My General Earth Theory

[size=-4]mod edit
*[size=-4]Love* Peer Review,
/[size=-4]mod edit This is what I believe.
There is a cyclical(repeating) race of the species to the finish line date in 2012.
What does this imply?
1. The race is between all species, known and unknown on earth to see who will win the "Best Specie Adaptation to its Environment (aka gets along famously) Race of the Aeon(TM)". The prize is nirvana, the Homo sapiens was doing very well but not so much so lately, oh well.
2. That humans beings were positioned to win the race and are fudging it up for themselves and many other species are catching up to us.
3. The reason why

Go ahead and ask away, we got all the time in the world. Actually we don't have hardly any time left, but oh well.
Here is a contender species example, there are many more.
Type B Orca Juvenile Training

====
Mod Edit: no profanity please, not even stars
Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
Embedded video
Replace profanity with Love

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Badge01]

Well, if humans keep up at current pace they might be the only specie left on earth by 2012

2 lines?

Excuse me sir, but could you release how the affects of the drug you’re taking *snip* is affecting you? I am quite interested upon the findings. Thank you

====
Mod Edit: No drug talk, please; no sniping.

[edit on 1/12/2009 by Badge01]

Another food for thought, army ants, "They are all sisters since they come from the same queen..."
Army ants rival the human civilization in many many ways my friends (was I ominous just then??):
They wage WARS in ways that rival humans; they have a strategically structured army of pyramid like design. The weaker but larger population (dies trying and) pins down the insects so the stronger, better equipped: RINGERS. can "golpe de gracia" the poor saps.
I'll give you some more examples later on, ciao

Originally posted by Johnathanrs
Excuse me sir, but could you release how the affects of the drug you’re taking *snip* is affecting you? I am quite interested upon the findings. Thank you

Ho..Holy *snip* dude you are right, we thank you for that.

quote snipped, profanity quote snipped

[edit on 1/12/2009 by Badge01]

reply to post by Suckatash


i dont understand the tread vs what it is you are gettin across

what is the theroy you speak of?

I am unsure here

It is my belief that for hundreds of years the human race has been handicapping us in respect to evolution. Every scientific advance that makes like easier for us makes us lazier and damages or gene pool. The genes those are responsible for strength and surviveabily. Are not looked for in a mate any more in the human relationship. What genes are past on weaker genes from people who spend there days in an office pounding away on a keyboard these are the people that make the good money. And everyone knows that women go for the money the guy that can take care of them. No offence girls it’s a social thing we understand

Originally posted by redwolf.of.odin
and damages or gene pool. The genes those are responsible for strength and surviveabily.

This thread is damaging my gene pool

Nice job spamming this on other threads

Originally posted by redwolf.of.odin
It is my belief that for hundreds of years the human race has been handicapping us in respect to evolution. Every scientific advance that makes like easier for us makes us lazier and damages or gene pool. The genes those are responsible for strength and surviveabily. Are not looked for in a mate any more in the human relationship. What genes are past on weaker genes from people who spend there days in an office pounding away on a keyboard these are the people that make the good money. And everyone knows that women go for the money the guy that can take care of them. No offence girls it’s a social thing we understand

All your saying is that selection is no longer due to environmental stresses, but now have to do with social stresses. This is untrue. Environmental stresses still greatly impact human evolution, although they have slid in importance to social stresses. As social animals, social stresses still affected humanity when we were a more primitive race - and affected our ancestors (such as Australopithecus) and our cousins - such as the Chimpanzee. Civilization, the removal of many natural barriers to population, has shifted the priorities of selection -but hasn't removed them.

Although often an important driving factor, Evolution is not wholly dependent on natural selection.

Does it really matter anyhow? Within the next 30 years we will have the technology to rewrite our genetic code and remove deleterious mutations and replace them with beneficial mutations - both in developing young and in already fully grown adults.

hmm ..

genes all came from the same "pool"

its evolution right?

I dont understand how you connect the first part of the statement with the second

Originally posted by theresult
hmm ..

genes all came from the same "pool"

its evolution right?

I dont understand how you connect the first part of the statement with the second

No, there is not a set and finite gene "pool" which we all share. A gene is merely a segment of DNA responsible for a specific trait. Mutations, deletions, insertions, duplications, etc can cause changes in genes that allow them to express new and unique traits. The first Eukaryotic life did not already possess the necessary genes for flight just waiting to be expressed. Were that the case, then evolution would be fixed from the outset (and it would be a wonderful evidence for creationism). By analyzing our DNA, we could figure out future expressions of genes and jump-start evolution in ourselves by artificially activating them. However, we only ever find genes for traits we either currently use or that an ancestor used, but has been switched off in us. (Occasionally these are accidentally turned on, leading to atavisms)

No, there is not a set and finite gene "pool" which we all share

Yes there is its called a carbon based life form "hello"...

next?

A gene is merely a segment of DNA responsible for a specific trait.

and ur point is??? i move on..

and it would be a wonderful evidence for creationism

was you not created? you are like looping here..?

or was u a mistake? what is CREATION??? hmm? tsk..

i used the word gene pool as a term i thought people would understand ok what i am saying is that the prettiest girls have the best genes so that they can atract the best mate. now women do not choose the strongest most asertive men to mat with puting the best of the male genes with the best female genes. the choose for love or convenace or money or someone they can control. this damages the genes that are past on because the stronger genes just slowly die out. and the weaker genes are pasted on instead. this is what i ment by damage or gene pool. now tell me what happens when the animals loss there instict to choose a mate and there gene pool stagnates. they get new illnesses and defects and weaken slowly then they go the way of the dodo. all gone

reply to post by redwolf.of.odin

i used the word gene pool as a term i thought people would understand ok

So... you knowingly used the wrong term and for the wrong situation, and you expect people to understand? If they do understand, it will be invariably be a wrong or flawed understanding. How did you think that would be a good idea?

what i am saying is that the prettiest girls have the best genes

This isn't really true. Sure physical attractiveness can weed out potential mates from bearing offspring that carry genes for a number of physically detrimental traits. However, by and large, these things aren't obvious. Perhaps a pretty girl has a gene that makes her particularly susceptible to heart disease or Cancer? This isn't even counting the genes which are switched off in her, but still carried by females in her family. On the flip side, a rather ugly and sickly girl may carry a gene that codes for high bone density or resistance to anemia? Again, these traits may be carried, but not active.

The process of deciding on a mate due to physical attractiveness is only a single factor in selection. A much rather larger influence on the effective passing on of deleterious genes would be the advent of civilization itself. Civilization is what keeps us protected from the harshness of nature, a harshness that has been a major driving force for removed deleterious genes and favored well adapted genes.

now women do not choose the strongest most asertive men to mat with puting the best of the male genes with the best female genes. the choose for love or convenace or money or someone they can control.

For most of recorded history, women have had no choice over whom they marry. This responsibility was delegated to the father or leader of the family. Women were often regarded as property, or at the very least worth far less monetarily than men, and their marriages were usually a form of business/political contract between families. Hence the inception of the dowry.

This is, however, after the advent of civilization and agriculture. I don't know the common marriage practices of pre-historic hunter-gatherer tribes.

this damages the genes that are past on because the stronger genes just slowly die out. and the weaker genes are pasted on instead.

Again, mating selection isn't a major driver of evolution. Having the beneficial genes necessary for survival until you DO mate is far more important. Further, I think you're hung up on the concept of "Survival of the fittest". This is a blatant falsehood, and has only survived as a social meme of the uneducated. Firstly, selection isn't the only avenue by which evolution works. Secondly, it would be far more accurate to call it "Survival of the most well adapted to their environment". Doesn't quite have the "ring" that "Survival of the Fittest" does, though. Herein lies the underlying flaw in your statement. We are no longer in the same environment we originally evolved in. We as a species are dependent on society, regardless of the technology level. So the rules for favorable adaptation have changed a bit. Now, as a social species that builds civilizations, should favor adaptations that make a person successful within that society. If this means he's some splindly little dork with no muscle tone poking away at a keyboard in a cubicle- but making three times what you pull down in a year then... surprise! He's more well adapted to his environment than you are.

Natural Selection based on our environment still applies, mind you. There's the chance you could die from a virus, or be mauled by a bear, or run a stoplight because you're color blind and get creamed by a truck. However, because we actively try to insulate ourselves from the natural dangers of our environments - it invariably play less of a role than it once did.



[edit on 11-1-2009 by Lasheic]

so basivly what you have said is that i spoke in laymans terms so everyone could understand and you disaggree with me because of that ????

and exactly how do you know that anyone makes 3 times more than me or that i'm not just like the person you have describes this is a onservation

reply to post by redwolf.of.odin

so basivly what you have said is that i spoke in laymans terms so everyone could understand and you disaggree with me because of that ????

No... layman's terms are still correct, just simplified. You weren't even close to being correct.

and exactly how do you know that anyone makes 3 times more than me or that i'm not just like the person you have describes this is a onservation

It's a hypothetical situation to demonstrate a point. It wasn't intended to be an accurate description of your annual income.