that has not been shown in the case of, say, trapping mice instead of poisoning them. A real case of irony is how decades of prevention of fires by the forest service led to disastrous huge fires because of the accumulation of undergrowth. The forest service learned from that and changed their ways.

There is now an online petition to save the Australian Lungfish

It is good that you point out that Natural does not always equal good. Many people that eat "Organic" veggies don't realise that the "Organic" products may be more harmful then the products they are replacing. For example corn that is naturally resistant to pests can contain more carcinogens then corn that requires the farmer to spray pesticides on his crop.

There is a Berkeley professor that came up with a commonly used test to messure carcinogens that says "Don't eat organic vegitables because you think they are better for you. Eat them because they taste better". His name escapes me right now but I'll dig up his name and the test that he devised later today.

I'm not pro anything here but just like to chuckle when uninformed people make assumptions about issues because of the PR spin that has been placed on the issue.

Yep! "Organically" grown (I hate that term, all food is organic! Stop stealing perfectly good words to represent nonsense!) fruits and vegetables are attacked by more insects than food covered with "bad" man-made pesticides during their growth. As a result, they do what plants have always done when attacked by insects: Fill their cells with as much poison as they can stand.

The kicker is, man-made pesticides wash off. If you treat your produce properly and wash it before eating it, you don't get any of those nasty man-made pesticides in your system. The all-natural, organic pesticides? You can't wash them off! Their inside the cells!

Mind you, the pesticides aren't all that harmful, but if you're using "pesticides" as a reason to "go organic", think again.

Re "Yep! "Organically" grown (I hate that term, all food is organic!"

Yeah, that misuse of terminology bugs me, too - is there such a thing as INorganic food?!? Nope - didn't think so! :rollseyes:

Henry

What a pile of pathetically ignorant blithering. Is this what you guys learn in the Church of Monsanto every Sunday morning? Corn quite obviously has not evolved the ability to produce carcinogens in its kernels when pesticides are withheld, nor to suppress carcinogens in its kernels when pesticides are applied. And why would it? The corn kernel is a seed, and it's perfectly fine, from the genes' POV, for the kernels to be eaten. But it isn't so fine for the farmers, which is why they use chemicals that keep the crows away. I've got a fig tree in my yard, and if I don't cover it with bird netting, they'll eat the figs the moment they turn purple. But I'm not using chemicals ... OMG, I'm going to get cancer from eating those figs!

How effing stupid can you get?

Yeah, that misuse of terminology bugs me, too - is there such a thing as INorganic food?

"Organically" grown ... fruits and vegetables are attacked by more insects than food covered with "bad" man-made pesticides during their growth. As a result, they do what plants have always done when attacked by insects: Fill their cells with as much poison as they can stand.

The kicker is, man-made pesticides wash off.

Being bugged by the way a word is used is not "Railing against strawmen".

Henry

Being bugged by the way a word is used is not "Railing against strawmen".

"Organically grown" food is food grown and processed using no synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. Pesticides derived from natural sources (e.g., biological pesticides) may also be used in producing organically grown food.

Popper's ghost,

Why do you go out of your way to make people angry at you?

I expressed some dislike about the way a term gets used - that is not a reason for you to go into attack mode.

Henry

I expressed some dislike about the way a term gets used - that is not a reason for you to go into attack mode.

make that "organically grown foods" does not misuse any term.

Suttkus wrote "Organically" grown (I hate that term, all food is organic! Stop stealing perfectly good words to represent nonsense!) fruits ... ... are neither of you sufficiently familiar with the English language to understand that "organically" modifies "grown", not "fruits" in that sentence?

Dude.

Come on, Popper's ghost.

Try to make your point without getting angry for once.

You may be correct, but you're the one getting nothing out of this.

Always trying to prove yourself to be right.

Drop the anger.

Learn some tact.

What a pile of pathetically ignorant blithering.

— Popper's ghost

Is this what you guys learn in the Church of Monsanto every Sunday morning?

— Popper's ghost

Corn quite obviously has not evolved the ability to produce carcinogens in its kernels when pesticides are withheld, nor to suppress carcinogens in its kernels when pesticides are applied.

— Popper's ghost

And why would it? The corn kernel is a seed, and it's perfectly fine, from the genes' POV, for the kernels to be eaten.

— Popper's ghost

But it isn't so fine for the farmers, which is why they use chemicals that keep the crows away. I've got a fig tree in my yard, and if I don't cover it with bird netting, they'll eat the figs the moment they turn purple. But I'm not using chemicals ... OMG, I'm going to get cancer from eating those figs!

— Popper's ghost

How effing stupid can you get?

— Popper's ghost

Railing against strawmen bugs me. The term is not "organic food", it's "organically grown food".

— Popper's ghost

Perhaps you guys think that global warming and second hand smoking are harmless too.

— Popper's ghost

Don't believe everything you read at junkscience.com just because the name sounds right and it attacks some junk science --- it's run by a crackpot and funded by oil companies.

— Popper's ghost

Popper's Ghost,

I think for now I'll decline your generous offer of a flame war.

Henry

As Michael points out there are problems with Popper's comments.

First a plant that is not sprayed with pesticides will not produce more "natural" toxins then the same plant that is sprayed.

The problem is that its farmers that are effecting the natural toxins. Farmers being farmers they want crop that actually makes it to the market and is not eaten away by insects. Thus farmers choise crops that are naturally pest resistant if they are not going to use other pesticides.

In the wild over many generations plants that don't have pesticides applied to them will build up more toxins then those plants that do have pesticides applied to them because it makes them more fit. IE the ones that aren't getting their seeds destroyed by pests are the ones to actually make it to the next generation.

So when farmer John goes to buy his corn seed he does not just go down to the local DIY warehouse and ask for twenty thousand packets of sweet corn seeds and plant them. He goes and investigates what lines of corn will produce the greatest amount of crop at the end of the season taking into account his plans for fertilising, irrigation, length of season, expected weather, use of pesticides, etc. If farmer john does not want to use pesticides because he believes it will make him more money when he harvests his crop he's going to go for a line that is naturally resistant to pests that threaten his crop. This natural resistant comes from that line essentially producing something that is "bad" for the pests within its cells.

If you think "natural" and "organic" = good then I can point you to a few "natural" and "organic" poisons that will have you in a coffin very soon after consumption.

Popper's Ghost, I think for now I'll decline your generous offer of a flame war.

— Henry J

As Michael points out there are problems with Popper's comments. First a plant that is not sprayed with pesticides will not produce more "natural" toxins then the same plant that is sprayed.

— Wayne Francis

The problem is that its farmers that are effecting the natural toxins. Farmers being farmers they want crop that actually makes it to the market and is not eaten away by insects. Thus farmers choise crops that are naturally pest resistant if they are not going to use other pesticides.

— Wayne Francis