dmaiski

if you are asking for the begining of evrything, the simple answere is noone really knows that i would sugest going to study string theory, and learning to think in at least 12 dimentions (the universe is theorized to contain at least 12)

this would only be valid if you are habitualy sticking your testies in the microwave when its cold outside

considering any real space fairing invader would use either unmaned weaponry, or just nuke us from orbit... not that likley also asuming that they are biological in nature, they would have some form of natural antibacterial/small life defence, like our phagocytes, since a large being would have to deal with oportunistic pathogenic bacteria, no mater what planet they came from after all if we evolve from bacteria, its a good posibility they stuck around, just so they could eat us later

you are forgetting that for most of our history, kings lived to the ripe old age of 50 while peasants died at 20 or younger well that is asuming you werent impaled with sharp objects, were poisined, shot, hung, strangled, or otherwhise murdered

you have a point in that it can be related to a trait that is beneficial to an organism, good examples of this are long legs, tails(no idea where we lost ours), and muscle strength but there are also plenty of examples of really bad traits that are sexual, like a baboons red butt, a peacocks feathers, oversized antlers(on herbivorous species), bright colours(all the better to see you with), secretion of chemicals(musk, not a good thing when there are predators) but this is getting too complex lets get down to basics (i say sexual bacteria are nice and simple) lets say you have 1 mutated bacteria its mutation makes it use 5% of its energy on making a chemical compound to attract more mates (bacteria already make such compounds as a sort of IFF system to identify each other) 5% is a lot of energy to spend on signalling, but it results in the bacteria being positively selected conversely more fit bacteria, the ones that spend 5% less energy, are not selected for because the chemical marker is highly potent you can argue all day whether it is or is not a beneficial trait for reproduction but it is not a beneficial trait for survival, 5% for a bacteria is like chopping off your arm, its a fairly bad mutation if this mutation did not promote mating, it would be selected out very quickly

to answer number 1... i offer you 2 plates of food, in one plate is the tastiest steak you have ever seen (but you are a vegetarian, or at least trying to be one because your parents are), in the other plate, a salad, not the best salad ever made... admittedly its wilted and limp, and there a dead fly in it. to make things more interesting you have just come out of a starvation diet, consisting of your fine leather shoes as your primary food source which plate would you pick to answer number 2... the studies indicate a predisposition to being homosexual this means you can also be bi sexual, or even straight and still have the trait my theory dosen't omit genetics, it just proposes the possibility of it being mental for all that we know the trait being studied actually determine how closely you are willing to conform to society’s expectations of you and chose option 1 instead of option 2 (for the terminally stupid, and those incapable of understanding metaphor) part 1: the starvation diet represents a very horny teenager the tasty steak is your best friend(same gender as you) who also happens to be a attractive(boy/girl) the parents who are vegetarians are your heterosexual parents, and the society you live in the wilted salad is the other gender option(you have never really sampled them that well, and they do act like idiots most of the time) it is your choice whether you obey society or your very horny brain (for the terminally stupid, and those incapable of understanding metaphor) by the way, has anyone seen a good study into the sexual orientation of the children of gay couples? to be more precise the adopted children (meaning no genetic relation) hypothetically this would demonstrate if sexuality is environmental, and how much of an effect it has. ive seen some studies that show positive results towards them being more likely to be homosexual, but there’s a lot of noise and the studies are older then 10 years

korn evolurion video somewhat fitting, though general IQ has increased(if you use non standardized test groups, really bad methodology with no understanding of how you measure IQ and why its a bell curve) high iq/wealth families avarage 1.5 children low iq/wealth families avarage 5 children perfect recipe for evolution (in a not so smart direction) or speciation (again this would only happen long after humanity has died out or took charge of its own evolution by GM and stopped mucking about with half measures)

there was an article a while back they found ways of retrieving DNA material from fossilized bones in some cases the power of google and eidetic memory! (mostly googles eidetic memory) http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2005/09/dna-preserved-in-crystals-of-ancient.html

i would listen to anyone who has an idea, not because the idea may be right (and it can be) but because the idea may give me an insight into something else that i never thought about that way discovery isn't about putting in the work, or doing the research (it dose help thought) its about getting that "[expletive redacted], how could i be so [expletive redacted] stupid and not notice that" moment, when everything you know comes together your theory may be right, most are proven wring in the end (new information and such) but it will give rise to new theories, better theories its the reason we make theories in the first place, we accept them to be wrong and ask someone else to prove it well that's just a bit op philosophizing, go ahead and post it please by the way if you want to grab a scientists attention, hitting them with a light post usually dose the trick (or waiting till they walk into one) scientists are very self centred, so if you have a specific one you want to contact send them an email that has the name of what your theory on it and the theory inside if they are interested in the field they will look at it (or at least i would) then maybe read the contents, and most likely ask a lot of questions about it later, or tell you your wrong oh and a last bit of advice, scientists don’t trust the word maybe, like numbers, and clearly outlined logic also they like pictures that have explanations tied to them (usually they call them diagrams, but they’re closer to a 4 year old's doodles, that’s why you need an explanation of what is going on in the picture)

mice are already cute, so are spiders. a wild ass looks like a lame zebra that had a grey paint can spilled on its head... cute has nothing to do with numbers, only opinion, and insanity of said individual for example, cats are cute. they are also malicious, evil, selfish, pompous, prideful, heartless, evil!, EVIL!!, narcissistic, glossy furred monstrosities, that are only interested in the food, and expect you to like them because of it... they are still cute, and the only creature we can openly relate too without feeling ashamed of ourselves as a species, o yes and EEEVIL!!!!!! TOTALY UNBIASED proof of my point! (note the CAPS) http://www.b3tards.com/v/22ce0ae7a8c760c469cb/cute_spider02.jpg http://www.bloggerdad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/evil-cat.jpg http://critteristic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/door-mouse-sleeping.jpg

i use really as a qualifier fro incomplete grasp of direction and directional arrangement simply put: if i am shown a picture, and told to remember it. then an hour later i am given a choice between said picture, and a directionally inverted image that is identical in every other way, i will be unable to differentiate which was the original image. it allows a person to be ambidextrous, but also means they cant really grasp the idea of right hand, left hand (simply put i know what is right and left conceptually, but asking me to show you will mean i will have to spend a second working it out) im not really that bad at direction (it just means you have to think in vectors and trigonometry instead of directions), and i can write with 2 hands at the same time(dose take a bit of mental effort), so overall i get much in terms of benefits from the trait. and it means i can laugh manically and devolve into bouts of megalomania at my superiority over the other 99% of the world for it will bow down at my feet in horror terror and incontinence from the meer knowledge that i can clasp my hands without caring which thumb goes on top!!! (no really... it actually means nothing to me personalty. I've always been able to do this and its not world shattering knowledge that ambidexterity is an uncommon trait)

actuayl it was about 400 known species, based on the last time ive heared that quote used (it was ages ago) i was looking back and i saw this: the start of the thread... and i have to say, "the man has a point on that stick he's waiving at us" just because we learn about sexual attraction when puberty hits doesn’t invalidate it by the time puberty hits we have a wealth of experience, our brains are also, by that point, fully developed this would be indicative that either, a: we should be attracted to sex (X) from the day we are born b: attraction is all mental, and is set by our perceptions up to that point and triggered by a freak event when the hormones kick in(see my appendix) not the only 2 options, and i don’t know the answer (im leaning towards b) appendix (freshly excised from my abdomen!) what i mean by a freak event is: when you hit puberty, you begin to have sexual responses to things(not people, things) you see that people are normally attracted to the opposite sex you chose to conform to this society or you see your best friend and you go "i like my friend" "i really want to screw something" "mmmm sexy" and you become "gay" by accident, not that you are entirely gay because of this, just not that straight i oversimplified things but that’s the basics there are far worse things you can be attracted to, only limited by your childhood, and perverse imaginations (yay fetish time!!!)

i cant say sexual attraction is bad because its not, but to say it is perfect, or a truly superior system is silly and naive sexual attraction promotes reproduction, in turn the traits that cause sexual attraction get promoted in the population, these traits are then over expressed, elaborated on, and generally made more prominent this is a good thing, it allowed for humans to be born from bacteria (if you were to base it on the observation that true asexual reproduction dose not occur in many multicellular species) it is conversely a bad thing as well, it causes these sexual traits to become more important then useful traits, such as: intelligence, longer life span, cancer protection, eye sight, an efficient immune system, and many others what traits are improved? well there's: penis size, libido, and aggression, in males. (imagine a dog trying to screw your leg... thats sexual atraction at work) in females there's: lower muscle mass, large mammaries(breasts), menstrual bleeding(its a trait that humans have developed and other animals wisely abstained from, its probably relevant) im fairly sure that there are many more but those are the ones i thought of on the spot these traits serve no biological advantage other then sexual attraction they have also gotten many humans killed, but still persist in the population (im sorry but although these are true statements they are not particularly pleasant, i chose humans as an example because i know a lot about them (im mostly human myself) and because they are easy to point fingers at (the statement dicks on legs is a valid descriptor of mankind)) (the second paragraph when looked at through my mind): DO NOT READ THIS SECTION BEFORE YOU READ THE TOP FIRST IT IS A RANT! sexual attraction promotes reproduction (a good thing, generally), in turn the traits that cause sexual attraction get promoted in the population(so so... the key word here is SEXUAL ATTRACTION, not REPRODUCTION) these traits are then over expressed (not a good thing, especially when the trait serves no beneficial purpose), elaborated on (even worse, you make a large protrusion, then make it bigger, coat it with fur, give it a poor circulatory system, and make it shoot glucose water with protein at people), and generally made more prominent (probably not a good idea, focus all your evolutionary prowess on making a truly and utterly useless set of appendages, just so you can attract a mate (attracting a mate is a good thing, wasting tonnes of energy to do it, not so much) DO NOT READ THIS SECTION BEFORE YOU READ THE TOP FIRST IT IS A RANT!

i did say this? you are arguing against my point of view when it already agrees with yours

i did say this? you are arguing against my point of view when it already agrees with yours

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_glycosylation , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starch#Biosynthesis read it look up how the enzymes work and render it then animate wikipedia is your friend so is google (keywords: reaction mechanics starch) well thats if you are looking for uni level results

from an evolutionary point of view nothing is worth conserving "natural selection" is a kind way to say "adapt of die" so anything that cant adapt isn’t worth conserving but pandas are "cute" it cant be quantified, but cats have benefited from it for millennia and perfected it to a fine art so the real question is, "are pandas cute enough to keep as pets" if the answer is yes, it is an evolutionarily viable species if you want to make pandas evolutionary viable, breed a mini-panda that i can keep at home as a pet evolution is cruel and heartless, it also, apparently, likes cute things

i would scram in anguish at the closed mindedness of this DNA, RNA, peptide, complexes are not the only possible forms of life, they aren’t even the only probable ones, they are just the ones that exist at the moment on earth if a second genesis event happened scientists would not notice it other then by absolute dumb luck, it would also be in an environment so hostile to biological life that it would be isolated (to prevent some rouge bacterium running in and ruining everything) this limits the locations for a second genesis to: the centre of the earth (magma men from Mars...), deep oceanic trenches, and probably large geodes (complex quartz crystal resonance, its a form of life, just not one you are used too), and possibly the whole planet(anyone who has read Terry Pratchett, were the ants in the tubes of hex) a second genesis of biological life could happen but it would be lost in the results of the first genesis, or used up immediately lab grown conditions have only two problems, the lab that made the first genesis consisted of the whole surface of the planet earth, and was working on it for at least 1 billion years before it got any results to solve a problem; you first break it down into its components, work out what they do, and then use them to build a solution.

personally i think it depends on your point of view, all are valid, and all are simulteneously right, and wrong 1 from a chemical point of view all life is a reaction capable of self perpetuation, and change(dose not mean evolution, it means change in the literal sense) 2 from the human perspective all life is biological and needs to be capable of evolution 3 from a technological point of view life is a sufficiently complex system that is capable of creating new, more complex systems, or improving upon itself, increasing its complexity 4 from a philosophical point of view "i think, therefore i am" intelligence defines life 5 from a universal point of view, every system feeds into a larger system of infinite complexity (there is no real word to describe it, i guess something between "life" and "existence") 6 from a ??? point of view ??? (hypothetically you can figure this out if you gain omniscience, and its the true meaning of life) (i guess holistic point of view, the ??? is mercurial in idea and existence, its easier to say its not there and pretend you don’t see it) each system is a less complex definition of life then its successor so at this point i would say take your pick, a biology defines life somewhere between 1 and 2 a computer specialist will probably accept 3 but not 1, 2, or 5 a philosopher will accept them all, or at least up to 5 a schizophrenic will accept evrything up to 5 or 6 and ask you whether you are stupid? (you should answer "why yes, yes I am")

(TLDR read only the bottom, (you fit into the “young” bracket)) i would have to say none and not applicable (at least for 1st world countries) evolution requires a stable population exposed to an environment, where all individuals are in competition with each other 1 our population is expanding, and we do not let children die (actually our safety first mentality dosen't let anyone die, even the terminally stupid) 2 our ability to travel, let alone our rate of technological progress means we have moved through at least 1 new environment every decade, this is not conducive to natural selection also in the last 100 years our environment did a flip, from where Brawn was rewarded, to an environment where intelligence is paramount, and no paradisical labour is needed at all (1900-1910, ww1, 1920-1930, great depression, ww2, 1940-60, 60-70(hippy, ect), cold war, 80-Y2k(dawn of computing), 2k-present(micro-computing age), just to list a few) 3 humans are not actively in competition with each other over resources, living space, or mates this results in no directional evolution to a set points it douse though, on a large scale, encourage breeding to be limited to the "class system", the ceo's daughter wont marry a bum off the street, the blue collar will keep to the blue collar's, and the white collar to the white collar's (if this continues for the next 1000 years we may even see the emergence of a new species) unfortunately, were out of time and the game is almost to the end for human evolution i would be extremely surprised if large scale acceptance of genetic engineering and cybernetics do not occur within the next century (and quite disappointed because this would mean the human race ran off the cliff without building a bridge first (means H.sapien is extinct by this point) current pressures(as of right this moment, in order from most to least): in older individuals(25+): general intelligence, prowesses with a smart phone, fecundity, literacy, knowledge, physical beauty, (literally a well read good looking ass hole with eidetic memory and a very willing willy(and the female equivalent)) in younger individuals: wealth, prowesses with a smart phone, fecundity, physical beauty, ("romance is dead", a very fitting description) looking at this you could say we are breeding a legion of brain-dead drones (no worries give it 10 years and all of these will change once again)

if you want to sterilize something its only a mater of how fast and how cold -200C will kill almost all forms of life if you get there fast enough (using even colder temperatures), a few seconds, shorter if you are trying to get rid of smaller substances the mechanical stress will break down almost anything (including large molecules [proteins ect]) of course if your aiming for that level of sterilization: 1 silly, its easier to just vaporize everything (all you need is 2000-7000C), or nuke it (high concentration, beta and gamma radiation) 2 stupid, don’t make things that can survive normal sterilization procedures 3 crazy, paranoid delusions... so in most cases the phrase "burn it with fire" is sufficient methodology to sterilize things

i would have to go with money, if you are obscenely wealthy and eat badly just pay for a nutritionists, if you are dying clone yourself and do a brain transplant, if all else fails, dump a couple of billion at engineers biologists and whoever you can find and finally get practical cybernetics working. also if you have a problem where there are no food crops, you can solve it with money, synthesizing amino acids, sugars, and lipids isn’t that hard. it just costs too much. so yea money>food if you know how to use money if you are an idiot... well there’s no helping the terminally stupid

yes im testing you. you passed, your prize is a brain disection... YOUR brain, muahahahahahaha!!!! just got it backwards (hey it made sense in my head, then pen got to paper and gibberish came out)

what relay gets my interest in this case is "why do people hate incest so much" its probably because i did not have any kind of indoctrination into human society (i completely ignored most people unless they were interesting) but i don’t see what is morally wrong with it its probably just me and a question for sociology, but can someone spell it out to me "why is it wrong" in simple referenced English language

humm so left handed people are better scientists? and what dose it meant if you are ambidextrus im in the 1% and im good at math phisics biology and even languages if i put in the effort (the innate flaw with ambidexterity is, well ambidexterity you can read in both directions and see all the patterns, but you dont realy see the differance between right and left, at least on a conseptual level)