What if weeds high effect is a defensive mecahnism and its controlling all of us

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by lasklaf, May 12, 2015.

  1. You are pretty well verse in logical fallacies. Strawman much? I didn't say I agree with everything the OP states, only that he posed the idea of it being a defensive mechanism, which it is. Not necessarily to stop consumption by humans, but for a whole variety of other reason.
     
  2. #42 Green Wizard, May 15, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2015
    No, I am not.
     
    Natural selection does not care if humans, monkeys, dogs, whatever manipulates the environment, shows preference to one organism over the other and in so doing begins to adapt and change with that organism over the course of time. That is the very definition of evolution. Something changes in responce to the enviroment or interaction with another species.
     
    Dogs have evolved because we helped shape their current form. That's evolution. That's natural selection. Humans are every bit as natural as nature ever created.
     
  3. Everything you said on page 2, good stuff ;)
     
  4. #44 AnonymousMarkus, May 15, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2015
    No, dogs have evolved because we bred them to show certain genetic triats until they we're so far removed from Canis Lupus that we gave them an entirely different species classification as Canis Familiaris. That is selective breeding. Manmade evolution, its not the same thing as Charles Darwin's natural evolution.
     
  5. We call cars one thing and trains different things because they aren't the same. We call evolution one thing and husbandry different things because they aren't the same, either. Natural selection is evolution. Selective breeding isn't. We have bred animals and plants that are anything but "the fittest" that would be utterly incapable of competing for survival in nature. That isn't evolution. That is selective breeding and gene manipulation. They are not the same mechanism as "evolution" although they are very similar.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  6. Bullseye.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  7.  
    First off there is no such thing as natural evolution. There's natural selection which is a precursor to evolution if conditions remain consistent over time.
     
    Everything you said above is consistent with natural selection. Whether by the hands of man, or the hands of time and unconscious circumstance, evolution is not concerned with how it's defined.
     
  8. #48 Messiah Decoy, May 15, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2015
    Think about how plants spread their seed. They cover the seeds in desirable wrapping (fruit) to make animals want them.

    Why is it so hard to believe "the high" has a similar yet far more ambitious purpose?
     
  9. #49 papabull, May 15, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2015
    Everything That was said is consistent with NATURAL selection except that human manipulation isn't NATURAL. It is "human" and that keeps it from being "natural".




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  10. #50 AnonymousMarkus, May 15, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2015
     
    Yes, I typed natural evolution when I meant selection. Doesn't change the fact that you still can't tell the difference between natural selection and artificial selection. Everything I said above was consistent with artificial selection.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Natural_selection
     
    At this point you are basically having a semantics argument. A literal comparison would be to say that pollution is man-made, but since we are a part of nature, it's a natural process. Semantically, yes. Pragmatically, no.
     
  11. #51 papabull, May 15, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2015
    If we ate the buds and shat the seeds about randomly to spread them across the Earth, I'd be inclined to say same/same but purpose implies intent and design. The "high" does result in cannabis being sought after and cultivated by man but cannabis was and is thriving as a weed without man planting bunches of it that he manipulates to have no seeds at all. I'd love to see cannabis become even more manipulated, personally. Imagine buds so dense with awesome super-high octane crystals that smoking buds are like doing dabs. ;)


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  12. The trichomes are absolutely a defense mechanism.
     
     
    It just worked out differently.   We figured out that we love the trichomes, along with the seeds and the fibres from the plant, so we brought it with us and spread it across the whole planet, thus ensuring it's survival.
     
  13.  
    Yes, semantics and the definition of "natural".
     
    Somehow science, probably through the traditions of religion, identify humans separately from the rest of the world, as if we are somehow unnatural. We give ourselves way to much credit for the manipulation of this planet and it's inhabitants that everything we do is somehow unnatural. I disagree with this position. Our actions on this planet is every bit as natural as the ways of the ants and the bees, the lions, and the rats and on and on.
     
    Again i will stress that evolution is not concerned with how or what made it evolve. Whether that be a comet the size of South Carolina crashing into the earth, my preference for chicks with big asses, or breeding cute little fuzy animals.
     
    And what is unnatural about selective breeding anyway? Birds, insects, shit every animate being selectively breeds. Just like my preference for chicks with big asses. Natural selection, and hopefully for my posterity, an evolutionary common trait.
     
  14. #54 papabull, May 15, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2015
    I think that assessments spot on.

    I'd argue that you have it backwards. The pragmatic perspective (philosophical might be more correct) is that since man is a product of nature, man's effluent is as natural as that of elephants, bees, beavers or volcanoes. But the semantics of "pollution" require that it be "man made" instead of natural. Semantics pertains to the meaning of words and pollution means "man made waste" instead of just"waste". I believe your thinking was quite correct but you inverted it when you typed it.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  15. Selective breeding by man is unnatural because it is by man instead of nature. Manmade is an antonym of natural. I think we would understand life a lot better if we didn't insist on framing reality in the dichotomy of "man made" vs "natural" but we do.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  16. #56 AnonymousMarkus, May 15, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2015
     
    No, my thinking was correct, it's just how I used my words that threw you off. I meant pragmatically to this given conversation. Meaning, that we as a humans have chosen to view ourselves as seperate but still apart of the natural world because we can influence the natural world in a way that no other species can.
     
    Pollution is not a man-made concept. An earthquake erupts and pollutes the sky and surrounding landmass/water around it with deadly ash.
     
    "Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat or light. Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants."
     
     
    Science recognizes that we are a part of the natural world but have such influence over our environment that we have to view ourselves seperately. We could literally kill 99% of every species on this planet if we chose to with nuclear missles, that is not natural. No matter how you look at it, our conciousness has seperated us from all other species on our planet. So yes, when we personally influence the evolution of a species, it's considered artificial because it didn't happen by natural means without us having caused it directly.
     
    Sexual selection is a type of natural selection. Selective breeding is caused specifically by man. Also my man, I'm not disagreeing with you about it being a form of evolution. It's just not natural selection. I did say earlier that we evolved wolves into dogs. ;)
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
     
  17.  
    I see your point, however i would caution on assuming the conscious states of other beings not being able to selectively breed for desired traits. Can birds manipulate DNA in lab? No, but they can choose between how smart, how colorful, singing ability, hunting ability, nest building skills and so forth. In this case, sexual selection seems more like selective breeding, or at least the line between the two is thinner.
     
  18. #58 papabull, May 15, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2015
    With that qualification, we're in agreement. :)


    I disagree in principle because without the influence of man, there aren't any "contaminants" and, therefore, no pollution. Without man's influence, light is only light, not "light pollution". Without man, a volcano is just a volcano. It naturally redistributes matter around space just as countless other natural processes do and there is no one to care what form the nature of that space takes. Like the word "natural", the word "pollution" is only meaningful because it puts the perspective of the discussion in the realm of HUMAN outcome, action and experience. What is "pollution" because of our existence is just "some sort of matter" without us.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  19. I can agree to that. We specifically define selective breeding as being man-made, so in that sense, it's not the same. But, I see your point about the similarity between sexual selection and selective breeding. I think the main difference between the two is sexual selection is for propagation of the species, the other is propogation of specific traits for specific man-made reasons.
     
  20. And in natural selection, the individuals within the species do the breeding selection. If we humans dictate the pairings of other species, it isn't "natural" and, therefore, would not be evolution but rather cultivation.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     

Share This Page