If the theoretical concept of evolution is correct, then all living things, at some time, existed in several stages different from their current reality. As proclaimed, evolution becomes a principle that describes a continuing change over time. If evolution is real, there can be no end as long as the creature is challenged by changing conditions which compels change for survival.
Since the beginning, there have been millions of species which have "come and gone". Of those we say are "extinct", such as dinosaurs, some declare they are with us today in different guises, so they cannot be "extinct", just different. Who can say, if evolution is real, that all, many or some of the extinct species are not still with us? When, in the past, extinctions occurred naturally, did our planet change? Did we spin out of orbit?
This leads me to the real purpose of this story. Today, our laws have interfered with much human activity because it "endangers" various species, often without explaining what harm the destruction of these would do to our planet. If it is simply intended to save the species whose benefits are dubious, then let's not kill flies, mosquitoes and other pests. To deny the use of privately owned lands because of some obscure species, without showing a compelling need to preserve that species, is wrong. If there is no need to defend the killing of pests, there should be no need for defending the need to preserve a species which has no known benefit for the environment. Automatic denying the use of land on the basis of "endangered species", no matter what, is stupid.
Since the beginning, there have been millions of species which have "come and gone". Of those we say are "extinct", such as dinosaurs, some declare they are with us today in different guises, so they cannot be "extinct", just different. Who can say, if evolution is real, that all, many or some of the extinct species are not still with us? When, in the past, extinctions occurred naturally, did our planet change? Did we spin out of orbit?
This leads me to the real purpose of this story. Today, our laws have interfered with much human activity because it "endangers" various species, often without explaining what harm the destruction of these would do to our planet. If it is simply intended to save the species whose benefits are dubious, then let's not kill flies, mosquitoes and other pests. To deny the use of privately owned lands because of some obscure species, without showing a compelling need to preserve that species, is wrong. If there is no need to defend the killing of pests, there should be no need for defending the need to preserve a species which has no known benefit for the environment. Automatic denying the use of land on the basis of "endangered species", no matter what, is stupid.
No comments:
Post a Comment