Afraid of spiders? Dont look.....

deamonds · Post by **deamonds** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:33 pm

above be a fail

i reckon if i didnt have sex for 2 years, was locked in a cage & 1 day a bird was brought in id be bussing a wallnut

gwa · Post by **gwa** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:34 pm

Going 2 & a half months was hard man, the day i got back from america 2 words were going through my head.

RINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSE OUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT

__________ · Post by **__________** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:42 pm

badger wrote:
kins83 wrote:But yeah, I'd have to agree with you on the panda thing. They don't deserve to be around anymore really. Almost get the impression that without human intervention they'd be extinct already - not many animals you can say that of.
exactly. if an animal is that shit at surviving even then what's the point in helping it? that's the point of evolution surely? if every animal that couldn't survive on its on terms was helped then god knows what weird and pathetic creatures would be running around

and fucking hell some of those insects look and sound horrendous

true enough points, but you could say the same about people born with disabilities and serious diseases. society says its ok to prolong seriously ill or disabled people's lives, and help them multiply. i'm all for this, but some people would say that it's wrong to have so many carers and nurses working just for the sake of one person's life.
but i think the ability to care for your own kind and even other species is what defines humans. yes the panda MIGHT be extinct if we didn't exist, maybe it'd be doing a whole lot better? seems a bit harsh to let them all die...we've fucked up a lot of their habitat after all

unlikely · Post by **unlikely** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:51 pm

:biggest ever tin of morality worms opens:

unlikely · Post by **unlikely** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:54 pm

wouldn't it have been amazing if that had already come up as a set emoticon

kins83 · Post by **kins83** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:01 pm

Interesting points £12.50.

I had a lot of thoughts after reading that post, and after two attempted paragraphs to continue the discussion, I've got nothing coherrent.

(or that I feel everyone would be able to take objectively).

I will say this though. I think that human compassion is completely selective. I wonder if there would be so much drive to save the panda if it wasn't all "fuzzy wuzzy and cute". I suspect that there are many animals out there that have gone extinct without any fanfare because they weren't aesthetically pleasing, regardless of the impact that their presence/abscence would have on the ecology around it.

deamonds · Post by **deamonds** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:02 pm

has anyone used the term natural selection, because i dont think i know how to use it correctly, somehow it must apply here, i know the main concept of it, but, other than that, im turbo posting & clueless

unlikely · Post by **unlikely** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:23 pm

natural selection is the process by which a successful mutation of a species continues to survive when a less successful one doesn't, thereby fascilitating (?) evolution

kins83 · Post by **kins83** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:23 pm

Natural Selection is the process that drives evolution.

It's quite tricky to explain really....

The measure of an animals liklihood to succed and pass on its genes is known as fitness. This is a measure of all sorts of things, strength, speed, reproductive strategies and success rate etc.

In any species population, there will be some individuals of a higher fitness than others - they might be faster and stronger and are therefore more likely to be able to catch prey, for example. As such, these individuals are more likely to succeed and have offspring (which will often share those same traits). Natural selection favours these individuals because they are better equipped for their environment.

Now, a (relatively) simple example. Imagine there's a an environment where everything (bar the animals) is green. There's a population of animals that are claret (predators), and they stick out like a sore thumb when they are hunting their prey (which for arguement's sake, are blue). Now, at the moment, only the fastest and strongest claret predators are successful.

All of a sudden though, one female gives birth to a litter of mutants. Something has gone a little bit wrong with the genes that give the animal it's colour. As a result, these offspring are green.

Now, these green offspring grow up, and start hunting. They are of a pretty average hunting ability, but they have one MASSIVE advantage. They are the same colour as their environment and can sneak right up to their prey. As such, they are incredibly successful hunters.

Because they are good hunters, they survive for a long time, and have lots of mates (not in a friends way) throughout their lives. As a result, they have lots of offspring, which also share the 'green gene'. The odds suddenly shift in favour of the green hunters, leaving very little for the remaining clarets to eat. This pressure on survival is natural selection.

A wonderful example of natural selection and the way it drives evolution is the study that Darwin carried out on the Galapogos finches. (Look up Darwin's Finches for more info).

He studied a population of finches around the galapogos islands, and found that depending on various environmentla conditions, certain members of a species wuld fare better than others. For example, during long periods of drought, where seeds were very sparse, beak depth (top to bottom measurement) increased. This was because only the birds with the strongest beaks could break the larger seeds - a source of food that the other birds couldn't exploit - and so these birds did better. They survived, had more offspring, whose beaks were also deep, and so average beak depth across the population increased.

There's fucking loads of stuff out there, and I'm sure that there's plenty of controvertial theories and ideas out there. Can make for interesting reading.

Phew.

Edited to continue the Aston Villa colour theme

unlikely · Post by **unlikely** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:26 pm

lol i must admit i drew for the shortest explanation possible then purely to pip you at the post kinsman

kins83 · Post by **kins83** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:29 pm

unlikely wrote:lol i must admit i drew for the shortest explanation possible then purely to pip you at the post kinsman

lol I really wish I could've given a nice concise answer like that, but I started rambling and my fingers couldn't stop!!!

elbe · Post by **elbe** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:40 pm

oh, an I thought natural selection was wen your feelin plush and choose organic fruit and veg.

unlikely · Post by **unlikely** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:43 pm

i was gonna do a fairly long one too but then my boss distracted me (bastard! i have priorities!) and i got back to my PC and was all "must...shorten...cohesively...MUST...BEAT.....KINS!!"

god its amazing what gets you going when you have literally NOTHING to do at work

^btxl · Post by **^btxl** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:48 pm

deamonds wrote:above be a fail

i reckon if i didnt have sex for 2 years, was locked in a cage & 1 day a bird was brought in id be bussing a wallnut

There are only two species as far as I know that have sex for recreational reasons, Humans and Dolphins.

Dolphins are one of my favourite creatures, especially the Commerson's Dolphin - yet I hate the move Free Willy. They are really intelligent aswell.

unlikely · Post by **unlikely** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:00 pm

^bTXL wrote: Dolphins are one of my favourite creatures, especially the Commerson's Dolphin - yet I hate the move Free Willy.

thats an interesting metaphysical issue you uncovered there. Perhaps this points to other mysteries in life, like my love of smoking but dislike of the song "smoke on the water", and comparitive lack of opinion on "smokey and the bandit"

swomp · Post by **swomp** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:50 pm

unlikely wrote:
^bTXL wrote: Dolphins are one of my favourite creatures, especially the Commerson's Dolphin - yet I hate the move Free Willy.
thats an interesting metaphysical issue you uncovered there. Perhaps this points to other mysteries in life, like my love of smoking but dislike of the song "smoke on the water", and comparitive lack of opinion on "smokey and the bandit"

^btxl · Post by **^btxl** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:10 pm

unlikely wrote:
^bTXL wrote: Dolphins are one of my favourite creatures, especially the Commerson's Dolphin - yet I hate the move Free Willy.
thats an interesting metaphysical issue you uncovered there. Perhaps this points to other mysteries in life, like my love of smoking but dislike of the song "smoke on the water", and comparitive lack of opinion on "smokey and the bandit"

I am sure "smoke on the water" is actually about fog. Free willy is about an Orca which is part of the dolphin family.

perkalerk215 · Post by **perkalerk215** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:31 pm

ummm yall are in the wrong thread.

kins83 · Post by **kins83** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:28 am

^bTXL wrote:
unlikely wrote:
^bTXL wrote: Dolphins are one of my favourite creatures, especially the Commerson's Dolphin - yet I hate the move Free Willy.
thats an interesting metaphysical issue you uncovered there. Perhaps this points to other mysteries in life, like my love of smoking but dislike of the song "smoke on the water", and comparitive lack of opinion on "smokey and the bandit"
I am sure "smoke on the water" is actually about fog. Free willy is about an Orca which is part of the dolphin family.

lol ^bTXL, might I suggest pinches, nay, shovels of salt be taken with most comments in this place?

Afraid of spiders? Dont look.....

Who is online