|
|
Posted by Bone Ur on 11/26/07 00:24
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:24:32
GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:
>>>> Well, I was grouping groupers into the same category; they are
>>>> fish, too. However, for _you_ to denigrate groupers is
>>>> intra-phylum-discrimination.
>>>
>>> And that's not prohibited. Especially here, high on the food chain.
>>> :)
>>
>> High and complacent. Read on...
>
> Bordering on arrogance, in fact. :)
Oh, like a Google grouper?
>>>> Furthermore, I don't think all fish are equally worthless. Those
>>>> cute little colorful ones which reside in home aquariums can be
>>>> relaxing in a hypnotic way to the duller mind. But the big ones
>>>> that eat people and
>>>
>>> But it takes 500 of them just to make a snack.
>>
>> They're a delicacy. You're only supposed to eat a few at a time.
>
> Shark. Eat a few at a time. Hee hee.
Um, I see your point
>>>> other fish I may want to eat serve little purpose to a progressive,
>>>> advanced society.
>>>
>>> We've been evolving longer than you have. And we're not making
>>> holes in the ozone layer. ;)
>>
>> Longer but slower. Much slower. As a matter of fact, sharks in
>
> Now long is that in shark years?
>
>> particular pretty much hit a dead stop prior to the beginning of the
>> Age of Dinosaurs. Ergo, for the last 200+ million years, all they do
>> is swim around and take up space in the sea just like their
>> forefishies did in
>
> Once you're achieved perfection there is no evolutionary pressure in
> the scheme of natural selection to send the species off in new
> directions.
Yes, sharks are called "the perfect eating machine". But what else do
they do that's interesting? I would hardly say that spending a life just
swimming and eating equates to having achieved perfection on any
reasonable scale in the universe as a whole.
>> the good ol' Triassic. Humans, on the other hand, evolved at least
>> 1000 times as much in the most current 5 million years alone! Fish
>> have little reason to brag, -especially when one considers how ugly
>> they are.
>
> Humans evolved faster because they had more to imrove on and less time
> to do it. Eventually, they may reach the evolutionary perfection that
> sharks have. Well, probably not -- sharks have avoided the unwanted
> capability to blow themselves up in massive quantities.
Humans had more to improve on because they had more potential to begin
with. The conclusion is unavoidable: sharks are an evolutionary cul-de-
sac who persist only because of the vastness of their preferred
environment. Such a predator dwelling on land would surely have been
eliminated long ago by the stupidest humans you can imagine (barring your
reflections on some of the posters here).
> One of the essences of sharkness is the beauty of sleekness and
> balance.
Simple symmetry and simple mentality. Whoopee twang.
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|