fafalone Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 The 10% of your brain is partially correct; you can only use about 10% of your brain at a time.
YT2095 Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 no, the 10% is bugger all to do with homeopaths, in fact I don`t even know any, let alone someone trying to sell me on some crap I don`t want ) got yer wires crossed mate it`s actualy FACT! 10% is at best all that`s used, ask brain doctor or neuroscientist or some such kinda person. and don`t get me wrong either, I`m a suporter of evolution! I just don`t think it`s the WHOLE picture, like with Newton, his ideas re; Gravity are perfect! but not the entire picture as for nipples I DID! state: "on a more trivial note...." sorry you didn`t appreciate my atempt at a little humor injection, lighten up dude!, get over yourself!
Chaos Theory Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 During the day you use all of your brain. Did you read the information? Also I said the homeopaths USE the myth, didn't come up with it. It was a misquote someone went wacky with. It's completely wrong. The enclyclopedia britannica said what fafalone said. You didn't get my joke/laugh in my quote about the nipples? dang-gotta use more smilies. MRI's, CAT scans, and EEG's show that we use all of our brain. No waste unless you waste your brain on drugs and alcohol. Am an enlightened, now you go forth and get enlightened.
YT2095 Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 there are indeed areas of the brain that have no measurable or apparent function, and 10% at best is used, this is fact, how complete it is I don`t know? it may well be that "10% at a time" is true? I`m no brain doctor you maybe a staunch evolutionist or have an issue with me? I dunno? nor care and I could well have mentioned the size of the seed in an Avocado being extrodinarily huge instead of nipples on men, it was in the sense of humor.. accept it! and the (dang more smileys) crack was piss poor as I mentioned above, I`m an advocate of eveolution, but I don`t think it`s 100% complete yet. certainly not in the way of answering some annomalies, that don`t neccesarily contradict, but don`t fall as uniformly as they could/should. get me now?
YT2095 Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 read what I said then dude It wasn`t an attack on anyone, it was a just an observation. your 1`st reply was a triffle hostile, wouldn`t you agree? as for me "lightening up" it takes all my effort not to
Chaos Theory Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 nope, unless you're a homeopath. I read it again, and I still laughed
NavajoEverclear Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 The male nipples have great purpose. They can be used to transmit and recieve alien signals . . . . if you know how to use them right. Infact the other day i asked my alien friends about that cockroach thing and they hooked me up with the guy that genetically engineered cockroaches. A very brilliant man. Thats what i use mine for anyway, i don't know what other applications they may have.
Chaos Theory Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 NavajoEverclear said in post #33 :The male nipples have great purpose. They can be used to transmit and recieve alien signals . . . . if you know how to use them right. Thats what i use mine for anyway, i don't know what other applications they may have. Does that feel good?
Dave Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 I don't know whether to be disturbed or what after reading that
YT2095 Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 ROFLOL, let`s smile and back away slowly Chaos, that part about the fetus is doubley interesting, you`re right about the gender but also in support of evolution an interesting fact is that also at some point we have something like gills at an early stage. it`s almost as if the gestation period goes through all the evolutionary steps in 9 months leaving the modern product. I`m now going to look for a safe place to hide from, NavajoEverclear
Skye Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is an out-dated biological dogma, outdated because it's not perfect. While it's no longer emphasised, genetic comparisons taking the role of ontogeny, it's striking how we develop quite complex physiological features like gills, tail and a notochord whilst we develop.
YT2095 Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 well you`ve got me convinced!, I don`t quite know what you said, but it sounds good
Skye Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 Well basically "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" means that the development of an individual organism recounts the evolutionary history of it's species.
YT2095 Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 and you say this is false? (please correct me if i`m wrong)
Chaos Theory Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 Well, it's that all of us develope similarly at first because it makes sense to get our nerve system built, and all that first...(look at the stages of embryo dev'p for a few different species). Then the more complex later after the basics are laid down which make us all very different from other species. We all have nervous systems, and all vertebrates have their spinal cord form, we all have eyes/jaws/skin etc. Vertebrate development is fascinating. Look at a chicken embryo and a human embryo at 72 hours old to 2 weeks old. Look into induction/organogenesis/gastrulation/trophoblast/Ectoderm/mesoderm/endoderm. It's not going through stages of evolution, but development to a certain point needs to be similar at first to organize cell layers.
YT2095 Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 so basicly no matter what species of vertabrates we are, we`re all nearly identical nervous blobs at the begining? and the fact that each stage is similar to evolutionary steps is coincidental? (this kinda stuff`s new to me)
Chaos Theory Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 You can see that even each blob is fairly specialized already. I wouldn't compare that development to evolution. Just to the fact that cells specialize similarly at first, and then genes contain the instructions for actual development from there. It's just fun to compare it to evolution in some ways, with similarities then evolving into traits for each individual. It just shows how similar we are to having back bones, skin, teeth, organs in systems, and even the same systems from digestive to respiratory. We aren't all that different, but at the same time very different at the end result from very small differences at the genetic level. I hope this makes sense. If anyone can explain this all better, please do. Otherwise, just look up a bit yourself about notochord development in evolution compared to spinal cord development in embryos. Then animals who get vertebra compared to those who only have a notochord still. You don't get vertebrae forming in an embryo until you have the spinal cord forming. It's like building anything. You have to start with the basics and then add finishing touches. Having a body of the car made before the engine may result in the engine not fitting the body. Evolution just kinda follows that too. Why develope vertebra if you don't even have a notochord? How would you get spinal chords evolving if notochords don't show up first?
NavajoEverclear Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 I should place some productive contribution here. Instead i will awe the fact that insanity gives me power. The monster has been awakened!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now