Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About Brian

  • Rank
  1. dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb...i would continue but i fear i might pass out........
  2. I win...always...discuss.
  3. Well...i'd have to diverge off of the path that most here have taken with mammals. I'd have to say ants are the most "intellegent". Complex social structure, great sense of direction, and extreme survivabilty would suggest that they may be slightly more fitted to different ecosystems than mammals. Ants, since evolving from wasps in the mid-cretaceous, seem adaptable enough to survive mass extinctions...as many other species cannot say. Maybe after we've gone and blow ourselves up and what not, ants may relight the biological fire that is our planet, considering how useful they are to any ecosystem, providing ample symbiosis with other plants and animals. They act as nature's farmer, spreading seeds from area to area. But this goes along with the ecological impact that they have. To not digress too much...ant society has shaped some of the most rudementary computer networking techniques that we use today. The ability for ants to think as a whole, in my honest opinion, makes them almost the smartest animal on Earth...next to humans....maybe.
  4. If this is true, it would be very interesting indeed. But if this is true...what would be the practical applications. Sure, mapping out 100% percent of the world would be ideal, but this would definitely extend beyond the perception of "shadow biosphere" we would first need to discover the rest of the "normal" population in order to view a rare specimen. In essence, the "shadow biosphere" is saying that there is life other than we know it, but that does not make sense because that would be saying our planet is full of life that we do not know of. So really, what the author of this study may be thinking, is simply discovering the other microbial inhabitants on Earth...so the term "shadow" is not really accurate...more like an "unknown" biosphere. Just a thought.
  5. With genetic engineering becoming more and more complex at an increasing rate every couple of months, one can make a safe assumption on were we'll be in a year or even 2 regarding genetic alterations on ourself and domesticated animals. But let's jump a little bit farther forward than a year or 2. Lets talk about a decade from now, in the year 2016. Since this is a debate forum, it would be interesting to see different views on the near future.
  6. Well yea thats where I was planning on ordering from. But I'm not sure what the really good books are. Something worth my money.
  7. Sorry its taken so long to respond to any of the suggestions, been kinda busy. Skepticlance, we have some clues of our ancestor's genetic makeup, considering we are their descendants, we can see take what we know about ourselves and apply it to our forerunners. We do not definitively know that we came from a small number of individuals, simply because there are no records. We can infer from the skeletons of early homo sapiens that there were few...but we've only found a handful of complete tyrannosaurus rex skeletons...doesnt mean that there were only a few. So we cant make the assumption that we descended from a handful of individuals. While this may be the standard explanation for the genetic make up of us, I believe this may be to hasty an explanation. We can't really determine what makes more sense here, because we have no proof that either thing actually happened. Mimefan, with psychological affects in mind, we only know the pyschological statistics of a father-less generation from people in our time. If our species had more and more generations without fathers, by this point we would have compensated for the psychological disadvantages. Lastly, Phi for all, you are right that change is not required by evolution, and only explained by it, but we know that species change and evolve, so I would think that the same would apply in my theory.
  8. I was wondering what some notable books on Evolution are, I already have quite a few, but since the bookstores around here are very conservative, there arent very many on the subject. I would like to know some good ones that I can order online maybe. Preferably something about cellular evolution. But Ill accept any suggestions. Since the holiday season is right around the corner, I would like to know what to look for. Secondly, if anyone knows any good authors but can't pick a book by that author, ill appreciate any names. Thanks.
  9. Ahh yes, I see what your saying. But perhaps I was not clear enough on the intent of what mean't by stagnation. I mean't genetic stagnation, how we have virtually been genetically the same as our ancestors. Its hard to tell if all species go through this same trend of genetic non change, but as we've seen with our prehistoric predecessors, the change can sometimes be very rapid. As for your second statement about medications, I did realize that was one of the problems with my thought, and your absolutely right. I appreciate you saying something about that. Im glad that you replyed and gave me some feedback, some help is definitely needed for me to narrow this thought down to a proper theory that may actually make sense (I write with alot of holes). Thanks Phi For All
  10. I have a thought. Over the past several thousand years, homo sapiens have remained genetically indifferent from their ancestors. With a few variations that determine sex and the other various genetic traits that individualize everyone. My thought is that the reason we have remained stagnant in our genetic development is that we are tolerant of our mate's behavioral disorders and most people only have 1 mate for their entire lives. As seen in various primates, 1 male mates with several females, and most groups have new females joining and leaving. This causes the males genes to be spread to more children and the genes of the different females contribute to more mutations thus possibly increasing the rate of evolutionary development. Now my theory is that nature has a mechanism for this...even in humans. Human females in particular. I think that the female menstrual cycle is nature's way of telling males to move on. The hormonal imbalance spurred on by the onset of the cycle causes the female to be temporarily abrasive. This may tell the male several things. 1 being that if the male has mated recently, and the cycle occurs, it means the act was unsuccessful. Since nature didnt anticipate us having significant medical technology, so it had to give humans a way to know about miscarriages. The second purpose is that after an an egg gets fertilized, a woman skips her menstral cycle and thats how we know that the mating was successful. In my theory, after the baby is born, the continuation of the menstral cycle may signal to the male that it is time to move on to a different mate thus spreading genetic differences. This, as seen in several different species leads to evolutionary growth. But, the only reason we are identical to our ancestors in africa less than 50,000 years ago, is for 1 reason and 1 reason only: Tolerance of our mates. Humans have made medications to bring the effects of the hormonal imbalances of this monthly event down. In a sense, we are making a dead end for our species through another venue. Now, this is strictly a theory of mine, and its open for any suggestions and/or constructive critsisms. I am an amaetur so please excuse any mistakes i have made in this post and help me to correct them
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.