Natural Selection
-
Matt Gullett wrote: is it causing them to mutate into forms which are more lethal to humans If anything, by creating new vaccines against bacteria/viruses we are helping their evolution.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
This I would agree with. We are helping them. However, the black plague wasn't exactly a walk in the park. The family that includes ebola isn't exactly a nice one either. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
Jonny Newman wrote: On the same note of human evolution, what would have been the next step for us ignoring technology? Why should we ignore technology?..technology is what makes us the dominant species and technological innovation should never stop. The next stage of our evolution will be bionic and genetically enhanced. Premature optimization is the root of all evil Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
Natural Evolution. By taking technology into account we are not loooking at our biological evolution, but only our brains evolution. However, our brains have not evolved for centuries even millenia. We are the same now in theory as the first Homo Sapiens. Only we have a better understanding of our environment through our knowlage being passed on through language.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
-
By preserving the endangered species are we going against Natural Selection/Survival of the fittest?.. Are we preventing Nature from taking it's own course?.. I am Pentium of Borg. Division is Futile. You will be approximated. Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
It depends what mans involvement has been with making an endangered species, endangered. :rose: Janice :rose:
Well how about if the species is endangered because we are killing it too much?..Should we then try to protect it?.. It's like telling the Tiger hey don't kill all the deer they are an endangered species. The reasons that we should protect these species i have outlined in an earlier post. You know that little indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why can't they make the whole plane out of that stuff? Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
Matt Gullett wrote: any new species would be better at surviving around humans. That is already happening, there are bacteria and virus strains which are immune to current anti-biotics, mosquitoes which are immune to quinine etc. Planet of the Apes :-D "I believe OS/2...to be the most important OS...of all time" Gates '87 Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
Sijin wrote: virus strains which are immune to current anti-biotics... Sijin wrote: mosquitoes which are immune to quinine etc. < anal retent mode > well virii arn't particularly likely to be affected by an anti-biotic (which is why any idiot who takes strepsils for a sore throat is generally wasting their time and money) and quinine...well its an anti malarial agent - works not on mossies but rather on the plasmodium vivax parasite < / anal retent mode > Bryce
-
In theory most of the humans alive now should be dead according to the survival of the fittest. What happens to all the fat buffalo? They are the first to be eaten, this would be true of humans had we not inventer such novel ways of defending ourselves. And so are anyone suffering from disease of disability. This would be stopping/slowing our evolution because we are not allowing ourselves to better ourselves genetically or physically but instead we are keeping every member of our species alive. I am not however suggesting he start killing everyone with a disability :-D My two cents.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
-
By preserving the endangered species are we going against Natural Selection/Survival of the fittest?.. Are we preventing Nature from taking it's own course?.. I am Pentium of Borg. Division is Futile. You will be approximated. Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
Well my very informed opinion is that if the species has become endangered directly as a result of the activities of man then we should help to preserve it, protect it, breed it in captivity and return it to the wild type thing (and protect its environment etc etc) ..... but if it has become endangered because the species is not capable of surviving then we should let it die out in the wild at least.... but keeping specimens in zoos and game parks and things is ok because if we have the resources and the technology then we may as well keep the species alive in captivity for interests sake :) and thats what I think :) an anyway it is all "survival of the species" just a different definition... fittest now means richest, cutest, most prolific an all that an it all gets really complicated an stuff.... an I gotta do work cause I'm confusing myself with my conflicting opinions :) wot do u think? bryce
-
Oh yeah. I just cherish the memories of smallpox, polio, and the black plague. Now those were the good old days. :laugh: Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
Tim Smith wrote: I just cherish the memories of smallpox, polio, and the black plague. Now those were the good old days. Yeah and what does not kill you only makes you stronger... oh but wait, those killed whoever got it, so nobody got stronger... oh yeah, now I remember why the vaccines were good... :rolleyes: regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
-
Sijin wrote: virus strains which are immune to current anti-biotics... Sijin wrote: mosquitoes which are immune to quinine etc. < anal retent mode > well virii arn't particularly likely to be affected by an anti-biotic (which is why any idiot who takes strepsils for a sore throat is generally wasting their time and money) and quinine...well its an anti malarial agent - works not on mossies but rather on the plasmodium vivax parasite < / anal retent mode > Bryce
bryce wrote: which is why any idiot who takes strepsils for a sore throat is generally wasting their time and money Strepsils really just anethitise (sp?) the sore area, then when the person gets better they attribute it to the strepsil. You are right, it is idiotic to think the strepsil actually helps but they definitley cut down on the sore throat feeling. bryce wrote: and quinine...well its an anti malarial agent Works brilliantly with gin as well :-D regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
-
This reminds me of a discussion 1-2 weeks ago when someone asked the question "are humans animals?". Are humans subject to natural selection? If not, is this a differentiating factor distinguishing us from animals. OR, have we just slowed down the process of natural selection? Even if we have just slowed it down, though, does this still distinguish us from animals. I think I should be glad natural selection hasn't applied directly to me. If it had, I'd be a gonner.
Matt Gullett wrote: This reminds me of a discussion 1-2 weeks ago when someone asked the question "are humans animals?". People notice me? Woohoo! ;) Matt Gullett wrote: Are humans subject to natural selection? If not, is this a differentiating factor distinguishing us from animals. Once again I argue that we simply have extended existing rules and situations. Now in the human-animal world natural selection is more subtle, more controlled and less rife, but it still exists. We have simply pushed the boundaries of it. People still die from natural causes and people still mate with other people based on physical and environmental traits. Matt Gullett wrote: OR, have we just slowed down the process of natural selection? Even if we have just slowed it down, though, does this still distinguish us from animals. Yes slowed down but I don't think it makes us any different to other animals. We are still trying to survive. We build a house for shelter. Rabbits build warrens for shelter. But we consider the rabbits subject to natural selection and us not? Hmmm, sounds like yet another hypocritical human stand. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
-
Matt Gullett wrote: This reminds me of a discussion 1-2 weeks ago when someone asked the question "are humans animals?". People notice me? Woohoo! ;) Matt Gullett wrote: Are humans subject to natural selection? If not, is this a differentiating factor distinguishing us from animals. Once again I argue that we simply have extended existing rules and situations. Now in the human-animal world natural selection is more subtle, more controlled and less rife, but it still exists. We have simply pushed the boundaries of it. People still die from natural causes and people still mate with other people based on physical and environmental traits. Matt Gullett wrote: OR, have we just slowed down the process of natural selection? Even if we have just slowed it down, though, does this still distinguish us from animals. Yes slowed down but I don't think it makes us any different to other animals. We are still trying to survive. We build a house for shelter. Rabbits build warrens for shelter. But we consider the rabbits subject to natural selection and us not? Hmmm, sounds like yet another hypocritical human stand. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
I was wondering whether you would read this or not. Paul Watson wrote: People still die from natural causes and people still mate with other people based on physical and environmental traits. What does this have to do with natural selection. Even though people die from natural causes it does not prevent them from spreading their genes onto the next generation. Natural selection is basically survival of the fittest. At least in todays world many "unfit" humans survive and even thrive. Infact, the meaning of "unfit" is not decided by nature by by humans. We have emense control (not total, though) over who lives and who dies. Disease still kills but we are combatting it with moderate success. Paul Watson wrote: Yes slowed down but I don't think it makes us any different to other animals. Here we just have to disagree. PS. I enjoy intellectual conversation with someone who can express his/her views so well.