ChanelR Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Hi there, After everything evolution has taught me... The ongoing existence of pandas still perplex me. A bear that is not meant to be a herbivore. It does not have the ruminant-style gut to digest cellulose so it has to eats LOTS to sustain itself. Additionally, it eats only one species of grass. Surely being that specialised was a bad idea. And pure black and white against a sea of green. Also not the best defense. Why have they survived so long? Other than brute strength, which other adaptations have made this creature outwit natural selection? Is this just an evolutionary lag until their time runs out? Are all the conservation efforts in vain? So many questions, so little panda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mellowmorgan Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 You're totally right! But, you know, we humans are kinder than that, and tend to try and defy natural selection or work around it. We prolong the lives of humans with genetic deformities and disorders with medical innovations and technology, allowing them to have a chance to reproduce and pass on their bad genes. If we let natural selection take it's course, they probably would not be able to do that. But we can't allow for such things because, as I said, we are kinder than that - with our sense of supposed "morality" and deep interactions with one another. Thus we feel the same about other species, especially those which we have negatively encroached upon in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 From an evolutionary point of view, pandas might well be a dead end. But we (humans) really helped them to go extinct by destroying their habitat. Without humans they wouldn't be so close to their extinction yet. There's no way of telling whether they wouldn't evolve better teeth and a better gut to digest plants. Animals have switched from being herbivores to carnivores (and back) before. That said, the main reason that they receive more attention than say, an African wild ass (which is critically endangered), is obviously the fact that it's so cute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Evolutionarily speaking, are pandas worth conserving? I think the question itself assumes that we're controlling evolution rather than simply being part of its mechanism. Whatever the panda is doing to keep itself alive to reproduce (including being worthy of the help or harm humans can bring) will continue to work until it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Evolutionarily speaking, are pandas worth conserving? I think the question itself assumes that we're controlling evolution rather than simply being part of its mechanism. Whatever the panda is doing to keep itself alive to reproduce (including being worthy of the help or harm humans can bring) will continue to work until it doesn't. We are technically capable of making (forcing?) an animal reproduce. IVF. It might turn out that the pandas would survive without our help. But it seems that some people have decided to help them anyway. If we select which animals mate with each other, and even do the fertilization for them, aren't we in control of their evolution, just like we controlled the evolution of certain types of dogs, cattle, etc.? According to wikipedia, there is a discussion whether the pandas would survive without us. I've cherrypicked two sentences that show the discussion and/or lack of agreement. The panda is a conservation reliant endangered species.[...]Some reports also show that the number of pandas in the wild is on the rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 It might turn out that the pandas would survive without our help. But it seems that some people have decided to help them anyway. If we select which animals mate with each other, and even do the fertilization for them, aren't we in control of their evolution, just like we controlled the evolution of certain types of dogs, cattle, etc.? My point is that "in control" sort of assumes we're the puppetmasters, working in a sort of ex vivo kind of way to engineer the evolution of other species, rather than simply being part of nature and the natural pressures that affect such mechanisms. Does that make sense? We're a part of the evolution of every life form on the planet, as they are in ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 My point is that "in control" sort of assumes we're the puppetmasters, working in a sort of ex vivo kind of way to engineer the evolution of other species, rather than simply being part of nature and the natural pressures that affect such mechanisms. Does that make sense? We're a part of the evolution of every life form on the planet, as they are in ours. Yes, alright. I see your point of view. We are indeed part of this world. We did not invent DNA. But from the panda's point of view, we might seem a little ex vivo, perhaps? I mean, what the hell do they know. First some monkey comes and destroys their habitat. Then they build panda hotels and help them to get sex. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaiski Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 from an evolutionary point of view nothing is worth conserving "natural selection" is a kind way to say "adapt of die" so anything that cant adapt isn’t worth conserving but pandas are "cute" it cant be quantified, but cats have benefited from it for millennia and perfected it to a fine art so the real question is, "are pandas cute enough to keep as pets" if the answer is yes, it is an evolutionarily viable species if you want to make pandas evolutionary viable, breed a mini-panda that i can keep at home as a pet evolution is cruel and heartless, it also, apparently, likes cute things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChanelR Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 Now I want a miniature panda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Angel Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 It's an interesting issue as to whether man is creating a breed of domesticated "zoo" panda, similar to dogs being a breed of domesticated wolf. Could a zoo panda survive if it was released into the wild? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresh Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Aside from saving endangered species, one important reason why China do their best to keep Pandas and make them reproduce is 'Panda Diplomacy'. with that, Pandas become more priceless. free pandas into wild, they can hardly survive. ' Previous attempts by Chinese authorities to release pandas into the wild have proved unsuccessful. The last bear that was set free in 2006 was found dead after 10 months, apparently killed by wild pandas.' http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news/2012/01/china-launches-operation-to-free-pandas-into-wild.html survival of the fittest? they cant survive. how do u guys think if there are only 10 mice in the world, people may feel they look cute too ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaiski Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) Aside from saving endangered species, one important reason why China do their best to keep Pandas and make them reproduce is 'Panda Diplomacy'. with that, Pandas become more priceless. free pandas into wild, they can hardly survive. ' Previous attempts by Chinese authorities to release pandas into the wild have proved unsuccessful. The last bear that was set free in 2006 was found dead after 10 months, apparently killed by wild pandas.' http://blogs.discove...-into-wild.html survival of the fittest? they cant survive. how do u guys think if there are only 10 mice in the world, people may feel they look cute too ? mice are already cute, so are spiders. a wild ass looks like a lame zebra that had a grey paint can spilled on its head... cute has nothing to do with numbers, only opinion, and insanity of said individual for example, cats are cute. they are also malicious, evil, selfish, pompous, prideful, heartless, evil!, EVIL!!, narcissistic, glossy furred monstrosities, that are only interested in the food, and expect you to like them because of it... they are still cute, and the only creature we can openly relate too without feeling ashamed of ourselves as a species, o yes and EEEVIL!!!!!! TOTALY UNBIASED proof of my point! (note the CAPS) http://www.b3tards.com/v/22ce0ae7a8c760c469cb/cute_spider02.jpg http://www.bloggerdad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/evil-cat.jpg http://critteristic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/door-mouse-sleeping.jpg Edited September 12, 2012 by dmaiski 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now