Some of us are... but those things cannot travel off world, can they? Neither can they destroy the planet... Humans can.
(Technically speaking and according to university level biology texts; a virus is not a living thing.)
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Removing their origin from Earth does not default it to non-natural processes.
Even things now on the earth are not the result of natural process... any human involvement is artificial... animal husbandry and agricultural hybridization...
Just as an interesting side note here... We could argue that the AIDS virus (a DNA virus) is a mechanism for the impersonal forces of nature that weeds out the unfit filth among us... if natural forces are impersonal, they do not care if the innocent are infected as well... (Of course, it is obvious that the human activity and/or BEHAVIOR chiefly associated with the transmission of AIDS is contrary to what is written in the Judaic book of Genesis.)
"Some of us are... but those things cannot travel off world, can they?
What does that have to do with it?
You original statement was that if evolution were true why are humans, whom in your words should be the most highly evolved, not adapted well enough to our environment to live without clothes.
I asked what makes you believe we are the most highly evolved (MHE). Instead of giving me an example of an evolvable feature that makes us the MHE you make a evolutionarily nonspecific generalization that 'we dominate' everything on Earth. I make a quick comment that we do not dominate and now you come up with a change of tactic and claim we are the most capable to venture into space.
This is an interesting choice of accomplishment given your previous suggestion that the Earth may have been seeded from space. If Earth was seeded from space by anything more than amino acids, then one possibility is that we were seeded by bacteria, which as I mentioned in the previous post are capable of existing, unaided by technology, in extreme environments we cannot.
Again, I ask the question - what evolvable trait do we have that makes us the MHE species on the planet?
Neither can they destroy the planet... Humans can.
Actually we cannot. At most we can initiate another snowball Earth. That will not destroy the physical Earth nor will it destroy all life. No matter what we do, at least at our current level of technology, we can not destroy the Earth; life will go on well after we have destroyed ourselves.
We do not have the power to even come close to the changes the ancestors of cyanobacteria wrought some ~3.3 billion years ago.
"(Technically speaking and according to university level biology texts; a virus is not a living thing.)"
Whether a virus is alive is still up for debate. None the less Virii and prions have evolved.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Removing their origin from Earth does not default it to non-natural processes.
"Even things now on the earth are not the result of natural process... any human involvement is artificial... animal husbandry and agricultural hybridization..."
Actually, according to the StoE we are a natural part of the environment.
That we (or anything else) can produce artifacts is not proof that life on Earth is the product of non-natural processes. 'Can' is not evidence of 'did'. If you posit two processes that can produce the same effect the only way to successfully determine which is responsible for the effect is by collection and analyzing data and extrapolating conclusions. The most direct method of deciding which is the most likely is to try to falsify them both.
Your position that Earthly life is the result of non-natural processes has so far only one data point - it is possible. The position that Earthly life is the result of natural process has that same data point - it is possible - and has many more besides, from the fossil record, to patterns in the genome, to the 'natural' occurrence of complex molecules such as amino acids, alcohol and sugars in space.
Since nature can build stars, amino acids, hydrogen clouds, and organisms which far predate all known artifacts it looks like 'natural' is the default position (if any exists), not the 'artificial'.
"Just as an interesting side note here... We could argue that the AIDS virus (a DNA virus) is a mechanism for the impersonal forces of nature that weeds out the unfit filth among us... if natural forces are impersonal, they do not care if the innocent are infected as well... (Of course, it is obvious that the human activity and/or BEHAVIOR chiefly associated with the transmission of AIDS is contrary to what is written in the Judaic book of Genesis.)
Is there any thread possible in which you could stick to the issue at hand without bringing in your irrelevant obsession?