Support NeoGAF

[cpp_is_king]

The act of dogs having sex is a natural function yes but they didn't naturally select each other. A human did based off of traits they prefer, usually for reasons beneficial to the animal.

Natural selection absolutely refers to animals choosing their own mates. It also refers to the quality of the mates they choose and how that determines the survival of their genes and species. Not what we choose for them.

See my edit to the original post. I agree that people and even scientists perhaps use this distinction, but I am not yet convinced that it is a useful distinction, and it seems completely arbitrary to me. I'm not asserting that hundreds of scientists are wrong, but until i see some convincing explanation, I think the distinction is useless.

 

[tcrunch]

I completely disagree. Here in MO we have mountain lions, and we would kill every one of those sons of bitches if we could. Heck in America we've basically killed all of our big game/dangerous game, but we always do this, go to other countries preaching how they should preserve nature, even if its at a cost to the local people.

Most attempts to "kill every one of those sons of bitches" have been demonstrated to be scientifically unsound, because it disrupts existing lion territories and causes more of them to move into the area. Consider this study from Washington: "The odds of increased complaints and livestock depredations increased dramatically (36 to 240%) with increased cougar harvest. We suggest that increased young male immigration, social disruption of cougar populations, and associated changes in space use by cougars - caused by increased hunting resulted in the increased complaints and livestock depredations. Widespread indiscriminate hunting does not appear to be an effective preventative and remedial method for reducing predator complaints and livestock depredations."

I also live in an area with mountain lions and their ability to live here is fiercely defended by many people.

So no, killing every animal you see is not always a solution, and it is not a universally held opinion in areas inhabited by large predators.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Most attempts to "kill every one of those sons of bitches" have been demonstrated to be scientifically unsound, because it disrupts existing lion territories and causes more of them to move into the area.

That just means you didn't kill enough though, right? Once it goes down to 0 (i.e. "every one of those sons of bitches") there won't be any left to move into the area.

Anyway, you're talking about people who live in huts built from twigs and mud, with little access to modern technology. You're not going to get them to read some scientific study. They see a problem -- lions threatening their safety and that of their children -- and they do the most logical thing, kill the lions.

And you read about this stuff on the news, where there was a bear attack ina park, and the park rangers go hunt down the bear and euthanize it because it killed someone. I mean, ya think? Ya think a fucking bear killed someone? Big surprise right? So yea, I would say we don't really practice what we preach, and then chastise others for also not practicing what we preach.

 

[tcrunch]

That just means you didn't kill enough though, right? Once it goes down to 0 (i.e. "every one of those sons of bitches") there won't be any left to move into the area.

I don't know how you would expect to kill every one of them, they are extremely hard to hunt in the first place. Many ranchers try to propose snares/traps to counter this, which is even more indiscriminate in terms of what is hunted and introduces the possibility of bycatch. You could theoretically nuke Missouri and then there would be no mountain lions left (in Missouri).

 

[Joni]

Natural selection is a process that takes place on the cellular level when reproduction occurs.

That is simply not what natural selection means. Natural selection is the concept that can also be defined as survival of the fittest. Random mutations occur in the cells, and those random mutation that are most beneficial to the survival are kept. You are completely, completely, completely wrong about the concept. I suggest reading Survival of the Species. There is no point to going further on this argument.

And yes, I know that's contrary to what I said earlier, but I already admitted I was wrong earlier. You could breed humans and dogs to together, and if you could somehow make offspring come out of that, I would argue that natural selection still takes place because it has nothing to do with how or why two things are reproducing, and only to do with the cellular aspects of the reproductive process.

And that has nothing to do with natural selection, which is just a concept to identify different kinds of evolution. You can also have artificial evolution (we breed dogs, we select crops to survive longer, ...) and random selection (something changes but neither is beneficial, so both stay around). You seem to be comparing evolution to intelligent design.

Natural selection absolutely refers to animals choosing their own mates. It also refers to the quality of the mates they choose and how that determines the survival of their genes and species. Not what we choose for them.

It is not about sexual reproduction, it is about those animals surviving that are most likely to get to the sexual reproduction stage. Look at this very simplified example of natural selection in giraffes, often used to illustrate natural selection. The short giraffe can't reach food, so it dies out. It doesn't die out because it is not selected to mate.