blonde poker forum

its now a proven fact althogh some people still disagree with it that species all evole
now humans are evoltiong all the time though it takes many thousands of years for it to be noticed

with so many people now choosing (because they can afford too now) to become vegitarians

and many people being vegitarian from birth and decending from vegitarians

in 10,000s of thousands of years will humans be spilt into 2

those that can eat meat and those that cant?

No - the fittest will adapt & survive. Whether that'll be Veggies or Non-Veggies I've no idea.

lets nip it in the bud now and kill all veggies. 
 

tikay but humans are at the stage now where both will be fit enough to survive

Nope, it don't work that way. The species evolves, all species do. Or die.

heres a question,

why when i go for a meal with my veggie m8s to a steakhouse can they with no problem have a veggie meal. yet when we go to a veggie place i cant have a steak??

no they can split

after all we were all once apes

we split

will humans split again?

Survival of the fittest doesn't apply to humans anymore. We don't have to fight to get a mate even if we are the poorest physical specimen, and medical science allows us to reproduce even when mother nature says no.

we were never chimps though.
Us and chimps split from a common ancestor.
the chimps of today have change as much as us in the mean time, just in different ways.
Evolution is caused by competition for resources and random genetic mutation (broadly speaking)
remember, survival of the fittest is a newpaper headline and a misquote.
It's survival of the most fit.
Veggies and meat eaters are no more fit for survival than each other. there's no competition for resources

no one said we were chimps

we spilt from the ape

there are now a numer of species of ape (including man)

another evolutionaire factor in all creatures is diet

if one grouping of the same species decide to avoid meat will this over many 10,000s of year evoke an evolutioairy split

Well I'm not entirely sure of the difference betwwen "fittest" & "most fit" to be honest, but no matter.

"no competition for resources"

Today, no, but in a thousand years.....?

Sorry Adam, beg to differ.

Veggies don't eat meat or kill animals, animals eat veggies and vegetables and other animals. Veggies would never win the race as if their was no animal eaters the animals would eat all the veg, then what would veggies eat?

More likely that in the race for survival, veggies are more likely to turn to meat than vice versa surely.

Then again, someone no doubt will offer some other theory. That's what makes Blonde so great.

Geo

Kinda.
Those with a tendency towards vegetarianism have a massive survival advantage just by not eating red meat. The figures are mind blowing. Vegetarians have a hugely increased life expectancy over their heterosexual counterparts.

LOL- FYP

 rotflmfao rotflmfao

Actually the welfare state and the advances in medical science means that the human race is no longer in a truly darwinian environment with regards to whether the human race will continue to 'evolve'.  It will take an outside influence on the resources available, or a mass pandemic to change this state in which the weak can survive.  Our physiology is not that far removed from the caveman, as the the genes that enable an individual to survive (and reproduce) in that age are effectively irrelevant in a 'civilised' society.

Interstingly though, there is a parallel to the veggie v non-veggie situation that is apparent in the human race now that doesn't affect survival.  The ability to consume alcohol.  Typically in medieval Europe, water was made safe to drink through the introduction of alcohol.  The lack of the gene that enables the person to cope with alcohol consumption would be a problem - and it would make it harder for this person's descendents to survive (assuming the gene is inherited).  In the far east, the custom was to boil water to make it safe to drink - meaning that the lack of the ability to consume a large amount of alcohol was not a problem, and the descendents of those without the gene (which I believe produces an enzyme that enables the alcohol to be broken down, increasing the ability to drink more) were not at a disadvantage. Therefore it's logical that more people in the Far East will lack the enzyme, and cannot tolerate alcohol as well (in general) as their Western counterparts.

To this day, half of the Japanese population lack the enzyme that helps the body consume large quantities of alcohol - but that's not going to jeopardise the ability for these people to survive in the 'civilised' society we have today.  It just means that for many in Japan, you can have a very cheap night on the town!

the difference between fittest and most fit is that some times people think fitter means superior/stronger/bigger/etc

the analogy runs something like:
there are two domestic cats with their own territories.
One cat is far bigger and stronger than than the other.
the small cat climbs trees and stalks long grass in his territory. it's only fast enough to catch a couple of mice a week and only a good enough climber to get a bird a fortnight.
the other cat is fast enough to catch every mouse it stalks and climbs trees so well it rarely missed a bird.
The small cat will survive and the large cat will eventually exhaust his food supply.

Not if they're domestic cats and they don't exist in a darwinian environment where these abilities are crucial to their survival.  It matters not which cat can kill the best if they have owners who serve them Whiskas everyday.

... that for some reason have become homeless

we're going to let you all carry on killing each other then when there's hardly any of you left we're going to take over.

whether there will be anything worth taking over of course remains to be seen - but we shall rule.......

I was sort of backing up your post with regards that they aren't fighting over resources so it doesn't matter who can 'survive' best in the wild.

However, thinking about it  - the cats with the genes that give them the prettiest faces and shiniest coats might have an edge over the mingers.  People will want to breed the pretty ones and leave the Gary Neville-like ones to one side.  So I guess there are some evolutionary forces at work, just different ones to cats in the wild.

Chimpanzees, although primarily vegetarian are known to eat the brains of other monkeys to obtain fat in their diet.  They are also known to rape, murder, sodomise and generally do unpleasant things to other chimps.  Not that far removed from humans - just not as adept at creating killing machines to do it all more efficiently.

but while ugly people are allowed to reproduce, the human race will get nowhere ;hide;

Don't rule out a mass pandemic Daniel, in the days of jet travel to all corners of the globe, a killer virus could soon catch hold, & we'd all be very brown bread.

Great thread BTW Iron.

geo

"ugly people" "allowed to reproduce".......?

Good grief Adam, that's two purlers in one statement!

I don't rule it out - it has to happen.  The continiued population growth (due to medical advances reducing infant mortality and increasing life expectancy) is going to place an unnatural strain on the species in terms of resources, and also in terms of the ability for a virus to spread throughout whole populations very easily and with devastating results.

The worry about climate change and the problems it's going to cause the human race is only one threat to human life on earth.  Something will have to happen to reduce the population to a sustainable size, unless we can find a place to migrate to (no, not Cyprus  sofa-king).  Pandemic, climate change, nuclear war, Celine Dion - something will happen.

8/10 cats prefer natural selection.

Arguments of human natural selectoin through survival of the fittest don't work so well, like kinboshi points to, in new environments where the less fit can be shielded from nature's harshness. Stoneage man didn't have penicillin, in-vitro fertilization, or the NHS (mostly due to strike action by Homo Neanderthalus).
If a big cat gets all the food and the smaller cat runs out of it, this only matters in an evolutionary sense if the bigger cat can provide better for its offspring. It's all about mating and how well you can bring up your offspring. Vegetarians have such a health advantage over meat eaters that there'll be more of them around to look after their grandkids, and help them have and rear kids of their own, but the direct effects of this are always softened by our culture with its medicine and social caring.
It wasn't like this in the past. You can look at certain features of humans to know that in the hunter-gatherer past (long before poker), life was f******g difficult. 2 examples:

female menopause: the only real adaptive significance of this is that it more or less guarantees that grannie will stop having kids of her own and will be freed up to look after the sprogs of her sprogs. This would only really help enough if the advantage in devotedly looking after grandkids outweighed the advantage in being able to breed into your fifties. And that advantage would only be in place where it was really hard for kids to survive without all the help they could get.

female sexual selection- preference for male face shapes: women who are looking for long term relationships tend to go for men with softer, more feminine faces (ie less testosterone, ie men that are more caring and will probably be around to look after their own sprogs). This would only occur in an environment where it was so hard to rear kids that there was enough incentive to have the bloke still around, to outweigh any advantage for the bloke in spending his whole life bed-hopping and sh***ng anything that moved.

So, life during the majority of human evolutionary history was probably very difficult, and it made us adapt to it, to bring us all here today into a world where life is not very difficult for most people to have and rear kids without a father present and without grandparents present. So because of that, even if vegetarianism makes you a lot healthier, the effect of the natural environment is so soft as to make any difference hard to detect in the medium term.

good question.

can i migrate to cyprus with celine dion

solve 2 problems in 1 for me

actually it's an out and out joke

whoosh

Things evolve to better make use of their environment. However, humans have reached a technological level whereby we adapt the environment to our needs, so we don't need to evolve.

For example, say global warming really kicks in and the sea levels rise to cover all the land. If a land animal wants to survive, it will have to adapt to a more sea-friendly form. Humans won't, because we'll simply come up with a technological solution (cities under the sea, move to another planet etc). Evolution is far too slow to affect us today.

As part of a media bs course I once did I drew the short straw I had to present on 'The Manifesto of the Monster Raving Loony Party'. Will never forget it (this is a genuine item they were pushing for):

-Kill all whales thus lowering sea levels to reduce the global impact.

They didn't get many votes.

This might not hold true for Titus Bramble though.

and whats wrong with that policy

btw i helped on there manifesto


my highlight was lowering the buttons on pedistrain crossings so hedgehogs can use them safely

There have already been several species of humans, many of which looked and behaved radically different from ourselves. Out of all those, we certainly weren't the strongest or the most intelligent. Perhaps our success lies in our aggressive and selfish nature, both against ourselves and the habitat we live in. Our "success" and all of our achievements may merely be a flash in the pan. On evolutionary terms, we've only just appeared on the scene, compared to the earth's long history. Look how much damage we've already done.

People often mistakenly think that evolution follows a certain path, as though it has a purpose or direction, and that species which survive today, are superior to past extinct forms. Life simply has one objective; to continue. As the earth's environment changes, as it has done since it's conception, life has evolved to fill every crevice, on land, sea and air.

Long after the human race has wiped itself off the face of the planet, taking with it countless other species, life will still continue to thrive and evolve unabated, even if that life takes on a microscopic form.

I certainly think we are the most intelligent, no? Neanderthal had a bigger overall brain, but I think we are more intelligent. Just look at the interweb. Neanderthalus, it is believed, never even progressed beyond ZX81s.

I do agree that life *continues*, because that is the stuff it is made of and comes from: replicators. But it does have a sort of direction. Mutations are random, but natural selection is not: take the strong, leave the weak.

You could certainly argue that microscopic organisms are in fact the most successful lifeforms on the planet.  Bacteria are certainly the most abundant, and thrive in all environments.

There is nothing 'special' about humans.  We just happen to be the most intelligent on the planet - but life will continue if we are gone, and we have no divine right to thrive.  Like you said - evolution follows no path - except for the one it happens to choose.  This is shaped by the environment life finds itself in.  Life is how it is because of the environment that shaped it. 

We are one of only two species out of millions on the planet, that are not tied by their genetic code, or limited to what it passes from generation to generation.

Not sure what you mean - but you might be referring to the artificial environment that we've created for ourselves via our scientific advances. 

That however, is a temporary situation and as I mentioned earlier, environmental influences will eventually come into play and this will dramatically affect the population of humans.

We've only had dominion for a few millions years.  The dinosaurs enjoyed far longer than that, and they came to a sticky end - and a rather abrupt one.

Culture. It's part of the chimp/human niche. It's the main reason for our advance, and nothing else really has it. You pass more information between generations, than just what's held in your genes. It's transforming.

But it's artificial.  We are controlling environmental influences, but the extent we can do that has its limits.  Eventually (as I mentioned earlier), the human population will reach a level where a 'disaster' is required to reduce the population to a sustainable level.  A pandemic, climate change, or even a man-made catastrophe will have to come into play.  Of course, the alternative is finding somewhere else for humans to live.  But I don't think Mars is quite ready yet.

The pandemic, or diaster, you hint of, could well come from somewhere we least expect.

If, say, some sort of virus came along & killed bacteria, which are the things that keep us alive & well, well, we'd all be dead within days. Every last one of us.

Gotta love bacteria. Be nice to them.

I have a supply of Activia yoghurts in my fridge, for this very eventuality.

Which contain Lactobacillus plus Marketeerskechingbacterium

lol mmm danone

found even more reasons to go vegetarian

(http://i17.tinypic.com/4l4uzdh.jpg)

Tikay,

I think you would enjoy reading the following book:

The Death of Grass by John Christopher

Can you tell me more please? Is is Non-Fiction? I don't read fiction.

Bacteria is, it seems, a wonderful thing. It was the first life-form on earth, I believe.

Millions - literally - of bacteria live inside each of us, & they do all sorts of jobs, digest our food, keep us in good order, & they bash-up other bacteria that turn up in the wrong place. e-coli, in fact, is a good thing until it arrives in the wrong location. They cause BO too - dead bacteria pongs shocking.

It's pretty neat at helping to make things too - butter, beer, yoghourt, cheese.

They also live at the perimeter of vents at the bottom of the sea, where water temperatures can vary by (allegedly) 100c over less than a metre - & they flourish in either extreme!

One strain - Deinococcus radiodurans - has DNA which is immune to radioactivity. Blast it with Radioactivity, it sort of explodes into tiny pieces - then immediately reforms & carries on as normal.

Quite simply, without bacteria, we would all die, & quickly. Arguably, they are nature's cleverest trick. They've not done a good job with their PR though.

Easy question.

Who will live longer , veggies, or carnies ?

Obviously veggies.  They will eat all the grass, so there's none left for the cows, so our beef ration goes out the window.

We can't eat.  They win.

Cheats.

( Unless of course, we crossbreed cows with lions, so the veggies will be too scared to go into the fields, so it's them that starve. - This is definately move complex than I first thought )

You were there at the time, so you should know!

post of the year for me.

Thanks Adam!

Tikay, "The Death of Grass" is a fictional story. But you would still enjoy reading it, I think.

The predecessor to the Human Being was a vegatarian. Only herbivores have an appendix. This was used to store grass and various other forms of vegatoubles..

Most of our teeth are flat, and used for chewing food, and we have snall canince teeth for biting. If we were originally meat eaters, we would have larger canines and more of them....

We went from vegatarians to meat eaters.....

We were omnivores before we were humans.
Without the nutrients in red meat and fish our brains could never have developed the intelligence we have today.
If our ancestors had been vegetarians we wouldn't exist

sorry but  rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao

vegetarius ergo sum.

Without the nutrients in vegetables prehistoric man would never have been allowed dessert.
Without the nutrients in carrots prehistoric man would never have been able to see in the dark.

Fount of knowledge, my ma.

whats funny?

The theory is that without both the carbohydrates from our vegetable in take and the amino acids from our meat in take our brains could never have evolved.

Katherine Milton if you want to google it
heres one article on it
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

and incidentaly, there's no need to be rude Mad

I think Adam is on the right track, concerning diet. Another thing to consider regarding brain size and intelligence, is that a herbivore doesn't have to think too much as to where it's next meal is coming from. A cow will simply stand in a field all day and eat. However, it has to eat virtually all day, every day, as grass offers little nutritional value compared to meat. In fact, grass is so tough to eat, that a cow literally digests it twice over.

A carnivore has a tougher job. In order to get fed, lions have to work as a team, stalking out prey, setting up an ambush, and running down prey. The majority of times, that effort is wasted, as their targeted prey manages to escape. Every time they miss an opportunity, their family takes another step closer to starvation and death. Their reward for success is a high energy food source. The pride doesn't have to eat for days after a good meal. It's a good example of risk verses reward. Hippos have even been known to scavenge meat from time to time, and they don't even have the dentistry to handle it!

Humans are lucky in that we've got the right types of teeth to eat almost anything. Perhaps our success lies in our opportunistic ways. Our intellect has evolved to a point where we have choices. We can choose where we want to live. We can choose what we want to eat. We can even choose the state of the planet. No other species has ever had so many choices, and yet we choose to squander them.

(http://i8.tinypic.com/6h7k846.gif)

Them Sharks eat a lot of fish, but they have dam small brains.

Crocodiles eat a good variety of meat and fish. What happened to them.?

Natural selection picks out the fittest (to survive and rear offspring), not the brainiest. In humans, the fittest were the brainiest purely because of the ecological niche we happened to be in.
If I put you in a ring with a lion, who would win?
If I put a really strong, but dumb guy in the wilderness, and pitted him against a really brainy guy of average strength, who would more likely prevail?

That said, it sure gets a lot easier for natural selection to pick you out if you're still around, and opening up your diet to include meat and fish certainly helps. Various random hypotheses suggest that Homo Sapiens prevailed and Homo Neanderthalus (which had a larger brain) did not, because the latter failed to incorporate fish into its diet.

I'm still not sold on other reasons for the evolutionary development of human intelligence being contingent on the nutrients available solely from meat and fish. Vegetarians get by perfectly fine by getting all the critical nutrients from elsewhere.

When you look at the evolution of various monkeys and apes in the wild in their respective niches, you do have to always take food supply into account, but this is largely due to the *glucose metabolism* requirements engendered by a high brain>body ratio.

can we get back on topic please

will will split genitically over the course of 100,000s of years

The accepted theory now on why we survived is very simple, has nothing to do with brain power and makes perfect sense. The neaderthals were a stocky, extremely powerful species who were great ambush predators who thrived in woodlands as their low centre of gravity was great for physically pushing spears into deer and such animals, but they were useless in open ground, after the ice began to melt away they were faced with a totally new environment full of open meadows and fields and they simply did not have the abiltity to ambush their predators anymore. Homo sapiens were much more suited to this enviironment as they had stamina on their side and were able to stalk prey over gretaer distances. They also designed much better weapons suitable for throwing further in open ground which is hugely important as its not as possible to get close to the prey without cover.
Neandertahls were perfectly adapted for cold conditions and when the climate became milder woodland became less common, they could simply not compete with us homo sapiens.


no

which idiot started a thread on evolution on a poker forum

everyone knows poker players havent evolved yet

No. Any survival advantage given to vegetarians due to the health benefits of their diet is outweighed by the easier sourcing of foods in the varied diet of the omnivores. The omnivorous nature of humans runs deep into their genes, its hard to start teasing this apart into specific genetic differences that express themselves as an overwhelming preference/disdain for meat.
Take into account the fact also that Natural Selection, one of the two main underpinnings in evolution, does not really exist in a big way for humans, since we have culture, and thus can poke the savagery of nature in the eye.

Humans won't be around in 100 000 years anyway, we'll be blown to bits long before then.

Is this for some kind of essay?

100,000 years? the way the world is now human kind will be lucky to see the next 100 years!

Guess we are the lucky generation been born now....

yeah can you lot imagine me writting an essay

I'm pretty sure I said we needed both to evolve into us.

I also didn't say meat is necessary for us today, just for our evolution

can i just say the human race is not going to destroy itself.

As much as people like to think it will end in nuclear war blah blah blah, it still wouldnt mean an end to the human race. There are facilties in britain and the other big countries (france, canada, usa, germany, russia etc) in the world that are hundreds of feet under the ground where the "top" people or in other words the people who could rebuild this planet would be placed in the event of a natural disaster, alien invasion (lol) or nuclear war.

we will never compleyely die out, we may do a good job of cutting the numbers down but we are here to stay!

If it was necessary for our evolution it would be necessary for us today.

we dont need meat to evolve, fact!!!

no, it was necessary for our brains to evolve into what they are now but vegetarians can source what they lack from meat from elsewhere.

we don't need meat to evolve further, but we did need meat to evolve into us

wowow, so somewhere in our evolutionary history (where? pre-modern man, prehominid, prehominoid, where?) we went through a period of evolutionary development that required MEAT in our diet to give us that oooomph towards greater brain size, and then.......became a creature that did not require it to sustain that brain size? wow! where is this from?

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

are there any rake back deals on that page adam?

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

yes

Thanks for that link Adam, good reading.

I can see where the slight confusion has occurred now. It seems that in part meat began to compensate for what was otherwise becoming a threatened vegetarian diet. They do point out that meat may have provided the nutrients necessary to support what would have been selection pressure towards larger brains.

As they point out, however, it's not that we've suddenly become naturally able to be vegetarian again through some fundamental biological difference with these ancestors. It's that we now have the technology and learning to understand how a specific type of vegetarian diet can be designed to compensate for the lack of meat.

thanks for that info.

We will evolve into what ever God wants us to  ;ifm; ;hide;

and that will clearly mean we'll evolve into something very special as god is a capricorn who, apparently, set very high goals for themselves

God is a goat?

You're kidding...

God is the Holy Trinity, 3 in 1.

The Father, The Son, and the Holy Goat.

It would be non veggies - there is an essential protein in chicken that it's impossible to replicate (at the moment) and vegetarians do miss out on this.

In the body there is a requirement for a balance of all minerals and proteins otherwise the body can be in a state of illness rather than wellness. vegetarians do suffer without it - so in the long run it would be meat eaters that would survive (as long as they eat a balanced diet and not just meat)

Guess who is currently studying for their nutrition exam?!  ;whistle;

We've quoted all the info you need on Darwinism and evolution.

That said, it's still bloody hard to get from Big Bang to modern human, <robotvoice> even Hawkins would agree to that </robotvoice>.

 ;carlocitrone;

Fourteen billion years is plenty of time for lots of improbable things to happen, though.

Yes, Tikay has shown that.

Cosmologists are able to go all the way back to the big bang now or at least 10 seconds after it.

it's ALMOST impossible. thats random for you

FYP

thats quite a lot smaller than 10 isn't it Andrew?

Where did you get 10⁴³ from, would be interested to read up on it?

From what i can find after looking on net now, 1 second after is the closest anybody has come to being able to map the universe.

wassat, Planck time? No. It's Tikay time.  :tikay:



from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

As ever, Wikipedia is your friend - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang)

The standard model of what we know about fundamental particles and forces holds good back untill 10^-43 seconds (the Planck epoch) but before that we're guessing. Before then, gravity should be equal to the other forces (giving one force) but we don't know how that happens yet.

It kind of is 10^-43 and it isn't. There was no time, then there was the BigBang. Afterwards there was spacetime, but spacetime did not come into being immediately after the BigBang went off. To talk of time existing in such a quantum state is meaningless.

Some tough reading in those wiki articles, I tell you.

Must have been very hard to create our universe, that Jesus was one clever guy.

not that clever. he got himself nicked didnt he.

If you wanna watch it, and you manage not to fall alseep or go insane while doing so this might interest you:-

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4183875433858020781&q=bbc+horizon

Cosmology smozmology ---- They cannot tell us much about sapce, and yet you believe them when they say they have narrowed it down to the precise time that the universe was born.....

You will all be believing in Father Xmas next......

A very large number of people around the world believe Father Xmas to exist.
He has been part of modern culture for a very long time.
He is the source of much good.
You cannot prove that he does not exist. You think all these presents delivered themselves?

Sounds familiar, huh?

The amount discovered by cosmologists in the last 100 years is staggering. New planets outside the solar system. Dark matter (ok we're still pinning it down). The life cycle of all types of star. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Discovery and creation of fundamental particles. The list goes on and on.

The post was in jest, I know they have done a lot of work but it is based on unfound and un proven theory and assumptions, as my nan would say ' If ifs and buts were pots and pans (i think the rest was) there would be no need for tinkers like you'....

Cosmologists  base there assumptions on things like expading at a universal rate.. This may be so.... They have assumed this, and therefore this may be wrong...

They assume the universe is still expanding at a massive rate, well why are we not moving further apart from the things close to us at the same proportional rate....

David Copperfield seemed to make the statue of liberty dissapear but he never,,, he made it look like that....

Edit --- All things will evolve or adapt as much as we want or as much as we let them. Just like this thread...

Thank god the bible isnt like that hey! Pure Fact i tell you!

;iagree; :goodpost: ;topman; ;first; :)up ;woohoo;

if you sit perfectly still and look at your computer monitor, you will notice that in the space of 2 minutes it does start receding from you slightly.

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=24979.new#new