Ultimate Metal Forum  
UltimateMetal.com homeContact UltimateMetal.com
 
Ultimate Metal Zine Ultimate Metal Photo Gallery Ultimate Metal Classifieds Ultimate Metal Link Directory Ultimate Metal Events Ultimate Metal Radio Ultimate Metal Store

Sponsored Links

Go Back   Ultimate Metal Forum > The Life > The Philosopher


Register FAQ Donate Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

The Philosopher Intelligent (and mature) discussions only.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old February 8th, 2010, 05:31 PM   #1 (permalink)
Judzfell
Schadenfreude
 
Judzfell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ontario
Posts: 342
Process : Creation of Human

I have thought long and hard about this, but why have we ended up the way we have?

As a race, we are jealous, hateful, ignorant, and sadistic.. We are unintelligent to the extreme. I'm just fornicating ideas here.

We are also made pretty shitty. Our vision gives away with age... our teeth are non replaceable, Limbs cannot regenerate.

If you look at other species, like a bird. It can see something a mile away with ease. If evolution was our reason, (Which I don't partake in it's theory) you'd think it would make us more durable as a species, hell, we only live a century at most.

You could say that we are magnificent and intelligent, but who do we have to compare to but ourselves? There are many proofs of how stupid we are, but nothing that we are aware of orknow is smarter.

My theory is that we were created. by godlike people... but not, "god" from the bible.. more of an omniscient ET species who have been splicing genes, Evolution of humans, the conception of it is too ... well, it leaves too many questions unanswered. existence is complex.
Judzfell is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2010, 11:47 AM   #2 (permalink)
hexwind
Creepiness Och Terrorism
 
hexwind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Psychedelic Planet
Posts: 9,788
Okay, you compare us to bird, did you compare their knowledge to ours? We simply don't need to target things miles away from us in order to survive. We need other things (like thumbs) in order to survive... or at least, by time, we found out that we need them.
The fact that you think that we are the worst of the creatures makes us, we humans, better than other species because I doubt they think the way you do haha
__________________
I am just a spectator
An advocate documenting the loss
Fluttering with conceit
This doesn't concern me yet
Still far from the knell






Opeth Forum | Pabulum | Desolator
hexwind is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2010, 01:46 PM   #3 (permalink)
Einherjar86
Winter is Coming
 
Einherjar86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hic et nunc
Posts: 12,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
I have thought long and hard about this, but why have we ended up the way we have?

As a race, we are jealous, hateful, ignorant, and sadistic.. We are unintelligent to the extreme. I'm just fornicating ideas here.

We are also made pretty shitty. Our vision gives away with age... our teeth are non replaceable, Limbs cannot regenerate.

If you look at other species, like a bird. It can see something a mile away with ease. If evolution was our reason, (Which I don't partake in it's theory) you'd think it would make us more durable as a species, hell, we only live a century at most.
Birds don't live nearly as long as humans do. Furthermore, a bird sees so well because it's necessary in order for it to survive. We don't need great sight for survival. We've created technological advancements that have obivated the need for any evolutionary change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
You could say that we are magnificent and intelligent, but who do we have to compare to but ourselves? There are many proofs of how stupid we are, but nothing that we are aware of orknow is smarter.
I'm not sure what you're referring to by "stupid." I mean, we know that we only use a small portion of our brains- is this what you mean? Otherwise, "stupid" is a pretty relative term. A large portion of society might be considered "stupid" by the results of any common standardized test; but that doesn't mean those people are necessarily unintelligent. Or, perhaps you're arguing that we are inherently unintelligent because of the way we envision ourselves and act in the world. If this is the case, I'd ask you to provide some examples of so-called "stupid" behavior.
__________________
Creatures of epidemic rather than hermeneutics, werewolves tend to be very crude, but then, they don't live as long as deconstructionists.

Theory: http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/

Fiction: http://roadsidepicnictalks.blogspot.com/
Einherjar86 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2010, 01:58 PM   #4 (permalink)
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
 
BlackMetalWhiteGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cooperstown and Oswego, NY
Posts: 1,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
As a race, we are jealous, hateful, ignorant, and sadistic..
It makes sense if you understand our evolutionary history. All upper primates are social to some degree and violence between groups evolved as a necessary strategy in competition over resources. We're the first species that actually discovered the ability to harvest and control the production of our own resources, but that only happened within the past several thousand years. Compare that to the few million years that hominids have been around, several million more that primates have existed, millions upon millions more that mammals have existed, about 500 million or so that vertebrates have existed and over a billion that multi-cellular organisms have existed and it's pretty easy to see that any way you look at it, species are hard-wire to compete aggressively, even amongst themselves, over resources. We're just better at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
We are unintelligent to the extreme.
As hexwind pointed out, your ability to notice unintelligence says otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
We are also made pretty shitty. Our vision gives away with age...
Considering human evolutionary history and the purpose of vision, there really wasn't much selection pressure for elderly people to retain their vision. They were no longer hunting, no longer reproducing, and certainly were not spending any time reading for the majority of hominid existence. Once you're beyond the age of peak fertility, secondary competitive characterists begin to lose their value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
our teeth are non replaceable,
Our teeth to not need to be replaced because our teeth do not use them to catch struggling prey. Additionally, we're so proficient with tool use, that we're unlikely to lose teeth due to injury, either. We also have a relatively soft diet that does not result in excessive tooth decay (historically, anyway).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
Limbs cannot regenerate.
Exactly how many limbs have you lost? How many other people do you know who've lost limbs? Probably very few, so in the grand scheme of things, regeneration is not a characteristic that would have been selected for, because the need for it would have been virtually negligible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
If you look at other species, like a bird. It can see something a mile away with ease.
A few bird species, such as hawks and eagles can see detail at great distances. This is because it's necessary for their survival, and consequently, those birds that with superior vision, would also be superior hunters. This would increase the probability that they would survive long enough to reproduce, and considering that birds care for their offspring, it would directly affect their ability to keep their nestlings alive. Humans haven't evolved this feature, because it has never been necessary to our survival.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
If evolution was our reason, (Which I don't partake in it's theory) you'd think it would make us more durable as a species,
I suppose it's easy to reject a theory if you don't understand it.

Evolution doesn't care how "durable" you are. The only thing that matters is the ability to increase your fitness by leaving the greatest genetic legacy. If you can produce more offspring, and healthier offspring, and if they in turn produce viable offspring, then evolution considers you to be successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
hell, we only live a century at most.
It's actually more adaptive for most species to live a short time, because it prevents elderly members of the population from inhibiting the success of younger generations. It also increases the number of generations that can occur within a specific amount of time, and therefore also increases the rate of mutation and the genetic variability within a population, which are the driving forces of evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
You could say that we are magnificent and intelligent, but who do we have to compare to but ourselves?
Every other species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
There are many proofs of how stupid we are, but nothing that we are aware of orknow is smarter.
"Proofs" are things that we invented. The fact that we even have the ability implies that we're not that stupid after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
My theory is that we were created. by godlike people... but not, "god" from the bible.. more of an omniscient ET species who have been splicing genes,
That's not a theory. In fact, that's not even a hypothesis, it's just an idea. A theory is an explanation that has been substantiated by the scientific process, which involves, experimentation, peer review, retestability, and the possibility to be disproven. Evolution is still a theory after 150 years, because it has proven itself against even the most rigorous scientific scrutiny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
Evolution of humans, the conception of it is too ... well, it leaves too many questions unanswered. existence is complex.
On the contrary. It doesn't leave many questions unanswered, it merely provides answers that you, personally, don't understand or haven't taken the time to learn about yet. That's not evolution's fault. It's yours.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by FenriR View Post
it will lower the ratio of penis creatures to normal ones. I shall look forward to conquering my first planet of cocks, nevertheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zephyrus View Post
Sex is good background music for Metal.
My Official UM Introduction, myspace.com/BMWGmusic
BlackMetalWhiteGuy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2010, 02:06 PM   #5 (permalink)
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
 
BlackMetalWhiteGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cooperstown and Oswego, NY
Posts: 1,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Einherjar86 View Post
I'm not sure what you're referring to by "stupid." I mean, we know that we only use a small portion of our brains- is this what you mean?
This is actually a misconception that originated in the 1940s. At the time, a popular psychologist was public with the fact that humans have more cognitive abilities than we use, and neurologists in general admitted that they still didn't know what the entire brain did. A man named Dale Carnegie misrepresented these facts to boost sales of his self-help books and he fabricated the 10% statistic in an attempt to legitimize his credentials by making him sound more "scientific."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Einherjar86 View Post
Otherwise, "stupid" is a pretty relative term. A large portion of society might be considered "stupid" by the results of any common standardized test; but that doesn't mean those people are necessarily unintelligent.
Even then, those people are only stupid by comparison to other people, not to other species, so his point is irrelevant.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by FenriR View Post
it will lower the ratio of penis creatures to normal ones. I shall look forward to conquering my first planet of cocks, nevertheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zephyrus View Post
Sex is good background music for Metal.
My Official UM Introduction, myspace.com/BMWGmusic
BlackMetalWhiteGuy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2010, 03:26 PM   #6 (permalink)
Einherjar86
Winter is Coming
 
Einherjar86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hic et nunc
Posts: 12,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMetalWhiteGuy View Post
This is actually a misconception that originated in the 1940s. At the time, a popular psychologist was public with the fact that humans have more cognitive abilities than we use, and neurologists in general admitted that they still didn't know what the entire brain did. A man named Dale Carnegie misrepresented these facts to boost sales of his self-help books and he fabricated the 10% statistic in an attempt to legitimize his credentials by making him sound more "scientific."
I never knew that. I thought it was more than 10% (that just sounds asinine), but I didn't know the idea of not using our brains to their full capacity was a myth. So thank you!

As to your other point, I was just emphasizing that calling people stupid, even in comparison to other people, is still a very relative accusation.
__________________
Creatures of epidemic rather than hermeneutics, werewolves tend to be very crude, but then, they don't live as long as deconstructionists.

Theory: http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/

Fiction: http://roadsidepicnictalks.blogspot.com/
Einherjar86 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2010, 04:37 PM   #7 (permalink)
Blowtus
Senior Member
 
Blowtus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judzfell View Post
You could say that we are magnificent and intelligent, but who do we have to compare to but ourselves? There are many proofs of how stupid we are, but nothing that we are aware of orknow is smarter.
Humans are stupid, and yet, nothing is smarter. Your inherent pessimism is rather clear there We have *every other form of life known about* to compare ourselves to.
Blowtus is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2010, 11:19 AM   #8 (permalink)
Citizen Erased
Jamie Lenman <3
 
Citizen Erased's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 76
Quote:
As a race, we are jealous, hateful, ignorant, and sadistic.. We are unintelligent to the extreme. I'm just fornicating ideas here.
Humans can also be compassionate, loving, caring and selfless. Humans are also the most intelligent race on the planet. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at. There is no shade without light. You can't just list the extremely negative attributes to humans and ignore the good parts.
__________________
And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
Citizen Erased is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2010, 12:19 PM   #9 (permalink)
monoxide_child
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMetalWhiteGuy View Post
It makes sense if you understand our evolutionary history. All upper primates are social to some degree and violence between groups evolved as a necessary strategy in competition over resources. We're the first species that actually discovered the ability to harvest and control the production of our own resources, but that only happened within the past several thousand years. Compare that to the few million years that hominids have been around, several million more that primates have existed, millions upon millions more that mammals have existed, about 500 million or so that vertebrates have existed and over a billion that multi-cellular organisms have existed and it's pretty easy to see that any way you look at it, species are hard-wire to compete aggressively, even amongst themselves, over resources. We're just better at it.

As hexwind pointed out, your ability to notice unintelligence says otherwise.

Considering human evolutionary history and the purpose of vision, there really wasn't much selection pressure for elderly people to retain their vision. They were no longer hunting, no longer reproducing, and certainly were not spending any time reading for the majority of hominid existence. Once you're beyond the age of peak fertility, secondary competitive characterists begin to lose their value.

Our teeth to not need to be replaced because our teeth do not use them to catch struggling prey. Additionally, we're so proficient with tool use, that we're unlikely to lose teeth due to injury, either. We also have a relatively soft diet that does not result in excessive tooth decay (historically, anyway).

Exactly how many limbs have you lost? How many other people do you know who've lost limbs? Probably very few, so in the grand scheme of things, regeneration is not a characteristic that would have been selected for, because the need for it would have been virtually negligible.

A few bird species, such as hawks and eagles can see detail at great distances. This is because it's necessary for their survival, and consequently, those birds that with superior vision, would also be superior hunters. This would increase the probability that they would survive long enough to reproduce, and considering that birds care for their offspring, it would directly affect their ability to keep their nestlings alive. Humans haven't evolved this feature, because it has never been necessary to our survival.

I suppose it's easy to reject a theory if you don't understand it.

Evolution doesn't care how "durable" you are. The only thing that matters is the ability to increase your fitness by leaving the greatest genetic legacy. If you can produce more offspring, and healthier offspring, and if they in turn produce viable offspring, then evolution considers you to be successful.

It's actually more adaptive for most species to live a short time, because it prevents elderly members of the population from inhibiting the success of younger generations. It also increases the number of generations that can occur within a specific amount of time, and therefore also increases the rate of mutation and the genetic variability within a population, which are the driving forces of evolution.

Every other species.

"Proofs" are things that we invented. The fact that we even have the ability implies that we're not that stupid after all.

That's not a theory. In fact, that's not even a hypothesis, it's just an idea. A theory is an explanation that has been substantiated by the scientific process, which involves, experimentation, peer review, retestability, and the possibility to be disproven. Evolution is still a theory after 150 years, because it has proven itself against even the most rigorous scientific scrutiny.

On the contrary. It doesn't leave many questions unanswered, it merely provides answers that you, personally, don't understand or haven't taken the time to learn about yet. That's not evolution's fault. It's yours.
all of this info was taught to me in highschool biology, why was the thread starter not familiar with any of this?
monoxide_child is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2010, 09:12 AM   #10 (permalink)
Badbird
Never banned
 
Badbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ayn Rand is dead hahahahaha
Posts: 4,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen Erased View Post
Humans can also be compassionate, loving, caring and selfless. Humans are also the most intelligent race on the planet. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at. There is no shade without light. You can't just list the extremely negative attributes to humans and ignore the good parts.
We are both intelligent and unintlligent. You can't compare birds to humans either.
Badbird is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2010, 11:02 AM   #11 (permalink)
razoredge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,895
We out live most other species, how long do you want to live ? There comes a point in life when enough is enough. We currently have denied natural selection and live decades longer than we are supposed to. We should be fertilizer by 40.

Our teeth rot away due to being meat eaters that turned to junk food

we are stupid because we are destructive, meddleing, discontents

we will be humbled for our actions by the earth
__________________
into this wild abyss, the womb of nature and perhaps her grave, of neither sea, nor shore, nor air, nor fire... but all these in their pregnant causes mixed confusedly, and which thus must ever fight, unless the almighty maker then ordain his dark materials to create more worlds, into this wild abyss the wary fiend stood on the brink of hell and looked a while, pondering his voyage
razoredge is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2010, 07:16 PM   #12 (permalink)
Blowtus
Senior Member
 
Blowtus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 906
Two points:

Giving up and dying is hardly 'natural'.

'Natural' doesn't mean 'good', it in fact doesn't really mean anything when used regarding humans. Either everything we do is 'natural' or nothing is, this business about applying the 'natural' label to actions one finds good and wholesome is plain and simple bullshit.
Blowtus is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2010, 08:53 PM   #13 (permalink)
razoredge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,895
do you think perhaps there is two definitions for natural ?
__________________
into this wild abyss, the womb of nature and perhaps her grave, of neither sea, nor shore, nor air, nor fire... but all these in their pregnant causes mixed confusedly, and which thus must ever fight, unless the almighty maker then ordain his dark materials to create more worlds, into this wild abyss the wary fiend stood on the brink of hell and looked a while, pondering his voyage
razoredge is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2010, 09:31 PM   #14 (permalink)
Blowtus
Senior Member
 
Blowtus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 906
I think there are probably heaps. Do you want to have a shot at a logically consistent one that lets you argue humans are acting unnaturally?
Blowtus is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2010, 12:08 AM   #15 (permalink)
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
 
BlackMetalWhiteGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cooperstown and Oswego, NY
Posts: 1,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Brady View Post
We are both intelligent and unintlligent. You can't compare birds to humans either.
Yes we can.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62U44520100331
Quote:
Songbird genome may shed light on speech disorders

Scientists have cracked the genetic code of a songbird for the first time, identifying more than 800 genes linked to song learning in a finding that may shed light on human speech disorders.

Baby zebra finches learn to sing in virtually the same way as human babies learn to speak -- by copying their elders -- which means the tiny bird should serve as a valuable model for understanding human learning and memory.

"Song learning is an excellent paradigm for all types of learning," said Chris Ponting, a professor with the Medical Research Council Functional Genomics Unit at University of Oxford, who was involved in the research.

"There are experiments that can be done that immediately provide information as to what changes occur in neurons (brain cells) upon the learning of a song. The zebra finch genome provides a tool that allows this exploration," he told Reuters.

The Australian zebra finch, which weighs less than half an ounce (14 grams), is only the second bird to have its genome sequenced, after the chicken in 2004.

Baby finches, like human infants, start off by "babbling" before the young males learn to imitate their father's song and eventually pass it on to the next generation.

As they learn in such a predictable way and many of their genes are also found in humans, finches could provide a window onto the origins of speech disorders, such as autism, strokes, stuttering and Parkinson's disease.

It gives the zebra finch genome a "unique relevance to human neuroscience," a team of international scientists led by Wes Warren of Washington University's Genome Center reported in the journal Nature Wednesday.

Still, untangling the vast web of genetic and molecular factors involved in learning will not be easy.

Experts previously thought there might be around 100 genes involved in zebra finch singing, however, the fact that at least 800 genes exist underlines the sheer complexity of learning.

Significantly, many of the genes activated by bird song do not act like genes in the usual way as code for making proteins. Instead, they belong to the non-coding part of the genome, or what used to be known as "junk DNA."

The analysis of the zebra finch genome adds to growing evidence that these stretches of DNA are not junk, but actually serve a key biological function.

They may have two birds in the bag, but scientists still want to learn more about these feathered descendants of the dinosaurs. Next up is the parrot genome, which researchers hope to complete by the end of this year.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by FenriR View Post
it will lower the ratio of penis creatures to normal ones. I shall look forward to conquering my first planet of cocks, nevertheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zephyrus View Post
Sex is good background music for Metal.
My Official UM Introduction, myspace.com/BMWGmusic
BlackMetalWhiteGuy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2010, 04:04 AM   #16 (permalink)
razoredge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blowtus View Post
I think there are probably heaps. Do you want to have a shot at a logically consistent one that lets you argue humans are acting unnaturally?
acting naturally to defy natural selection, very good

those that couldnt make it now do from human desire for monetary satisfaction, laws also protected the weak a product of self preservation, bleeding heart another factor but is that innate or is that also a product of "brain washing", all other species turn their back to the weak and move on

my belief is that in the beginning there were good hunters, industrious and resourceful workers, then there was the theifs

The theifs became Doctors, lawyers, law makers, politicians, insurance agents and stock brokers. The problem is today it would still be natural to kill them but they are protected by their means of self preservation, creating laws and false beliefs that they are saviors, but they just want the money.

The workers still get what needs to be done... done

"religious beliefs" may have been the initial tool used by theifs to protect themselves, fear mongering. I say this because it was the first means of repression, slavery, how Kings became Kings and protectionism of such types, all would fear them and by their accumulation of power would be untouchable
__________________
into this wild abyss, the womb of nature and perhaps her grave, of neither sea, nor shore, nor air, nor fire... but all these in their pregnant causes mixed confusedly, and which thus must ever fight, unless the almighty maker then ordain his dark materials to create more worlds, into this wild abyss the wary fiend stood on the brink of hell and looked a while, pondering his voyage
razoredge is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2010, 04:15 AM   #17 (permalink)
razoredge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMetalWhiteGuy View Post
Thus proving scientists have too much time on thier hands and funding FROM SOMEWHERE to wealthfully support such trivial and pointless persuits
__________________
into this wild abyss, the womb of nature and perhaps her grave, of neither sea, nor shore, nor air, nor fire... but all these in their pregnant causes mixed confusedly, and which thus must ever fight, unless the almighty maker then ordain his dark materials to create more worlds, into this wild abyss the wary fiend stood on the brink of hell and looked a while, pondering his voyage
razoredge is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2010, 04:36 AM   #18 (permalink)
Blowtus
Senior Member
 
Blowtus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by razoredge View Post
all other species turn their back to the weak and move on
No, they don't.



Was anything you said intended to support the notion that humans don't act naturally?
Blowtus is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2010, 04:41 AM   #19 (permalink)
razoredge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,895
I'll break it down to the key points of the artical

"may shed light" (we need more money)

"which means the tiny bird should serve as a valuable model for understanding human learning and memory."(see why we need more money)

"who was involved in the research."(has nice bank account)

"The zebra finch genome provides a tool that allows this exploration,"(actually its your money, thanks but this way sounds better)

"is only the second bird to have its genome sequenced, after the chicken in 2004."(hey it takes alot of money, but thanks again)

"Baby finches, like human infants, start off by "babbling" before the young males learn to imitate their father's song and eventually pass it on to the next generation." (arent we profound)

"finches could provide a window onto the origins of speech disorders" (we wont know untill we make more money)

"reported"(its the least we can do, thanks)

"will not be easy."(hey, this takes alot of time... and money)

"Experts previously thought there might be around 100 genes involved in zebra finch singing, however, the fact that at least 800 genes exist underlines the sheer complexity of learning." (learning is complex and this kind takes alot of money... see we are profound... BTW, thanks)

"Significantly"(a great money pit to be involved in)

"They may have two birds in the bag," (whats a few billion per bird, we're having fun)

"but scientists still want to learn more about these feathered descendants of the dinosaurs." Oh me too

Next up is the parrot genome, which researchers hope to complete by the end of this year.(we hope to maintain our financial security, send us the money)

__________________
into this wild abyss, the womb of nature and perhaps her grave, of neither sea, nor shore, nor air, nor fire... but all these in their pregnant causes mixed confusedly, and which thus must ever fight, unless the almighty maker then ordain his dark materials to create more worlds, into this wild abyss the wary fiend stood on the brink of hell and looked a while, pondering his voyage
razoredge is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2010, 04:47 AM   #20 (permalink)
razoredge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blowtus View Post
No, they don't.



Was anything you said intended to support the notion that humans don't act naturally?
not to your comprehension... naturally
__________________
into this wild abyss, the womb of nature and perhaps her grave, of neither sea, nor shore, nor air, nor fire... but all these in their pregnant causes mixed confusedly, and which thus must ever fight, unless the almighty maker then ordain his dark materials to create more worlds, into this wild abyss the wary fiend stood on the brink of hell and looked a while, pondering his voyage
razoredge is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2010, 04:15 PM   #21 (permalink)
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
 
BlackMetalWhiteGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cooperstown and Oswego, NY
Posts: 1,642
The parallels between song bird learning and human language learning are significant even on a non-molecular level, so studying the genetic components involved is certainly a worthwhile pursuit. The parrot genome also shows a lot of promise, considering that they can produce more similar speech to our own and demonstrate similar levels and types of cognition to ourselves than even many of our most closely related species, such as the other great apes. The allelic components that govern these phenomenon are certainly worth studying as they have the potential to unlock secrets not just about the birds themselves, but about ourselves. The idea that we may be able to apply what we learn to human medical science is certainly a reasonable expectation and at the very least, even if we don't learn enough to combat speech disorders directly, these studies will provide a foundation on which to base other studies that may yield more relevant data, as well as contributing to our vast database of knowledge that at some point may even be applied to something that we haven't forseen yet.

"Scientists" as a whole do not make a lot of money. You would be lead to believe that they do, due to the large amount of funding that many projects receive, but this money is not going into the pockets of the scientists; it is consumed by the costs of the experiments and equipment and a lot of it is syphoned off by the university or organization at which the scientists are employed. The only means by which a scientist can reasonably expect to become wealthy through these studies is by publishing enough research and becoming valuable enough to their field of study that they can make a living on the lecture circuit and by convincing their universities to consider them for raises and tenure. However, these scientists are generally not paid to publish their work and are usually not compensated for their involvement in the studies. In fact, they are often required even to pay their own travel expenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by razoredge View Post
acting naturally to defy natural selection, very good
Humans are not "defying" natural selection, they're reacting to selection pressures in a different way than other organisms. This is the exact evolutionary phenomenon that has always motivated speciation.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by FenriR View Post
it will lower the ratio of penis creatures to normal ones. I shall look forward to conquering my first planet of cocks, nevertheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zephyrus View Post
Sex is good background music for Metal.
My Official UM Introduction, myspace.com/BMWGmusic
BlackMetalWhiteGuy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2010, 09:51 PM   #22 (permalink)
razoredge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,895
I was mostly bustin balls BMWG but alot of what I said is bottom line truth. Alot of money has been spent over the past 60+ years with little fruitation and that is job security for those involved in those fields. We have had a health cost crisis for a very long time and it has come from trying to beat the inevitable... from the research lab to the hospitol bed, I dont care what anyone says its a big money grab, first and foremost.

I think I told you before but my brother in law is a plant genetics cloner, you can remind me of the proper title. Is one of the top professors at UT and has done some around the globe travel doing lectures. They live well, hes a great guy. He's currently working on a hopefully worthy project that is cloning some plant, I forget if its sugar cane or something else for bio fuel. I guess the objective of the clone is multiple, for rapid production, potency and IIRC also process easier/faster.

Another project they were comptemplating about 10 years ago was the hemp plant for use as fiber for paper. Cloned so it would glow a differnt color under light than cannibus and also rapid stalk growth. I forget what he said happened to that idea. Myself I think they should just grow the real stuff, keep the stalks and sell the bud... LOL

Natural vrs natural selection

self preservation is natural, however extending the life of those genetically less fit is not "self", its performed by others for the purpose of equity with a touch of heartbleed. Most of the heartbleed is done by those who will truely suffer a loss, who also cant help other than handing over large sums of money to the helpers. You would have to work a "helper" over pretty good to see a tear.

now the "helpers" are acting naturally on thier greed for their version of self preservation, they are preying, I call these the brains of prey.

Please remember that I am potentially genetically unfit with a mother that died a 36 and father at 67 from cancer related illnesses. Much was spent on my mother and guess what, she died 6 months later. A fair amount was spent on my father but he only gave them 10 days to run the vacuume.

What is truely "natural" here is life and death... inevitable and go hand in hand.

The alternative natural is preying on the hopes of the scared for profit... who are naturally scared. Has not got a single fucking thing to do with self perservation. Would one wish me to think the human race see's itself as endangered and thus is simply acting against natural selection as self perservation of its entire species ?

natural human actions/reactions doth not = natural selection

I see two different definations and do not agree otherwise
__________________
into this wild abyss, the womb of nature and perhaps her grave, of neither sea, nor shore, nor air, nor fire... but all these in their pregnant causes mixed confusedly, and which thus must ever fight, unless the almighty maker then ordain his dark materials to create more worlds, into this wild abyss the wary fiend stood on the brink of hell and looked a while, pondering his voyage

Last edited by razoredge : May 3rd, 2010 at 09:54 PM.
razoredge is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2010, 06:56 PM   #23 (permalink)
Frontal Lobotomy
Senior Member
 
Frontal Lobotomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMetalWhiteGuy View Post
That's not a theory. In fact, that's not even a hypothesis, it's just an idea. A theory is an explanation that has been substantiated by the scientific process, which involves, experimentation, peer review, retestability, and the possibility to be disproven. Evolution is still a theory after 150 years, because it has proven itself against even the most rigorous scientific scrutiny.
Actually, being a type of idea or question, or simply a statement that might or might not be true, is the very definition of a hypothesis...and also a theory (except the latter being a set of explanatory statements rather than a single statement). Consequently, his idea is, in fact, a hypotheses, which is a question that is waiting for evidence to support or refute it. I repeat the word support, because a theory can never be proven, only supported by experimental evidence, which in itself would make it scientific. Therein lies the self-contradiction of your statement about Evolution. Evolution is a theory, but it is one that is untestable and therefore in its own merit, unscientific. It just makes sense that some things would exist as products of evolution, but we can never, ever experimentally test these theories, and therefore, they can never be refuted. This makes evolution unscientific by today's scientific research paradigm. Not saying that you called it scientific, but it hasn't really proven itself in any way.
I'm open to the possibility that I have completely misunderstood you, and if that's the case, I apologize

I know this might sound ironic having said all that, but I'm actually a great believer in the Evolutionary theory. I think it hard to reject even for religious people, although they don't seem to have a problem with doing that. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said I'm just being a pedantic ass
__________________
I have a heart of a child...
I keep it in a jar on my desk.
Frontal Lobotomy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2010, 07:56 PM   #24 (permalink)
Blowtus
Senior Member
 
Blowtus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 906
What is untestable about evolution?
Blowtus is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2010, 04:37 AM   #25 (permalink)
Frontal Lobotomy
Senior Member
 
Frontal Lobotomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blowtus View Post
What is untestable about evolution?
I was thinking more of the sort 'Can you test the hypotheses that man evolved from the apes?'. You really can't, you can only look at the post hoc evidence and our common genetic material. Well, one can test what is inferred to be evolutionary mechanisms, as in the research with the fruit fly, so I admit I was a bit hasty in my last post. Some facets of evolution are testable. The point I was actually trying to make is that nothing has been proven. Evolution is still a theory and not a statement of fact. I think pushing evolution as factual makes religious people stand their ground even more firmly, and it makes us seem just as mulish.
__________________
I have a heart of a child...
I keep it in a jar on my desk.
Frontal Lobotomy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0
© Copyright 2000-2014 UltimateMetal.com | MetalAges Media