Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Entertainment => Topic started by: bloodline on April 16, 2004, 11:50:18 AM
-
The pretty one from Blue Peter died yesterday at 42. So young very sad :-(
Caron Keating (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/tv/bluepeter/markcaronyvette/gallery/images/1024/5bp07.html)
Mark, Caron and Yvette were "my" Blue Peter presenters, and since most of you are probably my age they were probably yours too.
-
I remember her, but probably not from Blue Peter.
That sucks. :-(
-
I guess my chances of shagging her are even more remote now :-(
-
bloodline wrote:
I guess my chances of shagging her are even more remote now :-(
that depends on your preferences (eeewww)!
:-o
-
I feel sorry for her mum, her husband and her kids most of all.
Anyway, she looked so much like one of the teachers i had at primary school.
-
cecilia wrote:
bloodline wrote:
I guess my chances of shagging her are even more remote now :-(
that depends on your preferences (eeewww)!
:-o
You're not suggesting my chances may have increased... hmmm... sad but true... the number of times I've heard "I shag you over my dead body"... :-/
-
bloodline wrote:
The pretty one from Blue Peter died yesterday at 42. So young very sad :-(
Had my very first crush on her, spent many an hour wishing she was mine.
Had to replace her with Michela Strachan from Wacaday when Carol left BP.
Oh happy memories !!
-
bloodline wrote:
Mark, Caron and Yvette were "my" Blue Peter presenters, and since most of you are probably my age they were probably yours too.
My Blue Peter was John Noakes, Peter Purves & Valerie Singleton but Valerie left and was replaced by Lesley Judd, though she would still do special assignments. The dogs I remember were Petra and Shep. In about 3 yrs I'll be 42!
(My first Doctor was Jon Pertwee but I really grew up with Tom Baker!)
-
BTW, for those who haven't grown up with the BBC, Blue Peter is a childrens show that has been broadcasting since 1958.
-
There are already accusations in the press that Caron Keating's low immunity to cancer was related to her very strict vegetarian diet. I wonder.
-
bloodline wrote:
Mark, Caron and Yvette were "my" Blue Peter presenters, and since most of you are probably my age they were probably yours too.
They were my presenters too.
I was shocked when I first read about her dying from cancer. :-(
-
bloodline wrote:
Mark, Caron and Yvette were "my" Blue Peter presenters, and since most of you are probably my age they were probably yours too.
I remember that cast of presenters too. Always a shame to here of such occurances.
-
KennyR wrote:
There are already accusations in the press that Caron Keating's low immunity to cancer was related to her very strict vegetarian diet. I wonder.
Utter bollocks... :-(
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
KennyR wrote:
There are already accusations in the press that Caron Keating's low immunity to cancer was related to her very strict vegetarian diet. I wonder.
Utter bollocks... :-(
That seems to me very unlikely too. Especially if you consider that 'well done' meat contains carcinogens and vegetables contains subtances to prevent cancer.
-
Last I read, vegatarians are likely to live up to 10 years longer than us meat eaters.
Also on a documentary I saw recently scientists found links from the virus that causes genital warts to cancer. Not that I'm suggesting that is the case here, just one of many possibilities.
-
What I'd like to know is, why isn't Cliff Richard dead yet?
I mean, he's old and incredibly lame. Nice people are dying all the time and that freak gets to live, god damn it! :-x
(Edit: I was supposed to be refraining from posting here to concentrate my energies on other, neglected aspects of my life, but I seem to drift back...)
-
tpg wrote:
Utter bollocks... :-(
Google seems to think so too. But at the same time I can't help thinking that we're better off just eating the things we're evolved to eat, since our bodies are made to deal with it. Anyway, that's best left for another thread.
-
KennyR wrote:
we're better off just eating the things we're evolved to eat
As if our evolution is one single 'thing' :roll:
-
As if our evolution is one single 'thing'
You should feel your teeth. I have incisors and canines, made for cutting and tearing nothing but meat. I can only digest fats, proteins and starches - not cellulose. I'm a meat eater. So are you. Question is, when things adapted to eat meat (at least some of the time) stop eating meat, what happens?
Caron Keating was a strict vegan, she always had been. She didn't even drink milk, instead using soya milk. By the vegan ideas she should have been totally healthy and immune to cancer. But she died young. Now, is that a statistical blip, or is there something deeper to it?
-
As I said before, according to me your view on evolution is far too simplistic.
Our teeth are build for eating everything, but not to grasp grass or wounding prey.
Our diet vary. An Inuit has defenately a different diet than an amazon indian. And Europe is a true mixture of ppl.
-
As I said before, according to me your view on evolution is far too simplistic.
Our teeth are build for eating everything, but not to grasp grass or wounding prey.
Our diet vary. An Inuit has defenately a different diet than an amazon indian. And Europe is a true mixture of ppl.
And what is the one thing common to all races of human beings, no matter what they do or where they live? Eating meat.
-
But not more than a century ago, meat was luxury here in Europe.
-
And ten millenia before that, any plant with enough nutrition to keep you alive was a luxury.
-
And you know that evolution can be very fast. One good famine and only those who are vegans survive, for instance.
-
Vegans would never survive any famine, that's just sillyness. Without mass farming they wouldn't survive now. Only the people who could eat anything would survive.
Edit: Although, starvation brings out the meateater in everyone so it's a moot point. Vegan or not, rat would look pretty tasty in a famine.
-
You probably have never heard about scurvy
-
We can't make vitamin C because we started out as fruiteaters and we never had to. So we still have to eat fruit. Evolution proves my point again.
-
fruit??! Vegetables you mean, fruit's really really a luxury (thus unavailable) through the centuries...
-
No, fruit. The quantity of vitamin C in most vegetables is negligible, and reduces to zero if cooked. You must eat fresh fruit to get vitamin C.
Edit: Although its added to lots of things these days, so we don't notice.
BTW: Did you know you can get a lot of these vitamins by eating animal liver?
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
fruit??! Vegetables you mean, fruit's really really a luxury (thus unavailable) through the centuries...
No, Kenny is right. Our far ancestors would have eaten mostly fruit, but the Human being is actually a scavinger. Like all scavingers it it an omnivore.
In adition to the vitamins we can't make (and must obtain from fruit), there are several amino acids that we cannot produce and can obtian only from meat (or eggs).
If you want to stay heathly, then have a balanced diet. Lots of green vegetables (and carrots), fruits and meats (Fish is exceptional).
Kenny is also right that a small portion of liver will provide most of the vitamins, and all of the minerals and amino acids a human needs for a month!
Lucky for vegetarians, most of them ingest plenty of Animal/insect body parts for them to survive quite healthily.
-
Vegetables generally have a selection of aminos rather than the full complement. But the body can synthesize complete proteins from different foods, even ingested several days apart, so there's little need to worry as long as you're eating a variety of foods. Soy also provides "complete" proteins.
Side ramble:
I don't know why people seem to think evolution stopped when we invented microwave dinners. Maybe they don't like the idea that they'll be "improved upon."
But mutations will continue to happen, and I don't think past ones are necessarily irreversible.
-
tpg wrote:
Soy also provides "complete" proteins.
It's also been implicated in health problems and birth defects(!)
The vegan lobbies think with their emotions too much, not with their brains. They were already given a slap by the goverment for claiming that meat eaters had higher rates of cancer when their evidence did not support it. I don't really think these people have figured out everything a human being needs. Nobody really has.
I don't know why people seem to think evolution stopped when we invented microwave dinners. Maybe they don't like the idea that they'll be "improved upon."
Evolution only happens when it's needed, not otherwise. Horseshoe crabs have been horseshoe crabs for five hundred million years, because they've never had to be anything else. Mutations can happen, but if they don't impart an advantage, then they'll generally be lost and not perpetuated. As soon as we invented technology, evolution practically stopped, because there is no necessity for change any more. If it goes on, chances are human beings will still be more or less the same 500,000 years from now.
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
Vegetables generally have a selection of aminos rather than the full complement. But the body can synthesize complete proteins from different foods, even ingested several days apart, so there's little need to worry as long as you're eating a variety of foods. Soy also provides "complete" proteins.
I'm sorry Chris, but that's not true. There are amino acids that we require that can only be obtained from meat (or eggs). We cannot synthesize them, and plants (and fungie) don't make them.
As for soy, yes GM soy does contain the essential amino acids. But since that plant has had animal DNA inserted in to it to make the amino acid, you might as well just eat an egg (dippy, with soldiers of course).
-
KennyR wrote:
I don't really think these people have figured out everything a human being needs. Nobody really has.
Funny then, that people are more than happy to jump all over me about my dietary preferences... :-?
@Matt
You have a link?
-
As far as evolution is concerned, we are kind of pausing it. Our advances in healthcare are keeping alive the genetically weak and allowing them to continue to pollute the gene pool. Obviously we shan't notice any immediate effects from this but it is nevertheless as legitimate a concern as others like to worry about. Worldwide, we cannot provide the whole world with food (a worsening situation given population growth); more vegetarians and environmentalists would signify the continuation of the journey to the end.
-
tpg wrote:
Funny then, that people are more than happy to jump all over me about my dietary preferences...
Sorry Chris, but it's an undebatable fact - eating meat for human beings is natural. Not eating it is unnatural. Unnatural things tend not to be healthy, since the body isn't designed to cope.
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
KennyR wrote:
I don't really think these people have figured out everything a human being needs. Nobody really has.
Funny then, that people are more than happy to jump all over me about my dietary preferences... :-?
@Matt
You have a link?
I want you to know that I have great respect for your resolve to avoid food which you cannot morally justify eating.
I just want to make it clear that Humans are scavingers, and are designed to survive for as long as possible on what ever is available. It just happened that while the homosapiens was evolving, fruit and meant were both plentiful, and so our bodies have become adapted to relying on the nutrience they provide. I would also note that vegetable are generally energetically too expensive too eat unless you cook them first.
As for links, I am just remembering my Amine chemistry lectures. I'll have a look for my notes on the subject. But if Karlos took the same modules during his chemistry degree, I'm sure he can help out.
-
As far as evolution is concerned, we are kind of pausing it. Our advances in healthcare are keeping alive the genetically weak and allowing them to continue to pollute the gene pool. Obviously we shan't notice any immediate effects from this but it is nevertheless as legitimate a concern as others like to worry about. Worldwide, we cannot provide the whole world with food (a worsening situation given population growth); more vegetarians and environmentalists would signify the continuation of the journey to the end.
The classic example is IVF. More and more couples are using IVF to conceive. This means genetically infertile people can have children. THeire child will also be genetically infertile. If this trend continues eventually the only way humans can have children is via IVF.
What if, at some point in the future, we are unable to perform IVF, the huamn race will be doomed to extiction by it's own selfish hands.
and good ridance too :-)
-
bloodline wrote:
The classic example is IVF. More and more couples are using IVF to conceive. This means genetically infertile people can have children. THeire child will also be genetically infertile. If this trend continues eventually the only way humans can have children is via IVF.
Nonsense.
Only if it's necessary to survive humanity would lose it.
-
Caron Keating was a strict vegan, she always had been. She didn't even drink milk, instead using soya milk. By the vegan ideas she should have been totally healthy and immune to cancer. But she died young. Now, is that a statistical blip, or is there something deeper to it?
That's a real leap that I wouldn't care to make. to suggest another possibility.....what if she was always susceptible to getting cancer? What if her being a "strict vegan" actually let her live as long AS 42?
What if she had been a meat eater, she would have died sooner?
I'm not saying this is the case. I'm saying no one knows. The causes of cancer tend not to be well understood. This is because years of life and "bad" habits occur before the cancer shows up.
My cousin smoked since her teen years and in her 30's got cancer. it wasn't lung cancer, but I wouldn't be surprised if her smoking agrivated/weakened (?) her body and made it susceptible to getting cancer. I can't prove that.
I just have a feeling that doing dumb stuff is probably not a clever idea.
fruits and vegs have antioxydants. That's a good thing and anyway i like eating those fruits/vegs. I don't care too much for meat (well, my mother DOES make a great leg of lamb), but there's NO way I'm not eating fish! LOVE fish. plus fish has WAY too many good things.
humans can eat anything, but we did not evolve to eat all that crap "food" with processed sugars that has been too prevelant since the 20th century. :madashell:
-
Speel wrote:
Nonsense.
Only if it's necessary to survive humanity would lose it.
No, it's not. It's a certainty that modern medicine and civilisation are allowing disadvantageous genetic traits to survive and propagate. I'm not a Nazi or a eugenesist, so I don't want to stop it. Unfortunately, I don't think it's leading us up the evolutionary ladder. Even war isn't the evolutionary device it used to be - it's so destructive these days that to die you just need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Evolution thrives through need. Only when human beings are struggling to survive will they actually biologically improve.
-
KennyR wrote:
No, it's not. It's a certainty that modern medicine and civilisation are allowing disadvantageous genetic traits to survive and propagate.
yes, but not 'take over the world!'
Unfortunately, I don't think it's leading us up the evolutionary ladder.
That matters what you want from evolution.
Even war isn't the evolutionary device it used to be - it's so destructive these days that to die you just need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It has been that way since ppl began to fight in groups. Imagine a medieval battle, an arrow could hit you no matter how good a swordfighter you are.
-
That matters what you want from evolution.
Evolution is just adaption to the environment via changes in the organism on a genetic level. If the organism no longer needs to adapt to it's environment but is able to adapt it's environment to itself, then it does not evolve.
It has been that way since ppl began to fight in groups. Imagine a medieval battle, an arrow could hit you no matter how good a swordfighter you are.
That is pretty modern by evolutionary standards.
-
Speel wrote:
yes, but not 'take over the world!'
They will. All it takes is time.
That matters what you want from evolution.
More intelligence and less biological weaknesses would be nice, as well as rid of the genetic diseases.
Imagine a medieval battle, an arrow could hit you no matter how good a swordfighter you are.
But the stronger of us could survive the arrow. It's harder to survive than an attack by a big cat or the gore of a wild pig, but still easier than a bullet or two kilos of high explosive.
-
Evolution is just adaption to the environment via changes in the organism on a genetic level. If the organism no longer needs to adapt to it's environment but is able to adapt it's environment to itself, then it does not evolve.
Now you see we, as humanity, has reached another stage of evolution. I mean, there are multiple stages of evolution. The first is actually to reproduce and die (a way to adopt on the environment), second stage is to swap properties of cells using sex. Then it's combining properties of cells (for instance, light sensitivity) with becoming multiple cell creatures. Obtaining brains is also a stage. See how it becomes more and more 'software'.
bloodline wrote:
That is pretty modern by evolutionary standards.
That that is discutable. Some scientists claim that evolution goes with very sudden changes.
-
KennyR wrote:
Speel wrote:
yes, but not 'take over the world!'
They will. All it takes is time.
Illogical assumption. Why wouldn't it be the fertile ones to take over the world? I'd say the chance is 50-50
That matters what you want from evolution.
More intelligence and less biological weaknesses would be nice, as well as rid of the genetic diseases.
Biological/genetic diseases/weaknesses can be important for the survival of the society, or other aspects of survival. (unfortunately I can't remember an examply to show you how)
-
Speel wrote:
Illogical assumption. Why wouldn't it be the fertile ones to take over the world? I'd say the chance is 50-50
Why did early humans with no tails take over from ones with them?
Answer: Use it or lose it.
Biological/genetic diseases/weaknesses can be important for the survival of the society, or other aspects of survival. (unfortunately I can't remember an examply to show you how)
Sickle-cell anaemia protecting from malaria, perhaps? That's the classic example. However, it's one of nature's burps, since it's usual almost as fatal as malaria. The human genome is full of these "patches" to protect us. They're mutations that would usually be bad, but through chance, protected their carriers from some kind of disease or environmental change. They're not perfect.
Biological diversity is good for the species, but keeping those bad genes for no reason is not.
-
KennyR wrote:
Why did early humans with no tails take over from ones with them?
Because of famine (having a tail costs energy), or to prevent unnecesary wounds. Having a tail makes the chance of getting a wound bigger and thus also the chance of getting an infection will get bigger. And a tail isn't necessary anymore since our butt muscles cover our anus. Or to let us walk better in our current posture.
So it'd be necessary to get rid of it.
It isn't necessary to get rid of fertility even if you do not use it, so it won't disappear.
However, it's one of nature's burps
Nature is one big burp.
-
KennyR wrote:
Biological diversity is good for the species, but keeping those bad genes for no reason is not.
Bad genes can cause evolution changes.
It's the experiment grounds.
-
Speel wrote:
Bad genes can cause evolution changes.
It's the experiment grounds.
Just by being there? No way. They've got to apply a disadvantage that gets the creature killed or unable to mate.
-
One key point to remember is that a single genetic mutation is not evolution. It's when many individuals of a population have the mutation, to the point that these individuals are distinct from others, that evolution can be said to have occured.
I don't like the term evolution anyway, although in a scientific context it is correct, modern use of the word has altered it's meaning. We should use the terms "Natural Selection" and "Artificial Selection".
Natural selection is the case when an organism adapts to it's environment, for better survival.
Artificial selection is the case when an organism is adapted by "Man" by breeding individules with favourable characteristics.
-
KennyR wrote:
Speel wrote:
Bad genes can cause evolution changes.
It's the experiment grounds.
Just by being there? No way. They've got to apply a disadvantage that gets the creature killed or unable to mate.
I mean, producing 'bad' genes.
-
bloodline wrote:
I don't like the term evolution anyway, although in a scientific context it is correct, modern use of the word has altered it's meaning. We should use the terms "Natural Selection" and "Artificial Selection".
'selection' is a bad bad word for it.
[lousy joke]
let the creationists commence!
[/lousy joke]
-
Speel wrote:
I mean, producing 'bad' genes.
There is no evolution without need, regardless of mutation present in any population. Not now, not in the future, not ever.
Take a million pigeons and let them loose on a planet with robotic systems to keep them fed, kill any disease or viruses, and to give them contraceptives when the population gets too high, and ten million years you'll come back and find they're still pigeons. Maybe 100, even 1000 million years.
But release pigeons on a planet with none of these protections, and 10 million years later you'll find a biosystem full of different kinds of life form evolved from pigeon - birds of prey, land animals, aquatics.
-
KennyR wrote:
Speel wrote:
I mean, producing 'bad' genes.
There is no evolution without need
Yes, but evolution has to begin somewhere doesn't it?
The more a specie experiments with it's genes, the more it is likely that it adapts more quickly to it's environment. I think that can be seen as necessary.
-
Speel wrote:
The more a specie experiments with it's genes, the more it is likely that it adapts more quickly to it's environment. I think that can be seen as necessary.
What changing environment?? We live in heated homes, drink purified water, eat sanitised energy and nutrition rich foods, we deal with sickness with antibiotics and surgery, we have few parasites...
So what, exactly, is changing that we need to evolve to meet?
Our bad genes are not being pruned off, and are remaining because the people who carry them are not being killed off by harsh nature. We're becoming slower, weaker, dumber. And eventually, we'll start to devolve, rather than evolve.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
KennyR wrote:
Speel wrote:
I mean, producing 'bad' genes.
There is no evolution without need
Yes, but evolution has to begin somewhere doesn't it?
The more a specie experiments with it's genes, the more it is likely that it adapts more quickly to it's environment. I think that can be seen as necessary.
A Welfare state/society eliminates the pressure for an organism to adapt to it's surroundings. Thus natural selection cannot occur, the natural selecting factors are removed.
We live in an artificial environment, we adapt the environment to our needs, not the other way around.
-
bloodline wrote:
A Welfare state/society eliminates the pressure for an organism to adapt to it's surroundings. Thus natural selection cannot occur, the natural selecting factors are removed.
A welfare state/society is an adaptation of an organism to adapt to it's surroundings. The natural selection is goin' on on the state/society level. It's going on that way thousands of years already.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
bloodline wrote:
A Welfare state/society eliminates the pressure for an organism to adapt to it's surroundings. Thus natural selection cannot occur, the natural selecting factors are removed.
A welfare state/society is an adaptation of an organism to adapt to it's surroundings. The natural selection is goin' on on the state/society level. It's going on that way thousands of years already.
All you have demonstrated is that the "Evolutionary Model" applies to almost everything.
But what you are talking about is not the evolution of the human species, but human society, which is very different.
-
Well, humans have to fit socially in society (and vice versa).
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Well, humans have to fit socially in society (and vice versa).
But this is a totally diffent topic :-)
-
How do you mean?
What I say is that the 'artificial' society should be seen as a part of human evolution. And this society is evolving too.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
How do you mean?
What I say is that the 'artificial' society should be seen as a part of human evolution. And this society is evolving too.
No it's not. As I said before you are applying the Evolutionary model to a social system. Yes, the Evolution Model can be fitted to most systems. But we are not disscussing Social systems, we are talking about the evolution of a species.
Just because one society adopts one policy, it does not change the human species. The members of that society do not become a separate species.
-
Well, it must be I think. Society has an incredible influence on how people live and eat and so.
For instance, the black death was a 'cultural disease'. And it had a great influence on culture either, because according to some historians and scientists, this event has led to enlightment.
-
For instance, the black death was a 'cultural disease'. And it had a great influence on culture either, because according to some historians and scientists, this event has led to enlightment.
No it didn't. Just a big bunch of people died and they went back to throwing crap out of windows for the next 200 years. What the plague did in a cultural sense was nothing.
What it did in an evolutionary sense is to prune off all the members of our species with weaker immune systems.
-
1/3 of the population from western Europe to India died of the plague. That has some impact on both economy as well as lifestyle.
-
1/3 of the population from western Europe to India died of the plague. That has some impact on both economy as well as lifestyle.
Anything that kills or maims most of your workforce will have social effects. But they were not lasting. As soon as the socialogical effects due to loss of population wore off, India went back to its evil, inhuman caste system (which it still has today) and Europe went back to Christian dogma and living in its own filth.
And what you have to realise is, that, ultimately, lifestyle and society has little to positive impact on evolution. This isn't evolving towards the rubbish scifi spouts like "godhood" or "perfection". There is currently only one driving force in evolution still available to man, and that's sexual attractiveness. And that doesn't evolve towards superiority or perfection, ask any peacock.
There was only one civilisation that had its polices rooted in evolution, and that was the Third Reich. And we never want to go back there, regardless if we all do devolve into dumb, timid, inbred couch potatoes that can't survive without their technology. The price of perfection is too high.
-
The price of perfection is too high.
I am perfect as I am. So are you.
If we were going to extinct, we wouldn't be perfect (anymore)
-
There is currently only one driving force in evolution still available to man, and that's sexual attractiveness.
Even that is undermined by our use of Make Up/clothes and cosmetic surgery. and peoplecan learn how to appear more attactive in the way they behave and the way they talk.
It's time to fact facts, Humans are stuck in an evolutionary rut :-(
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
@Matt
You have a link?
sorry for the lateness of my reply punkie... but here it is :-)
Essential amino Acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acid)