How was a stable ecosystem achieved through evolution?
If a species required to keep another in check, in order to prevent other species going extinct, due to over hunting, took millions of years to evolve, why was there always a balance? Also, if there weren't carnivores to keep herbivores in check, how was plant life not extremely in danger of being wiped out?
Yet it seems the ecosystem was always stable, and the only thing which has ever been a detriment to it, is Human life. Which is mostly caused by over hunting and pollution.
Another question, how does evolution explain the Cambrian explosion? It can't.
Aside from that, there are many things which go against evolution.
Why have we stopped pursuing truth? I thought Science attempts to better itself, yet the evidence against evolution keeps piling up, and we continue to feed it to young minds when we know it is not correct.
>>7694843 - Ecosystems are never stable, as they are always changing to some degree small or large. A truly stable ecosystem is technically not possible, as if a stable ecosystem is artificially created it would destabilize once the artificial control is lifted.
- Species don't keep other species in check, as what this describes is artificial selection not natural selection. Evolution by natural selection occurs as a result of various factors like competition, adaptation to new niches, and large changes in the inhabited ecosystem.
- Plant life regulates itself through ground surface area and access to sunlight. If there is no more surface area for seeds to grow into plants on, then those seeds don't grow into plants. This occurs in rainforests today.
- Humans being a detriment to ecosystems is true if you are considering biodiversity. Species that go extinct usually do not have that high of a fitness in respect to other species that do not go extinct with human settlement anyways.
>>7694797 The more intelligent you are the more money you make, the more money you make the hotter chicks you can get, the hotter chicks you can get, the more attractive your children will be coupled with your intelligence.
if we agree we should try and build one why where would you place it?/ route it?
if its stationary why would you not want it on the earths axis on the south pole in Antarctica? this eliminates the moving platform problem and no terrorist is going to be able to get to it, who would run it? I would think US/NATO with UN backing.
i remember reading on a technology to move an object by having a laser beam at it, perhaps transport the pod/vessel that way down the tether? same... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>7694651 but it make travel to space economically viable, otherwise its like 10k per kg correct? do you think rocketry is the answer? to you think it will get cheaper? how do you propose to either fix the problem or what would your alternative be?
/sci/ needs to think Suppose I have thought up an integer between 0 and 15 inclusive. Is it possible to deduce the number by asking me seven true or false questions if I may lie on at most one of the questions?
Will post the solution once enough thought has been generated!
>The point is that science tends to ignore other forms of "knowing" like intuition or reflection, and base itself around complete adherence to empiricism, even though empiricism has plenty of arguments against itself.
How do I bring up the craziness of considering "intuition" to contribute to "knowledge"?
It's not, really. All knowledge is intuition in a sense. when you get down to it, everything you learn comes from a long chain of sources that need to be trusted. A scientist does an experiment, writes a paper, the paper is published, your computer reproduces it for you and your eyes tell you what they see and your brain interprets the meaning. Every one of those links HAS been wrong before, so when you say you know something you're really just making a statement that you trust that the chain of sources was completely reliable for that specific piece of knowledge.... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>7694515 >How do I bring up the craziness of considering "intuition" to contribute to "knowledge"? Intuition will completely fail in areas or situations which we are not used to, or which are new to us. Just take relativity. We are evolved animals, living at sub-relativistic velocities, so of course we couldn't have guessed relativistic effects from our intuition alone (at least, very unlikely). And the results being "unintuitive" certainly won't make them any less correct for the same reason.
But of course intuition CAN be used to formulate new laws which may turn out to be correct, and I wouldn't say intuition tends to be ignored. It's just that those laws would have to be tested, either way. Because, surprise, Newtonian physics simply isn't applicable in every situation, even though some would say it is the most intuitive.
As for reflection, you can of course reflect your own misconceptions and prejudices back and forth against each other, how do you know you're right? Can work or fail.
> even though empiricism has plenty of arguments against itself. That is also true, like "only things that can be empirically proven are acceptable knowledge" can't be empirically proven.
I'm telling my friend that it doesn't feel like it, but the air around you is pushing you so hard from all directions that if you removed the air above you, you would get pushed so hard that you'll fly into space by the air below you.
He says: "1. theres no air below you" "2. it's gravity that holds you back on the ground" "3. air pressure isn't that high pressure"
>>7694455 Well, if you assume the pressure below acts on an area of 0.1m2, you face a force of about ~100,000N, where gravity only provides ~1,000N for a 100kg person. By removing the air above, you'll experience a net force upwards.
As removing the air above someone is a rather strange scenario, I'm not quite sure if it really could get you to space, but it certainly would lift someone.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.