Dead at 42

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:
we're better off just eating the things we're evolved to eat

As if our evolution is one single 'thing' :roll:

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

But not more than a century ago, meat was luxury here in Europe.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

And you know that evolution can be very fast. One good famine and only those who are vegans survive, for instance.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

You probably have never heard about scurvy

[Speelgoedmannetje]

fruit??! Vegetables you mean, fruit's really really a luxury (thus unavailable) through the centuries...

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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]