Chupacabra

Depending on what you mean by biodiversity. Should we always strive for biodiversity (e.g., species richness) of any particular ecosystem? Not sure. And, let me ask you, why should we put a bigger value on ecosystems with more complicated trophic networks? If we have some economic, aestetical or other reasons to value particular ecosystem, we should do it. But an ecosystem shouldn't have a big intrinsic value just because it has a large biomass, bioproductivity or has a complicated trophic network. What should be valued, though, is the biodiversity of the biosphere as a whole, because an extinction of any species means irretreavable loss of genetic information. And if a protection of endangered species requires a reduction in species reachness of some local ecosystems, it should be done without hesitation. Anyhow, measures to exterminate rats and other introduced species who threaten endemic bird populations in places like New Zealand, actually reduce local "biodiversity"

Why should I strive to slow it? I personally like warm weather, considering climate here where I live is rather cold. At 300 m a.s.l. no risk of inundation. Hurricanes and tornadoes seen only on TV. The home heating bills will get lower, the vegetation period will increase, meaning more and cheaper food. Global warming is rather beneficial to my, so why worry about it?

Well, the climate might change, the precipitation might increase (or some technical measures taken), and Aral sea might revive again. Then its ecosystem could be fully revived by introducing organisms provided no endemic Aral species get extinct during present crisis. Only in this case the change in ecosystem could be deemed irreversible So, you just place more value on safeguarding ecosystem functioning then on a fate of species. Cannot agree with you here. Wrong. Imagine this is the only lake on Earth habitated by this species. Then by cleaning it we'll make the frog species extinct. We can reproduce any ecosystem as long as we know its species composition and environmental requrements. Still, we yet cannot resuscitate any extinct species. So, only species extinctions are truly irreversible (at least, presently)

Eradication of sea ecosystems - yes. But they will be replaced by marsh or desert ones. You are contradicting yourself. "Polluted" pond and "unpolluted" pond, in fact, contain different ecosystems. And by preferring one state to another, you, actually, impose your ethical and estetical views on natural processes and ecosystems. No, it does. If this frogs are of great value (because they are threatened species), and species living in "clean" lakes are not threatened thus much, then cleaning such a lake would do harm to biodiversity.

True, but such apocaliptical events are very rare/unlikely. And, notice, even a catastrophical event (whatever it was) that resulted in dinosaurs extinction opened ways to the evolution of mammals and helped us to come here.

Indeterminism (not randomness!) creates possibilities for conscious choice. Doing something "for a reason" doesn't preclude the free choice. I can take free conscious decisions that are guided by reason but not predetermined by it (in fact, people often take unreasonable decisions). We are talking about FREE will. No such thing in a fully materialistic and deterministic Universe.

The could be different measures of "value" and "uniqueness". The reverse of the overall count of individuals in a species could be one such measure: we value rare species more than common ones. We can assign every species a "weight" and then quantify an ecosystem composition before and after a change. Again, the length of DNA chain and the amount of unique genetical properties and treats in a species could be measures of its "value". Yet, any such measure would inevitably be more or less subjective. Any ecosystem is rated high if it is beautiful and healthy for humans.

I would suggest using measures of entropy and information content. E. g., microbal species are much simpler than mammals or birds. Then, if the amount of bacteria species increased at the cost of the decline in mammal species, the ecosystem has been degraded. Also it has degraded when the rare or endangered species are replaced by common ones (e. g., rare birds by rats).

Yet, it never attacked Israel. Israel did attack Iran

Well, you make a good candidate for suicide bomber

To enjoy your freedom, you should in the first place stay alive, shouldn't you? In my opinion, the problem is, the human life presently has different value depending on where the human live. Israel has a history of killing dozens of civilians in Gaza while hunting for single terrorists. Now, Israelis were well aware that their actions will inevitably lead to the death of hundreds civilians in Lebanon. This has no difference at all with deliberate murder. The lifes of two captured Israeli solgers is regarded more valuable then lifes of thousand innocent Lebanese civilians. Likewise, US invasion in Iraq has led to death of more than 100 000 Iraquis, all to the purpose of defending Americans from the illusory threat of Iraq WMD. I would consider it a kind of modern racism: discriminating people by the place they were born is no better than discriminatating by the skin color.

I thing hypotheses like "hidden variables" are just the results of the inability of people with a deterministic mindset to incorporate the notion of the freedom inherent in the world and the scientific discoveries refuting the concept of the "clockwork Universe" and the view that everything is just the "small flying balls running into each other". Probabilism and randomness are not contradictory at all. You could know the definite probability that something would happen and still be unable to predict the result of the any single trial.

Surely, the Indeterminacy principle is a well-established law of physics, and it agrees perfectly with the existence of free will. Yet it irritates people who champion the "Universe is a mechanical clockwork, the free will is a mere illusion" worldview. Who's Darwkins??? Do you mean "Darwin" or "Dawkins" or some crossbread of two?? He-he

Yes, but it`s not so difficult to conceive of intelligence without consciousness (artifical intelligence systems is an example) Surely, but there's a certaint conflict between the free will and the fully deterministic materialist worldview. You are very correct here. The problem is with people (like Dawkins, f. i.) who derive from Darwinism far reaching metaphysical inferences.

I don`t request any large level of accuracy, just the legitimate general description of the cause and effect chain leading from apes to humans. Scientists are not even sure about the sequence of apperance of features like bipedalism, toolmaking, language etc. let alone the real causes of transformations. The only thing they have is a set of dubious guesses. Very true. Arboreal "chimps" could well evolve into baboon-like apes adapted to savannah and not into us humans. Still we are here. Should we then avoid thinking of some other "laws' that could explain our origin, apart from NS?

Look, Iran is a peaceful democratic nation. It has a peculiar culture which differs considerably with that people in Western countries are used to. In 1979 Iranian people rejected the "westernisation" of their country in favor of their own cultural values. However Iran is at knifes with Israel, and the Israel is backed by a powerful jewish lobby inside US. Iran doesn't declare the will to acquire nuclear power, still, Israel already possess NP for a long time, and nobody is talking of inspections or sanctions. That's unjust. If the sanctions are imposed on Iran, the oil price will surely rise to heaven. Is it in the interest of ordinary people in US and Europe?

[ That' s only your guesses. It might be correct, it might be not. Had the scientists really shown (preferably by a quantitative model) that ape-like creatures who get into a certain environment would inevitably evolve into the ones resembling modern humans, than, yes, natural selection theory of human origin should be reckoned credible. Now, imagine humans weighted half a ton, or had grown horns or extra head, NS proponents could as well conjure up some "explanation" according to natural selection theory. It means just that NS theory of human origin is not falsifiable, being really not a theory but a scientific "guess", not in fact much better than ID "theory". (Here i'm not challenging the facts that NS actually works in many cases among animals, of that human bodies evolved from animal ancestors by whatever means).

Rats have an excellent sense of smell, can hide into small holes, can digest various foods etc. etc., in addition to it, they are pretty smart. Are there many environments on Earth you could survive in for a long time (even together with a dozen of companions) having no tools and clothes? You shouldn't try. There are many large monkeys like baboons that are well adapted and thrive in savannah and even semi-desert environments. NS works by the law of chances. Even in our society the more successful and physically strong individual has a better chance to find a mate. What you've described could at best decelerate NS, but not reverse it direction.

Imagine the animal ancestor of humans. If it were as week physically as we are, but with much smaller mental abilities, it most certainly just couldn't survive the competition and would't exist at all. Then, if it were more strong and agile, like modern apes, then why it evolved into "weaker" creature? It's better to be smart AND physically strong then either one of the two, anyway. Not sure. Besides, Homo sapiens were anatomically formed 200-500,000 years ago, so 10,000 years is inappropriate anyway. Why not, if the more agile and sensitive hunter will get the most food and will not suffer from hunger?

The technology posessed by modern African tribes can by no ways be compared to that of palaeolitic men, it by far surpasses it in every aspect. E. g. people you are talking about should've got iron pikes, knifes and spearheades, and ironmelting is a comparatively recent invention. Your knowledge on early humans seems to be out-of-dated. They were mostly scavengers, only occasionally hunting small animals and birds, being unable to kill a single mammoth. They perished from predators en masse, but actually benefited from them, picking the remains of their meals. Also they picked from the corpses of already dead mammothes. Would the early hunter benefit from the better eyesight or hearing, however intelligent he is? Would people leaving near the edge of glacier benefit from a dense fur, however good are their clothes-making skills? Would early humans living in dangerous and challenging environment benefit from speed and muscular power? So why all these abilities evolved the other way round? The problem with your views: you are putting the cart before the horse. Looks like humans were given the large brains and week bodies to stimulate their mental activity. Natural selection hasn`t led to the apperarance of humans, it simply was unable to wipe them out thanks to the combination of favourable conditions, at the same time being a stimulus for the technological advance (memetic evolution you are talking about).

Not sure about this, esp. about lions. What about the stories of a few raging elefants devastating whole villages in India? Or single cannibal lions killing scores of people before being hunted? Or even not-so-intelligent creatures like locust or malaria plasmodium? Humans are not so fast, they have very poor hearing and scent comparing to most animals, without fur they are susceptible to cold, their muscular power is many times smaller than that of most apes, their stomack cannot digest hard food etc., etc. Looks like humans evolved not because of natural selection but CONTRARY to it. Yes, primal humans could make fire and knives, but animals just don't need fire, having got a fur, likewise they don't need knives, having got claws and fangs. Imagine you provided gorillas with fire. Would they benefit from it in their environment? Not sure.

Consciousness and intelligence are quite different things and shouldn`t be equated. In fact, most decisions we make in our life are unconscious (for those rejecting free will, in fact, all the decisions). Coordinated and purposeful group behavior requires neither consciousness nor high intelligence (look at insects like bees and ants, who also have complicated systems of communication). Likewise many mammals elaborated advanced hunting skills often involving highly-coordinated group behavior (look at wolves, lions etc.) The only thing exclusive for humans is the abstract thinking, but this didn`t influence significantly survival chances of primal humans and thus couldn`t have evolved by natural selection. I really like this hypothesis:-). Personally prefer smart girls Yes, it doesn`t. But it certainly questions the overconfident claims that life and consciousness apperared by a pure chance owing to purely matherial processes, leaving no room for God, spirit, free will and afterlife. At best it`s only a hypothesis, not an evident fact.