Posted on 20 October 2012. Tags: Bear, evolution, Extinction, knowledge, niche, offspring, panda, panda bear, physical traits, purpose, sesamoid bone, thumb, true purpose, Variation
Meaning, does evolution occur with a purpose? I understand that there is no true purpose as to why evolution takes place, but, to my knowledge, it can be labeled as a process. For example, the panda bear with the “thumb” (a.k.a. the sesamoid bone). Would the panda acquire that trait that would cause the bone to evolve if he had not migrated away from his original niche? The environment does stem to the members of the species adapting some physical traits, but their offspring will not automatically be born with those traits. Thus, what I am essentially asking is does evolution occur for a reason? Does variation play a significant role since without variation, all species members of a species would be the same and if they were all identical and they shared traits selected for, then that would cause that group of species to disappear? Therefore, evolution occurs to prevent extinction? Am I right? I know this is kind of confusing, but some please, please help me!!
Posted in Affiliate Marketing 101
Posted on 15 September 2012. Tags: Anybody, Google, niche, panda, penguin, way, Website
Trying to rank for what should be quite easy niche and its not happening, Or if anybody has got some tips on the best way to SEO a website,would be great
Posted in Affiliate Marketing 101
Posted on 04 August 2011. Tags: animal population, bamboo, blandings turtle, Burmese, burmese pythons, cross the line, ecological significance, giant panda, invasive species, panda, protection, relevance theory, sexual maturity, theory, tons of money
This question here I believe is a big one that the entire human race needs to rethink.
Which animals deserve protection? How do we choose which animals to protect by law and which ones not to protect? Which animals should we rightly kill and when does killing cross the line? The human race appears confused when it comes to these questions as we have a large tendency to contradict ourselves ( of course we contradict ourselves in most everything we do! ) Here is a proposed way to answer these questions.
RELAVANCE!!!! If an ant is killed either on accident, on purpose, or eaten for food. Its life can be easily replaced by another in the hive. Ants reproduce quickly so a single casualty is not much of a loss. The blandings turtle takes up to 15 years to reach sexual maturity. A single death of an adult or juvinile blandings turtle has the potential to influence the entire population! Therefore by the relevance theory the blandings turtle should recieve more legal protection than the ant.
All theories have flaws when it comes to philosophy! Of course I know we should never stick with just one but bring together a diversity of ideas to formulate our own personal opinion. Here are some of the flaws I have identified with the Relevance theory.
1. Endangered species- If an animal population is dying out who is to say if the species is worth saving or not? Once a species becomes rare its ecological significance usualy drops.
Ex: the giant panda feeds mainly on bamboo, which was previously a plentyful resource. Today bamboo is scarce so humans spend tons of money trying to save the pandas. Because the need for a creature to keep bamboo in check is gone, the panda no longer serves as important of a niche. How do we decide if it is worth saving or not?
2. Invasive species- when are they beneficial and when aren’t they? Should we judge this solely on how well it fits into a new niche?
Ex: Burmese pythons are loose in southern United States. Some argue that they do not belong and eat animals that shouldn’t be eaten. Others argue that humans destroyed other predators that previously fed on these animals and the snakes are taking advantage of a wide open niche. What should we do?
3. Personal preference- don’t lie to yourself, humans favor some animals over others just because we want to. Cats and dogs will always have more protection than snakes and insects. When is it approperiate to listen to reason and when is it aproperiate to listen to our personal desires?
Ex: Lets say a feral cat comes by and eats a pet duck. Now lets say a burmese python comes by and eats a pet duck. For killing the snake I would be praised for removing an innvasive species, for killing the cat I could be arrested for animal cruelty.
I tried to keep this question neutral ( although bias is inevitable ). When answering look at these details as topics for discusion, do not hold them as my own personal opinions!
If you also believe this is an important thing for humans to consider star this question as important!
Posted in Affiliate Marketing 101