Nature...just....WHY

[Ad Nihilo]

Of course... the vistas you see when you look through the lens of a microscope are spontaneously produced by God every time to test your faith, you Godless hippy!

Don't you mean Satan, as in accordance with the satan is a dick theory of fossilization?

Pfft... Manichean heresy. Don't forget Job my friend. Don't forget Job. God is the ultimate of everything, including dickness. To suggest anything else is to question his omnipotence.

[Faolinn]

Nature creates that which there is a niche for. I will not claim to know every niche or reason secular or divine, but it exists for a reason, no matter how disturbing or bizarre it's nature might be.

[Jewcrew]

I think anyone with half a brain realize that this is only an 'in captivity' issue. I did not for one moment think that pandas in the wild did not reproduce. If they didn't, they would have died out before even becoming a distinct species. So calm down and have a soda.

Edit: The far more impressive argument against the continued existence of the Panda is that it is a carnivore that eats bamboo. It should be quite obvious that, evolutionarily, it is destined for failure.

Not at all.

Many birds eat plants, and they're all descended from carnivores.

In case you haven't noticed birds are thriving.

That's... Four of you now that missed the point of the joke?

It's like the word 'G-d' suddenly makes you guys completely irrational.

[Ad Nihilo]

Perhaps we're merely readjusting to the newly stated parameters of rationality.

[Jewcrew]

Perhaps we're merely readjusting to the newly stated parameters of rationality.

I should add that, by definition, humans and their actions are a product of evolution. So, once humans came onto the scene, pandas were destined for failure as they haven't finished their evolution into an herbivore and haven't returned to being a carnivore despite their digestive tract. Humans won the evolutionary race, and now we're destroying anything that gets in our way.

[Oterro]

there's this parasite thing that fish try to swallow, and it eats their tongue then takes its place, eating everything that comes into the fish's mouth

it's messed up!!!!!!!!!

[Grenartia]

What. The. Fuck.

Chinese Traditional Medicine is basically one big game of "I dare you to eat that".

Consider that sigged.

I don't know why you guys are saying you're not gonna sleep, or keep your food down.

Most of us have seen far worse.

I've never liked crab anyways.

Almost everybody is like 'thats disgusting', and I'm like ' meh, whatever' .

The panda is a bear - a carnivorous animal with a carnivorous digestive tract not designed to break down plant matter - that eats grass. And it needs help to have sex. Edit: In case you didn't know, bamboo is a type of grass.

Actually, most bears, according to wiki, are omnivorous, with the herbivorous pandas and the carnivorous polar bears as the exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear

[Jewcrew]

Actually, most bears, according to wiki, are omnivorous, with the herbivorous pandas and the carnivorous polar bears as the exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear

This is true.

However, their digestive tracts are a different story. The panda has a completely carnivorous digestive tract. I don't know about other bears.

[Ad Nihilo]

Perhaps we're merely readjusting to the newly stated parameters of rationality.

I should add that, by definition, humans and their actions are a product of evolution. So, once humans came onto the scene, pandas were destined for failure as they haven't finished their evolution into an herbivore and haven't returned to being a carnivore despite their digestive tract. Humans won the evolutionary race, and now we're destroying anything that gets in our way.

I assume that what you mean to say is that humans are a part of natural selection because their presence exerts evolutionary pressures upon other species. Because the fact that humans are the product of evolution themselves is both a truism, and completely irrelevant to their impact upon the habitats of other animals. There is nothing intrinsic to human evolution that necessitates that we go about making everything we can extinct. Indeed, that would be self-defeating. But it does seem to be the case that we have an arbitrary but marked tendency to drive other large mammals towards extinction (it is arbitrary in the same way that every new direction taken by evolution is arbitrary).

Second, that claim that once humans came onto the scene, pandas were doomed is bollocks. Pandas seem to have been doing fine until humans started destroying their habitat. There is nothing about human evolution that makes it necessary that we go about destroying panda habitats. It is a contingent historical fact that we do, and furthermore, it is a fact that can be linked far more convincingly to historical cultural and technological contingencies, than even the contingencies of human biological evolution.

In other words, human destruction of panda habitats is the result of things like expanding human populations sustained by technological inventions and patters of exploitation of natural resources that are entirely cultural and arbitrary / contingent.
And even now, if we cared enough, we could conceivably coordinate as societies to alter those contingent patterns such that we stop destroying panda habitats.

So no. Pandas were not abstractly "destined to failure". We doomed them to failure and we have done so with conscious awareness of the fact.

Or is that a too rational an elaboration for you?

[Jewcrew]

I should add that, by definition, humans and their actions are a product of evolution. So, once humans came onto the scene, pandas were destined for failure as they haven't finished their evolution into an herbivore and haven't returned to being a carnivore despite their digestive tract. Humans won the evolutionary race, and now we're destroying anything that gets in our way.

I assume that what you mean to say is that humans are a part of natural selection because their presence exerts evolutionary pressures upon other species. Because the fact that humans are the product of evolution themselves is both a truism, and completely irrelevant to their impact upon the habitats of other animals. There is nothing intrinsic to human evolution that necessitates that we go about making everything we can extinct. Indeed, that would be self-defeating. But it does seem to be the case that we have an arbitrary but marked tendency to drive other large mammals towards extinction (it is arbitrary in the same way that every new direction taken by evolution is arbitrary).

Second, that claim that once humans came onto the scene, pandas were doomed is bollocks. Pandas seem to have been doing fine until humans started destroying their habitat. There is nothing about human evolution that makes it necessary that we go about destroying panda habitats. It is a contingent historical fact that we do, and furthermore, it is a fact that can be linked far more convincingly to historical cultural and technological contingencies, than even the contingencies of human biological evolution.

In other words, human destruction of panda habitats is the result of things like expanding human populations sustained by technological inventions and patters of exploitation of natural resources that are entirely cultural and arbitrary / contingent.
And even now, if we cared enough, we could conceivably coordinate as societies to alter those contingent patterns such that we stop destroying panda habitats.

So no. Pandas were not abstractly "destined to failure". We doomed them to failure and we have done so with conscious awareness of the fact.

Or is that a too rational an elaboration for you?

First, I already knew this. What is your point?

Second, culture and technology are by definition a product of evolution, as we created these things with our intelligence provided to us by our evolution. Once humans got into the area and decided to exploit it, the extinction of the panda without further human intervention became inevitable, unless we decide to abandon our technology.

As everything a human does is merely a product of its evolution, the inability of the panda to adapt to us and its eventual and almost certain extinction is also a product of evolution.

Stop assuming that I'm an idiot simply because I believe in G-d. I know quite a great deal about things like adaptation and evolution. Your arguments here have been based almost entirely on assumptions about my intelligence after I have made it rather clear that I was joking.

So stop being such a douche bag.

[Vareiln]

there's this parasite thing that fish try to swallow, and it eats their tongue then takes its place, eating everything that comes into the fish's mouth

it's messed up!!!!!!!!!

Ah, yes. Tongue-eating louse, except they don't eat everything in the fish's mouth.

[Ad Nihilo]

First, I already knew this. What is your point?

Second, culture and technology are by definition a product of evolution, as we created these things with our intelligence provided to us by our evolution. Once humans got into the area and decided to exploit it, the extinction of the panda without further human intervention became inevitable, unless we decide to abandon our technology.

As everything a human does is merely a product of its evolution, the inability of the panda to adapt to us and its eventual and almost certain extinction is also a product of evolution.

Stop assuming that I'm an idiot simply because I believe in G-d. I know quite a great deal about things like adaptation and evolution. Your arguments here have been based almost entirely on assumptions about my intelligence after I have made it rather clear that I was joking.

So stop being such a douche bag.

You brought in the discussion about there being any kind of relationship between belief in a deity and intelligence. I'm not that invested in that debate either way. In fact, what bothered me is that anyone would think that it was in any way relevant to the matter at hand. For some odd reason you thought that you should bring it in. I have no idea what reason that might be, and I have no real curiosity on the matter either. I was simply happy to humour you and indulge your victim complex. You were essentially baiting, and I was essentially happy to flame a bit. I thought the parameters of our interaction were clear, and we were both consenting parties to the show. But if you are going to get touchy about it, then perhaps you might wish to be more cautious in the future, just in case you keep reaping what you have sowed.

Back on topic: My point is that there is nothing intrinsic to the pandas' own evolutionary path that renders them unable to continue existing - e.g. they have not evolved to have penises that are too small for effective copulation or anything like that. From the point of the evolutionary path of pandas, the shock of their diminishing habitat is completely extraneous. Now we look at whether that extraneous factor is necessary or contingent. I.e. we look at whether the human tendency to destroy panda habitats is necessary or contingent. In so far as the notions of necessity and contingency are meaningful at all, the tendency is contingent, because all evolutionary developments, mutations etc. as well as all human cultural and technological developments are contingent.

It is very very simple to imagine just one change in the evolutionary or cultural development of humanity that would have avoided this situation for the pandas altogether. That's why it is bollocks to say that the pandas are evolutionarily doomed to die off. They are not. It is simply a contingent fact of evolution that this is what it seems to be happening. It is also conceivable, indeed possible (however unlikely), that the extinction might be avoided. Further argument why your proposition is false, if further argument was at all needed.

[Jewcrew]

First, I already knew this. What is your point?

Second, culture and technology are by definition a product of evolution, as we created these things with our intelligence provided to us by our evolution. Once humans got into the area and decided to exploit it, the extinction of the panda without further human intervention became inevitable, unless we decide to abandon our technology.

As everything a human does is merely a product of its evolution, the inability of the panda to adapt to us and its eventual and almost certain extinction is also a product of evolution.

Stop assuming that I'm an idiot simply because I believe in G-d. I know quite a great deal about things like adaptation and evolution. Your arguments here have been based almost entirely on assumptions about my intelligence after I have made it rather clear that I was joking.

So stop being such a douche bag.

You brought in the discussion about there being any kind of relationship between belief in a deity and intelligence. I'm not that invested in that debate either way. In fact, what bothered me is that anyone would think that it was in any way relevant to the matter at hand. For some odd reason you thought that you should bring it in. I have no idea what reason that might be, and I have no real curiosity on the matter either. I was simply happy to humour you and indulge your victim complex. You were essentially baiting, and I was essentially happy to flame a bit. I thought the parameters of our interaction were clear, and we were both consenting parties to the show. But if you are going to get touchy about it, then perhaps you might wish to be more cautious in the future, just in case you keep reaping what you have sowed.

I did no baiting, I brought no debate. I brought a joke. Sorry you have no sense of humour.

Back on topic: My point is that there is nothing intrinsic to the pandas' own evolutionary path that renders them unable to continue existing - e.g. they have not evolved to have penises that are too small for effective copulation or anything like that. From the point of the evolutionary path of pandas, the shock of their diminishing habitat is completely extraneous. Now we look at whether that extraneous factor is necessary or contingent. I.e. we look at whether the human tendency to destroy panda habitats is necessary or contingent. In so far as the notions of necessity and contingency are meaningful at all, the tendency is contingent, because all evolutionary developments, mutations etc. as well as all human cultural and technological developments are contingent.

It is very very simple to imagine just one change in the evolutionary or cultural development of humanity that would have avoided this situation for the pandas altogether. That's why it is bollocks to say that the pandas are evolutionarily doomed to die off. They are not. It is simply a contingent fact of evolution that this is what it seems to be happening. It is also conceivable, indeed possible (however unlikely), that the extinction might be avoided. Further argument why your proposition is false, if further argument was at all needed.

Again, going above and beyond the joke. Yes, if human evolution had change even a small amount, it could have been different for the panda. Could have. As is, they are likely doomed to extinction, barring enough human intervention to prevent this. The loss of habitat, from my understanding, is reaching a critical point that will soon mean the end of wild panda.

This, however, is not the point. The point is that at one mention of theism, even in a joke, and you became irrational. Now screw off and drop it.

[Ad Nihilo]

Again, you are making this about theism, which is completely irrelevant to the thread.

My first contribution to the thread was the following:

Edit: The far more impressive argument against the continued existence of the Panda is that it is a carnivore that eats bamboo. It should be quite obvious that, evolutionarily, it is destined for failure.

Surely, that is evidence that evolutionarily it is an animal that would be destined for success, if only it had the space to copulate in.

So you have an organism which evolved to consume meat. It's environment changed such that it can no longer maintain a meat diet. It changes its habits to eat grass. It looks like it is perfectly capable of sustaining itself eating grass. Which is good, because there's plenty of that as a food source around. Eventually, you can imagine that with sufficient selective pressure, it's digestive system would get progressively better at digesting plants. <- Evolution

Humans move in and cut all the bamboo. There's fuck all else to eat now. <- extinction.

Was the bolded a joke? Because if it was, it was poor. Also, had nothing to do with theism either way.

Second contribution to the thread:

Is this a hoax, then?

Of course... the vistas you see when you look through the lens of a microscope are spontaneously produced by God every time to test your faith, you Godless hippy!

Yes, I was having fun too. Not entirely sure where I've gone irrational here.

You tantrum about how everyone is failing to notice your sense of humour starts with this:

Not at all.

Many birds eat plants, and they're all descended from carnivores.

In case you haven't noticed birds are thriving.

That's... Four of you now that missed the point of the joke?

It's like the word 'G-d' suddenly makes you guys completely irrational.

To which my comment was:

Perhaps we're merely readjusting to the newly stated parameters of rationality.

In case that needs commentary, what I was suggesting is that you were talking bollocks bringing god into shit, and therefore we might be excused for our "irrationality" too.

Further reason to conclude that you are talking out of your arse is that failing to spot humour has nothing to do with rationality or irrationality. It is a matter of perception, and indeed of effective communication. Since just about everyone else here "missed your joke", and was thereafter gratuitously branded as "irrational", perhaps the failing of communication happened at your end, don't you think? Maybe, just maybe, you joke was shit.


And a final note about the point of the thread. The point of the thread is about some curious intricacies of evolutionary mechanics. In that respect, our discussion about the extent to which pandas can be said to be "evolutionary failures" (your words) is relevant to the thread, and on topic. You have now reduced your argument to "likely doomed" and that seems perfectly acceptable to me - a far more conservative claim than "evolutionary failures".

The point is decidedly not your musings about the perceptions surrounding theism and rationality. But time and time again you try to make it so.

Now be good and go eat your banana.

[Xathranaar]

Not at all.

Many birds eat plants, and they're all descended from carnivores.

In case you haven't noticed birds are thriving.

That's... Four of you now that missed the point of the joke?

It's like the word 'G-d' suddenly makes you guys completely irrational.

RARRR! He said God, ATHEIST SMASH!

(in fairness, I think it is because the more you know about evolution, the less amusing comments like this become. A platypus may seem weird to us today, but things like them were the norm for a long, long time.)

[Beiluxia]

Glad I'm not Mr. Krabs, better watch out for one of these.

[Jewcrew]

Again, you are making this about theism, which is completely irrelevant to the thread.

My first contribution to the thread was the following:

Surely, that is evidence that evolutionarily it is an animal that would be destined for success, if only it had the space to copulate in.

So you have an organism which evolved to consume meat. It's environment changed such that it can no longer maintain a meat diet. It changes its habits to eat grass. It looks like it is perfectly capable of sustaining itself eating grass. Which is good, because there's plenty of that as a food source around. Eventually, you can imagine that with sufficient selective pressure, it's digestive system would get progressively better at digesting plants. <- Evolution

Humans move in and cut all the bamboo. There's fuck all else to eat now. <- extinction.

Was the bolded a joke? Because if it was, it was poor. Also, had nothing to do with theism either way.

Second contribution to the thread:

Of course... the vistas you see when you look through the lens of a microscope are spontaneously produced by God every time to test your faith, you Godless hippy!

Yes, I was having fun too. Not entirely sure where I've gone irrational here.

You tantrum about how everyone is failing to notice your sense of humour starts with this:

That's... Four of you now that missed the point of the joke?

It's like the word 'G-d' suddenly makes you guys completely irrational.

To which my comment was:

Perhaps we're merely readjusting to the newly stated parameters of rationality.

In case that needs commentary, what I was suggesting is that you were talking bollocks bringing god into shit, and therefore we might be excused for our "irrationality" too.

Further reason to conclude that you are talking out of your arse is that failing to spot humour has nothing to do with rationality or irrationality. It is a matter of perception, and indeed of effective communication. Since just about everyone else here "missed your joke", and was thereafter gratuitously branded as "irrational", perhaps the failing of communication happened at your end, don't you think? Maybe, just maybe, you joke was shit.


And a final note about the point of the thread. The point of the thread is about some curious intricacies of evolutionary mechanics. In that respect, our discussion about the extent to which pandas can be said to be "evolutionary failures" (your words) is relevant to the thread, and on topic. You have now reduced your argument to "likely doomed" and that seems perfectly acceptable to me - a far more conservative claim than "evolutionary failures".

The point is decidedly not your musings about the perceptions surrounding theism and rationality. But time and time again you try to make it so.

Now be good and go eat your banana.

YES! IT WAS ALL MEANT TO BE FUNNY! Wow, you're ignorant.

And from what I've seen, the point of the thread was not about evolution, but about a creepy thing in Nature. I put forward a funny way of looking at it. You reacted with typical bigotry.

[Ad Nihilo]

Yeah, because I brought god up, baited about it, and called everyone else irrational and bigoted.

Tell me, how do the ladies find your sense of humour?

[Jewcrew]

Yeah, because I brought god up, baited about it, and called everyone else irrational and bigoted.

Tell me, how do the ladies find your sense of humour?

I didn't bait. This was your imagination.

And the ladies enjoy my sense of humour.

[Esternial]

Wow, if that already freaks you out, you really shouldn't browse for human parasites.

For one, there's a nematode than can make your testicle swell up and turn it into the equivalent of a bean bag seat.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Wow, if that already freaks you out, you really shouldn't browse for human parasites.

For one, there's a nematode than can make your testicle swell up and turn it into the equivalent of a bean bag seat.

At this moment in time I wish there were an emoticon representing me clawing my own eyes out.

[Jewcrew]

Wow, if that already freaks you out, you really shouldn't browse for human parasites.

For one, there's a nematode than can make your testicle swell up and turn it into the equivalent of a bean bag seat.

That's a parasite that does that?

[Ad Nihilo]

Yeah, because I brought god up, baited about it, and called everyone else irrational and bigoted.

Tell me, how do the ladies find your sense of humour?

I didn't bait. This was your imagination.

And the ladies enjoy my sense of humour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui1tUS6Ho-c ?

[Kilobugya]

Because evolution is a blind, careless process that explores the design space without any second-thought. You just need a path on which each step is small and a little more efficient at spreading than previous one, and evolution will eventually find it. Attaching outside of a crab, instead of outside of a rock gives you mobility, which allows to spread more. Then, feeding a bit on the crab helps by giving you more food. And then feeding a bit more. Which means you'll have to cheat the crab's immune system. And so on, until you end up with that thing. There is no "why" in nature. There is just a "how". We create "why"s.

[Esternial]

Wow, if that already freaks you out, you really shouldn't browse for human parasites.

For one, there's a nematode than can make your testicle swell up and turn it into the equivalent of a bean bag seat.

That's a parasite that does that?

Yes. Elephantiasis is a result of a parasite crawling in your lymphatic system.

It is delivered per mosquito.