@lemon-lime said... in a system with a single predator species and a single prey species.
Predator and prey numbers go up and down.
Fewer sheep leads to fewer wolves, and fewer wolves allow for more sheep to breed which in turn means more food for the wolves, so more wolves are able to propagate leading to a drop in sheep numbers... and so forth and so on.
Population of one goes up causing the population of the other to go down, then the up goes down causing the down to go up... and continuously seesaws back and forth in this manner.
Nature is considerably more complex than that.
@wolfgang59 saidThat's right. With several predator and prey species, where there is more than one that can prey on (or be preyed on) by the others, there exists a very real possibility of extinction... and preditors can prey on other preditors as well.
... in a system with a single predator species and a single prey species.
Nature is considerably more complex than that.
When considering all of life, everywhere on earth, the interrelated complexities are mind boggling.
@handyandy saidWolves don't climb very well
Modern sheep have human protection. Before they were domesticated, wild sheep were probably more rugged and more of a match for wolves and other predators.
https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/bighorn-sheep-ram-rock-face-cliff-yellowstone-national-park-wyoming-usa-68552376.jpg
It's a good question because the top of the food chain for millions of years was just a Megalodon or a Spinosaurus.
It is not uncommon to hear evolutionary scholars emphasize how it was a risk and a daring move to go from relying on physical adaptation to relying on intellect, just like the shift from hunter gatherer to agrarian life.
But I have found faith in God is something given to those who ask for it, and these arguments are like the arguments in any other field: most people choose to believe the line of thought that they want to.
@philokalia saidOf course, belief in a creator could be helpful to those who choose to consider nature and the progression of living things in a non-scientific context.
But I have found faith in God is something given to those who ask for it, and these arguments are like the arguments in any other field: most people choose to believe the line of thought that they want to.
Scientists and experts only discuss their theories after origin of life. They conveniently pick up the discussion with evolution, and ignore how it all started in the first place.
When they do discuss origin of life, their sentences start like this:
"Maybe"....."we think"...."it's possible"...."probably"....."it could be"...."it's likely"......etc. etc.
The stubbornness and egos are alarming, and the level of denial is high.
This is fact, and cannot be disputed.
@philokalia saidWhat nonsense!
It is not uncommon to hear evolutionary scholars emphasize how it was a risk and a daring move to go from relying on physical adaptation to relying on intellect, just like the shift from hunter gatherer to agrarian life.
What risk?
Who took the risk?
And ridiculous to compare an evolutionary
change in species to a sociological change.
@chaney3 saidNo they don't.
Scientists and experts only discuss their theories after origin of life.
Evolutionists do, because the origin of life is not their area of expertise.
Do you expect all scientists to be experts in all fields?
@HandyAndy
It's not random and it isn't also necessarily survival of the fittest. Some evolutionary changes are slight regressions, not enhancements.
@sonhouse saidCan you cite an example?
@HandyAndy
It's not random and it isn't also necessarily survival of the fittest. Some evolutionary changes are slight regressions, not enhancements.
@lemon-lime saidIn terms of evolution faster antelopes means faster lions means faster antelopes means faster lions. Species adapt, or not, to their environment. But yes there do tend to be correlations regarding numbers of prey and predator. A bad harvest due to drought or blight means fewer Homo sapiens.
Predator and prey numbers go up and down.
Fewer sheep leads to fewer wolves, and fewer wolves allow for more sheep to breed which in turn means more food for the wolves, so more wolves are able to propagate leading to a drop in sheep numbers... and so forth and so on.
Population of one goes up causing the population of the other to go down, then the up goes down causing the down to go up... and continuously seesaws back and forth in this manner.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28802
@chaney3 saidActually, 'ego' kicks in when you think you have the answers you clearly do not, and speak in definitive terms.
Scientists and experts only discuss their theories after origin of life. They conveniently pick up the discussion with evolution, and ignore how it all started in the first place.
When they do discuss origin of life, their sentences start like this:
"Maybe"....."we think"...."it's possible"...."probably"....."it could be"...."it's likely"......etc. etc.
The stubbornness and egos are alarming, and the level of denial is high.
This is fact, and cannot be disputed.
Origin of life? Nobody knows for certain. I have far more respect for somebody who acknowledges that rather than making ludicrous truth claims. 'Maybe,' 'we believe,' are admirable terms. 'Goddidit' not so much.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSomething tells me you will enjoy this.
I read somewhere (not the Guardian) that 99 percent of all creatures who ever existed are now extinct.
I'm sure something else will rise up to take our place when we are wiped out by a meteor or poison ourselves with plastic.