It is currently Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:04 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Life in the Universe 
Author Message
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 4493
Post Re: Life in the Universe
Toasty? look at all the species that have evolved on this planet and are quite happy being as they are. We are the only ones to be critical.

I quite accept that the Universe could be quite full of non critical creatures.

Something has to cover the rocks on a rainy day.


Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:25 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:44 am
Posts: 9654
Location: Wheres the Anger?
Post Re: Life in the Universe
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
Toasty? look at all the species that have evolved on this planet and are quite happy being as they are. We are the only ones to be critical.

I quite accept that the Universe could be quite full of non critical creatures.

Something has to cover the rocks on a rainy day.
Are they happy or can they not evolve because of us, I mean mammals only evolved because of the demise of dinosaurs.

_________________
Insanity is repeating the same thing time and time again and expecting a different result.


Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:04 am
Profile
Online
thread ruining clique
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:26 pm
Posts: 17142
Location: Dinbych
Post Re: Life in the Universe
Animals only stop evolving if they're already complete. Crocodiles and great white sharks have barely change in millions of years. Both are perfect killing machines.

_________________
I don't believe you'd like it. You wouldn't like it here.
There ain't no entertainment, and the judgements are severe.


Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:34 am
Profile
Online
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 6552
Post Re: Life in the Universe
Evolution is not about being 'happy' with what you are. It is all about circumstance and opportunity.

It is highly complex and interlinking. Very few ecosystems are completely isolated.


Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:58 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 4493
Post Re: Life in the Universe
'Happy' in this context means having arrived at an evolutionary way stage, no particular hurry to go any further.

'What uniquely defines humans, from a Rigellian perspective, is their ability to blow their noses, such behaviour is not common on the planet at all, especially amongst the fish'.

It is believed that the humans developed an opposing thumb to enable this facet of their evolution.


Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:26 am
Profile E-mail
Online
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 6552
Post Re: Life in the Universe
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
'Happy' in this context means having arrived at an evolutionary way stage, no particular hurry to go any further.

'What uniquely defines humans, from a Rigellian perspective, is their ability to blow their noses, such behaviour is not common on the planet at all, especially amongst the fish'.

It is believed that the humans developed an opposing thumb to enable this facet of their evolution.


Can't say I know much about the Rigellian stuff (other than the quick Google I just made) so not sure whether this is a Simpsons joke!

Evolution isn't ever complete. My point is that there is no evidence of animals conciously seeking evolutionary change, their changes are the reaction to external influences rather than a shark for example wanting to swim faster or wanting sharper teeth. It is literally survival of the fittest with 'fittest' being those that survive and pass on their genes. The fittest is often geographically influenced, hence why speciation occurs.


Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:07 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 4493
Post Re: Life in the Universe
Cymru am byth wrote:
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
'Happy' in this context means having arrived at an evolutionary way stage, no particular hurry to go any further.

'What uniquely defines humans, from a Rigellian perspective, is their ability to blow their noses, such behaviour is not common on the planet at all, especially amongst the fish'.

It is believed that the humans developed an opposing thumb to enable this facet of their evolution.


Can't say I know much about the Rigellian stuff (other than the quick Google I just made) so not sure whether this is a Simpsons joke!

Evolution isn't ever complete. My point is that there is no evidence of animals conciously seeking evolutionary change, their changes are the reaction to external influences rather than a shark for example wanting to swim faster or wanting sharper teeth. It is literally survival of the fittest with 'fittest' being those that survive and pass on their genes. The fittest is often geographically influenced, hence why speciation occurs.


I quite agree.

If we look at all the species ever to have existed on this planet we are certainly unique and one could imagine that without an asteroid hit we'd still be hiding in the undergrowth from dinosaurs. It is in fact quite a fluke that we are here in the first place.

People who bother with Drake's equation are just playing with numbers, their is no concept of 'fluke' built into it, just numbers to multiply which when all is said and done means nothing, simply nothing.

This planet is over 4.5 Billion years old and we have managed to screw it big time in less than 100 years.

Such a virulent species one would suspect to be at natures best attention to destroy.

The Universe abhors intelligent life.


Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:12 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 3367
Post Re: Life in the Universe
Cymru am byth wrote:
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
'Happy' in this context means having arrived at an evolutionary way stage, no particular hurry to go any further.

'What uniquely defines humans, from a Rigellian perspective, is their ability to blow their noses, such behaviour is not common on the planet at all, especially amongst the fish'.

It is believed that the humans developed an opposing thumb to enable this facet of their evolution.


Can't say I know much about the Rigellian stuff (other than the quick Google I just made) so not sure whether this is a Simpsons joke!

Evolution isn't ever complete. My point is that there is no evidence of animals conciously seeking evolutionary change, their changes are the reaction to external influences rather than a shark for example wanting to swim faster or wanting sharper teeth. It is literally survival of the fittest with 'fittest' being those that survive and pass on their genes. The fittest is often geographically influenced, hence why speciation occurs.



Animals don't strictly speaking "evolve" its just that the better suited ones either survive to breed more or are chosen for some feature that is preferable to a mate.

For instance, men going bald early is not a survival feature, but men in a position to chose the woman (successful, more options to breed and reproduce more) dont like too much hair on the women, so it is a feature bred in, and affects both sexes.

_________________
.
.
.
Anyone know if its on TV?


Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:17 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 4493
Post Re: Life in the Universe
So the bald headed rich guy wants his gals Vulva to be bald? Isn't that fashion not evolution? I mean I don't want to brake the dam or nothing but even Beavers have rights.


Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:23 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 3367
Post Re: Life in the Universe
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
So the bald headed rich guy wants his gals Vulva to be bald? Isn't that fashion not evolution? I mean I don't want to brake the dam or nothing but even Beavers have rights.


I dont think you can choose a specific "patch" to be bald, how ever rich you are :D

_________________
.
.
.
Anyone know if its on TV?


Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:25 pm
Profile E-mail
Online
International Player

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:24 pm
Posts: 825
Post Re: Life in the Universe
soap wrote:
For instance, men going bald early is not a survival feature, but men in a position to chose the woman (successful, more options to breed and reproduce more) dont like too much hair on the women, so it is a feature bred in, and affects both sexes.


I think you're on the wrong track there.
All the eggs in ovaries are developed early on in life, not so with sperm which is produced continually by the testes from puberty onwards. The result is that the quality of the genetic material in eggs doesn't deteriorate with a female's age while that in sperm does along with the ability of the sperm to swim to the egg.

As a result young women have evolved to be attracted to younger rather than older men.
This is pretty obvious.
Natural baldness in men is an indication of age. The fact that there are very few 20 year olds with male pattern baldness can be due to women over 100 000 years not choosing balding teenagers as mates. Baldness developing in a man's thirties doesn't matter as for most of our existence as a species at that age we'd already reproduced.
Because of the investment and risk involved to the female it's the female that has evolved to do the choosing (when she can).

Regarding hairy women - Sexual selection can have big effects eg the peacock's tail. Men choosing less hairy women might be the explanation however if it were the factor then why should men prefer less hairy women to hairy ones. Given the many human cultures I think if it were primarily sexual selection then there would have been more cultures than the very very few there are where hairy women are considered the ideal.

However there is a definite evolutionary advantage for a women to be less hairy than a man. Beards and chest hair cover up small chins and breasts so being non hairy means that a woman is less likely to be mistaken for a man in conflict situations were she could end up injured or killed. Therefore having less or no offspring.


Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:32 pm
Profile E-mail
Online
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 6552
Post Re: Life in the Universe
eog wrote:
soap wrote:
For instance, men going bald early is not a survival feature, but men in a position to chose the woman (successful, more options to breed and reproduce more) dont like too much hair on the women, so it is a feature bred in, and affects both sexes.


I think you're on the wrong track there.
All the eggs in ovaries are developed early on in life, not so with sperm which is produced continually by the testes from puberty onwards. The result is that the quality of the genetic material in eggs doesn't deteriorate with a female's age while that in sperm does along with the ability of the sperm to swim to the egg.

As a result young women have evolved to be attracted to younger rather than older men.
This is pretty obvious.
Natural baldness in men is an indication of age. The fact that there are very few 20 year olds with male pattern baldness can be due to women over 100 000 years not choosing balding teenagers as mates. Baldness developing in a man's thirties doesn't matter as for most of our existence as a species at that age we'd already reproduced.
Because of the investment and risk involved to the female it's the female that has evolved to do the choosing (when she can).

Regarding hairy women - Sexual selection can have big effects eg the peacock's tail. Men choosing less hairy women might be the explanation however if it were the factor then why should men prefer less hairy women to hairy ones. Given the many human cultures I think if it were primarily sexual selection then there would have been more cultures than the very very few there are where hairy women are considered the ideal.

However there is a definite evolutionary advantage for a women to be less hairy than a man. Beards and chest hair cover up small chins and breasts so being non hairy means that a woman is less likely to be mistaken for a man in conflict situations were she could end up injured or killed. Therefore having less or no offspring.


My guess is you're bald?


Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:19 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 3367
Post Re: Life in the Universe
eog wrote:
soap wrote:
For instance, men going bald early is not a survival feature, but men in a position to chose the woman (successful, more options to breed and reproduce more) dont like too much hair on the women, so it is a feature bred in, and affects both sexes.


I think you're on the wrong track there.
All the eggs in ovaries are developed early on in life, not so with sperm which is produced continually by the testes from puberty onwards. The result is that the quality of the genetic material in eggs doesn't deteriorate with a female's age while that in sperm does along with the ability of the sperm to swim to the egg.

As a result young women have evolved to be attracted to younger rather than older men.
This is pretty obvious.
Natural baldness in men is an indication of age. The fact that there are very few 20 year olds with male pattern baldness can be due to women over 100 000 years not choosing balding teenagers as mates. Baldness developing in a man's thirties doesn't matter as for most of our existence as a species at that age we'd already reproduced.
Because of the investment and risk involved to the female it's the female that has evolved to do the choosing (when she can).

Regarding hairy women - Sexual selection can have big effects eg the peacock's tail. Men choosing less hairy women might be the explanation however if it were the factor then why should men prefer less hairy women to hairy ones. Given the many human cultures I think if it were primarily sexual selection then there would have been more cultures than the very very few there are where hairy women are considered the ideal.

However there is a definite evolutionary advantage for a women to be less hairy than a man. Beards and chest hair cover up small chins and breasts so being non hairy means that a woman is less likely to be mistaken for a man in conflict situations were she could end up injured or killed. Therefore having less or no offspring.



Its nothing to do with eggs, its just the ones that get fertilised with the best chance of passing on the most to following generations

Extreme example, hairy girl does not look too hot, marries a labour. They have 4 kids, 2 die (well within what it was until recently) 2 kids marry get 2 surviving kids each. 4 in the gene pool in 50 years.

Attractive girl (sans moustache and sidebirns) maries well off guy and had 4 kids, all survive as they have better everything. 4 marry and have 4 kids each 16 in the gene pool in 50 years

_________________
.
.
.
Anyone know if its on TV?


Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:34 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 4493
Post Re: Life in the Universe
One slight complication in all that. The eggs are defined by the health of the mother giving birth to the daughter. So in fact when a child is born it's its Grand Mother's life style that impacts mostly.

Your mother can be a saint but if your Nanna was a tart your stuffed sorta thing :D


Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:16 pm
Profile E-mail
Online
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 6552
Post Re: Life in the Universe
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
One slight complication in all that. The eggs are defined by the health of the mother giving birth to the daughter. So in fact when a child is born it's its Grand Mother's life style that impacts mostly.

Your mother can be a saint but if your Nanna was a tart your stuffed sorta thing :D


But your mother is unlikely to be a saint if your grandmother was a tart.


Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:19 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Big And Dull, eog, Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: