Comments on: Polar bears and Sean Parnell

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:30:22 +0000

If man is just another species, then it is the law of the jungle that other species must adapt to us, or perish.

By: regent2009

regent2009 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:25:41 +0000

Both microstupid and macrostupid.

By: gonzo55

gonzo55 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:17:26 +0000

Forgot to use the “reply to this” button, sorry. Looks like I need to evolve some more brains!

By: gonzo55

gonzo55 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:15:47 +0000

These are all good examples of what scientists call microevolution. I’m glad you brought this up, as the original discussion only dealt with macroevolution, or the “creation” of entirely new species from mutants. This really adds a new dimension to the original argument. Surely only entirely local control can effect, say, a new breed of dog, so by having top-down federal control over who lives and who dies, we are hindering microevolution, which is almost always controlled by humans and thus to our benefit.

Moreover, as both Darwinists and creationists believe in microevolution, your argument applies in either case, making it stronger.

By: regent2009

regent2009 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:09:14 +0000

OK, let me hold my nose and accept this adolescent idea of Darwinism for the sake of argument:

Cows have evolved to provide meat.

Deer have evolved to be hunted.

Dogs have evolved to provide companionship.

In all these cases, and more, local governments have protected these species. The endangedered spiecies act thus interferes with evolaution. It cannot be about the animals, it can only be about a Federal power grab. I hope this diary triggers a lot more thought by conservatives on this issue.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:17:30 +0000

until this man’s logic. If we want to save a species, we could do so on a cae by case basis, with VOTES by We the People.

By: gonzo55

gonzo55 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:51:52 +0000

but the federal government’s response is to keep as much of it as possible underground and under water. That makes a lot of sense. If we can just make oil useless enough by keeping it all underground, it won’t be endangered anymore.

By: regent2009

regent2009 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:42:56 +0000

I agree with this diary almost in its whole. Here is the REAL motivation for the Endangered Species Act.

1. Use it as an excuse to grab power from state and local governments. Before polar bears, it was spotted owls. Next it will be squirells in Ohio.

2. Destroy jobs.

3. Make the unemployed on government handouts. Pander to them on election day by offering them bigger handouts and less self respect.

It isn’t about Darwin. They will come up with another inane theory once we expose that nonsense.

God gave dominion over the earth and the animals to man. To reduce prosperity to protect a bunch of animals that most of us will never see anyway is anti-Christian.

By: Xasteius

Xasteius — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:17:08 +0000

either too slow or too stupid to avoid the dinner plate.

By: Achance

Achance — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:12:18 +0000

It is all about stopping gas and oil development on the Arctic coast of Alaska and specifically, it is about stopping the State of Alaska from developing oil and gas on State lands. The Environazis have had the Fed by the short and curlies for three decades and will continue to have them, but the State really needs more producition, so the State has been making noise about it doing its own development on its own land or in State waters offshore. Can’t have them rascally Republicans in Alaska doing stuff like developing domestic oil and gas resources.