Sentences with phrase «as a species if»

While it is true that some mothers can't breastfeed, we would have died out as a species if the numbers that «claim» that they can't really couldn't.

It does not take an understanding of complex statistics to see that we would not have survived as a species if the simple, natural way or birthing and breastfeeding did not work most of the time.

We wouldn't exist as a species if pregnancy and childbirth were not inherently natural processes that our bodies are fully capable of.

If we want to think back to the caveman days, we'd have been in serious trouble as a species if we had to eat every three hours.

Then, two thoughts come to mind: first of all, with all due respect and sorrow for anyone who has lost his / her life, do we really think in our grand arrogance as a species if the Earth wants to revolt tumultuously, we can somehow outdo Her?

``... do we really think in our grand arrogance as a species if the Earth wants to revolt tumultuously, we can somehow outdo Her?»

[G] iven the rapid pace of ecological change in the Arctic, the long generation time, and the highly specialised nature of polar bears, it is unlikely that polar bears will survive as a species if the sea ice disappears completely.

Not exact matches

The fossils could represent the earliest known examples of H. sapiens ever found (if confirmed by further research), and they serve as evidence that members of our species lived beyond sub-Saharan Africa.

Think about the implications for the human race, if technology is destined to be the essence of who we are as a species, if it's developed largely under the leadership and guidance of a single gender.»

If you use one hand for writing, you probably use the same one for eating as well, and most of us — around 85 % of our species — prefer our right hands.

If a calamity, self - made or otherwise, destroyed life on Earth, as long as a human colony was established elsewhere, the species could endure.

If a species, especially an advanced one, had similar stories to ours and also insisted on a god similar to that of the bible, could that be construed as some evidence that a god exists and that its the one from the bible?

only minds can concvive of thoughts, sry if your lacking mr. fake... a thought is one that is transferible by accidenct — those that read or hear even sometimes feel can be instantly takenover by a thought, and as thoughts go — you, I, everyone, hasn't had a original thought in most likely ummm, say a long friggin time, i'd say personally i think being that the species is as old as (provible) 37,000 thousand years old, every thought as been thought since by maybe a few thousand years... and thats a hopeful «thought» being i believe our average person to be generally dumb.

In my personal opinion, if we ever actually come into contact with other alien species and it is they, with superior technology, who contact us, the idea that a religion were pervade their society seems unlikely as I'm sure you and I are both aware that religion is mostly divisive and an impediment to progress.

My point was that they may not be denied those rights even if, in some respects, they may not seem as developed as some of the higher animals, because rights belong to the whole human species, and thus to all its members.

You say the Bible is full of fairy tales and fables, yet you believe all life forms including plants, trees, insects, birds, fish, reptiles and mammals evolved from one species into another — As if evolution isn't the biggest fairytale of them all.

Or if you need to link love to something else, how about something plausible: Love is the emotional idealization of the mutual care that members of social species feel for other members of their in group and, as such, is the product of natural selection.

It's time we left behind all these silly, nonsensical ideas of gods and religion if we are to move forward as a species...

If, to the contrary, the difference between humans and some sub-humans were slight (if, for instance, humans were only slightly superior to nonhuman primates, so that human existence were a species belonging to what we now call the nonhuman animal world), it would not be clear that the appearance of humans represents the maximal importance of subhuman existence as sucIf, to the contrary, the difference between humans and some sub-humans were slight (if, for instance, humans were only slightly superior to nonhuman primates, so that human existence were a species belonging to what we now call the nonhuman animal world), it would not be clear that the appearance of humans represents the maximal importance of subhuman existence as sucif, for instance, humans were only slightly superior to nonhuman primates, so that human existence were a species belonging to what we now call the nonhuman animal world), it would not be clear that the appearance of humans represents the maximal importance of subhuman existence as such.

But presuming — as I do — the validity of the concept of geologic time, I note that the designation «Anthropocene» unavoidably suggests an exceptional quality to the species homo sapiens, if only in terms of our collective human powers.

We have no right to continue our present behavior, as if we were the only species on earth and, moreover, as if the present generation were the last.

If God is to be definite at all, he must be defined as the sole member of an infima species.

As for me being attracted to other men... well I think we went over that I'm not gay, but if you want to go to the whole «It's not natural thing» well considering that there has been ho.mose.xuality in other species, it actually does occur in nature, what doesn't however is monogamous relationships.

If science able to offer any truths that would help humans solve the kinds of real psychological, social, political problems that they constantly face, then I'm sure that as a species we would be rational enough to use those truths.

If we are to evolve as a species, myths must be abandoned, even the cotton candy coated myths that emanate from the mouth of the smiling preacher.

You say the Bible is full of fairytales and fables, yet you believe all life forms including plants, trees, insects, birds, fish, reptiles and mammals evolved from one species into another — As if evolution isn't the biggest fairytale of them all.

Then determine if there is no god how should we as a species live our lives?

If we as a species unite together and let love, tolerance of each others beliefs, and goodwill rule our hearts and minds our collective Light will outshine the dark.

It's because, if we didn't have the «Good Samaritan» genes already built in, it would be harder for us as a species to build cooperative societies that serve the well - being of everyone, ourselves included.

From a religios standpoint I doubt that it matters if one believes in evolution as a means to species or not.

We can inject human DNA into insect species, like flies, and manipulate their development just as effectively as if we used fly DNA.

@transframer — With all due respect, you didn't really address the issues raised regarding: 1) actual # of extant vertebrate species; 2) the fact that land inverts «breath air» and would have drowned if not accounted for on the ark; 3) that the dino genera identified in the wiki link far exceeds 50; 4) the need to account for extinct land vertebrates in addition to those still around; 5) that many marine fish would have died as their habitat's salinity dropped; 6) that your % allotments for food / water don't reflect the fact that many forms require fresh meat and / or eat disproportionately to their sizes; 7) the specific dietary / environmental constraints involved in the migration to the Ark and the return trips from Mt. Ararat.

If we had to choose between the survival of whales as a species and that of plankton, we would rightly choose the plankton.

Humanity must outgrow the need for ancient fairy tales if we are to survive as a species.

As Kurt Vonnegut says one way or another in all of his strange and wonderful novels (perhaps cynically or perhaps seriously): purposeless things are abhorent to the human species; and if the human species suspects that it is itself purposeless, it becomes conspicuously suicidal.

Aristotelian species are what mathematicians call «equivalence classes», so that if A is of the same species as B, and B is of the same species as C, then A must be of the same species as C. However, it does not appear possible in biology to define species in a way that always satisfies this condition.

Atheist can be insane as well however if you were to balance the damage to this world the scales would certainly show that religion is the worst thing that has happened to our species.

If this aspect differed in kind in the case of Jesus from every other member of the species man, then in the present state of our knowledge it would seem impossible rightly to describe Jesus as a man.17 It may be the case that most Christians (and most Christian theologians) in most centuries have accepted this claim: but most have not shared either our modern sensitivity to the difference between history and mythology or our concern for the principles of logic.

One wonders why Johnson trots it out again in such simple and uncritical form as his only positive argument for purposive origin of species, as if merely stating it was reason enough to take the argument seriously.

i truly believe that if humans can give up the magic stories they were taught to cling to, we may just be able to progress forward as a species.

if humans had just fell in line with religious teachings and never asked questions other than «god did it»... then people would still be dying in child birth, the common cold, small poxs etc etc etc. i find that we survived a s a species to become the alpha predator of this planet and the achievements we have made since then to be amazing; attributing everything humans have achieved to a god just cheapens the value of our achievements as a species.

Many, if not most, species have become extinct in the course of this evolutionary advance, and there is good reason to anticipate that this may be our fate as well.

The earth has provided certain basic conditions which must be met by all earthly creatures if they are to survive as a species.

If most of science used the scientific method there would be no black holes or evolution as a means to species as theories.

If we start with consciousness as a blank slate that then evolves (whether as an individual or as a species) to adapt to the necessities of its self - preservation (as an individual or as a species), we will never get to an argument for the goodness of fidelity, fecundity, etc..

It seems that even if our ultimate goal is a world in which we will not have dominion, we must for the foreseeable future so exercise dominion as to preserve other species and some areas of wildness in which they can survive.

For Shepard the sensibility we need, if we are to be saved from neurotic self - destruction as a species, is like that of our hunting and gathering ancestors.

I sometimes wonder if we really are advancing as a species or just layering our silly superst.itions.

If we define evolution as simply a change in species over time, any student of biology must agree that species do in fact evolve.

This message is common these days - in church as well as «new age» literature - that we as a species (and more importantly as individuals) presently need to raise our spiritual connection to the Source of Life, individually and on a planetary level, if we wish to survive.