The chicken is the medium used by an egg to procreate.
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The chicken is the medium used by an egg to procreate.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424

    Post The chicken is the medium used by an egg to procreate.

    Charles Darwin, the Newton of biology.

    Darwin was strongly impressed by Newton's scientific models: general laws that apply to a
    whole range of phenomenons. Darwin strived for the same in his evolution theory.

    Before Darwin, everyone believed that nature was created by God. Darwin proved that there are strictly mechanical principles that cause nature's phenomenons.

    Americans and creationism.

    More than half of the Americans, along with almost the entire Muslim community, refuse to
    accept Darwin's theories. More than 40% of all Americans is neither a creationist or a pure
    Darwinist, but interpret Darwin's ideas the way it pleases them. Maximum one out of ten
    Americans know what exactly Darwin's evolution-theory stands for...

    The theory.

    It's a myth that Darwin's theory states that man descended from ape.
    Man and ape have a common ancestor: about six million years ago, there was an African
    creature that lead to man (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo
    Sapiens)on the one hand, and to ape on the other.

    It's a myth that 'survival of the fittest' == 'the right of the strongest'.

    William Hamilton introduced the concept of 'inclusive fitness': it proves that animals and
    other organisms do NOT conduct certain actions to protect the survival of their species.

    Darwin already knew that this isn't correct: such behaviour will be mercilessly punished by
    nature. Natural selection only preserves those 'features' that exist in function of the
    organism itself: organisms who are best adapted to their environment, have the best chances
    to procreate.

    The origin of life.

    All living creatures have exactly the same building blocks: the same DNA dinosaurs had
    million years ago can be found in human beings, in elephants, in flies,...
    This fact indicates that all living creatures evolved from one single DNA-molecule some 3.5
    billion years ago. This DNA-molecule has been the key to life for every organism, with the
    exception of some virii and a couple bacterial organisms who use an analogue RNA-molecule.

    Human beings - the end of evolution?

    There are no reasons to assume that man has reached his evolutional end. There are no
    reasons to assume that we will EVER reach our evolutional end. Actually, the term 'end' is
    meaningless from an evolutional point of view. Nobody knows HOW we're going to evolve, but it is certain that we WILL evolve. From an anatomical or fysiological point of view, man
    isn't optimally adapted to his environment.
    An example: we still have a blind spot in each eye: our optic nerve is on a spot where light may fall in. Since this 'weakness' is no direct threat for our survival, nature doesn't intervene. If we would have lived in an environment where this blind spot was a direct threat to our safety, nature would've eliminated that 'weakness'.

    A hawk has extremely sharp eyes. Natural selection will take care of the prey-animals and
    'provide' them with features to escape from the hawk's sharp eyes. Natural selection will
    then again take care of the hawk's eyes, thus creating an eternal armament race where
    there's a stagnating relation between those animals, but the organisms always get better at
    survival and procreation.

    Darwin was wrong on some points.

    Darwins pangenesis-theory has been proven wrong: he assumed that each cell passes features through semen and germ-cells. We know today that it are only the sexe-cells who are responsible for passing genetical information.

    Darwin assumed that organisms procreate. Nowadays, genetic researchers say that it's the
    genetical material that procreates. Our 'egoistical' genes use their host to do such, not
    the other way around. Therefore: The chicken is the medium used by an egg to procreate. A
    sally, but true.

    Darwin and God.

    Darwin knew he'd piss off a lot of people, because his theories didn't fit in the
    theological nature-model of his age.
    The classical example he used was this one:
    Parasyte wasps lay their eggs in living caterpillar. When the eggs hatch out, the larves
    start eating the caterpillar from the inside, leaving the vital organs as last to have fresh
    meat as long as possible. A cruel phenomenon, but the way nature works. According to
    Darwin, there couldn't be a God responsible for this, unless he is a sadist.

    It would be best to assume that nature is a-moral (although that term shouldn't be used
    since natural selection is not an organism, but a 'blind' mechanism without evil
    intentions). Nature doesn't care about ethics.

    Modern evolution-biologist George Williams takes this one step further and considers nature as hostile. His conclusion is that man should fight against all unfavourable conditions. Since we don't know how to control the HIV-virus yet, there still is a long way to go: natural selection makes virii and bacteria able to find ways around our medication. Therefore, we don't have another choice than to fight against this selection and try to control nature as much as possible.

    My own theory...

    That doesn't mean man is the 'victim' of his own genetical cells. A paradoxal situation:
    the more we are programmed, the more flexible we are. Men is 'programmed'to flexibility,
    thanks to the enormous variation of programs... That's why nowadays, most scientists
    believe that the influence of our genes is overrated. Our genes make us free individuals
    who are able to act against the procreation of our genes. We can choose not to procreate
    and change our own genetical material. We need our genes for every move we make, because they steer our moves through complicated programs.
    But they are not a limitation: they just offer us the possibility to act as human beings.

    As for our procreation: according to some biologists, we strive for maximal spread of our genetic material. I don't agree with this: I think our species strives more for quality than for quantity...although some AO-members seem to prove the contrary

    Edit: typo

  2. #2
    Priapistic Monk KorpDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,628
    Very nice reading material.

    There was one thing Darwin didn't count on; the simple fact that stupid people would propigate the species faster than nature could them off. hehehe.
    Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
    - Samuel Johnson

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    380
    Nice post! I reject the Evolution term though... It is merely adaptation to current conditions. The more adaptative an organism is the more chances its specie has to exist over a long period of time. Simplicity is the key there, there will be bacterias long after man and "evoluted" animals are gone... Since bacterias can have a generation every 5 minutes or even less, they tend to be extremely adaptative to climatic conditions. The more complex the organism, the more chances it has to become extinct when a huge catastroph hits the planet...

    As of dispersal of my genes, I would love to disperse them all over the world, sadly my GF won't let me...
    [shadow]Scorp666, the Infamous Orgasmatron[/shadow]

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    Originally posted by Scorp666
    I reject the Evolution term though... It is merely adaptation to current conditions. The more adaptative an organism is the more chances its specie has to exist over a long period of time.
    That's exactly what the evolution theory is about: adaption to current conditions.

    Natural selection only preserves those 'features' that exist in function of the
    organism itself: organisms who are best adapted to their environment, have the best chances
    to procreate.
    Originally posted by Scorp666
    Simplicity is the key there, there will be bacterias long after man and "evoluted" animals are gone... Since bacterias can have a generation every 5 minutes or even less, they tend to be extremely adaptative to climatic conditions. The more complex the organism, the more chances it has to become extinct when a huge catastroph hits the planet...
    'Evolution' doesn't necessarely equal 'upgrading'. A mole is blind, and that may seem as an error of nature - but the mole uses the energy used by other animals for their sight, for other, (to the mole) more interesting 'features'.

    Bacterias are EXTREMELY evolved.
    And remember, there are only 6 billion humans... and how many bacterias? Of course they have a bigger chance to survive when a huge catastroph hits the planet...

    PS: Glad you didn't attack evolution with creationism

    As for the dispersal of your genes: sperm clinics, man, sperm clinics...

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    380
    I simply don't like the term "Evolution" cause in my twisted mind it implies some kind of progress aka getting better.... Otherwise I agree with the theory to a certain extent

    Sperm clinics are no fun, I like getting involved with the final recipient of my semen
    [shadow]Scorp666, the Infamous Orgasmatron[/shadow]

  6. #6
    AO Soccer Mom debwalin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    2,185
    Well, Neg, you knew I had to get involved, didn't you? Lol...but I believe a funny combination between creationism and evolution. I do believe God created the world, and that he created man. But I don't remember seeing anywhere in my Bible that Adam looked like I do, walked like I do, or talked like I do. It is very hard to say evolution doesn't exist, and I don't say it doesn't. Obviously, as with the point about the blind spot in human eyes, and also...what exactly is an appendix? It doesn't do anything, except get infected, and have to be removed. But at some point, we probably needed it. The theory that I heard once upon a time (and I don't remember where) is that it is similar to an organ that birds have, making them able to ingest gravel. I think the theory was that man at one point ingested so much rock/dirt along with his food, that this organ was neccesary for the digestion process, and is no longer, and that in another several thousand years, man will no longer have them.
    I think it is fascinating to think about this kind of thing, and another question that I have is--where do dinosaurs fit in? There is no mention of them in the Bible, and from scientific evidence, it's clear that man and dinosaur did not co-habit the earth together...so where does that fit in? I have my own opinions, but they are along the lines of a religious discussion so to speak...so I'll leave that for another thread, but if you want you can PM me and I'll tell you what I think!

    Like I said, it's all an interesting discussion, but as I've said before, I believe because I believe, and it's not going to change my mind about what I believe. I just would like to understand more....lol. Wouldn't we all?

    Deb
    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.

  7. #7
    Flash M0nkey
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    3,447
    But what if man was to take over the role of nature?
    could genetic enginering be the next step in evolution for man??

    v_Ln

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    380
    lol I would say the doom of it! Who knows how the rest of nature aka Viruses, bacterias, prions will react to lab mutated sobs? I sure don't want to see it...
    [shadow]Scorp666, the Infamous Orgasmatron[/shadow]

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    Heya Deb, thanks for your reply...

    I don't remember seeing anywhere in my Bible that Adam looked like I do, walked like I do, or talked like I do. It is very hard to say evolution doesn't exist, and I don't say it doesn't. Obviously, as with the point about the blind spot in human eyes, and also...what exactly is an appendix? It doesn't do anything, except get infected, and have to be removed. But at some point, we probably needed it. The theory that I heard once upon a time (and I don't remember where) is that it is similar to an organ that birds have, making them able to ingest gravel. I think the theory was that man at one point ingested so much rock/dirt along with his food, that this organ was neccesary for the digestion process, and is no longer, and that in another several thousand years, man will no longer have them.
    All true... didn't know about the appendix
    And you'd be surprised how many people there still are who radically deny evolution...
    STATS at Work
    The data show that 83 percent of Americans support the teaching of evolution, but 79 percent also accept the place of creationism in the curriculum. While nearly half regarded evolution as a theory "far from being proven scientifically," fully 68 percent regarded an evolutionary explanation of human presence to be compatible with a belief in the role of God "creating" and "guiding" human development. Only 20 percent thought that schools should teach only evolution, with no mention of creationism.
    I don't understand why there still are lots of American schools that only teach creationism, and never even mention evolution. No wonder only 1% of all Americans really know what the evolution-theory is about...

    I think it is fascinating to think about this kind of thing, and another question that I have is--where do dinosaurs fit in? There is no mention of them in the Bible, and from scientific evidence, it's clear that man and dinosaur did not co-habit the earth together...so where does that fit in?
    Dinosaurs

    There is overwhelming evidence earth once (from approx. 220 to 65 million years ago) was populated by dinosaurs: fossils don't lie.

    If you wonder how scientists know how old fossils are: they use what is known as the C14- or radiocarbon-method:
    C14 is an unstable/radioactive form of carbon that occurs naturally. The radiocarbon method is based on the rate of decay of the carbon isotope 14. C14 is formed in the upper atmosphere through the effect of cosmic ray neutrons upon nitrogen 14.
    The 14C formed is rapidly oxidised to 14CO2 and enters the earth's plant and animal lifeways through photosynthesis and the food chain.
    Plants and animals which utilise carbon take up 14C during their lifetimes. They exist in equilibrium with the C14 concentration of the atmosphere, that is, the numbers of C14 atoms and non-radioactive carbon atoms stays approximately the same over time. As soon as a plant or animal dies, they cease the metabolic function of carbon uptake; there is no replenishment of radioactive carbon, only decay.
    This decay occurs at a constant rate. After 5568 years, half the C14 in the original sample will have decayed and after another 5568 years, half of that remaining material will have decayed, and so on...

    This means that scientifists can estimate the age of plants and animals close to 5568 years (if we're talking about millions of years, 5568 years is peanuts ).

    Here's a very interesting link on dinosaurs.

    The Bible

    I'm gonna take you on your word that dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible...

    Man and dinosaur

    About 65 million years ago, all dinosaurs died out. Why? There's much discussion going on about that... Some say it happened gradually, others say it was due to a major catastrophy that hit earth...

    It would be interesting to know why the almighty dinosaurs died out, while other animals (like frogs and crocodiles) didn't.

    Homo habilis is the earliest known species of the genus Homo (the first human species). It existed from approximately 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago in east-Africa.
    Man and dinosaur never cohabited because there's a 60 million-year gap between them
    Doesn't fit into the Bible-story, true that. Perfectly makes sense to scientists though... What's more, the scientific evidence for all this is too overwhelming to be denied imo...

    I have my own opinions, but they are along the lines of a religious discussion so to speak...so I'll leave that for another thread, but if you want you can PM me and I'll tell you what I think!
    Will do...

    Like I said, it's all an interesting discussion, but as I've said before, I believe because I believe, and it's not going to change my mind about what I believe. I just would like to understand more....lol. Wouldn't we all?
    Science is always evolving. Scientists don't claim to have the ultimate truth... But once upon a while, the facts prove that a scientific theory is true. Only at that point, when there's absolutely no discussion anymore, scientists believe something to be a fact... Dinosaurs: a fact. Evolution: a fact. And, personally, I think the more science evolves, the harder it will be to fit the Bible into that story...

    I'm not trying to change your mind here, just hoping you learned something...

    PS: I had to remove all the smilies in this post because of this message I got:

    You have included too many images in your signature or in your previous post. Please go back and correct the problem and then continue again.
    mages include use of smilies, the vB code [img] tag and HTML <img> tags. The use of these is all subject to them being enabled by the administrator.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    Originally posted by Valhallen
    But what if man was to take over the role of nature?
    could genetic enginering be the next step in evolution for man??
    To a certain extend, we already are taking over the role of nature: people with bad sight get glasses or contacts... We create our own environment where the chances to survive are as high as possible for as many people as possible. That doesn't mean (yet) that natural selection doesn't matter anymore as only the wealthy countries take profit of this... and that still is a minority... Is it wrong to create our own environment? Natural selection is a blind process that doesn't care about human values...

    My opinion on genetic engineering? I go with George Williams on that one...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •