iNow

Do animals compete just to pass on successful genes and eliminate the unfit? If these two exists together then when do organisms co-operate and when do they compete?

Animals compete to maximize their chances of passing on their genes to offspring. Competition is directly related the ability to attract more mates.

Following the above logic... organisms cooperate when it increases their likelihood of survival and chances of passing on their genes... organisms complete when it increases their likelihood of survival and chances of passing on their genes.

What needs to happen is for reproductive success to no longer be contingent on selfish motivation, but instead social vision and peaceful intent. Unfortunately, our evolved biology is lagging somewhat behind our tecnological advances and societal ails.

We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now, I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.

~ J. Robert Oppenheimer

You state openly what you seek to show.

You then run the test.

You then either confirm or refute the opening hypothesis.

It's not an issue of phrasing it positive or negative, but what you anticipate happening before the experiment is performed. Hypotheses should be framed in such a way as to mandate their proof or disproof.

Now, there are some little caveats where you might try to "market" an idea by positioning your hypothesis a certain way, however, as a general rule this isn't appreciated by the scientific community, and you should state clearly what you seek to validate empirically.

unless it has some real relevance to the topic at hand, not really.

I'll take that to mean, yes, you do want me to explain.

We waste loads of time arguing "across the aisle." People aligning themselves by party instead of by issue. The party system worked in the past because the issues were local to the colonies. There was a relatively small population that could actually be represented by a select group of individuals weighing the opposing ends of the spectrum.

Now, fast forward a few centuries, and put the context in terms of a global population over 6 billion. The bell curve is smoothing, and the individual differences are countless. There are parallels among many of us, but you'll be hard pressed to find two people who agree on every issue.

So, why align with one group instead of representing your people as an individual? Why fling mud at others for being the same as you, but with a different label?

Six to one, half a dozen to another, ya dig?

Now... the broader point (which I think is magnified on a forum such as this) is that it's archaic to continue thinking as a small collective in a township or a nation. We are connected globally, instantly, and our activities are not limited to our backyard, but the entire sphere we call home.

So, why waste our lives arguing with one another about what color shirts we should wear... when we could instead spend that energy improving the future of ourselves, our children, and our planet by realizing that we're but a fraction of a speck of nothing suspended in a moat of dust, and will accomplish more by realizing this greater connection we all share?

Is there any benefit for remaining a two party system? Aren't the two parties just different shades of the same gray? Is there any benefit for continuing to think of ourselves as an isolated country instead of an isolated globe?

and what is this supposed to mean?

 

Yes we're a planet, but last time I checked, there is no global government.

Can I treat your question as rhetorical, or do you really want me to explain this?

To get a sense of the context in which I stated that, please click the username portion of my signature and listen (and if you're so inclined, the link in the quote is pretty shnazzy too, but off topic here so not appropriate to this conversation).

One does not really need language to learn simple tasks. Monkey see and monkey do, allows one to mimick even without language. Even modern children often do what their parents do and not what they say. Where language becomes important is transfering what is in the mind. People can't see what is going on in another's brain, so they can copy. Language is the bridge between human minds and imaginations.

You should look up the work of Albert Bandura (I think he was at Stanford at the time), and his research on social learning theory... aka "modelling behavior." I think you'd like it.

Per your point above on language only being to "transfer the mind," I think you are sorely mistaken if you see no other evolutionary benefits (I am not sure this is the case, so will point it out just to be sure since your post seems to imply such).

Language is vital to social groups... to society in general... and need not be defined only as that which is verbal. All of those modelling behaviors you list above are language, just nonverbal. Even tiny organisms navigate using patterns of scent and electromagnitism, itself a form of language when the organisms manipulate and perceive these.

Further, think of pack behavior (wolves, hyenas, dolphins, etc.) and successful hunting groups... even the military. Language is vital to the successful hunt, vital to the successful mission, and those who communicated well tended to have greater chances at survival... itself translating into better chances at passing on their offspring.

"I see," said the blind man to his deaf daughter.

Fox trot charlie two to base nine. The eagle flies at midnight. I repeat, the eagle flies at midnight.

no, it doesn't. it implies that the human species will speciate and one of those species will be a food stuff to the other species.

I guess I should have used the TongueInCheek tab.

[/sarcasm]

Your premise implies that Jeffrey Dahmer is more evolved than the rest of us. Wouldn't eating fellow humans be more of a function of the available quantity of other food sources, not natural selection?

To be fair, I only hear this particular question when it's the democrats being beaten on.

I appreciate that this may be the only time you perceive hearing it, but I can honestly state that it's not the only time I state it.

We're a planet, not a country... not a state... not a city... not a county... not a street... not a house... not a political party. A planet.

BTW I also did some Iron body training; did you happen to use one of the sanchin forms? (Sorry to diverge, but it's rare that I meet people that even know what I'm talking about )

A form of kung fu, rooted in the Shaolin, complete with animal forms and weapons.

When are we going to leave these archaic divisions of Democrat and Republican behind us and wake up to the fact that we are a global community of living organisms?

The time we waste arguing with people who choose to wear a different button on their chest... I swear.

Here's a press release from Keck:

http://www.keckobservatory.org/article.php?id=114

Based on my experiences I had sexual desire only after when I learned about evolution and stuffs like that.

Does this mean that creationists don't get horny?

EDIT: Maybe that's not such a bad thing.

You do realize that by starting a thread like this you've effectively made those few females who post feel ever MORE ostracized?

Who here hates science and likes creationsim, eh? Don't be shy... raise your hands!

My medical training wants to tell you the same thing as everyone else; that you should go easy on your body and not work out when sore. However, the martial artist side wants to tell you to push through the pain.

When I was preparing for my blackbelt test (hehehe... I love saying that), we would engage in a form of training which translates roughly as "Iron shirt" training. Basically, it was a series of techniques to make the body more... well... more iron-like. In addition to some isometric techniques known as an active form of meditation called "I chin-chings," we would do things like finger tip pushups, jamming fingers into buckets of stones, punching rock bags, hitting each side of our forearms against wood posts, and rolling iron bars (30lbs to start, 150 to 200 lbs after years of training) across our shins.

This was a benefit in a number of ways (but I strongly suggest to all readers... very strongly... to find a teacher who earns your trust to walk through such things... doing this at home could... well... cause you some significantly increased hospital bills). The bones would become denser, the body would become more solid (I would always laugh when the other person would grimmace during a shin to shin sweep), and the mind more adept to accept the pain.

There's a neat little spot in the spine where the pain signal, on it's way to the brain, can actually be shot off consciously. However, I've derailed this thread enough.

Find someone who you trust.

Be patient with yourself. Don't expect to blow up overnight. Good results are earned, not requested.

Make it a lifestyle choice, not a hobby.

Take care of your body with fluids, protien, and rest.

Martial arts is not about fighting or warriorship. It's about realizing and nurturing your body, your mind, and your relation to the universe around you.

Now... if the pain continues for more than 3 or 4 days, you probably did something wrong and need some repair work.

Don't lawyers go by "Esquire?" I personally do believe (without support mind you) that you were wrong to call him "doctor."

You don't go to the courtroom to be defended by a doctor unless it's medical case.

will that really help, im not questioning the research but isnt that really just rubbing it in and making things worse? i mean looking at porn would make you want to do it wouldnt it? not saying i had past experience though........

Not really. Generally, when one picks up porn, it's to satisfy an existing desire. The desire, however, was there prior to picking it up.

Now, the question should be, "does looking at porn increase or decrease the urge which caused one to pick it up... are the desires sated or not?" The answer to which, of course, is "it depends on the individual."

That's quite an interesting question, John. It's akin to asking if Boston monkeys sound different than Georgia monkeys?

I think, though (and correct me if I'm wrong) that CDarwin is trying to determine if the monkeys in the wild have a different style, pacing, and timing (etc.) of calls from monkeys in the zoo.

So, he's looking to see if the monkeys in the wild sing "jazz," and if monkeys in the zoo sing "blues." Your question implies that they are all singing jazz, but that some are baratone and others are soprano.

Bada Bing.

On current long term cycle, solar involvement; I have no argument and agree they are involved.

I do argue this. I'll show you why:

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/fulltext.html

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

The above was published in the proceedings of "The Royal Society" just 3 weeks ago. [bold added by me]

Well, I live in a major film area, but I have no idea where to find anyone who might be willing to help. I've searched the internet, but couldn't find anybody who could help (that wasn't really famous). I don't know whether or not there are any film socities, but I can check... To the phone book!

It's not always a bastion of honest advertising, but you might try Craigslist. Also, if there's a local college/university, check there... whether they have a film department or not.

In response to iNow, on "toward the positive". IMO; We are on track for an improved International Economic impact, which could be hurt by many of the suggested remedies for GW. Call it trickle down or an effort to influence, but many Nations in addition to China and China (a third of the worlds people) are direct examples of such advancement.

I suppose you missed the point I made above. I don't think this particular thread is about the economics of it all. It's about the environment itself, and the damage we are doing to the system in which all living organisms reside.

So, to be clear, your comments about the economics seem off topic, since this thread resides in the "Ecology and Environment" forum, and the OP specifically asked:

One of my interests, and the reason I joined this forum, is climate change.

 

I am sceptical of rising temperatures being solely down to man and believe man contributes but not significantly. I understand the link between CO2 and the atmosphere, but I think water vapour plays a much more significant role in global warming.

 

What I would really like is to find a reliable, unbiased, honest, unpolitical website, which reports what is really happening on climate change. I like the CO2 Science website, because it is fairly open with it's funding, gives references for all it's articles and because it coincides with my current view. I'm not so keen on Real Climate, because they have a tendancy to shout down any desenters from their view, often without reference.

 

Does anybody know of any such websites that I can refer to?

Yet you, Jackson33, continue to respond "Redistribution of wealth! Political spin! Trickle down economics!"

Don't trolls live under bridges?

Wow, I've heard of internet morons but this is ridiculous.

 

That statement was in the first section, meaning I CAN'T change it. Log on and see for yourself. There's no "edit" link for the opening sections in ANY article. Idiots.

 

And to think, no one has yet to see that. Wow.

Well, I see an edit link. Either you missed it, they've locked your ability to make edits, or I'm special. I dunno... maybe some combination of those.

Btw... you linked above to a sub-article. Here's the main page for "definition of a planet:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet

Why is that chimpanzee throwing feces on passers-by?

yea good idea, change it. but the bad thing about wiki is that some young kid would turn up and screw the artical from head to toe.

It's a good thing there are admins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators

Then what happens if you get sucked in. do u get crushed? there has to be a inside because what happens if you go inside it?

Take your time, friend. It's not an easy topic, but it's not impossible either.

Look here:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q3

Let's suppose that you get into your spaceship and point it straight towards the million-solar-mass black hole in the center of our galaxy. (Actually, there's some debate about whether our galaxy contains a central black hole, but let's assume it does for the moment.) Starting from a long way away from the black hole, you just turn off your rockets and coast in. What happens?

 

At first, you don't feel any gravitational forces at all. Since you're in free fall, every part of your body and your spaceship is being... <more at link above>

As I look here, I notice the first criteria for planethood was that it must orbit the Sun directly. Does that mean that all objects outside our solar system, which, technically, do not orbit the Sun, are automatically not planets?

 

Just goes to show how non-credible Wikipedia is.

Why don't you log in and fix it then? That's the beauty of wiki. It's only wrong until someone who knows better puts the onus on themselves to make a correction.

I suppose it's easier to complain than to do something to improve a situation.

Btw... that's not wiki's definition, it's the IAU's.

http://www.iau.org/

http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html

The point I am trying to make is to say you don’t just take genetics in a biology curriculum for instance.

Was anybody arguing that one should?