Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
For whatever "important" means in this context, but diversity is certainly vital for life in general to persist on this planet. There are numerous habitats and plenty of nutrient sources on Earth. In the course of evolution, life has found many different strategies to occupy almost all possible ecological niches. That`s only possible if there`s a lot of diversity. Birds fly, fishes swim, worms are soil dwellers, microorganisms are virtually everywhere... this list is endless, let alone the interaction of many species!
I would rather you clarified your question more.
Diversity is a pretty broad term without context.
A couple of instances
We have, over the last tens of thousands of years, developed some very impressive crop yielding plants but it comes with a risk. If we grow mostly one variety of wheat for bread making (monoculture) and a virulent disease evolves that destroys that species, we could lose almost all our production in a couple of growing seasons.
This is a dangerous lack of crop diversity and something which we are currently trying to address.
Growing many different species of grain and separating each growing area from those of the same variety, would allow more chance to eradicate infected plants before the spread got out of control.
The interaction and interdependence of fauna and flora in any habitat is still more complicated than we can understand fully. Every time we lose a species from a habitat (a reduction of diversity) there is a risk that the whole ecosystem there could collapse with many species following.
Every species lost increases the fragility of life on the planet.
Life on earth will be fine of course - however badly we screw things up, it will recover and diversity will return. It just won't be able to support us. We'll go extinct.
According to the "science" of evolution, in a meaningless universe and as a result of blind chance, some lifeless mud miraculously turned into the first so-called simple cell (yeah right, just like a space shuttle is "simple").
This means that this alleged first organism was nothing more than a mindless collection of moleclues that formed a mindless biological machine. Since it was a mindless machine, it had no consciousness, no awareness that it was alive and no urge to survive.
Here are a few questions that some evolution cult member(s) out there might want to provide (rational) answers to: Why did this first mindless machine (the "first simple cell") reproduce? Is reproduction something that mindless machines normally do? Why would a mindless machine even WANT to reproduce, since it had no awareness that it was even alive?
Even if life began as one cell that reproduced, would it not be reasonable to suspect - or for the more intelligent thinkers, to conclude - that the fact of reproduction destroys any possibility that life began as a mindless accident?
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests