nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index nglreturns.myfreeforum.org
Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


'Flawed' humanity.
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Boss Cat
Junior Community Member


Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 365


Location: it's good here

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:12 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

So you don't think forming bonds was significant for the survival of the mammals.  I don't know whether it did, not my area of expertise.  But I would have thought there were plenty of dangers, from all sorts of sources, both before and after the dinosaurs disappeared, or most of the dinosaurs anyway.   Young mammals are defenceless and there aren't hundreds of them like fly eggs and grubs.

I don't know much about this as I say.  This is only what I thought.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leonard James
Senior Community Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 3963


Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shrub Dweller wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Quote:
Only when the vicious brutes dead out did the mammals have the courage to increase in size.

I think 'opportunity' is the appropriate word here, not 'courage'.

No it's courage, because they had started evolving at the same time as the dinosaurs but kept their heads down, and hid themselves in the shrubbery, and were fearful that the giants would say "Ni" to them.

Small animals don't increase in size because they want to. They gradually become larger over generations if being bigger gives them an advantage in the environment. Any such tendency while the dinosaurs were around would be fatal because they would become big enough to find and eat.

Once the dinos were extinct there was no such restriction, and they had the opportunity to increase in size. Courage didn't come into it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Cyber was implying that the way he/we think today with our education and all that was how people in the past approached things


Cyber was implying no such thing! I was simply stating the fact that having a broader gene pool conveys an evolutionary advantage. I explicitly stated that mindset has nowt to do with it - the pressures of natural selection apply to all creatures, regardless of what, if anything, they might think.

Do learn to read, Dweller.

I can read and that is not what you implied. You implied that our ancestors thought this through and so formed alliances with other groups to form this larger gene pool. I don't know how far back in time you are considering here but the evidence points the other way that group solidarity and loyalty in fact caused conflicts with other groups. And peaceful accords were usually quite fragile.


Putting 'implied' in italics doesn't make it any less bullshit.

What I wrote was:

cyberman wrote:

If a trait is advantageous, then natural selection causes it to become widespread whether the creature concerned is aware of it or not. A wide gene pool is advantageous for humans, squids and foxes whether they understand genetics or not.


Where is this 'implication' which you have dreamt up?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leonard James
Senior Community Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 3963


Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boss Cat wrote:
So you don't think forming bonds was significant for the survival of the mammals.  I don't know whether it did, not my area of expertise.  But I would have thought there were plenty of dangers, from all sorts of sources, both before and after the dinosaurs disappeared, or most of the dinosaurs anyway.   Young mammals are defenceless and there aren't hundreds of them like fly eggs and grubs.

I don't know much about this as I say.  This is only what I thought.

Forming bonds (cooperating) was obviously of survival value for social mammals, but not others. Some animals are pack hunters, others hunt solo. The former have a social code they normally observe, the latter don't.

The care and protection of off-spring is clearly a different kind of cooperation, and is common both to social and lone species.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shrub Dweller
Junior Community Member


Joined: 26 Jul 2011
Posts: 387



PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boss Cat wrote:
So you don't think forming bonds was significant for the survival of the mammals.  I don't know whether it did, not my area of expertise.  But I would have thought there were plenty of dangers, from all sorts of sources, both before and after the dinosaurs disappeared, or most of the dinosaurs anyway.   Young mammals are defenceless and there aren't hundreds of them like fly eggs and grubs.

I don't know much about this as I say.  This is only what I thought.

A programme on the BBC on dinisaurs did imply that some of the ones that formed herds did protect their young when underthreat from preditors, so I'm not too sure this bonding thing is exclusively mammalian but it is a common feature more so of mammals from what I understand. After the astroid of 65 million years ago resouces would have been scarce and so bringing up smaller broods and protecting them to adulthood would have been a more efficient way of ensuring the species survival than expending a lot of energy in producing large numbers of offpring. So those that did adapt this more efficient method would have given themselves a better chance to be here today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shrub Dweller
Junior Community Member


Joined: 26 Jul 2011
Posts: 387



PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leonard James wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Quote:
Only when the vicious brutes dead out did the mammals have the courage to increase in size.

I think 'opportunity' is the appropriate word here, not 'courage'.

No it's courage, because they had started evolving at the same time as the dinosaurs but kept their heads down, and hid themselves in the shrubbery, and were fearful that the giants would say "Ni" to them.

Small animals don't increase in size because they want to. They gradually become larger over generations if being bigger gives them an advantage in the environment. Any such tendency while the dinosaurs were around would be fatal because they would become big enough to find and eat.

Once the dinos were extinct there was no such restriction, and they had the opportunity to increase in size. Courage didn't come into it.

I agree; which I expressed as them keeping their heads down. I believe that one of the reasons the dinosaurs grew so large was because the oxygen level in the air was much higher then than now, and that mammals weren't fashioned to find this particularly of any real benefit. Before the astroid of 65 million years ago the dinosaurs were already becoming extinct and I think this was because the oxygen level was beginning to drop.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shrub Dweller
Junior Community Member


Joined: 26 Jul 2011
Posts: 387



PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Cyber was implying that the way he/we think today with our education and all that was how people in the past approached things


Cyber was implying no such thing! I was simply stating the fact that having a broader gene pool conveys an evolutionary advantage. I explicitly stated that mindset has nowt to do with it - the pressures of natural selection apply to all creatures, regardless of what, if anything, they might think.

Do learn to read, Dweller.

I can read and that is not what you implied. You implied that our ancestors thought this through and so formed alliances with other groups to form this larger gene pool. I don't know how far back in time you are considering here but the evidence points the other way that group solidarity and loyalty in fact caused conflicts with other groups. And peaceful accords were usually quite fragile.


Putting 'implied' in italics doesn't make it any less bullshit.

You seem to find it hard to understand things so I thought by highlighting the important bit it might nudge you in the right direction. But it seems not.

Oh well, I tried.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Cyber was implying that the way he/we think today with our education and all that was how people in the past approached things


Cyber was implying no such thing! I was simply stating the fact that having a broader gene pool conveys an evolutionary advantage. I explicitly stated that mindset has nowt to do with it - the pressures of natural selection apply to all creatures, regardless of what, if anything, they might think.

Do learn to read, Dweller.

I can read and that is not what you implied. You implied that our ancestors thought this through and so formed alliances with other groups to form this larger gene pool. I don't know how far back in time you are considering here but the evidence points the other way that group solidarity and loyalty in fact caused conflicts with other groups. And peaceful accords were usually quite fragile.


Putting 'implied' in italics doesn't make it any less bullshit.

You seem to find it hard to understand things so I thought by highlighting the important bit it might nudge you in the right direction. But it seems not.

Oh well, I tried.


As usual you have utterly ignored the significant point, which is that the implication which you claim to have detected simply isn't there. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated the exact opposite of what you are pretending I have implied.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shrub Dweller
Junior Community Member


Joined: 26 Jul 2011
Posts: 387



PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Cyber was implying that the way he/we think today with our education and all that was how people in the past approached things


Cyber was implying no such thing! I was simply stating the fact that having a broader gene pool conveys an evolutionary advantage. I explicitly stated that mindset has nowt to do with it - the pressures of natural selection apply to all creatures, regardless of what, if anything, they might think.

Do learn to read, Dweller.

I can read and that is not what you implied. You implied that our ancestors thought this through and so formed alliances with other groups to form this larger gene pool. I don't know how far back in time you are considering here but the evidence points the other way that group solidarity and loyalty in fact caused conflicts with other groups. And peaceful accords were usually quite fragile.


Putting 'implied' in italics doesn't make it any less bullshit.

You seem to find it hard to understand things so I thought by highlighting the important bit it might nudge you in the right direction. But it seems not.

Oh well, I tried.


As usual you have utterly ignored the significant point, which is that the implication which you claim to have detected simply isn't there. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated the exact opposite of what you are pretending I have implied.

I don't have the time to find your original post as I don't keep notes about where all this has come from. But from what I recall you did imply that our ancestors consciously formed large groups because they figured this would aid their survival and all that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Cyber was implying that the way he/we think today with our education and all that was how people in the past approached things


Cyber was implying no such thing! I was simply stating the fact that having a broader gene pool conveys an evolutionary advantage. I explicitly stated that mindset has nowt to do with it - the pressures of natural selection apply to all creatures, regardless of what, if anything, they might think.

Do learn to read, Dweller.

I can read and that is not what you implied. You implied that our ancestors thought this through and so formed alliances with other groups to form this larger gene pool. I don't know how far back in time you are considering here but the evidence points the other way that group solidarity and loyalty in fact caused conflicts with other groups. And peaceful accords were usually quite fragile.


Putting 'implied' in italics doesn't make it any less bullshit.

You seem to find it hard to understand things so I thought by highlighting the important bit it might nudge you in the right direction. But it seems not.

Oh well, I tried.


As usual you have utterly ignored the significant point, which is that the implication which you claim to have detected simply isn't there. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated the exact opposite of what you are pretending I have implied.

I don't have the time to find your original post as I don't keep notes about where all this has come from. But from what I recall you did imply that our ancestors consciously formed large groups because they figured this would aid their survival and all that.


Well you recall wrong. I explicitly said (as anyone who understands natural selection knows) that you do not need to understand genetics for an advantageous trait to become widespread. That is exactly the opposite of what you think you maybe recall having a dream where I implied something.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum