kitkat

There are so many problems that contributed to the state we are currently in that I have difficulty in believing that a solution can be found without bloodshed of war. There is no way that our government or the elite are going to say, "We are sorry that we have been corrupt, greedy, and power hungry and although we have been working since the 1980's or before in creating laws to work in our favor and have been in bed with wallstreet, banks, etc to achieve our goals in destroying America's economy, we will change and do it honestly and fairly now." They are high on their power trip and they are not likely to give it up without a fight. It is an illusion when it is often stated that they care about the american citizens while their actions do the complete opposite that reveals their true intentions. By voting yet another member of their mentality and shares their goal oriented plan that supports government mafia is not ever going to work in our direction of the public's best interest. State elections are just as corrupt as Federal elections and they experts on brainwashing the masses of what they want us to believe and not on what is actually is going on in reality. We need to change the laws to reduce the lopeholes that enables them to be corrupt in the first place. laws should be voted on individually by the public and not by the people in power. Get rid of lobbyists and other middleman entities that make a living on investing our money while giving as little as possible (insurance companies). In fact we need to throw out all laws and start over with news ones that do not make the legal system a profitable business. I could go on and on but it would take too much time.

According to some views we are mostly operating on auto pilot so from nature's perspective consciousness is expensive. It also creates chaos in my opinion

Having wisdom is a lonely state of being because you are waiting for the rest to catch up.

I would not want to be immortal on this planet

The concept of reality puzzles me in that if an alien (hypothetically) came down to earth and asked every creature on the planet how they would describe in detail of how they define our planet, I think the alien would be totally confused because the reports would indicate that no two species or even individuals with the group sees the world exactly the same way. The interpretation of the data would seem to indicate that none of us are capable of seeing reality to define it based on so many different variations of our sensory abilities that is different in the entire food chain of biodiversity.

Your comment that we have human "bias". We have to, that is what we are. I disagree, science has come a long way in regards to studying other species behavior so I would think that we would realize that defining intelligence based on human ananomical abilities and ignoring other species ananomical abilities to set the standards for defining intelligence is illogical. Defining intelligence is unique to every species and it should take into consideration their morphology and the extent of their sensory abilities that allows all of them to see the world differently from us and unique to them. Processing information from the environment is not the same process in every species and we as humans are smart enough now to realize that.

The problem with ID is it can be scientifically tested nor can anyone agree on how it should be defined outside of religion. Intelligence is another area that many have developed tests on what they interpret to be intelligence but again many can't agree on how it should be defined so these tests appear to be silly. What I define to possess intelligence is if you have the ability for memory which is critical since if you can't remember what you did a moment ago, you have nothing to build information, being capable of making a decision then being able to directly put it into action in a trial and error process. This definition applies to us and the entire food chain so yes intelligence is not a unique property limited to just humans.

I think it is insane that in today's over populated world that there are people still trying to ban abortion. Abortion should be a woman's choice along with extensive education to prevent further unwanted pregnancies by using birth control. Abortion should not used as a birth control method and woman should be educated on the important of birth control and the emotional consequences that accompanies the decision of getting an abortion. For most woman it is one of the hardest decisions that they might have to make in their lifetime. There will always be a small percentage of women who think nothing of it by using abortion as a birth control method and if there was some way they could be held accountable for their actions which is a slippery slope, a solution is needed in this area. Teen pregnancy is another issue that is most likely the biggest reason behind these anti abortion groups and I am unsure in this area if it should be the right of the teenager or her parents that is likely to be largely affected by this decision. The reality is you cannot prevent teenagers from having sex since this is a biological program of hormones raging that causes them to desire sex. I think teenage girls should be fitted with a birth control device whether they are sexually active or not since they are not mature enough to handle the responsibility of raising babies. The unrealistic idea that parents can educate their children to abstain from sex goes against the biological grain of human nature. On the other hand there are many childless couples that desperately want to adopt so I can understand their interests in that abortion be illegal. However this should not be the primary reason for the movement in the first place. I realize that I might be conflicting my beliefs by stating it should be a woman's choice on abortion while at the same time believing that teenager girls should be fitted with a birth control device. Something has to draw the line due to this being such a complicated issue. What do you think?

I think it is insane that in today's over populated world that there are people still trying to ban abortion. Abortion should be a woman's choice along with extensive education to prevent further unwanted pregnancies by using birth control. Abortion should not used as a birth control method and woman should be educated on the important of birth control and the emotional consequences that accompanies the decision of getting an abortion. For most woman it is one of the hardest decisions that they might have to make in their lifetime. There will always be a small percentage of women who think nothing of it by using abortion as a birth control method and if there was some way they could be held accountable for their actions which is a slippery slope, a solution is needed in this area. Teen pregnancy is another issue that is most likely the biggest reason behind these anti abortion groups and I am unsure in this area if it should be the right of the teenager or her parents that is likely to be largely affected by this decision. The reality is you cannot prevent teenagers from having sex since this is a biological program of hormones raging that causes them to desire sex. I think teenage girls should be fitted with a birth control device whether they are sexually active or not since they are not mature enough to handle the responsibility of raising babies. The unrealistic idea that parents can educate their children to abstain from sex goes against the biological grain of human nature. On the other hand there are many childless couples that desperately want to adopt so I can understand their interests in that abortion be illegal. However this should not be the primary reason for the movement in the first place. I realize that I might be conflicting my beliefs by stating it should be a woman's choice on abortion while at the same time believing that teenager girls should be fitted with a birth control device. Something has to draw the line due to this being such a complicated issue. What do you think?

Why is there more biodiversity in Africa? Is it due to a high number of offspring?

It is amazing how these forums change their views in just a couple years. A couple of years ago people on here would have not have considered HGT to cross between prokaryotes to eukaryotes, it was believed that it was not possible but yet today it is indeed occuring. They used to say that changes in morphology was a long and gradual process but today they view that it is possible for offspring to become different from parent in one generation. Your DNA once defined you but now many other mechanisms are known to have a great effect in changing how they are expressed. Expand the possibilites in science which widens the window of allowing new ideas to emerge and expand the theory of evolution to greater heights.

To me it makes more sense to believe that Neanderthals by many future generations became modern humans, no extinction just changes over time. This would also apply to other creatures that were human like prior to modern humans. I have no evidence but it makes more sense.

It would be interested to know how many animals became alchoholics when fruit grew in the wild abundantly without humans due to fermentation.

Since we have no idea what the environment will be like in the future, there is nothing in the way that birds could not grow arms or anything else for that matter, it depends on their environment if they managed to survive until then.

By using that analogy wouldn't we have also outcompeted chimps, apes, too? Humans have lived in close proximity with chimps.

Gambling is like any other drug that may or may not addict you depending on the individual.

excellent study! To me there is not much difference when you state 99% or 100% but if it was 50% then to me it means a hugh gap. I probably do not understand what percentages means to genetics as opposed to common language that defines percentages.

I read the IPAT based model and although you may feel it resembles reality, I don't. You can invent all new technology and it won't solve our problems unless the population is reduced significantly. We have polluted rivers and lakes and nothing has been done to restore them due to either humans don't want to spend money or we do not have a solution. We are causing dead zones due to irrigation of excess run-offs filled with byproducts, has anything been done about this? Can we fix this or too expensive to be bothered? You can come up with the best solutions on paper for the improvement of the environment and while they are meant to be good intentions, they generally get pushed to future generations due to costs to solve it. The problem is no generation has yet to put anything in action so compound that with an oversized global population and now the problem cannot be fixed. I mean come on this so called political name of global warming instead of its real name global destruction creates an ongoing debate so that everyone can spend time arguing over if it is human induced or natural cycles. A tactic to shift the problem that we know 100% is human caused is environmental destruction. I understand science depends on being funded and politicians claim to care about the environment but who funds those scientific papers that came out after the election when so many had donated to the cause of global warming and now say it is natural and not human caused? Was it all bullshit to get people to donate money or is the information actually correct? Until we can be responsible with our actions, my stance on over population will remain as the number one global crisis.

Do you realize how many species we have pushed to the brink of extinction due to human expansion of their land? Water tables all over the world are getting low and humans keep pumping more polution into the oceans. The oceans are overfished for human consumption and dead zones are becoming common. So even though you feel some areas are declining in population growth we are still over populated by a few billion people. Where I grew up in the country in Ct. the local ponds and lakes were abundant with wildlife, now it is hard to find any. Humans have become a parasite to the planet and when they do get around to imposing laws on reducing reproduction it will be too late. You are only seeing our carbon footprint which is one of many problems we are causing to the environment. A much smaller human population reduces the demand of resources, saves wilderness areas, reduces our water consumption. and the list goes on.

I grew with Catholic religion being brainwashed into me but since I am a person that questions everything I found religion to be hypocrites. My core belief was centered around a God and being a good person. In my early thirties I decided to educate myself on how religion came about and its history and what dawned on me is the belief that man created God and not the other way around. I remember one day thinking, Wow I don't believe in God anymore, am I okay? At that moment my core belief had changed and it took me a little while to realize it. Many people I know do not want to learn about what science says on the subject of our history due to their core belief in religion. Perhaps they feel disloyal or the information is too overwelming to comprehend it. I am a sponge in that I can't wait for something new to be discovered especially in genetics and microbiology. I have studied just about every subject in science and the history of life for about 10 years now and I love it.

I read somewhere that according to genetics eukaryotes (multi-celled organisms) begin with mitochondria while few later lost it.

This is the same analogy when people said during the 1918 flu epidemic that the "flu" caused death when in reality it was the different reactions as in secondary infections that finally put the nail in the coffin. The broken heart is the origin and it is dependent on how you respond to it which if negative will ripple into health problems or destructive behavior but in the end your death certificate will not say you died from a broken heart. I know of a dog once who its companion another dog got hit by a car and it died a year later from a tumor that developed. I know this dog was very depressed over the lost of its companion and I think it opened the door for health problems to evolve rapidly is why he died a year later.

This is the same analogy when people said during the 1918 flu epidemic that the "flu" caused death when in reality it was the different reactions as in secondary infections that finally put the nail in the coffin. The broken heart is the origin and it is dependent on how you respond to it which if negative will ripple into health problems or destructive behavior but in the end your death certificate will not say you died from a broken heart. I know of a dog once who its companion another dog got hit by a car and it died a year later from a tumor that developed. I know this dog was very depressed over the lost of its companion and I think it opened the door for health problems to evolve rapidly is why he died a year later.

That depends on what the biota at the vents do to acquire nitrogen fixation in their cells. They do not require oxygen either. The vents are interesting in that a blanket of bacteria must colonize first before anything else higher can develop. This process seems to scream loudly of who is responsible for lifeforms with compartments that do very specific jobs within the body of a host. Can RNA alone require no nitrogen fixation to work prior to DNA that is more stable to accumulate information as it is compiled? The key point is immense selection pressure so what would the environment be like for this to occur?

The larger megafauna that lived 10,000 years ago that is considered extinct do resemble modern mammals. I think that their previous appearance changed over time to reflect their current morphology traits today. This was obviously rapid evolution when we were busy inventing agriculture. It is harder to accept that a few small mammals are responsible for all the biodiversity of mammals when it is much easier to change the previous morphology of the biodivesity that defines that era of time into their current morphology that exists today. By evolutionists that insist on saying 99% are extinct which are dead ends so modern humans do not feel it is a problem to wipe our current biota into extinction for selfish motives.The appearance of species in history makes more sense that changes in appearances occurred in the offspring over many generations with many original lines of descent from the beginning of their origin. Sure catastrophic events happened but they were never global to the point of wiping out all biodiversity with one sweep as we are doing today. If I am right about this and we already caused the most massive extinction in the history of this planet by wiping out all mammals there is no chance for anything to evolve quick enough to fill their purpose in building a stable ecosystem. Nature's clues is the many species that can delay their reproductive cycles that can stop at specific stages in larvae and wait until conditions improve until advancing to the next stage of devevelopment. Frogs that can be frozen in time until it warms again. Fish that can be buried in mud clinically dead only to be revised with water. Human beings that believe that we do not require the rest of the biodiversity to sustain the requirement for a stable global environment are signing their own extinction event. Science is advancing but they still don't have a clue of all the players involved in all of the biochemical processes that affects all the requirements to sustain life.