Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand Tree Stuck In Evolutionary Time Warp
sciencehabit writes "A eucalyptus-like tree from New Zealand is still waging a battle that should have ended over 500 years ago. The tree continues to sport evolutionary adaptations, such as barbed leaves, to protect it from a large, flightless bird known as a moa. There's just one problem: the moa went extinct around 1500 AD."
So it is less expansive for transexuals to get boobs !
Did you learn that in bible-thumper class.
No, it is a conclusion derived from the application of common sense --trees do not **know** anything.
That was the most idiotic explain of Evolution I've ever heard
That is because The Theory of Evolution is an idiotic explanation. It is improbable, not logical, and completely ludicrous which this article is just one of many heaped upon many more testifying to that fact. There are just too many of these "lucky mutations" to be attributed to just chance such as spiders able to spin webs in the dark, not needing to be taught or even having to see their handiwork.
From the ScieneNOW article: Many scientists think that the tree evolved these metamorphoses to avoid moas
These "scientists", whoever they are, infer that 1) trees have the ability to know what kind of creature is eating its leaves and 2) trees can modify its genetic code to counter them. That is absolutely absurd. It is a fable.
If all the tree is just the result of random mutations which resulted in barbed leaves then why talk about the tree 'defending itself" and so forth?" Don't these "scientists" know their own definition of evolution? Why didn't they then state that the tree underwent a number of mutations resulting in barbed leaves resulting in the fortutious happenstance that moa birds were prevented from eating all the leaves, or only able to eat some of the leaves."? Why?
And how do we know that the barbs weren't beneficial, providing shelter for moa nestlings or other creatures? For all we know the leaves are indigestible or even poisonous to the moa so the barbs are there to prevent the moa from harming itself.
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver --Proverbs 25:11
Funny enough capitalism has done exactly the opposite, using genocide to remove the non-greedy from the gene pool. How many lives were taken by America's official policy of genocide will never be known as there were no census's at the time but may well of numbered in the 10's of millions as well and would have if there had been enough people to kill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I do not disagree with your points on the role of greed in a population, but I do think your missing my point...
So, I put to you this question: are you willing to give up your sense of self, all of your individuality, and all of your personal freedom, in order to live in this greed-free society?
If so, you would make a very good communist, and I wish you the best of luck.
Its not about curing individual greed - impossible goal and as you point out, has serious beneficial side effects (in addition to being a great motivator). Nor did my point have anything to do with giving up the individuals sense of self. Its also as far from Communism as you can get - competition is a powerful and in most cases, efficient, resource allocation system. One that communism can't come close to.
Let put it another way: Are you willing to accept corporate/state sponsored greed, operating on a much higher level than individual greed, if it guarantees creating another financial crisis down the road where many will lose their life savings (again). How about moving forward drilling for oil in protected nature sanctuaries within arctic limits even while scientific community is coming to a consensus on the terrible repercussions to us all of following this line of corporate profit. What about war for profit's sake?
Going by your post and if I jumped to conclusions, I might get the impression that your comfortable with these particular side effects, accept them as a given, or feel we do not have the intelligence as a society to recognize them as a "not good thing" side-effect. If it's the latter case, I think your right.