dichotomy

Yep, good examples, I totally agree. But I'm not argueing that a species can become extinct no matter how fit it is. I know that's a fact. I largely agree with this, the only thing I’ll say is that an individually fit species, or, group within a species doesn't really matter in itself. What seems to matter, to lifeforms, is that there are many various fit species actively laying the groundwork for ever more fit species to branch off from them. Each species/group, unconsciously, chemically, and naturally selectively, strives to be as fit as it can be, to ensure that some form of life persists somewhere. Basically, higher order lifeforms, like mammals, are no longer just accidental ‘stalactite’ like things that chance across the right conditions to 'grow'. We actively seek the best available partners and environments. We don't accidentally bump into mates and impregnate them, we actively persue and impregnate them. So, evolution is still primarily accidental, but active components (non accidental) came into effect at some point with animal life? Sorry, I've gone off on a tangent. But maybe this ties in if you take 'morals' as initially being accidental and beneficial to a group, and morals today as being generally actively practiced and beneficial to a group. I agree totally with this, why direct it to me? Religion is a form of marketing. Marketing is forever taking others ideas as its own.

So, is it entirely an accident that the most (all round) successful members of a species produce the widest genetic footprint? No hard work involved here, just more accidental than anything? I don’t believe so, because they have to be successful enough in the first place to reproduce. So it seems that there is a combination of chance and fitness involved. It’s true that chance plays the largest part to get the ball rolling in the first instance (i.e. energy and matter chancing life into existence), but after that fitness becomes the primary driver of the success of a species, and the species that may branch off that species? Just a thought... What I suggest is that fitness (in mammals for e.g.) is no longer produced by an accidental forces, it is at the point where it is the primary factor for survival of a species. Point being that non-human animals do what they do for the good of their species. Unknowingly, unwittingly, unconsciously, they are chemically driven to do this. For no reason other than to survive, and perhaps evolve into something more resilient.

Well, maybe scientists could produce a virus that targets specific parasites?

Yes, you don’t put all that work and money in to get nothing out. If nothing, they might even discover how to make a Mk2 LHC that works! Something unintentional and interesting will no doubt come from it. Although it does remind me of dooms day machine scifi stories.

Not knowingly, but what about reproduction for example? Surely successfully mating as many times as you could, and or, with as many partners as you could is for the good of the species? It’s good because it minimises extinction, adds to a better chance of successful mutations occurring, produces better competition between members of a species and therefore produces stronger stock. All for the, unconscious, good of the species.

Chasing animal’s long distances to tire them out? Hmmm… Even chimps today know how to pack ambush monkeys for their diner, without the need for too much running. However, I am a little more convinced that it might have been one of the major causes of hair loss being selected for. iNow, thanks for the links.

For a cold blooded reptile, would hair be an advantage? Or, does one need warm blood for hair to be an effective heat retainer in the first place? I wouldn't think our need for running is a very big factor for hair loss. It would make more sense that it was primarily due to our ability to wrap/ unwrap ourselves in insulation material, build shelters, control fire. There are many mammals that run and have hair - horses, cattle, dogs. They just didn't make stuff. Point taken that it is a smaller factor. That's the way I see it. Every technological leap is a product of evolution.

Looks like it will be an interesting two horse race between spider silk and nanotubes when it comes to the commercial viability of sticking it/ weaving it together, without drastically reducing their respective strengths. Are there any other contenders here in the strongest tensile body coverings stakes? I like how this thread has gone from body coverings that naturally grow on the body to synthetically produced ones.

If anyone really knew, they'd probably be making it by the bucketful right now. It'll be very interesting to see if this can made synthetically, and as strong/flexible as the best spiders example.

They count but they already exist as a bodily covering. BTW, what would they actually resemble at human scale? membrane type material I assume?

It's funny, 'cause it's true. Well, in my experience anyway. Although you could argue the exact same thing for men, purpose being, to get off!

And even then, I personally don't have a torque setting for the force of my hand. People hit with varying force that they all deem as appropriate. This is where things come unstuck. Maybe the invention of a scientifically calibrated arse smacking machine is the answer here. It delivers the same force everytime, 100% satisfaction guaranteed! I also accept that perfection is only an ideal when it comes to parenting (or anything else). All we can really do is what seems to deliver the best success rate. And let Natural Selection sort the rest out. Totally agree. But a measured strike to a child should only be delivered when they are about to potentially get themselves killed, e.g. running in front of a truck. For anything else (e.g. accidentally spilling a drink on someone) it just seems too trivial to me.

"Spider webs kept in museums have lasted for 200 years" From the link above. I can now imagine a future spider silk like body covering. Excellent!

I assume it would also be quite lightweight? Out of interest, what lifeform has the best bullet proofing (resistence)? Trees do come to mind. What about in the animal world?

2 years is not long enough for a law that is supposed to change a long standing cultural practice that has more negatives than positives. I assume the law is there to control the many unacceptable examples that were presenting in NZ before it was acctually introduced? What constitutes a “good” parent?

Is there a theory on what is the most likely body covering material to evolve next in the living world? We have had tree bark, jelly fish like membrane, exoskeletal insects and crustaceans, fish/reptile scales, bird feathers, mammal skin and hair. I find it difficult to imagine what other strikingly different body coving might emerge? And I know hair and echidna spines are basically the same material, but visually they are quite different. Am I clear enough here?

I hope you are not suggesting that the law is in vain? Laws don’t generally work magic overnight; they can take time to impact on the majority of guilty parties. In Melbourne there was a trail lockout law. The lockout was a three-month trial of 2am late entry bans for pub, bar and nightclub venues. To reduce the incidence of violent assaults. The venue owners state it was a failure, but where is the science in a 3 month social change trail? Social change generally takes a lot longer than a crumby 3 months I would think…

I’m going along with the tribe that states morals are rooted in nature and group survival. It seems screamingly obvious to me. If a group fails to cooperate and build a stronger group, then the group opens itself up to a greater likelihood of extinction. So the nurture component of say, the10 commandments and 7 virtues, stem from nature, and do augment the contemporary society’s survival success rate. Nothing mystical to see here folks…just ever fascinating reality. Also, flight, fight and freeze are all instinctive. We have no control over these reactions in extreme situations (except if druged or brain injured/modified), but I'm willing to hear an opposing view.

When I use trauma, I mean anything that makes a child feel a little upset to feeling downright angry and sad. It can be traumatic falling off a bicycle, but it can also teach you to be more careful while riding a bike. If we didn't suffer some trauma, we would be too reckless in life. Like Evil Knievel... If we suffer too much trauma, we'd end up like shell shocked soldiers. The point being, finding the right amount (as always) of trauma for an individual is the key.

This is a good point, and what I believe is that the success of traumatic parenting techniques is entirely environment/time dependent. If we wanted to raise boys that successfully defend their tribe from the tribe over the hill, we would probably use quite traumatic methods of parenting to “toughen them up for reality”. In another more peaceful environment, if these same boys where expected to become more academic and diplomatic, then they would more likely be prone to failure than boys whom are raised to be of more physically dangerous character. So, in short, the right degree of traumatic learning is fine if it is successful within the intended environment and period of time. A measured smack on the bottom to stop a small child from running in front of a car might be more effective than a calm lecture. A calm lecture might be a more successful method with a child you are minding.

Sounds interesting. Can you provide a link to this study? This, i think, is related. I recently read this and found it very interesting, although it produced quite a few more questions as per usual, for me. Unlock the Genius Within: Neurobiological Trauma, Teaching, and Transformative Learning By Daniel S. Janik Published by Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2005 I have no problem with people disagreeing with me when I offer no substantial evidence. This just drives me to get off my lazy butt and attempt to find that evidence . I always think the real danger is in communicating with yes men on one hand, and narrow thinkers on the other. Science is only the best available explanation for things that we have, explanations can be refined and changed with new evidence. I have my own experiences of human behaviour and others scientific studies to help form my best understanding of things; until better evidence comes along.

A short nap is required when we are physically stressed. Meditation is required when we are mentally and emotionally stressed. And we just can’t do without deep sleep. IMO, meditation is about neutralizing ones own emotional state through practicing concentration and mental focus, and at the same time not practicing not stressing about the concentration effort involved. Meditation can be started on something as simple as closely observing the light, movement and heat of a candle flame for as long as you can, up to a period of about 30mins, or longer if you like. You must practice not allowing any other thoughts, besides for e.g. the candle, to enter your mind.

Didn’t we (mammals) branch off from cold blooded reptilian type creatures? So it is plausible that a future species that dominates the earth, post Homosapiens, branches off from mammals, or specifically, Homosapiens? That species will find that they decended from warm blooded, large brained, know it alls, that really knew nothing afterall.

The dinosaurs were fantastic creatures; we are fantastic creatures, what branches off from Homo sapiens, after our self induced mass extinction event, would truly be even more fantastic. The mind boggles.

Isn't the other accepted scenario that there is no significant change if a species is successful as it is?