Is this debate over? Well, I'll type anyway:Angry:
. As, Malcolm said, none of us will really ever know. So, without taking things too seriously and in the spirit of meaningless debate:
arach said:
Secondly, Homo Sapiens would not die because of another Ice Age. As I already pointed out, we survived one (the one that ended 10.000 years ago, remember?). We now also have the technology to build bunkers and knit blankets if it's too cold for us.
etc etc...
And even if there would be a natural disaster in an enourmous way, and it would kill millions of people, it would surely be a tragic coincidence, but humans will live on. There are thousand millions of us, all over the planet.
While I agree with the basic point that you're making, I think that's going a bit too far. Even with modern technology, humans certainly aren't immune to weather. It isn't unimaginable that the entire human population will be wiped out by severe climatic changes. But, given technology, it is true that humans would be one of the LAST species to die out. In this case, almost every other species, and certainly all the big ones we think of, would have to be wiped out before humans are. So, to refute Malcolm's original post, it becomes a doomsday scenario that makes the fate of humans in particular irrelevant and the question of a succeeding master species absurd (because evolution will start all over again and the results are far from predictable). The same thing applies for your other two scenarios.
yardgames said:
Thanks, but I'm still confused. I understand what it is and am not doubting it occurance. I just don't get why. Like I said earlier, perhaps it's a chain reaction.
J. said:
But the change is made so slowly, we hardly notice it. our air is poisioned, it is bad, all the stuff that isn't oxygen. We can breathe it, can't we? more methene, sulfur and all the other bad stuff is released in the air every day. e still live, even if those are bad for humans. Slowly, we will turn to "everything but oxygen" breathers instead of "oxygen" breathers.
Actually, judging by the huge jumps in asthma rates, I'm not very sure that we have evolved to deal with polution. It may be more a matter of not having reached the threshold yet.
And how much are we actually evolving that much? That's why I was so concerned about punctuated equilibrium. Maybe all these changes are nothing compared to what's coming. We're in a pretty lulled/static period now. Maybe we're headed for drastic changes soon.
But, I still like your and Viking's point about evolution vs. extinction. I guess this part of the debate boils down to if we would consider the new species to be a replacement or a succession. And, the term human is not really species specific.
arach said:
Like 500 years ago or so, people were much smaller than nowadays. Of course we can say that these "dwarves" died out. But the truth is that they grew taller from generation to generation.
No. First, the primary reason for the enormous increase in height is nutrition. But, I'll say that was just a bad example and continue. External changes such as height, eye color etc. are quite different from separate species. What determines if two animals are part of the same species is if they can produce viable offspring. Because of this narrowed requirement and punctuated equilibrium, the change would supposedly occur over a relatively short period of time and probably due to a mutation. It would be a different species. Humans would be extinct. But, to support your point, would the genetic specifics matter? Or would the new species merely be seen as a successor?
yardgames said:
Anything that ruins our computer network can kill us. We have technology, as has been pointed out. But we've become too dependent on the technology and without it we will die.
1) Like I said earlier, we're talking about the enitre human race here, not just developed countries. Not everyone is that dependant on technology.
2) Even computer dependant countries would survive. Even though they might be out of touch with 'the old ways', detailed records exist of the industrial revolution etc. They could rebuild that.
.: (.: = therefore - I find that a lot of Americans get confused by the symbol) We would NOT have to live like cavemen. That takes care of Malcolm's point about large species too.
Malcolm said:
The one that appeared a million years ago was Homo antecesor, not sapiens.
That makes much more sense. In fact, I've heard that before.
J. said:
Scientists predict that we will have a 300 to 1 chance that an astroid will hit us in 2012
Wasn't there one sometime ago that had a 60 to 1 shot. I remember they were following some asteroid very carefully. Maybe that one turned away finally. Again, though, technology would make our situation different from that of the dinosaurs and we would be one of the last species to die out. In which case,...I've said it enough times.