endangered clams and mussels

Ok, I just know y'all were waiting for me to get back from my mini vacation to give my 2p...

If you believe in evolution, then, by default, you must believe that man is part of nature.

Since mankind is part of nature, then his involvement with his environment is a natural process. If man causes another animal to become extinct, then it is part of nature.

Millions of species have become extinct before man ever fell out of the trees.

There are more species on this planet than an anytime in it's history. Just because one species goes extinct, doesn't mean that a new one won't take it's place.

The world won't end because species go extinct. It didn't 65 million years ago (or during any other period of mass extinction), it won't because man kills off a spotted owl or a mussel.


Oh, one more point...
To those environmentalists, what would happen if we created the perfect insecticide that only worked on cockroaches? When we got down to a couple of dozen cockroaches, would you be out there defending them?

 

Turtlepits what did the mussels look like? Were the small yellow clams with white places near the top of the shell or were semi-elongated squarish type brown shells?

Yellow colored clam link for picture from USGS
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=92

Other mussels from museum of natural science in Raleigh. PDF file with pictures by species.

http://www.naturalsciences.org/research/inverts/BivalvePlates.pdf

If you saw the small yellow clams, then there is no problem. They are an invasive species from Asia. Some people harvest them and eat them. If it was any other species, contact Art Bogan at the museum.

You can find his contact information at this link.
http://www.naturalsciences.org/research/inverts/bogan.html

-April

 

Man is the only species to be able to manipulate his environment on such a level.

Don't foget about all of the living things that eat cockroaches to survive. Therein lies the balance. When one species is destroyed or made extinct it usually has some sort of ramification on another, and another, and so on.

What side of the previous 4042 evolution debates did you fall on? This is not a dig, but an honest question.

 

How do you know?

I believe in "Intelligent Design" (aka creationism). I do not, however, believe in the literal translation of the Bible. That is to say, I do not believe the Earth (and the Universe) is 6,000 years old.

 

Do you know any other species that are building roads or bridges using concrete or asphalt? My point is that man is the only species that alters nature for his own benefit to such a level thereby introducing the debate whether this process is still natural.

Does intelligent design allow for humans to 'drop' from trees? This would insinuate that the evolutionary process is involved in intelligent design and I thought intelligent design disputed evolution.

 

Army ants will wipe out an entire forest during their migration. Taken the relative size and numbers, they are far ahead of mankind in modifying their environment.

But the point is, whatever man does, since he's part of nature, then it's natural.

Unless you don't believe man is part of nature. If this is what you believe, why is he different than other animals in nature? What makes man special and above all others?

The original statement of mine was a non sequitur. Please refer to your dictionary (the one without pictures) for a definition.

 

They might eat everything in their path, but they do not manipulate their environment for their own personal comfort on a scale like humans do. The only other creature I can think of off hand are termites.

Well thanks for getting snotty. I was simpy asking a question. Do any intelligent design theories include evolution of some sort?

 

So by that definition, is there anything at all that is not "natural"?

 

lmao

 

"Scale" is what I was talking about. Given their small scale, relative to humans, and Army Ants do much more damage.

Just replying to what I perceived as unnecessary dwelling on a single throw-away comment.

Yes, but (again) you're dwelling on a non sequitur.

I'm sure there is (if I thought about it long enough), but man isn't one of them.

 

I'll forgive your blantant contradiction in intelligent design and evolution and stay with this main point:

Ants do not necessarliy manipulate their environment through the damage they create. Sure they change it though destruction, but not to suit their own needs such as comfort, convenience, entertainment, etc. Humans are the only species that does this.

 

Talk about contradiction! They don't manipulate it they only change it.

A full belly is not comfortable? Having a ready food supply without the need to forage for miles is not convenient?

As far as entertainment, well, unless you can read an ant's mind, you really can't say that.

As far as I know, the only thing humans do that no other animals do is create art. (Caveat: Art is subjective. Maybe animals do create art but humans don't recognize it as such.)

Animals create tools, modify their environment for comfort, communicate with each other. In all my years of watching nature programs, there's nothing (except art, as noted above) different between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

I don't consider eating to survive as comfort and convenience. These are standards/givens in the natural world. These ants simply move to another food source. Humans alter their enviroment and grow their own food - hence manipulating their environment.

Then we build roads so we can sell food to other humans and buy wood to build a WalMart.

 

Whatever

 

I realize some do, but... NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT HUMANS DO!!!!

Termites build homes to stay cool and damp and other animals dig holes...I get it.

 

Actually, the more I think about it this doesn't quite fit. See the ants here enjoy a symbiotic relationship with the aphids. While interesting, they are not altering the landscape or their environment.

 

That is so cuteeeee!

 

A man in a bar turns to the woman next to him and says, "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" She immediately answers, "Yes." Then the man says, "How about for $20?". She gets a angered look in her eyes and says, "What do you think I am?" The man answers, "We already know what you are, now we're just negotiating price."

So, other animals do it, but not on the same level as humans. So, where is the cut off point? How much is man allowed to affect his environment before he no longer is considered part of nature?