Guest CabayeAye Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 How exactly would evolution have protected the Dodo or the Panda from the impact of humans on their environment? That's not what I was saying. They 'evolved' into a more efficient form for their time, i.e. no need for wasteful speed or fighting ability. When the situation changed, they were outcompeted and died out. If anything, the Dodo and Panda are excellent examples of natural selection. Alternatively, bacteria are a much less 'evolved' lifeform who have been spectacularly successful on this planet. If we have a nuclear war and wipe out humanity, that will mean cockroaches have outcompeted humans. But which is more 'evolved'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CabayeAye Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 At the end of the day, putting aside whether you accept it as fact or not, not really understanding how evolution works is a pretty good sign that the person doesn't really merit passing their genes onto the next geenration. Which is ironic. In the extreme. Welfare has reversed the direction we want human evolution to take. Just take a look at the clip of society now compared to say, the forties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 Can you do another funny picture of Chez? I don't know what Chez looks like. I only know that Gemmill is a head on legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 We can't emulate, today, what those from from hundreds and hundreds of years ago managed to do, even with the heavy machinery we have. Something seems amiss there. I mean, we supposedly can identify dinosaurs bones and calculate them to be 65 million years old (cough cough), yet we can't fathom out how certain things were built not too long ago. It seems that we are getting more and more dumbed down but actually believe we are more advanced due to our ability to be able to tap a few keys or operate a few machines, yet in reality we are far far less skilled than even 100 years ago in the main. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 42484 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Well this is down to a belief in a God or Gods and goes down the line of intelligent design, yet who designed the God's to oversee the intelligent design of their creatures? It's a bit like the chicken and the egg scenario. To clear that one up, the egg came first. Out of a dinosaur's blart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 To clear that one up, the egg came first. Out of a dinosaur's blart. Ah well that clears that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 42484 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I don't believe we descended from Apes. Boom! Explain Mackems then. Bewm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4389 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I don't believe we descended from Apes. Boom! We are apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CabayeAye Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Are you for real? You really believe that human evolution acts over 60 years? You're a prime example of what I was saying frankly. Kill yourself now, you don't deserve to pass your genes on. Calm down flowerpot. Your life on the dole must be so meaningless that you have to be an internet tough guy for kicks. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CabayeAye Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 The dole is for people who don't understand evolution. That's right felicity, I'm talking about you. Is there any reason that you are going from thread to thread being a tedious bellend about nowt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 We are apes. We are hu-man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 42484 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Is there any reason that you are going from thread to thread being a tedious bellend about nowt? The fucking brass neck on you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 It is testable actually, more so than astronomy. I've observed natural selection in human cancer cells. Macro evolution might not be but you wouldnt expect it to be. Still plenty of scientific evidence for it, overwhelmingly so. And I'm willing to debate with all but two of the posters on this thread. Specify the experimental design then. I of course agree with the theory but the data we have doesn't lend itself to our standard scientific models. I dont think you have 'observed natural selection in cancer cells' but I understand that theories of resistance to chemo are based on cellular adaptation to environmental forces (either cytostatic or cytotoxic). Resistance however is not necessarily an adaptive strategy, my understanding is that due to the complexity of proliferation mechanisms and the usually narrow nature of targeted therapy is that as one mechanism is inhibited, another can emerge. I'm not a micro-cellular biologist though and I'd have to ask about how stem cells fit into the natural selection model too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4389 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Specify the experimental design then. I of course agree with the theory but the data we have doesn't lend itself to our standard scientific models. I dont think you have 'observed natural selection in cancer cells' but I understand that theories of resistance to chemo are based on cellular adaptation to environmental forces (either cytostatic or cytotoxic). Resistance however is not necessarily an adaptive strategy, my understanding is that due to the complexity of proliferation mechanisms and the usually narrow nature of targeted therapy is that as one mechanism is inhibited, another can emerge. I'm not a micro-cellular biologist though and I'd have to ask about how stem cells fit into the natural selection model too. Can't find it in the brief time before I go to bed but there was that paper in the last couple of years where bacteria were "taught" to consume Vitamin C over several generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CabayeAye Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 The fucking brass neck on you! Join the club, black pot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 Can't find it in the brief time before I go to bed but there was that paper in the last couple of years where bacteria were "taught" to consume Vitamin C over several generations. This is where the belief in magic occurs.Sometimes common sense is better deployed when shit like this is bandied about. We get told that cornflakes can cause cancer...we get told that sunlight causes skin cancer...we get told that eating too much red meat causes cancer and white meat and fish with OMEGA 3 is the way to go, yet none of it proves anything in reality, it's just that scientists have to have a reason to exist on the money they are on. Scientists have supposedly spent millions upon millions upon millions fighting cancer and yet after all this untold amount of money, they come up with Chemo...a treatment that is basically for want of a better word.......CRAP. Evolution of cancer should have consumed the entire human race in an aggressive form due to mans inability to cure it, yet we still stumble along getting treated and a percentage of us don;t make it, including many of my own family. Evolution as we know it, is mans lottery on the life of the weak and vulnerable that creates what they believe is the stronger people, which makes sense when you think about all the top people in the world tend to live to 100 or thereabouts, yet the meek who succumb to disease and get treatment, last for a few years, with the odd ones defying it. Evolution today is mans own doing, it will be called mutants as time goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Chemo usually refers to cytotoxics which have been around for decades. The most common chemo comes from the yew tree (paclitaxel), the millions spent are on treatments like herceptin which are not chemotherapy. A modern form of cancer therapy is anti-angiogenesis. when tumours grow they need blood to feed them oxygen, if only one small blood vessel is attached to a tumour then as the tumour grows, the blood vessel will be too small to provide it with oxygen. When the tissue cells in the tumour become starved of oxygen they go into a state of hypoxia. Your heart does this when you get narrowed arteries. Both the heart and the tumour are part of you and therefore have the same genetic code, they therefore both are programmed to release vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) when they experience a lack of oxygen. These growth factors are resposible for the observed angiogenesis, I.e. the growth of new blood vessels to feed the tumour (and this happens in the cardio vascular system, new blood vessels grow round the narrowing arteries). VEGF inhibitors stop the growth factors of the tumour producing new blood vessels. These drugs are therefore not chemo as they don't kill (cytotoxic) the tumour but stop it from growing (cytostatic). You give these drugs to people in controlled randomized studies and they live longer than people who get other stuff. That's science mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33282 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 :lol: Chez strikes again! (Anyone else want Chez to be a Harry Bamp in real life who's great at googling answers in his Y dogs by the way?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 in a 5 star hotel actually in lake Neuchatel in Switzerland for the record. http://www.palafitte.ch/hp/index.php?lang=en Yes, I meant 'in' the lake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33282 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I got this from your link, Chez; Hi,We have detected that you're using a non-compliant browser. This means you cannot access our main website. So basically I can't even have a sneak peak of the opulance that wor Chez is at this vey minute enjoying. Haves and have nots, to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 On the iPad, their site is rubbish. I am wearing just my underpants though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33282 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 On the iPad, their site is rubbish. I am wearing just my underpants though. Shades of CT. Anyway, goodnight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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