Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    03 Nov '16 04:42
    I was reading this article on the BBC about the extinction of mammoths and got to thinking about the Clive Owen film where noone gets pregnant anymore.

    I once read a story about the last human born as well... long time ago, can't remember the name. Sorry.

    And I got to thinking: we're a vehicle for DNA... as are all living things, basically (sorry Christians, Jews and Moslims... perhaps you'd better skip this thread)... isn't it possible that most extinctions happened because of DNA giving up on the host as a reliant means of procreation?

    So, in the case of mammoths, say, rather than being over-hunted or dying out because of nice weather, their DNA strands got shorter and shorter and just gave up on them?

    So, they just stopped getting pregnant.

    Is that possible or is it dystopic fantasy?
    Could it happen to humans?

    Didn't I already read a report on human fertility and that it's going down the drain?

    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161102-what-really-happened-to-mammoths-and-other-ice-age-giants?ocid=ww.social.link.email
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    03 Nov '16 05:04 / 2 edits
    There are some species that can only reproduce under specific conditions. Some plants need the right temperature, amount of sunlight and specific nutrients in order to pollinate. Human sperm is best at a cooler temperature than the rest of the male body. It could be possible that natural forces such as temperature may have risen or decreased in certain areas, to a point that significantly inhibited reproduction for a species.

    In other words, it may be that a species didn't necessarily expire in the reproduction department, but that natural forces kept some species from being able to reproduce enough to continue.

    As far as human fertility going down, that could be do to a combination of man-made causes, such as radiation, pollution, etc. Furthermore, humans reproduce less because having more than two children is usually quite costly for most families. China only recently lifted the one-child rule that was enacted due to overpopulation concerns. These types of factors may be why humans reproduce less than in times past.
  3. 03 Nov '16 07:22
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I was reading this article on the BBC about the extinction of mammoths and got to thinking about the Clive Owen film where noone gets pregnant anymore.

    I once read a story about the last human born as well... long time ago, can't remember the name. Sorry.

    And I got to thinking: we're a vehicle for DNA... as are all living things, basically (sorry Chr ...[text shortened]... ory/20161102-what-really-happened-to-mammoths-and-other-ice-age-giants?ocid=ww.social.link.email
    Are you implying that DNA is somehow intelligent, or is your post just a slightly fanciful description of natural selection?
  4. 03 Nov '16 09:54
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Do species have a time-limit?
    'Species' is a fluid concept.
    All life today is a continuing 'species' from the very first life. So no, species do not have a natural time limit.

    So, in the case of mammoths, say, rather than being over-hunted or dying out because of nice weather, their DNA strands got shorter and shorter and just gave up on them?
    No, that is not what happened.
  5. 03 Nov '16 09:57
    The word 'species' works great as a classification system for a snapshot of life as it is today. It does not work so well for historical life. I always cringe when people say that a particular species has been around since the dinosaurs or something like that. It just ain't so.
  6. 03 Nov '16 10:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I was reading this article on the BBC about the extinction of mammoths and got to thinking about the Clive Owen film where noone gets pregnant anymore.

    I once read a story about the last human born as well... long time ago, can't remember the name. Sorry.

    And I got to thinking: we're a vehicle for DNA... as are all living things, basically (sorry Chr ...[text shortened]... ory/20161102-what-really-happened-to-mammoths-and-other-ice-age-giants?ocid=ww.social.link.email
    What is known is that the Progressive gene keeps getting shorter and shorter and shorter. (Sorry secular humanists you may want to skip this thread)

    In the interim, they are having as many abortions as they can. Hopefully they will all become extinct in 10 years.
  7. Subscriber radioactive69
    Fun, fun fun!!
    03 Nov '16 10:48
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I was reading this article on the BBC about the extinction of mammoths and got to thinking about the Clive Owen film where noone gets pregnant anymore.

    I once read a story about the last human born as well... long time ago, can't remember the name. Sorry.

    And I got to thinking: we're a vehicle for DNA... as are all living things, basically (sorry Chr ...[text shortened]... ory/20161102-what-really-happened-to-mammoths-and-other-ice-age-giants?ocid=ww.social.link.email
    Have you ever seen a female mammoth?

    Not the prettiest of creatures. Very hirsute.

    I can understand why the males stopped impregnating them. Probably fancied a smoother looking cuter elephant instead.
  8. 03 Nov '16 11:20
    Originally posted by radioactive69
    Have you ever seen a female mammoth?

    Not the prettiest of creatures. Very hirsute.

    I can understand why the males stopped impregnating them. Probably fancied a smoother looking cuter elephant instead.
    you are one sick puppy dude.
  9. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    03 Nov '16 11:37
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The word 'species' works great as a classification system for a snapshot of life as it is today. It does not work so well for historical life. I always cringe when people say that a particular species has been around since the dinosaurs or something like that. It just ain't so.
    Cockroach.
  10. 03 Nov '16 12:09
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Cockroach.
    'Cockroach' ain't a species.
  11. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    03 Nov '16 13:15
    Originally posted by radioactive69
    Have you ever seen a female mammoth?

    Not the prettiest of creatures. Very hirsute.

    I can understand why the males stopped impregnating them. Probably fancied a smoother looking cuter elephant instead.
    Then great white hunters would not only be going to Africa for the ivory, but for the eating....Mammoth Elephant steaks!!
  12. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    03 Nov '16 13:46
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    'Cockroach' ain't a species.
    Cockroaches are insects of the order Blattodea, which also includes termites. About 30 cockroach species out of 4,600 are associated with human habitats. About four species are well known as pests.
  13. 03 Nov '16 13:53
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Cockroaches are insects of the order Blattodea, which also includes termites. About 30 cockroach species out of 4,600 are associated with human habitats. About four species are well known as pests.
    Not only are cockroaches virtually indestructible, they are very good at winning elections as well.
  14. Subscriber radioactive69
    Fun, fun fun!!
    03 Nov '16 14:35
    Originally posted by whodey
    Not only are cockroaches virtually indestructible, they are very good at winning elections as well.
    They've got one running the Easy Riders clan as well. Those things sure are versatile !!
  15. Standard member vivify
    rain
    03 Nov '16 14:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Cockroaches are insects of the order Blattodea, which also includes termites. About 30 cockroach species out of 4,600 are associated with human habitats. About four species are well known as pests.
    Cockroaches aren't a species; different types of cockroaches belong to different species. "Cockroach" itself isn't a species.