FOOD CHAINS

FOOD CHAINS Rate Topic:

#21 8 February 2012 - 01:38 PM CaptainPanic

Usually himself

njaohnt, on 8 February 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

Why?

Come on, make a little effort to write something more than 1 word.

It's not the first time you write such a short reply... and although it's not against the rules, it kinda kills the conversation.

Veni, vidi, modeli - I came, I saw, and I modeled it

Posts: 3,542 | Joined: 23-January 08
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#22 12 February 2012 - 01:10 AM Jiggerj

Meson

rigney, on 30 January 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

On the other hand, if life depends on natural selection and dominance by the fittest, food chains make sense.

Can we actually think of food chains as 'making sense'? Plant life gets what it needs from water, minerals, and the sun. Given the right circumstances all life could've evolved in this way. We may know how and why the food chain came into existence, but it doesn't have to make sense. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it simply is what it is.

Posts: 73 | Joined: 07-August 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#23 12 February 2012 - 03:57 PM Halucigenia

Meson

Jiggerj, on 12 February 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

Um, what about parasitic plants, and the fact that Up to 80% of vascular plants worldwide form symbiotic relationships with fungi or bacteria?

Although autotrophs are considered the producers in a food chain they often need assistance from other organisms to be able to metabolise. For example chloroplasts in plants themselves are now considered to have originated as bacteria. See:- symbiogenesis and endosymbiosis
Does that not constitute a food chain/web in itself?

Sure, we can hypothesise about life consisting of strictly autonomous autotrophs. Indeed the very first replicators could have been like that, however, with the diversity that continued evolution produced leading to organisms specialising in different types of chemosynthesis producing competition for resources and diversification of available resources it would seem improbable that diverse life could exist without some form of food chain/web that includes parasitism and symbioses.
Therefore, I would consider that life 'as we know it' could not exist at all without some kind of food chain/web.
No, it's not a matter of right and wrong but if you want to understand why this simply is what it is, it has to make sense to be able to understand it, for me anyway.

Oh, and to answer the OP – an understanding of science can save us from the ignorance and teleological thinking that leads us to suppose that something had to 'decide' that there would be food chains whether that conscious 'decider' is asserted to be a god or nature.

I used to think that my brain was the most important part of my body, untill I realised what was telling me this.

Posts: 98 | Joined: 08-May 05
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#24 12 February 2012 - 07:26 PM Jiggerj

Meson

Halucigenia, on 12 February 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

No, it's not a matter of right and wrong but if you want to understand why this simply is what it is, it has to make sense to be able to understand it, for me anyway.

I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense, per se. I'm just saying there are certain 'Why' questions that don't need to be made sense of. Finding the sense of it won't change anything. Like: Why is there so much water on the earth? We know HOW the water got here, but do we really need to expend a ton of energy to find out if there's some reason to why it's here? It is what it is. If we find out, will it change anything?

If we found out why there's a food chain, what would we do with this knowledge? Would we change it (and really scew things up!)?

Why did they name Sunday after the sun? Why aren't the other days named Cloudday, Rainday, Snowday? Who cares?! It is what it is. lol

Autotroph - new word for me. Thanks!

This post has been edited by Jiggerj: 12 February 2012 - 07:40 PM