Evolution and instincts

[ElectricFetus]

Desmond Morris (in The Human Animal) estimates that humans, given time and opportunity, would spend 100 times more time in sexually related activity than most species. The salamander reproduces without any contact between parents. The male salamander leaves his sperm in spermatophores which are later picked up by passing females.

"then most species." that right but hey the common chimp has more sex then we do, chickens have more sex then we do, ect. that means there is nothing special about are sex lives.

Our heightened sexuality appears to put a break on our reproductive success. This is contradictory to what would be predicted by Darwinism but not the God Gametes theory. God Gametes argues that there is an “external gene pool” from which we source the genes for building greater complexity. It is thought that the emotional attachments we develop with loved ones (and sexual activity) assists in the exchange of genetic information in the same way that genes are shuffled about by the various methods of gene recombination.

Lot of animals are very free loving, choose though as many gene lines as possible increases the gene pool... that not against Darwinian evolution!

I do not know what you mean by this? Evolutionary selection can not assist the production of viable new genes. The gene will first be mutated and then the new gene sequence will have to be found before natural selection can sort out the good ones from the bad. Evolutionary selection will not help if the randomising of DNA has only produced junk. It is true that a species will sometimes benefit from a gene being disabled by a mutation but I am not aware of a viable new gene function being produced this way.

1.Gene is copied (common mutation)
2.Gene mutates (even more common)
3.Gene now does something new that is either good, bad or neutral for organism
4.If gene is bad organism dies and gene line is lost (common)
5.If gene is good organism lives and reproduced and gene travels through gene pool (not so common but does happen alot)

 

[Robert Jameson]

>>> common chimp has more sex then we do, chickens have more sex then we do, etc. that means there is nothing special about are sex lives. <<<

This is true but it does not address the point. Why would any species have more sex than is necessary to reproduce?

>>> Lot of animals are very free loving, choose though as many gene lines as possible increases the gene pool... that is not against Darwinian evolution! <<<

Free loving does not in itself contribute to genetic diversity. Only the copulation that is successful will do that. It is also doubtful whether gender (or sex based) reproductive systems have added to the genetic variation in our species gene pool that we have always assumed. The various methods of gene recombination have most likely contributed more to genetic diversity in gender based species than the matching up of male and female gametes at fertilisation.

>>> 5.If gene is good organism lives and reproduced and gene travels through gene pool (not so common but does happen a lot) <<<

We know that this occurs or evolution would never happen. The question is how can it happen by way of random assortment of DNA that has been mutated. We know the immune system gets mutated (at a rate of a million times higher than the background mutation rate) and finds new gene sequences to fight new invading antigens within hours. But the mutation rate, where the mutations happen, when they start and stop and the sequencing of new antibodies is NOT RANDOM. The random sequencing of new genes is a mathematical impossibility.

The non-random mutation of the immune system is discussed in more detail in Chapter 16 of God Gametes which can be downloaded free from www.e-publishingaustralia.com

Refer also to Lamark’s Signature by Ted Steele, Robyn Lindley and Bob Blanden

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Animals need to be "tricked" into reproducing somehow, making it feel good is the obvious strategy. Nothing is there to explain to them that "you need to have sex to have babies and therefore continue your genetic line" so it feels good and they do it. Even humans don't generally think about "furthering their genetic line" while having sex, to the selfish individual thats hardly important, but pleasure is.
The reason animals don't just continually have sex is because usually the female doesn't feel like it all the time and she will deny an advancer, alot of animals "go on heat". This is too reduce the threat of overpopulation and strain on the females body. Even female humans "go on heat" but it just isn't as strict as some other animals. Some animals like dolphins have sex all the time but they have evolved methods of not becoming pregnant unless they are ready. Other animals might find it difficult to find mates and when they do they need to take it for all its worth, they can store sperm and keep it alive for years and use small amounts to make babies when the time is right.

What are you incinuating with animals having more sex than what is required anyway? How does it relate to your theory?

 

[ElectricFetus]

This is true but it does not address the point. Why would any species have more sex than is necessary to reproduce?

What the good doctor said.

We know that this occurs or evolution would never happen. The question is how can it happen by way of random assortment of DNA that has been mutated. We know the immune system gets mutated (at a rate of a million times higher than the background mutation rate) and finds new gene sequences to fight new invading antigens within hours. But the mutation rate, where the mutations happen, when they start and stop and the sequencing of new antibodies is NOT RANDOM. The random sequencing of new genes is a mathematical impossibility.

I thought I already went over how the immune system modifies its antibody genes? That is a different process from sexual reproduction and normal evolution. Of course a new gene does not magically appear out of fat air! Once again random mutation do NOT make a gene: the changes need to happen one step at a time and under evolutionary pressure.

All your saying is that mutations do not happen randomly but god is doing it, all I'm saying is that it could just be random.

 

[Robert Jameson]

Dr Lou Natic

>>> What are you insinuating with animals having more sex than what is required anyway? How does it relate to your theory? <<<

God Gametes argues that there is an “external gene pool” from which we source the genes for building greater complexity. It is thought that sex (and in the case of humans the emotional attachments we develop with loved ones) assists in the exchange of genetic information in the same way that genes are shuffled about by the various methods of gene recombination.

>>> Animals need to be "tricked" into reproducing somehow, making it feel good is the obvious strategy. <<<

This is the traditional argument for sex but I doubt it is correct. The aquatic microbe loxophyllum will sometimes stop what it is doing to have sex with another of its species but is a single cell organism that does not reproduce sexually. (Brian J. Ford in “Genes – The Fight for Life” page 213) There are also many other anomalies that can not be explained. As I mentioned earlier the salamander reproduces successfully with out the male ever meeting the female (and it is unlikely that either parent would ever see their offspring). Yet many species (including our own) have far more sex than is needed to reproduce.

In fact the motivation for sex is so great that it is a barrier to our species reproductive success. For example:

1. We have same gender sex (if all sexual activity was focused on fertile members of the opposite gender we would of course produce more offspring)

2. Women often copulate for several months after they become pregnant. From a reproductive point of view the male is wasting his time having sex with a women that is already carrying his child and should be looking for one that he can get pregnant.

3. For the same reasons there is no point having sex with a women that is either too young or too old to reproduce. But most women are sexually active before they first ovulate and for many years after menopause.

4. Women hide their time of peak fertility making a man have sex with her all the time if he wants to maximise his chance of getting her pregnant.

5. Menstrual synchrony increases sexual activity with no benefit in reproductive success. Firstly; two women in the presence of a man tend to menstruate further apart. This in theory means (assuming a trough in sexual activity during menstruation) one women is potentially receptive to the man all the time. And secondly; women who live together not in the company of a man (such as women in prisons and in convents etc.) tend to menstruate together. If we assume that women in these situations have a higher incidence of same sex relationships and form pair bonds (and will also have a trough in sexual activity during menstruation) then synchronising their cycles will increase by 50% the time available for sex.

God Gametes argues that sex came first. There has always been a need for species to exchange genetic information with others and the with the external gene pool. We argue that our reproductive system evolved in such a way that took advantage of a system of sexual communication that was already there.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Originally posted by Robert Jameson
God Gametes argues that there is an “external gene pool” from which we source the genes for building greater complexity. It is thought that sex (and in the case of humans the emotional attachments we develop with loved ones) assists in the exchange of genetic information in the same way that genes are shuffled about by the various methods of gene recombination.
Emotional attachments are just another method of ensuring reproduction. Humans aren't the only animals that develop this.
It is the subconcious deciding which mate would provide the best/most successful offspring.

As I mentioned earlier the salamander reproduces successfully with out the male ever meeting the female (and it is unlikely that either parent would ever see their offspring). Yet many species (including our own) have far more sex than is needed to reproduce.
Different strokes for different folks.
To the female salamander, laying eggs would be bliss, to the male, that clutch of eggs would be sexy as hell and the urge to drop a load on those eggs would be overwhelming.
We have more sex than is needed because we have contraception basically. Families are having fewer and fewer children because it is alot less likely that any of those children will die before reaching sexual maturity than it used to be.
In third world countries people have more children. You would think this is a bad idea as it would be a strain on the families resources. But alot of children die in those area's. They have many to ensure at least one strand of their genes will be passed on. This urge surpasses even common sense in that they don't realise their habitat is dangerously overpopulated.

1. We have same gender sex (if all sexual activity was focused on fertile members of the opposite gender we would of course produce more offspring)
Of course there is bound to be deformities in genetics, particularly among a species with weak genetic fibre. Humans no longer live by the rules of survival of the fittest. Therefore weaker, less adequate humans are passing on their inferior genes and causing problems in the pool. Technically these people should have been eaten by lions or died of disease but society has eliminated those threats. A diverse array of abnormalities have arisen. This is natural.

2. Women often copulate for several months after they become pregnant. From a reproductive point of view the male is wasting his time having sex with a women that is already carrying his child and should be looking for one that he can get pregnant.
Well he would if it weren't considered morally wrong. Again, society has skewed reality and forced unnatural rules on humans. Humans aren't the best indication of the universe's laws.

3. For the same reasons there is no point having sex with a women that is either too young or too old to reproduce. But most women are sexually active before they first ovulate and for many years after menopause.
See above. Young girls hear about sex and think its cool, old women remember how fun sex used to be and want to feel that pleasure again.

Again, humans have mutated and changed their own mindsets after thousands of years of wondering. They really aren't the best indication of the natural universe.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Robert Jameson,

Again all of those sexual situations are explain through pleasure and instinct!

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Jameson had a big post here and I made a big post addressing all the points in that post

Very frustrating

 

[Robert Jameson]

Second try

I think the moderator objected to some of my comments (which on reflection is most likely justified) so I have toned it down and will post again.

WellCookedFetus

>>> All your saying is that mutations do not happen randomly but god is doing it, all I'm saying is that it could just be random. <<<

I do not know if there is a God. I do not know if the God Gametes theory is correct. But I do know that you can not get a new genetic function by the random assortment of DNA. It is a statistical impossibility.


Dr Lou Natic

>>> It is (sex) the subconscious deciding which mate would provide the best/most successful offspring. <<<

This is true but is that all sex is? It is very demanding of time and resources if that is its only purpose. And few would argue that the people we find most sexually attractive are likely to provide the “best/most successful offspring”; (i.e. the physical attributes of today’s supermodel would hardly be the best suited for bearing children or surviving in a natural environment.)

>>> To the female salamander, laying eggs would be bliss, to the male, that clutch of eggs would be sexy as hell and the urge to drop a load on those eggs would be overwhelming. <<<

I do not know if this is true for I have never spoken to a salamander. If it is true though we need to think again about how we define a sexual relationship. If a good sexual relationship is getting it off with the opposite gender’s gametes (while having no contact with the individuals who produce them) then we need to disassociate sex from things like pair bonding and paternal care.

>>> Therefore weaker, less adequate humans are passing on their inferior genes and causing problems in the pool. Technically these people should have been eaten by lions or died of disease but society has eliminated those threats. A diverse array of abnormalities have arisen. This is natural. <<<

There is very good evidence that same gender sex was around when our species was still getting eaten by lions. I do not know why you would suggest that homosexual relationships are the result of “inferior genes” or “abnormalities”. Gay and lesbian people are well represented at all levels of society and I expect this is obvious to all people who are not possessed of a bigoted attitude.

>>> Of course there is bound to be deformities in genetics, particularly among a species with weak genetic fibre. Humans no longer live by the rules of survival of the fittest. <<<

But we still need to cross a male and female gamete to reproduce so how is the gay gene passed from generation to generation?

>>> Humans aren't the best indication of the universe's laws. <<<

This is true but why? Why do we so often depart from survival rules that are meant to have driven our evolution from ape to homo sapien.

>>> Young girls hear about sex and think its cool, old women remember how fun sex used to be and want to feel that pleasure again. <<<

From my observations I would have to say that neither of these statements accurately explain why women engage in sexual activity before they first ovulate and post menopause.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Re: Second try

Originally posted by Robert Jameson
I think the moderator objected to some of my comments (which on reflection is most likely justified) so I have toned it down and will post again.
I don't think so.
Alot of posts went missing in the last 12 hours or so. Some technical problem I guess. I didn't find any of your posts objectionable.
By the way, how did you manage to reproduce your first attempt so accurately? Are you a robot? :bugeye:

This is true but is that all sex is? It is very demanding of time and resources if that is its only purpose.
Well is there a more important purpose? I don't think so.
Animals go to great lengths in order to breed because it is pretty much the meaning of life. Salmon exhaust themselves swimming up waterfalls and the like just to lay eggs and die. Its because without breeding there is no species, it is heavily ingrained into the instincts of all animals that breeding is THE single most important aspect of life.

And few would argue that the people we find most sexually attractive are likely to provide the “best/most successful offspring”; (i.e. the physical attributes of today’s supermodel would hardly be the best suited for bearing children or surviving in a natural environment.)
Well as I have mentioned humans don't live in a classic natural environment. In this day and age attractiveness is very important for the success of an individual. It certainly can't hurt. Intelligence helps also and is admired by many, but attractive children always have their good looks to fall back on. Everyone thinks they want a smart and attractive partner, they don't necasarrily realise that what they really want is smart and attractive children. Female moose want children with large antlers that are good at fighting. So the males fight and the one with the largest antlers will usually win and mate with the female. Thats important to them, it is whats required to be successful, good looks and/or intelligence is what's required for a human to be successful.
A little off topic, have you noticed the recent influx in the appreciation of the fatter female ass? I believe(and this is not backed by any studies, just a theory) that this is because humans do a lot of sitting these days. A fat butt is beneficial for sitting, so the subconcious of the males is starting to tell them fat butts are hot. I think the subconcious or instincts are what guides evolution. Future humans will have fat asses. Just a personal theory of mine.

I do not know if this is true for I have never spoken to a salamander. If it is true though we need to think again about how we define a sexual relationship. If a good sexual relationship is getting it off with the opposite gender’s gametes (while having no contact with the individuals who produce them) then we need to disassociate sex from things like pair bonding and paternal care.
I don't think I understand.
This is what works for the salamander, the method it has developed for breeding.
Mammals are different, rather than having heaps of babies and hoping one survives, they started having fewer and taking better care of them, training them and teaching them how to survive. Each method has its pro's and cons and it is just different branches of evolution going in different ways.
I believe it is this aspect of mammals that started to stray them from the traditional over powering nature of instincts. Mammals still have instincts but they rely on them less than other forms of animals because they no longer were being born with all their required knowledge. It allowed for larger brains over time, or should I say required larger brains for the method to be efficient. Their brains needed to feel so they would care for their young. With this "caring" trait added to their psyche it is only natural they would start caring for other individuals as a byproduct. The first would have been when mammals started caring for their sexual partner as he/she is the link to the babies whom the caring trait was developed for.

There is very good evidence that same gender sex was around when our species was still getting eaten by lions. I do not know why you would suggest that homosexual relationships are the result of “inferior genes” or “abnormalities”. Gay and lesbian people are well represented at all levels of society and I expect this is obvious to all people who are not possessed of a bigoted attitude.
You are right, I apologise, I was wrong there a little because even animals with very strong genes have homosexual members. But I still think it is merely an abnormality of sorts. Just a mistake in the genes. Like for example there is alot of evidence arising that people are born murderer's or pedophiles or whatever. Now what is the purpose of those urges? They just happened. A mutation. Nature tries them out all the time just to see if the mutation will be successful and in the case of humans just about every mutation ends up successful because we have created a society where everyone can breed regardless of their flaws.

But we still need to cross a male and female gamete to reproduce so how is the gay gene passed from generation to generation?
Thats a good question but I think it is more to do with these mutations just occuring regardless of ancestry. There has to be a first, and in the case of homosexuality millions of "firsts" are happening all the time. Just to see if it works, obviously it won't, but hey, there is a tiny possibility. Gay people do breed occasionally, don't you watch jerry springer? Often they get married and have kids and then go off and be gay, this could in some unseeable way be beneficial for the offspring. I don't know how, it doesn't matter. It just happens, its all about trial and error.

This is true but why? Why do we so often depart from survival rules that are meant to have driven our evolution from ape to homo sapien.
Because we can.
We stumbled upon the unique combination of tool-user body type and high intelligence by chance. I assume that if dolphins had bodies that enabled them to manipulate their environment to make life more comfortable for them they would and if lemurs had the brain power to build fortresses guarding them from their predators they would too.
Over time we have taken ourselves out of the game and activated our own rules.

From my observations I would have to say that neither of these statements accurately explain why women engage in sexual activity before they first ovulate and post menopause
Agreed. The truth is I don't know.
It would definately be a byproduct of what I mentioned above, from abandoning what it is to be wild we have the time and capability to do things for our own pleasure.
Humans are far from the only animals to have sex when there is no reason though. Nature made the act pleasurable, for some animals it made it only pleasurable at certain times, for others it made it pleasurable most of the time, either way you'll get babies, it really doesn't matter if a couple of animals are having sex without having babies everynow and then. There was no reason for nature to stop that from occuring. Especially among humans, we aren't about to be preyed upon whilst doing it.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Re: Sexual Selextion

Originally posted by Robert Jameson


Sexual Selection

The Darwinian theory of evolution holds that selection is everything and it has a mechanism that explains the ‘why’. Its doctrine claims that all creatures must survive and it is the need to adapt to a changing environment that has put in place the genetic formulae of all beings.

Darwin claimed that spme varieties have a higher reproductive succes. That is not the same as claiming that creatures must survive. They also do not need to adapt to the environment in normal situations, since they are already adapted to it. It is just that some are better adapted to the environment than others and hence can have a higher reproductive succes. In essence it rather claims that not all members of a new generation can survive. Most die usually. If the survival of a small group and their subsequent reproduction is based on specific genetic information than evolution can occur. But if the selective pressure would change with every generation than a species basically wouldn't go anywhere.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

questionable use of references

robert...i noticed that you are quite careless in your citations. You quote articles, and mention only your own conclusion based on these articles, which may disagree with the authors. In peer review this would be unacceptable. Here you project a false impression to the forum readers that you views are backed up by science.


for instance:

In October 1996 Gregory Wray reported finding seven metazoan genes about twice as old as their appearance in the fossil record.10

and you conclude that this is problematic because

If metazoan genes existed before the appearance of metazoa, the genetic formula for them could not have been developed by natural selection.

The article in question reports no problems arising from their data for the theory of evolution. It just adds important data to support the notion that the origin of metozoan diversity lies in the precambrian period.

from article: Our results are also compatible with several indirect lines of evidence that point to Precambrian divergences among metazoan phyla (8, 36).

And also that the mineralization of body parts is probably a later development in the different metazoan lines.
and as for the presence of so-called metazoan genes:

from article: The antiquity of these genetic regulatory circuits suggests that their appearance was not sufficient to trigger the morphological diversification that occurred during the Cambrian, as recently suggested (42), although their presence may have been a necessary precondition.

In this case the article refers to the hox-gene cluster. And I think that you are trying to confuse matters by postulating a classic 'what was first the chicken or the egg' problem. According to you there can't be a metazoan without metazoan genes and single celled organism with metazoan genes is unthinkable.
Regarding the hox gene cluster a simple duplication event and subsequent modification would suffice to turn a 'non-metazaon' gene into a 'metazoan' gene

 

[Robert Jameson]

Dr Lou Natic

>>> By the way, how did you manage to reproduce your first attempt so accurately? Are you a robot? <<<

Most of what I write for Sciforums is done in MS Word. That way I have the benefit of the Word spell and grammar checker but can also save what I write to file. When I am ready to post it I copy (Block and Ctrl + C) and paste (Ctrl + V) into Sciforums. Maybe one day (if the God Gametes concept becomes popular) someone might want to look at them again.

I wrote: >> This is true but is that all sex is? <<

You wrote: >>> … Its because without breeding there is no species, it is heavily ingrained into the instincts of all animals that breeding is THE single most important aspect of life. <<<

I would agree with this but with qualifications.

1. First thing is that I was talking about sex (in particular social sex) and in our species this has little to do with reproducing. In fact sex in our species is a barrier to our reproductive success.

2. Secondly; there is no point reproducing if our progeny do not survive. So I would say that reproducing is not the most important thing but producing offspring that will survive is.

3. And this brings me onto the third point. We do not produce offspring that are best able to survive. The best adapted species for all environments are the single cell organisms that colonised earth 3.8 billion years ago. Every time we evolved greater complexity we diminished the probability that our progeny would survive.

The problems are these. Firstly we reduce our prospects of generating any progeny by having too much sex. We then continue to reduce the survival prospects of the offspring we do have by building into them greater complexity. God Gametes argues that life on earth evolve greater complexity because our parent species needed a species (us) that was capable of hosting their reproductive cells. And sex is needed to find the genetic formula for greater complexity (see earlier posts).

>>> Well as I have mentioned humans don't live in a classic natural environment. In this day and age attractiveness is very important for the success of an individual. . . . Intelligence helps also and is admired by many . . . <<<

But we certainly did not evolve adaptive features when we did live in that natural environment. We lost our hair and grew a larger brain. Some will argue that our larger brain (and the greater intelligence it conferred) provided a selective advantage but this is unlikely to be true. Firstly our less primitive relatives have little trouble surviving with far less intelligence but more importantly our larger brain would have imposed tremendous costs. There are many but I will mention two. Giving birth to and infant with a larger head and the extended period of time that children are dependent on parents are both evolutionary trends that would have been tremendous liabilities to our species.

>>> But I still think it is merely an abnormality of sorts. Just a mistake in the genes. Like for example there is a lot of evidence arising that people are born murderers or paedophiles or whatever. Now what is the purpose of those urges? They just happened. A mutation. Nature tries them out all the time just to see if the mutation will be successful and in the case of humans just about every mutation ends up successful because we have created a society where everyone can breed regardless of their flaws. <<<

You seem to be saying that the only reason we have homosexuals is because these individuals have defective genes that would not have survived in a natural environment. This is unlikely because homosexual activity is not a recent phenomenon. There are references to it in the Old Testament and all societies have between 10% and 100% of people engaging in some sort of homosexual behaviour; despite it being at odds with the basic laws of heredity.

>>> Gay people do breed occasionally, don't you watch jerry springer? Often they get married and have kids and then go off and be gay, this could in some unseeable way be beneficial for the offspring. I don't know how, it doesn't matter. It just happens, its all about trial and error. <<<

I do not watch Jerry Springer but I am aware that bisexual people have children. Actually Bi sexuals have on average more children than heterosexuals. But this is because they are far more sexually active and would have even greater reproductive success if they focused all their attention on fecund members of the opposite sex. There are several sections in God Gametes that deal with this issue but briefly put if it was a mutant gene (or trial and error) it would not be a consistent 10% plus of the population. Given that it is sure to fail the reproductive test it might be thrown up in about one in a million chances. Darwinism can not explain same gender sex but it is in conformity with God Gametes.

>>> We stumbled upon the unique combination of tool-user body type and high intelligence by chance. <<<

You can believe that if you like but I do not. It is one hell of a lot of luck and I have never been lucky.

>>> There was no reason for nature to stop that (excessive social sex) from occurring. Especially among humans, we aren't about to be preyed upon whilst doing it. <<<

We certainly would have been through all but the last few years of our evolutionary development. Not only by lower animals but by gangs who would have routinely interrupted couples making love to kill the man (if he tried to protect his partner) and gang rape the woman. Again social sex is another example of a human trait that has evolved despite it having greatly diminished our species survival prospects.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by Robert Jameson


1. First thing is that I was talking about sex (in particular social sex) and in our species this has little to do with reproducing. In fact sex in our species is a barrier to our reproductive success.

sex creates diversity...sex is therefore a key to reproductive success and adaptive success

Originally posted by Robert Jameson

2. Secondly; there is no point reproducing if our progeny do not survive. So I would say that reproducing is not the most important thing but producing offspring that will survive is.

In general most progeny dies, only a few survive.

Originally posted by Robert Jameson

3. And this brings me onto the third point. We do not produce offspring that are best able to survive. The best adapted species for all environments are the single cell organisms that colonised earth 3.8 billion years ago. Every time we evolved greater complexity we diminished the probability that our progeny would survive.

greater complexity opened up new niches. Every organism occupies a specific environmental niche. A microbe doesn't compete with us in our niche and we do not compete with them in their niche. Hence there is place for both of us.

 

[Robert Jameson]

Spuriousmonkey.

>>> robert...i noticed that you are quite careless in your citations. <<<

In my book I make it very clear that these notes point to references provided on the Cosmic Ancestry forum. The quote you refer to is taken from a chapter entitled Cosmic Ancestry and I make it very clear that I am only offering a précis of their theory (and supporting evidence) and that anyone wanting to know more on Cosmic Ancestry should visit their web site.

>>> Here you project a false impression to the forum readers that you views are backed up by science. <<<

If that is what the readers understood then it was not my intention. I only wanted to report the findings that metazoan genes appeared before the appearance of metazoa in the fossil record. I believe it is reasonable to suggest that this is not consistent with life on earth evolving in a closed system regardless of the opinion of Gregory Wray.

>>> In peer review this would be unacceptable. <<<

I am an amateur scientist. I have tried many times to develop my concept as part of an academic thesis but have always been shown the door. My book was written without the resources many have enjoyed who work on university campus. It was also written without the benefit of any government or university funding. So I do not know what you mean by “peer” review. The scientific establishment can say what they like about it. I do not give a damn.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by Robert Jameson
Spuriousmonkey.

>>> robert...i noticed that you are quite careless in your citations. <<<

In my book I make it very clear that these notes point to references provided on the Cosmic Ancestry forum. The quote you refer to is taken from a chapter entitled Cosmic Ancestry and I make it very clear that I am only offering a précis of their theory (and supporting evidence) and that anyone wanting to know more on Cosmic Ancestry should visit their web site.

>>> Here you project a false impression to the forum readers that you views are backed up by science. <<<

If that is what the readers understood then it was not my intention. I only wanted to report the findings that metazoan genes appeared before the appearance of metazoa in the fossil record. I believe it is reasonable to suggest that this is not consistent with life on earth evolving in a closed system regardless of the opinion of Gregory Wray.

>>> In peer review this would be unacceptable. <<<

I am an amateur scientist. I have tried many times to develop my concept as part of an academic thesis but have always been shown the door. My book was written without the resources many have enjoyed who work on university campus. It was also written without the benefit of any government or university funding. So I do not know what you mean by “peer” review. The scientific establishment can say what they like about it. I do not give a damn.

i'm just pointing out the rules. If you are not aware of them that is fine. But if you are then you would be misleading your audience. That would be unethical.

hence my concern


and as I pointed out the article you refer to explains that it is a valid viewpoint within evolutionary thinking that the metazoans evolved in the precambrian. Selective use of information is a dangerous weapon. It can be considered to be intentional and then quickly enters the realm of scientic unethical behaviour. You will subsequently become a pariah in the scientific world and labeled as not to be taken seriously.

 

[river-wind]

not enough time to seriously respond to everything in here, and DrL. and wellCooked have done a great job of it anyway.

I do want to add a few things:
1) in reference to photo-sensitivity-
a)given that most atoms/subatomic particle will absorb some wavelength of EM raditation or another, I would say that all matter is photo-sensitive. To get from an atom to an eye requires a grouping of matter which is photosensative to a similar wavelength of light, so that the "entire piture" can be built.
b)if you plave lipids into a water solution, and agitate, there is a very high chance that a lipid bubble will form, based solely on the physical properties of the lipid molecule. The lipid molecules can be heated by EM radiation, in particular visable and ultraviolet light. If you shine a light source on a lipid bubble, it will move away form the light source. This is easily explain by the excitation of the molecules on the surface of the bubble closer to the light source, however, we now a a fairly clearly non-living thing which is photo-responsive.
c)it has been shown in people suffering from sun withdrawl (in places such as finland and Alaska, where the sun may not rise for months at a time) respond better to UV-producing blubs attached to the backs of their knees than to UV light shone on their faces.
d)Vitamin D is produced by our skin in responce to photonic activity w/in a certain wavelength range. Our skin is, therefore, photo-sensitive and photo-reactive.
2)in refernece to sex/pleasure
a)chickens will sit on golfballs, which are similar in shape, size and color to eggs. There is no benifit in sitting on golf balls when it comes to reproduction, so if there were a consious nature to the universe, I would expect such useless behavior to not occur. If the chicken recieves pleasure from sitting on the golfball, I could easily see it happeneing. It have been shown that the smae areas of the brain activated during the act of mating is also triggered when a female chicken sits on an egg.
b)wolfs copulate for a while, and then the male's penis becomes so enlarged that he cannot siwth draw for up to 30 minutes. I'd say that the "average time for copulation" of 8 seconds is being thrown off by the sheer number of baterial and insect species. There are more insect species then there are species of every other more complex organism on the planet. and insects utilize external fertilisation, so even if there is a pleasure involved with reproduction, it does not help production to stay sexually transfixed. In the wolf population, the 30 hour stuck-together period will prevent another male from displacing the sperm of the current reproducing male. Same deal w/ people humping for 3-10 hours at a time. The longer a man can sexually last, the longer his sperm have to reach the female's ovum.
c)why do people and animals have sex more often than is needed for reproduction. because of the same thing that makes people and animals want to reproduce in the first place- pleasure. you, over millions of years, evolve a more and more profound sense of pleasure while reproducing. over time, you also develop a social structure which allows more and more time for copulation. if you don't have to stop, and you get a whole lot of pleasure out of it, why stop at all? If sexual pleasure has become more pronouced through evolution, then the act of sex will generally occur more often. those who like sex tend to have it more often, and tend to reproduce better

and on a sort of side-note:
you have two elephants. one of them has a gene mutation which slows aging, and lives to be 200 years old. But during that time period, it never reproduces (for what ever reason, it's ugly, it's in a zoo, whatever). Another elephant has a mutation which makes it a sex fiend. It is ready to have sex at the drop of a hat. It however only lives to be 2 years old, so it only sires one offspring.
Which of these two elephants was more successful? from an individual standpoint, the 200-year old lived the longest. From a species standpoint, the 2 year old was the only one which passe don it's genes. So it's the more successful one.
What happens if the offspring of the 2 year old never reproduces, because the females don't like ebing hit on so much? The original 2-year old was still just as successfull (he produced one ofspring), however, his genetic mutation was not (his genetic mutation only survived one egeration beyond him).
There are so many factors which play into evolution and the survival of a given gene, that you can't really say "*this* is what caused sight" or "*this* is what cause the extinction of the blue footed big ape". it's a whole crapload of stuff, which, at times, will come together to form a new pattern which can be amazing.

I recommend reding up on Chaos theory to really get a handle on the slow and explosive nature of the combined effects of selective reproduction and random mutation.
in particular is the string and button idea- take 100 buttons, and lay them on the floor. none of them are currently connected. then tie two of them (selected randomly) together with a string. you now have one string, 100 buttons, and one connection linking two buttons. tie two more buttons together randomly. you have now either (100 buttons, 2 strings, and 2 connected buttons - if you happen to pick the same two again), (100 buttons, 2 strings, and 3 connected buttons - if one button is the same), or (100 buttons, 2 strings, and 4 connected buttons -if none of the buttons are the same.)
continue this process, and graph out the number of buttons each button is connected to (directly and then subsequently, in a generational method - c1, c2, c3, c4 levels), and you get, most oft he time, a slow progression. Then suddenly, over the course of adding two or three strings, the number explodes! you get most of the buttons connected to most of the other buttons in the group fairly suddenly, as groups of connected buttons are suddenly connected to each other. These are the steps, IMO, which took us from .0000% to .00001% sight.
It's an idea that happens all around us in nature all the time, but we rarely notice it. Even within slow systems, their can be (and usually are) instances where things come together just right, and you see a huge jump ahead.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I do not know if there is a God. I do not know if the God Gametes theory is correct. But I do know that you can not get a new genetic function by the random assortment of DNA. It is a statistical impossibility.

Nope yes you can it not impossible at all it happens all the time.
here a very commonly quoted example:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

 

[river-wind]

Originally posted by Robert Jameson
I am an amateur scientist. I have tried many times to develop my concept as part of an academic thesis but have always been shown the door. My book was written without the resources many have enjoyed who work on university campus. It was also written without the benefit of any government or university funding. So I do not know what you mean by “peer” review. The scientific establishment can say what they like about it. I do not give a damn. [/B]

by peer review, he means that it has to stand up to the analysis of other scientics. Usually this is done by publishing in a scientific journal, and then allow others to try and debunk the theory. if it gets debunked, then it is gone. if it survives, then it becomes part of the common culture as is accepted as "fact" (even though it's still really only just a theory which has stood up to critisism for a while)


While lacking access to university supplies makes things harder, it does not make them impossible. there have been many historical cases where huge advances in scientific theory were dreampt up by people not working in a Uni lab. Like Einstien.

You seem to be a very inteligent person, and you have alot of the science you talk about down. But keep reading, there's always something new to learn.

 

[andy1033]

from what i understand nature has hard wired in our brain, just the fundamentals to survive. we can only speculate what info babies are born with, but hey as we know in time man will conquer this question, and man will install what they think what info a baby should be born with.
i have thought about this question to, and i think we would be surprised if we knew what info nature hands to us at birth.

remember man will conquar this question, and will install whatever they want into the brain. remember with this question, you are taking for granted that human babies will be born in the same way forever. what the governments will not tell you is the ideas on this subject because it realy does not matter to you or i. but do not be surprised if the ways that humans give birth will change in the not to distant future. remember i am talking about centuries here.

it is really upto the main government which is the american government now, as to what our future will be like, and how we live our lifes.

like i have plenty of ideas on this subject like many of you, but the people that count are the people in power, and remember they are only after the interests of there own back yard.