kitkat

I live in Arizona and when I came here over 20 years ago, we had monsoons, longer cooler months, and now we don't have hardly any monsoon storms, temperature is hotter, shorter cooler months. Its stupid to believe that our actions do not effect the environment when in reality all activities from living entities, globally, effect the environment.

Living in western culture where monogamy is preached as the norm is completely inaccurate. The partners in most (not less) marriages are not monogamous, they all cheat, maybe not continuously throughout a marriage but they do cheat. This country is in so much denial over their sexual behavior and they do their best to keep their secrets behind closed doors, it is a joke. I tend to see it this way, men are wired to think of sex 90% or more of the time. The reason I believe this is that many woman do not care about sex. Whether it is cultural bias of woman from religious reasons or our society making woman deny that they have sexual desires as much as men since women who do act on it they are labeled as sluts and so on. The environment acts on these cues and has to compensate it by making men always in the mood for sex for if the opportunity arises, they can grab it. In nature in other mammals, the male is also designed to be ready when a female is in season for mating. The male reproductive system is programmed to desire sex and it has no conscious if a willing female that is open to having sex. The media, television, ads, etc are all centered around sexual appeal that works to constantly stimulate the libido for desiring sex. Being married is not a deterent for cheating. It never has and it never will so I wish our society would lose this taboo attitude about sex when they do the opposite in the bedroom.

By putting SEX in the title it pulled you in by natural instincts. Very clever! Since science cannot measure consciousness, intelligence, free will since it is not a physical object, they seem to have no problem in denying that it exists in evolution. It seems their strict disciplinary training of never interpreting anything that has not been tested and agreed by peer review becomes an automatic response when responding to the public questions. Which is my point, there are few job occupations that require them to speak articulately, an authoritive manner, etc. that when you meet any of them in their profession they all seem to act alike (doctors, scientists) in their personalities. To me an automatic conditioning of their thinking processes and they generally do not behave that they possess free will. These type of people are held by high standards from society and I guess this is why they appear likes clones of each other. I may be getting away from this thread objective but I thought I would add my opinion.

In China, if a deformed child is born they live it in the streets to die. Chinese people will walk right by the baby and ignored it. I had a friend who was Doctor visiting China and he saw this child and brought it to the authorities and they said because he picked this child up it is now his responsibility. He had a hard time getting out of that. I do not know if abortion is legal or not and this probably does not have anything to do with this thread but wouldn't you think that terminating an early pregnancy is humane compared to the suffering that the child may endure after it is born?

The comment I made above has been repeating several times in many different science articles. The Genome Project I would think should be credible when they made this statement.

.

.

.

The comment I made above has been repeating several times in many different science articles. The Genome Project I would think should be credible when they made this statement.

Are you saying that the Permian Extinction of 2-6 degrees warmer didn't happen?

A human Being is 90% microbial DNA and 10% Human DNA according to the Genome Project. A human Being is 90% microbial DNA and 10% Human DNA according to the Genome Project.

So how to you change this when oil is going to be used until we get the last drop out of earth? How do we change this when big rich corporations influence laws that allow them to continue exploiting the earth by destroying all ecosystems?

Neither one is easier then the other because the biggest obstacle is ourselves in that sacrifice is not something anyone wants to do in a world that believes that obtaining more is how you succeed. What is going on now in the world is producing so much conflict with more consequences just around the corner then the environment will soon be put on the back burner, perhaps permanently, the population will most likely be reduced when the tipping point is under way. it saddens me that humans have not evolved their emotional beings to act more responsible for their actions. I am starting to understand what "free will" was meant in that we don't have to be enslaved by human condition of being selfish, greedy, etc that this negative behavior is primarily the reason why we are in this mess. To actually act using free will mean to change the behavior that has lead to every extinction in history which we are currently following can be stopped if we take responsibility for our actions and take action to prevent them from destroying our environment that supports us. We are certainly aware that a healthy environment is the only way for a species to survive, there are no exceptions to this rule. The environment can take alot of abuse for so long until it crumbles under the pressure. We are witnessing it right now and we know it but yet we still do nothing or very little to solve it due to the lack of cooperation of the powers that be that actually can enforce it. Playing this political game of who is responsible before any action will be taken is a stall tactic to not have to deal with it and do something about it. The first clue is how it is labeled "global warming" when it should have been global environmental destruction which obviously gives clear evidence of who is to blame.

People cannot agree on how to define "intelligence" and this is a problem with accepting it to explain biological processes. Why can't we simply explain it as an emergent property of memory capable cells that can alter their properties that enable them to counteract the actions of circumstances where they previously were restricted to be enslaved to the changing bioactivity of its environment. It is through experience and trying different alternatives that we can find the best solution to overcome a repetative problem so why isn't this view shared at the molecular level that as a whole perform the same methods of problem solving just like we do at our level?

Were you being taught about evolution at the same time you learned about your religious views?

I do not share the definition of intelligent design as the religious followers. I do have conflict in believing that the microscopic world is not directly involved in the visible world that defines you and me and the rest of the biodiversity. It is scientific evidence that allows me to interpret it differently from your interpretations of the same evidence. I am not bounded by peer review or the desire to be accepted by my peers by agreeing with the rest of them. I would like to fully accept the scientific explanation in its entirety of how they interpret the evidence of what they test. I would also like to prove to myself that I am wrong in what I interpret of the scientific evidence but more and more evidence that is being published in science reconfirms my beliefs. No, I am not saying it is 90% prokaryotic because it does have a nucleus which is how you define the difference between prokarotic and eurkaryotic. The language and how it is defined is constantly changing in scientific journals and the media written for the public is intentionally misleading to obtain a captive audience, otherwise no one would be interested whatsoever of what the lastest discoveries are in science. To get frustrated with people responding with questions or beliefs of their own from the members of the scientific community requires an understanding that the masses are being misled from every direction that has their own idea of the truth.

I agree with you and religious beliefs are brainwashed into children's evolving belief system very early in life and that is why it is so hard to convince them of reality.

Does it mean food animal bacteria transferred to human bacteria? Okay it is bacteria to bacteria but doesn't it have a direct impact on how it is influenced in the human body? I mean we have a planet that was and is completely dominated by bacteria and our origin of the eukarotic cell is believed to be evolved from bacteria with another bacterium moving in that made it possible for us to multicellular organisms that require alot of energy to carry out its processes. Our DNA is 90% microbial and they dominate our digestive processes (first in line for energy nutrients, smart), train our immune system (again wise since this works to keep their enemies out too) and upon our death they consume us from the inside out (winner to the end), all of these observations made by science. Now here is where I get confused, science treats them still as a separate entity with very strict limitations or so its believed based on differences in our cells that prevents bacteria from messing with the program of our DNA. These bacteria that live in us and have been here since the beginning, isn't it logical to believe that our success is their success and these bacteria that are housed in our bodies have a large invested interest in the conditions that improve their ability to survive by mutational engineering in the living entity through evolution? it is frustrating to me when science provides us with all of this new information on bacterial behavior and it is amazing what they can do, they still do not want to accept the possibility that bacteria are doing far more then we realize in the bodies of living creatures. I understand that at this point due to limits in technology advances that we have a long way to go of understanding the microscopic world in its detail. What we do know so far is very impressive and it opens your mind to form a slightly difference opinion of the evolution of life. I believe the facts have been staring us in the face all along but we were too busy trying to find a complicated explanation to explain it.

Your comment of expecting a magic discovery of a specific pinpointed "common ancestor" is to completely misinterpret evolutionary theory falls short when you look up the genome articles where you can plug in any (2) diff animals and it will provide you with the date they split from each other, the date meaning common ancestry. Dates don't seem to be a problem for genetic comparison but it is for actual fossil evidence to pinpoint ancestor. Come on this is hard to swallow with any doubt. Please understand I don't have a problem with evolution theory, I do have a problem with agreeing with your evidence and how it is interpreted.

This too might be nitpicking but no one knows what this common ancestor was, what it looked like, and by that fact even if you did find a fossil you still would not know if it was our common ancestor.

I get it but what came to mind is the variation spectrum in individuals of a particular species. There may be an individual that can out run a wolf but the wolf will give up and find a less fit individual within that group. Also how you explained it, evolution appears to have thought of that problem and allowed the variation spectrum within the group. Oh, I forgot, evolution has no mind so it can't think, my bad.

But they stated that genes are being transferred from food animals to humans. You are saying it is rare that it occurs, how was this tested to confirm this?

Today, Science Daily had a great article regarding rapid HGT between many different species of bacteria, they found that there are 43 independent cases of antibiotic resistant genes crossing between nations. It is known that the U.S. uses antibiotics in their food animals but it is banned in Europe and other nations. They stated that genes are being transferred from food animals to humans. It also shows that they were recent since there has not been enough time for mutations to occur. They commented that even though a billion years of genome evolution separate a bacteria living on a cow and a bacteria living on a human, both are accessing the same library. Environmental niches appears to the most important to bacteria and that explains rapid HGT. Does anyone have any comments on this article?

There is still much to learn in science and when the complete genomes of microbes to man of all species is completed perhaps a different prospective will emerge that provides definitive answers to questions that will resolve doubt of what the real story is about life's activities.

You have misunderstood me in that when science can explain the "why" in life processes, it longer appears it came about that way by random, lucky, mutations that emerge by chance. The "why" explains the reason why it was "naturally selected" as the best choice. The word "natural selection" teases people that see selection as a choice, therefore a decision mechanism appears to be in place. This is not at the species level in reproduction because I feel if changes start to occur in the offspring that there are many individuals born that also have these changes. Scientists should have realized that using buzz words like "selection" creates a heated debate between evolutionists and religions, or just people like me who believe that life appears to direct itself in many different directions by making choices along the way to improve survival. You keep saying traits are selected for by natural selection but what level does the selecting and are there choices involved? At the species level in reproduction, the "selection" has already been chosen since many individuals in the population have it all at the same time in their offspring.