Dark Legacy MUD Forum

Looks DO NOT mean jack. We rely on looks and attractiveness when choosing a mate for a reason, it is a functional aspect of evolution and natural selection, specifically referred to as sexual selection. I will repeat again...Facial symetry, hip to waist ratio, skin clarity, height, build, body fat percentage suitable to the culture and area, yadda...The list goes on. There are universally accepted features that are considered attractive, always have been, even since we were cavemen, and always will be. It's not half as subjective as you think it is.

Not since we wear caveman. Many things have changed. For example obesity in the middle ages as to now. Different things are healthy depending on the generation and much of this comes from society as well as our innate feelings. Previously if you were fat you could stave off famine and afford to eat well. Now we realize it's just cause you're a gluttonous pig.

Looks do provide an initial attraction between two people and serves evolution if they procreate before they find out how big a jerk the other one is and split. Lasting relationships are built on more solid foundations than looks alone, unless both people are very shallow, then it will last untill a better looking partner happens along. Do we really want people this shallow running around reproducing?

Lingolas,
I see you did not fall into the little trap I set with the genetic breeding question. Very Good, you take all the fun out of being evil. I shall have to be sneaker in the future. I was looking forward to some of the responces it could have evoked. Your responce was one of the few logical approaches to it that could be taken.

Yeah, I wouldn't want a girl with a sloped foreheard and dragging knuckles. Used in the context of intiating a relationship (and maybe some hot carnal procreation... yeah, baby), i.e. hormone triggers, sight triggers (bone structure, weight), and personal fetishes, it serves its purpose and has it's place, but certainly not integrated into evolution. Animals will continue to inbreed if that's all they have to choose from.

For example:
If you were trapped on an island with girls/guys, none of which you were attracted to before, they will eventually turn very tantalizing. That's why I say it's not 'necessary' or 'important'.

I believe we are getting sicker, not better

True some of us like myself my not be here becuase of modern docs and all that but if you look at whats happening today i think we are getting far sicker and its our own doing

We replace the much needed live vitamins and nutrients in real food with convenice and longevity of our food and its killing us, mc donalds and all those other fast food and even diners use food with almost nothing natrual in them watch the movie "super size me" a healthy man eating good and natural food gets really sick and almosts dies because what hes eating isent food , its corparate crap in a bun -.-

Ever have a craveing?, natures way of telling you it needs something in the food ,some miniral or vit, Well this is why fat people cant stop eating. empty food will never fill you up just make you fat and thats what mc don wants

We are moveing farther away from the foods God gave us (or even evolution) and that cant be good , Even if you take these "dead" vitamin pills its not 1/3rd as good as if you ate what you were made to .. If you dont believe me look it up , those pills you take to make yourself feell better about getting real vitamins are eaither dead ones or extrats which make them about 1/3rd as affective

I learned this when my friend started takeing a live vitamain supplement thing if anyone wants to know its name tell me , She said she never felt better her hair is growing more and her nails are a lot stronger (she was always bitching about them before)

Snowflayke, A very good point.

I saw an interesting study that compaired the nutrients and vitamins found in various strains of apples. Old varities like Winesap had 1/4 the number of vitamins and nutrients found in earlier varities, but 10 times the amount of vitamins and nutrients found in modern varities like Red Delicious. The study suggests that as we breed apples to increase their size and apperance, we reduced their value as food. Could this also be the case with other foods hybrids we have created. Empty food, only good to make us fat.

Also of note is that the bible tells us not to create hybrid crops, but does not tell us why not to. Once again it seems that the bible is ahead of science in knowing what is best for us.

Think about what science has done to the DNA of wheat , it breeds in Posion into it so it dont die so early ... Eating posion sounds fun -.-

"the whiter the bread the quicker your dead" one of my fav

If i remember right Fresh bread made from real wheat and made daily has fatty acids and other stuff that helps streghten the heart , but people found out what makes the bread go bad so fast was these fatty acids and stuff and took them out ..

Its sad when a twinkly can last longer then the people it was made for -.-

there is much disagreement on this thread but so far i think everyone has remained cool. This is good!
I like aureal's responses the most. they are thoughtful, well argued and do not put anyone down.

I to am pleased with the manner in which everyone has conducted themselves on this thread. With a topic as touchy as this one, that is a rare thing to see. It is a pleasure to speak on such matters without a flame war starting. Good job everyone.

I would have to agree with Aureal about the nutrition and general well being.

1. Viruses cannot reproduce asexually, what they do is infect a host and make it into a 'factory' for their RNA/DNA templates to get transcribed and translated. One could say that the host reproduce for the virus, but viruses do not do the asexual'reproduction. Because viruses cannot reproduce on their own, some scientist classify them as nonliving.

2. Asexual reproduction is not anywhere near immune to evolution, nor does it resist evolution. Let's take bacteria for example, there are several methods for them to generate genetic variation and they are all considered normal conditions such as: mutation, conjugation, transduction, and transformation (processes are complicated to explain here, google.com the information for more details). Overtime, they evolved (and still are); if all/most bacteria have the same genome, then humans would have antibiotics for those bacteria.

thank you for Jerardo's correction.

Viruses can not reproduce on their own. they can only reproduce by using the host's replicative machinery eg. intergrase.

Whether they are living things are not is highly debatable among biologists. In my opinion, i say they are. eventhough the lack the ability to reproduce they have the ability to take advantage of other's reproductive ability. That's good enough for me.

Update

Stephen Hawking's withdraws his support of the Big Bang Theory.

"There is no singularity, no initial boundary at all; the universe has no beginning!"

“The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. One could say:
"The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." "The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE."

Hawking thinks that the inflationary model of the universe cannot explain the present state of the universe. He is troubled by two questions which he does not think the traditional theory of the Big Bang can answer: Gee, only two, I found a lot more than that. 1) why is the universe so homogenous and isotropic on a large scale, whereas there are "local irregularities" such as galaxies and stars; 2) why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely?

The appeal to an initial singularity is, for Hawking, an admission of defeat: "If the laws of physics could break down at the beginning of the universe, why couldn't they break down anywhere?" To admit a singularity is to deny a universal predictability to physics, and, hence ultimately, to reject the competency of science to understand the universe. He claims that the "no-boundary proposal can explain all the structure of the universe, including little inhomogeneities like ourselves."

As you may remember, I trashed the Big Bang Theory earlier in this thread, as I have since I first heard that crackpot theory. Nice to know that Hawking's is coming around to my point of view. Though its a shame it has taken him so many years to see the error of his ways.

So what theory will the Ex-Big Bangers hang their hat on now that even leading scientists admit that the Big Bang theory has been blown away.

String theory, or was that Silly String theory, shooting through multi-dimensions. The exact number of which they can't make up their minds about.

Brane theory, or was that Brane Flakes theory. Where we can all go "poof-gone" in an instant when our brane collides with another one in the cosmic breakfast bowl. No thanks, I have enough fiber in my diet already.

Have no fear you Ex-Big Bangers, there is still hope that science may deliver you yet another theory to hang your hat on. The bad news is that the creationist's may like it just as much as you. Then again, they may not, and you all can still fight happily.

Now Hawking's may be a little slow, but he is not clueless.
Lets look again at the first qoute of his in this post. "There is no singularity, no initial boundary at all; the universe has no beginning!" and this one "It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE" and lastly, "the no-boundary proposal can explain all the structure of the universe, including little inhomogeneities like ourselves."

He may be on to something here. The bad news for him is that a number of others have beat him to this point and arrived at a theory that takes all of this into consideration. It is called WSM or the Wave Structure of Matter. While it is not exactly new, it has not recieved a lot of attention. Mainly because most scientists have spent their time trying to prove these other, hopelessly flawed theories.

For those of you brave enough to look at this theory, here is a link to one of the main sites dealing with it. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

For those of you who find that link a little to much to handle at first, here is a link to a forum where a bunch of us eggheads hang out and discuss some of the less technical aspects of it. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysi ... /index.php On that forum I use the same name that my first avatar on DL had, Aireal

This applies to all you creationists also. Though the theory does not include God, it does not exclude God either.

See, I told you that religion and science were not mutally exclusive of each other.

Now about my other theories mentioned in this thread. I am a betting man, any one care to make a wager?

DELETED

Raphael

Yes I poked fun at Stephen Hawking in my last post. In fact, I think very highly of him. His work has been a great help to me. However he like many scientists, started with the assumption that the Big Bang theory was true. They devote time and research to looking for that proof. After time passes and that proof does not come, then they reconsider the base assumptions and look for another theory thats fits the base facts. Repeat the process. This is the scientific method. The only draw back to it is that it takes time. You have to start somewhere though.

Stephen Hawking is a great physicist. The first leading scientist to admit that the Big Bang theory does not fit the facts, and looks like it never will. So intelligent man that he is, he started asking, what does fit the facts as we know them, and is looking for a new theory. What he came up with is quite interesting, and very important in deciding which way to go next.

It Is:

"The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE."

This makes Brane theory an unlikely replacement. Branes are affected by outside forces, plus they are created and destroyed.

String theory would fit this better. But string theory has its problems. It is not the simplist theory that fits this bill. It requires a greater number of dimensions that can only be investigated mathamaticly.

The Wave Structure of Matter theory is a simpler version of String theory that does not require extra dimensions to work. It also starts with the base assumption that Stephen Hawking noted.

Stephen Hawking also noted, "the no-boundary proposal can explain all the structure of the universe, including little inhomogeneities like ourselves."

The Wave Structure of Matter theory is very good at this also. Philosophy is often discussed by supporters of WSM, for its implications are far ranging. Many religions can find a common ground with it as well.

WSM is not a very well known theory however, though it has been around for some time. I only discovered it due to my work on radaition shielding for spaceships, another of my little hobbies.

I am glad you enjoyed the link I gave. I see you also went to the Joseph Campbell site. I need to post a link to it on our thread devoted to religion. The Joseph Campbell site is a very good place to learn about and discuss various reliogions, and more mystical subjects. On the WSM site we stick to hard science and philosophy discussions on the forum.

I hope others will visit them as well, although they may see another side of me they did not suspect from my modest elven demeanor on DL.

Arureal
High Lord of Lowbies

For those that don't already know.

I just want topoint out that science is not about proving anything since nothing can really be "proven. " Science is really about "disproving" something. The science method involves experimentation. If you can not carry out an experiment, it is not a a science method. Lastly, the word theory is misleading. Scientifically, the word theory means heavily suported, currently known to be true, and has not yet been disproven. A n educated "guess" is something that most people think of when they hear the word "theory," which is completely wrong. An educated guess is not too well supported and we call it a "hypothesis."

Lingolas

For those that don't already know. Here is the definition of "Theory" according to Webster.

1. Abstract thought.

2. The general principles of a subject.

3. A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain observed facts.

4. A Hypothesis or Conjecture.

It does not mean heavily supported. Nor does it mean currently known to be true, or Has not yet been disproven. Reguardless of how much you wish it meant those things, Lingolas.

The word hypothesis, according to Webster, means An assumption made in order to test its logical or empirical consequences. It does not mean an educated guess that is not well supported, that would be the word "Conjecture", according to Webster. A theory can therefore also be a Hypothesis or Conjecture, just not a very sound theory.

You said in your post. "I just want to point out that science is not about proving anything since nothing can really be "proven."

Please, Nothing can be proven, so good old H2O may be a deadly poison of unknown elements.

You also said "Science is really about "disproving" something." If this was truely the case we whould not have crack pot theories like the big bang hanging around long past their time. Back to good old H2O, did science first try to disprove that it was made up of other elements untill hydrogen and oxygen were the only possible choices left?

I can only conclude that you must be trying to bait me into an argument from your post, for I know you are smarter than this.

The only true fact you stated in your post was that the scientific method involves experimentation. At least at some point.

Now a scientific LAW is another story completly. A scientific law is widely supported by the facts, and have not yet been disproven. There are plenty of examples, and they all have the word LAW in the title to show this exaulted state. The Law of themodynamics, Newtons Laws of motion, Ohm's Law, and so on.

Problems arise when people treat a Theory like a Law. Theories can be good or bad, soundly based or not. The Theory of the Evolution of the Species is an example of a good theory, not yet a law, but a good theory none the less. The Big Bang Theory is an example of a poor theory, so full of holes it begins to resemble the black hole it claims started the universe.

So please try to remember the differance between a scientific LAW and a scientific THEORY. It will save a lot of misunderstanding.

I can not dispute Webster, but i can tell you from my experience as a science major that a hypothesis and a theory are not the same thing. I have written at least 100 pages of scientific papers and have had many professors and T.As with PHDs or Masters, and one thing that they have consistently tell me is never to confuse the difference between a hypothesis, a theory and a law. In accordance with courses in scientific writtings, a required course, i've learned the differences between the hypothesis and a theory. Unfortunately, i can not pin point the reference book because i used to sell all my books after i finish the course to get money for new books.

According to The World of Biology 5th edi by Solomon and Berg, a hypothesis is a tentative explantion. In other words a hypothesis is an educated guess based on certain knowledge. A hypothesis may be correct or incorrect. And "a hypothesis supported by a large body of observations and experiements become a theory...A theory that over a long period of time, has yielded a true predictions and is thus almost universally accepted is referred to as a scientific principle or law." As you can see, a hypothesis is not the same as a theory.

I like to point out that there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. Most people are confused between the two. theory is a speculation, but a scientific theory is more than just a speculation.

According to Wilstar.org, a scientific theory is more like a law than to hypothesis. A theory is something that is derived from consistent "proven" hypothesis[pattern of prediction]. It is verified by many scientists. a single scientist can not create a theory, a theory can only be created by many scientists with enough evidence and support. Alaw governs a single action by a theory is more complex. A theory involves a series of related phanomena.

Here are some of the most suported Theories:
1.) The theory of gravitation
2.) The theory of evolution
3.) The theory of relativity
4.) The theory of the Big Bang
5.) The String theory

Each there are hundres of hypothesis and experiements that suport these theories. Observations are consistently in suport. Current techonology are built based on these knowledge. We would not be able to send people to the moon without trusting that hte theory of gravitation is correct. We would not be able to trace genes without trusting that the theory of evotion is correct. We would not be able to build optics and other technology involing lazers without strusting the theory of relativity.

*note, relativity is still a bit iffy, many scientists dont agree with einstein on this, they are still trying to take his him down but so far everyone has failed. Not a single physicists have successfully demonstrate that the theory of relativity is incorrect. The experiments they design the more they are forced to believe.

Recently, evolution is taking a different path. The idea of irreducible complexity is causing alot of controversy among the scientific community, in my opinion, i think the theory of irreducible complexity is invalid. Many scientists agree.

The theory of gravity is not even worth arguing. Not a single soul that i know refute this. It is difficult to deny it's existance when you know exactly what it is and everything you have come up aggrees with it.

YOu mention water as H2O. I'm sorry to inform you that you may be wrong on this. Whoever discovered the molecular formula of H2O first had to disprove their NULL HYPOTHESIS. I dont want to explain what a null hypothesis is. Again, the scientic method is about disproving rather than proving. Again, science can not prove anything, it can only disprove it or suport it.