|
|
Scientific Question (Community)
Scientific Question // Community
Nov 12, 2004, 3:13am
we're just the only species capable
of making our weak extremely fit for survival.
<<<
....and the only ones killing for fun and without need for food or living
space, and as well the only ones who kill by means of mechanical tools -
not to mention that no other being on earth can kill as many of its kind
within seconds than we can. So, in conclusion, I think the evolution did
a great job on us. :-)
[View Quote]bowen wrote:
>
> c p wrote:
>
> We're the first species to take care of our sick and weak. Our greatest
> advantage is that. Taking care of the sick and weak increases our
> likely hood to survive because of them carrying a rare gene that may be
> beneficial in the future. A small price to pay now for the extension of
> our species.
>
> It's still survival of the fittest, we're just the only species capable
> of making our weak extremely fit for survival. This stems back to the
> family units caring for their sick (blind/deaf) for example. Maybe more
> or less not to do with technology but more based on our morality and
> empathy as a people. Some societies are less akin to this though, for
> example, some of our communities have national health care (almost all
> "civilized" nations have this in one form or another), some leave their
> elderly to die once the leader of that family is dead (some Native
> American traditions are like this), it's all based on society.
>
> We're the only species that's able to alter our own genetic makeup as
> well. This is one of the major issues for debate today. Should we
> further research into this field to cure diseases? Should we sacrifice
> embryonic life (already dead embryonic life mind you) to get the data we
> need to cure things such as cancer, diabeties, renal failure, et al.?
|
Nov 12, 2004, 4:15am
Ah yea, excuse was a poor word choice. They had to escape town to get away
from that crazy texan ^,^
[View Quote]"bowen" <bowen at andras.net> wrote in message
news:41943876$2 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> sw comit wrote:
>
> No, it was because Homer was challenging everyone to a duel I think.
|
Nov 12, 2004, 9:09am
<-----------wonders how this thread ever managed to stray this far off
topic?? (shakes head) ;-"P
[View Quote]"alphabit phalpha" <alphabit2003 at swbell.net> wrote in message
news:419437c5$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Het SW Comit,
>
> Have you seen the talk show ummmmm..."Inside The Actor's Studio" Where all
> of the actors who do the voices for all of the Simpsons were on?
> I think it's on Public Broadcasting Station?
> Excellent show!
>
>
> "sw comit" <swcomit at swcity.net> wrote in message
> news:419432a9 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> outa
>
>
|
Nov 12, 2004, 2:22pm
WAHOOOOO!
E
[View Quote]"c p" <Chris101d at comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4193e7e9$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> this taste horrible...can i have another?
>
awi
> hq...
> "e n z o" <enzo at activeworlds.com> wrote in message
> news:4193dde7$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
shopping
seeds
> how
> to
>
>
|
Nov 12, 2004, 2:26pm
Survival of the fitest is not the definition of evolution.
E
[View Quote]"bowen" <bowen at andras.net> wrote in message
news:41943a27$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> c p wrote:
society
are
diabetis...or
on
>
> We're the first species to take care of our sick and weak. Our greatest
> advantage is that. Taking care of the sick and weak increases our
> likely hood to survive because of them carrying a rare gene that may be
> beneficial in the future. A small price to pay now for the extension of
> our species.
>
> It's still survival of the fittest, we're just the only species capable
> of making our weak extremely fit for survival. This stems back to the
> family units caring for their sick (blind/deaf) for example. Maybe more
> or less not to do with technology but more based on our morality and
> empathy as a people. Some societies are less akin to this though, for
> example, some of our communities have national health care (almost all
> "civilized" nations have this in one form or another), some leave their
> elderly to die once the leader of that family is dead (some Native
> American traditions are like this), it's all based on society.
>
> We're the only species that's able to alter our own genetic makeup as
> well. This is one of the major issues for debate today. Should we
> further research into this field to cure diseases? Should we sacrifice
> embryonic life (already dead embryonic life mind you) to get the data we
> need to cure things such as cancer, diabeties, renal failure, et al.?
|
Nov 12, 2004, 2:57pm
[View Quote]e n z o wrote:
> Survival of the fitest is not the definition of evolution.
|
Actually it is. It's the broadest, but most precise definition. In
order to be fit, you have to contain the genes that are necessary for
survival.
Evolution is not always a good thing.
Nov 12, 2004, 3:01pm
[View Quote]kf wrote:
> we're just the only species capable
> of making our weak extremely fit for survival.
> <<<
>
> ...and the only ones killing for fun and without need for food or living
> space, and as well the only ones who kill by means of mechanical tools -
> not to mention that no other being on earth can kill as many of its kind
> within seconds than we can. So, in conclusion, I think the evolution did
> a great job on us. :-)
|
All animals kill for needs other than food. Many of the preditors kill
for teritorial reasons. No other large scale preditor has as many in
numbers as we do either. It's natures way of evening things out. We
have 6+ billion people, we can kill on a larger scale (technically
because there are more of us).
We do kill for sport, yes, but I'd say a good 75% of the people who do
kill for sport _also_ eat the things the kill. Fishing, deer hunting,
et al. We also kill because some species have no natural preditors in
the area, thus helping to balance out the equilibrium within the
environment. Deers for instance, where I live, are out of control and
thus hunting seasons is open at certain times.
Nov 12, 2004, 5:16pm
its not on PBS >_<
James liption host inside the Actors studio on Bravo
[View Quote]"alphabit phalpha" <alphabit2003 at swbell.net> wrote in message
news:419437c5$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Het SW Comit,
>
> Have you seen the talk show ummmmm..."Inside The Actor's Studio" Where all
> of the actors who do the voices for all of the Simpsons were on?
> I think it's on Public Broadcasting Station?
> Excellent show!
>
>
> "sw comit" <swcomit at swcity.net> wrote in message
> news:419432a9 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> outa
>
>
|
Nov 12, 2004, 5:25pm
In my understanding, "survival of the fittest" is the common phrase often
used to describe Darwin's theory of Natural Selection (postulated as one of
the mechanisms driving change in a species over time). Unfortunately, this
term is incomplete, imprecise and often very misleading in most
applications.
Survival is only one component of selection of any kind - natural or
otherwise. As an example; someone with many inherited genetic defects might
marry young and have many offspring carry his/her genes, and yet die
tragically while still at a young age. A second person with near perfect
genetic health, might remain single and childless for many years. The "fit"
survived and yet these genes no longer exist prevalently in the population -
while the "non-fit" genes exist in multitudes.
While this example uses people who are free to make decisions, there are
quite a few other variables in a biological sense that determine which genes
are passed on even in the animal world. The ability to attract a mate and
reproduce often has very little to do with "fitness". Fitness, in
evolution, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants
in a gene pool.
The last piece of pizza, or last anchovy, turtles, giraffes or fruitfly -
the one no one ate - "survived" even though it was identical to all it's
siblings. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.
Sometimes it just means "luckiest". And sometimes the difference can only
be described in philosophical terms (wrong place, wrong time).
To add to this, unfortunately, this overused, misunderstood and misapplied
concept has also been used over many years as an excuse for individuals or
even entire ethnic groups to commit hate crimes or even genocide. It would
be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to argue they are wrong using
"science" as our only guide.
my .02
E
"popular science is neither"
[View Quote]"bowen" <bowen at andras.net> wrote in message
news:4194f97f$2 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> e n z o wrote:
>
> Actually it is. It's the broadest, but most precise definition. In
> order to be fit, you have to contain the genes that are necessary for
> survival.
>
> Evolution is not always a good thing.
|
Nov 12, 2004, 5:57pm
[View Quote]e n z o wrote:
> In my understanding, "survival of the fittest" is the common phrase often
> used to describe Darwin's theory of Natural Selection (postulated as one of
> the mechanisms driving change in a species over time). Unfortunately, this
> term is incomplete, imprecise and often very misleading in most
> applications.
>
> Survival is only one component of selection of any kind - natural or
> otherwise. As an example; someone with many inherited genetic defects might
> marry young and have many offspring carry his/her genes, and yet die
> tragically while still at a young age. A second person with near perfect
> genetic health, might remain single and childless for many years. The "fit"
> survived and yet these genes no longer exist prevalently in the population -
> while the "non-fit" genes exist in multitudes.
>
> While this example uses people who are free to make decisions, there are
> quite a few other variables in a biological sense that determine which genes
> are passed on even in the animal world. The ability to attract a mate and
> reproduce often has very little to do with "fitness". Fitness, in
> evolution, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants
> in a gene pool.
>
> The last piece of pizza, or last anchovy, turtles, giraffes or fruitfly -
> the one no one ate - "survived" even though it was identical to all it's
> siblings. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.
> Sometimes it just means "luckiest". And sometimes the difference can only
> be described in philosophical terms (wrong place, wrong time).
>
> To add to this, unfortunately, this overused, misunderstood and misapplied
> concept has also been used over many years as an excuse for individuals or
> even entire ethnic groups to commit hate crimes or even genocide. It would
> be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to argue they are wrong using
> "science" as our only guide.
|
This then breaches out of human survival. We have the ability to take
care of our weak and thus survival of the fittest tends to take a whole
different context to us.
Nov 12, 2004, 6:06pm
deer out of control?
people are out of control
-LW
[View Quote]"bowen" <bowen at andras.net> wrote in message
news:4194fa6e$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> kf wrote:
>
> All animals kill for needs other than food. Many of the preditors kill
> for teritorial reasons. No other large scale preditor has as many in
> numbers as we do either. It's natures way of evening things out. We
> have 6+ billion people, we can kill on a larger scale (technically
> because there are more of us).
>
> We do kill for sport, yes, but I'd say a good 75% of the people who do
> kill for sport _also_ eat the things the kill. Fishing, deer hunting,
> et al. We also kill because some species have no natural preditors in
> the area, thus helping to balance out the equilibrium within the
> environment. Deers for instance, where I live, are out of control and
> thus hunting seasons is open at certain times.
|
Nov 12, 2004, 6:09pm
[View Quote]lightwave wrote:
> deer out of control?
> people are out of control
|
You haven't lived in my area then. Before hunting season is open deer
are everywhere. There's no natural preditors in the area because
they're afraid of humans.
Nov 12, 2004, 10:48pm
Interesting, because The Day After Tomorrow goes completely against your
anti-Kerry beliefs. Al Gore called it the movie "Bush doesn't want you to
see."
[View Quote]"orb" <slclarke at adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:4194016e$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> The Day After Tomorrow deserves a CY.
>
>
|
Nov 13, 2004, 1:03am
im afraid of humans too :)
-LW
[View Quote]"bowen" <bowen at andras.net> wrote in message
news:4195268c$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> lightwave wrote:
>
> You haven't lived in my area then. Before hunting season is open deer
> are everywhere. There's no natural preditors in the area because
> they're afraid of humans.
|
Nov 13, 2004, 1:04am
Yeah, because every time I think of a movie that has totally changed the
political landscape when it comes to the enviroment is The Day After
Tomorrow. Such an accurate movie at that. -_-
Pretty sad when you're getting your movie reviews from Al Gore...
LF
Nov 13, 2004, 3:46pm
I'm liking the movie based on it's own merits without regard to anyone
else's opinion of it. I LIKE THE MOVIE!. This is, after all, just a movie.
I don't wait for my president's ok on what to have for lunch either. If I
voted for someone based on what movies they like or dislike I might as well
hang it up.
|
