Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 23 2008,17:16)|
|Do you realize how easily all multicellular life could have been wiped out by either rapid environmental changes or imbalance in nature?|
Life is adaptable. This is a well observed fact. To wipe out everything, you have to change every environment on the planet, beyond the range that ALL of it's inhabitants can reproduce in, more rapidly than they can adapt to. There are relatively few phenomena that can do that to something the size of an entire planet, but we've come pretty close a number of times.
Why hasn't one type of organisms taken over the world?
Wow. That's astonishingly dumb, even for you.
Please stop and think about that for a second. You should be able to see why it is utterly, mindbogglingly clueless. Here are some hints:
- Is the global environment uniform ?
- Is it static ?
- Are the species that make up certain ecosystems isolated from other similar ecosystems ?
- How frequently are mutations observed to occur ?
- Does the fitness of an organism in an ecosystem depend on the other organisms present ?
- Is an adaptation that is beneficial in one environment potentially disadvantageous in others ?
Why haven't we ended up back at square one - ever? The fact that life always seem to have just the right combination to flourish and maintain balance on this planet is evidence of planning.
More than 99% of species that ever existed are extinct. How is that "just the right combination" ? How about 60+% of living species dying off in a single event ? That's flourishing and maintaining balance ?
How about radical changes in the chemistry of the envronment ? How is that maintaining balance ?