🚀 go-pugleaf

On 30 Apr 2004 16:12:23 -0700, apocalypse_zero@hotmail.com (Hostman
Brevis) wrote:

>> And that makes them inferior? Only in our opinion.

>Scientific opinion based on facts.

Not scientific opinion with respect to a fact however. 
'Superiority' is a subjective matter.

>> Different, not necessarily superior. From the point of view of the
>> global ecology, our species might justifiably be regarded as a plague,
>> We have driven many species into extinction and converted many green
>> and growing landscapes into desert. 

>True but that's evolution. Too bad for the weak.

Wrong word there. "Less fit" would be more accurate. 
As I remarked previously, is a tiger weaker than a rabbit?
But which is in danger of extinction?

> Inferiority and
>superiority of organisms aren't evolutionary constants but dynamic,
>e.g. some organisms die quickly in a certain time-period while others
>prevail and in a later time-period they even become extinct. In our
>case, now we are superior to many species.

I'll buy your argument if you substitute the word 'dominant' for
'superior'.

>> >Bad example. I am certain that e-coli can't kill me because of
>> >penicilline antibiotic. 
>> 
>> You might try telling that to the citizenry of  the town of Walkerton
>> in Ontario. Seven people there died from e-coli in 2000

>That's MRSA, a growing threat, caused by using excessive amount of
>antibiotics. Bacteria have somehow adapted.

Not 'somehow'. We trained them.

> Without antibiotics in the
>first place, it won't be just seven people, I dare to say thousands or
>more! But that's not going to mean that we aren't able to repel
>disease NEVER EVER. 

What makes you think I was arguing that? My point is that either
species is capable of killing the other. It's no criteria for
'superiority'. There are billions and billions of e-coli that we
aren't killing just as there are billions of us that e-coli isn't
killing. Is it logical to use casualty figures as a criteria for
superiority?

>Think of SARS, new medicines for NEW diseases are
>created in no-time!! A few deaths in the beginning-phase of the
>disease doesn't mean the bacteria are "superior".

I wasn't maintaing they were. 
But I object to the assertion that man is.

>> >Talking about intelligence compared to a
>> >e-coli who by definition can't think is a stupid childish remark.
>> 
>> I'd say your conceit about superiority based entirely on intelligence
>> is equally childish.

>At least I'd rather be a highly intelligent child than an inferior
>worm!;-) 

Not in some places and some times you wouldn't!  In many cultures and
in many centuries your chances of surviving childhood were not good.

>You underestimate the medical science and overestimate the
>value of bacteria and worms in evolution's history.

You're missing the point. The issue is what criteria do you use to
decide what species is 'inferior' and what species is 'superior'. 
If you choose the characteristics in which  your own species excells,
you're winning with a stacked deck.

>> >I'm simply extrapolating this view to a 'world
>> >scale' where humans are involved. I know that you like to be compared
>> >with worms and bacteria but I just don't.
>> 
>> That's the conceit of man. Theologically this takes the form of the
>> Genesis account in which man is given custody of all inferior life
>> forms to manage and bend to his will. In the story of the Deluge, God,
>> having become ticked at man's behavior and prepared to eliminate him,
>> was also getting ready to kill off all life on earth. After all, it
>> was just there to support wonderful man!

>WTF has theology has to do with it? I'm talking about science here.

I'm in alt.talk.creationism
Theology is very much a consideration in this hothouse of
vituperation. It's the reason I bristle at this idea of man's supposed
'superiority'. That's a Creationist shibboleth.
 
>> What a colossal conceit!  We're a Johnny-come-lately smart-assed ape
>> that got lucky by evolving three characteristics in rapid sucession. 
>> Superior to other species? That's OUR egotistical fancy.

>Was it Johnny or Adam? ;-) Name those three. 

Bipedal locomotion, an opposable thumb, and a large brain.
Many species have evolved one or two of these. We lucked out and got
all three.

>Try to think while your
>at it, why you are fighting "equal rights" for worms;-) 

Because the fundamentalist bible-thumper insists that wonderful man is
the apple of God's eye, his special, deliberate creation and not an
evolutionary accident.

>Call us
>egoists, but I never heard bacteria, worms and insects called
>themselves that while they have populated more space on earth than us.

Called themselves what? Superior?

>> Got a cure for the AIDS virus handy?

>We are working on that. I expect it to be ready someday.

So do I. But it's a reminder from nature that no species is exempt
from her processes.

>> >Remember I'm not saying that worms and bacteria and insects aren't
>> >going to be there for a long time....I'm saying humans have the
>> >capacity to gain knowledge about ecosystems and bio-chemical/physical
>> >nature of life and with the help of that (remember penicilline) we can
>> >overcome most of things (not all). This rapid  kind of 'enhancement'
>> >of species, without taking millions of years is something 'unheard of'
>> >since the existence of the first cells. Whether or not extreme
>> >adaptation is a bad thing really remains to be seen.
>> 
>> Then whether we are superior or a pestilence remains to be seen!

>Depends on which perspective you are looking at.

Exactly! Now you've got it! 
That's why in my initial response I asked "in whose opinion?"

>Choose between higher
>or lower organisms. I just don't look into the (completely absent)
>mind of worms.

Yes, but what are the criteria for determining 'superiority'?
You want to use dominance. But what about population size? 
Or longevity of the species? Or contribution to the ecology?

>Also, to discuss the scientific fact that 'information gain' (with a
>greater cerebrum) and therefore an accelerated evolutionary benefit
>for us, is a good thing on the long run,

Good thing according to who?

> one has to understand or
>study the cerebrum. Whoever said that it is getting 'unstable' in the
>future is himself unaware of it's capability, plasticity and
>biological features. No-one nowadays understands the brain, only a
>fraction of it. So making negative remarks about it NOW isn't smart,
>and most bad PREDICTIONS are totally crap, based on chaos theories or
>diseases which are irrelevant. DNA technology in medical science will
>be able to alter and adjust genetic problems in the future. Try let
>your stupid worms to do that! Inferior, you bet!

In your opinion.... :-)

>> ## Man is creation's masterpiece;  but who says so?-  Man!
>
>Man rulez, worm arselicker ;-) Worms are evolution's 'background
>noise', they need to be filtered out.

Ha! Without them you'd starve to death. They form a vital part of the
soil ecology.

And there are a good number of other species, including even simpler
single-celled life forms, on whom all life on earth depends. Yes we're
at the top of the food chain, but we're still dependent on what's
under us.

## We are but a fortuitous concourse of atoms..  
Cicero