[5butjam]

I don't want to join in, I'm most certainly not an expert or even remotely educated in the field of palaeontology! If the discussion towards physics, biology, chemistry or materials then I shall contribute!

[axe11154]

but jam
I thought I clearly stated this thread is ment for any odd ball theory you came up with
about any subject
you can post about any theory you have as long as you have scientific evidence in some form

[5butjam]

Meh', I don't have time to build a whole scientific argument I'm afraid, just validate and refute what you guys are talking about from my own personal knowledge when I have a study break!

[M0rd3kaI]

Well, my theory is that it was an enormous collective dinosaur fart that whipped all forms of life from the planet, until men finally emerged from the oceans and grew legs to crawl out.

I understand it might come as a shocker, but think about it for a minute, it makes perfect sense with the other theory - the Big Bang.

happy to contribute as always

Ah carebear, most people (myself included) don't fully understand the physics behind the 'Big Bang Theory' now correct it is a VERY tough one to get your mind around... I still believe that more than 2000+ year old stories of a nice sky dad that created everything in 7 days out of nothing...

I can discuss more deeply (to my understanding of course) the 'Big Bang Theory' but in the case of fairness, I'll continue on the dinosaur theories if that will continue instead of creating more think-work to catch up.

Oh and you putting it: "...until men finally emerged from the oceans and grew legs to crawl out." that is called evolution and in the past 100 years it has been PROVEN numerous times that nature can and will adapt fairly quickly, so the theory that little single celled organisms long ago (this is really... REALLY long ago 3,500 million years ago [that's 3,500,000,000 years]) evolved into more complex structures and eventually into bacteria, fungi, plankton and and and

(P.s. in 1953 a scientist by the name of Stanley miller carried out an experiment in a laboratory in the University of Chicago, USA in which he created an atmosphere that is (hypothetically) similar to the one scientist believe the world had at around 3,000 million years ago. After adding a specific mix of gasses, water and an electrical charge he left this 'chemical soup' and after a few days found that inside this soup were amino acids... he had just made life out of gasses, water and electricity. true Amino acids aren't complex multi celled organisms that we take for granted today, but it was exactly what evolution and natural selection is, 'you first need to crawl before you can walk')

And eventually animals etc came into working, more complex structures, more intelligent life (I'm really rude now, because taken the compensating factors... look at bacteria, so small, but can learn and adapt at more speed than we can study them) and and and...

I don't want to join in, I'm most certainly not an expert or even remotely educated in the field of palaeontology! If the discussion towards physics, biology, chemistry or materials then I shall contribute!

Either way, throw a topic in play, we'll spitball our ideas, theories, knowledge (if you want to call it that) and see what comes out of it.

Can't wait to physics though, I love it

And again Axe... I really enjoy this thread I like using my brain, I've been stagnating past few months.

{and 5butjam, throw something out there, we'll consider the possibilities and then come back to you with the answers

[axe11154]

while I know you wanted to stay on the dino theorys you went so much into evolution I thought it would be a good change

My theory is simple
OK, most drugs stimulate the mind and make us think in weird ways
well what if while monkeys were evolving we
experimented with I guess mushrooms
And this made the prehistoric people get ideas that they spread while high and ... they actually worked
I mean. its been proven that monkeys that have indulged in drugs that stimulate the mind solve problems faster then monkeys who are tempted by large amounts of food
So
could drugs actually help evolution?
and would this effect dogs?
I ask this because well... dogs are in fact 89% human or some what close to that.

[5butjam]

Evolution is caused by random mutations in the genetic sequence. To understand evolution you need to understand how natural selection works. Natural selection is essentially 'survival of the fittest' in which the most well adapted organisms in an ecosystem prosper. This organism is more likely to survive and reproduce so is more likely to pass on part of its genetic code and the successful alleles (alleles are where a gene is performed in a different manner, e.g. coding for green eyes or coding for blue eyes) to new generations.

Following on from this idea, evolution is where natural mutations in the DNA of an organism provide a competitive advantage over other organisms within its niche (this is the role an organism plays in the ecosystem, feeding habits and the like) and thus the genes are more likely to pass on. Therefore from all this we know that a USEFUL mutation will pass on to new generations.

Drugs, whilst affecting the mind do not affect evolution unless they contain mutagens, chemicals that increase the chance of mutating DNA. Drugs may have however INFLUENCED evolution by the way in which they have affected society (Primates evolution often involves increasing contributions to its community).

In short and basic terms, drugs do not directly cause evolution of organisms as they do not affect the DNA.

[5butjam]

Also, 89% human is not strictly true. Their DNA is 89% similar due to the present introns (Areas of the DNA that do not code for anything) and the similarity in the proteins (what DNA codes for) that they use for survival, e.g. digestive enzymes such as maltase (for breaking down maltose sugars into glucose).

[M0rd3kaI]

[Ok, let me give my best shot at this, this is all personal experience and basic understanding, so bear with me, this might be rough ]

Well, that of course does not count towards all drugs and narcotics, I mean no use in using Crystal meth . But lets take the results from the monkeys on drugs tests 'theoretically... or hypothetically' really makes no difference. Monkeys are animals... of course ... You can compare them to children with ADD/ ADHD (there is a distinct difference, I do not know what it is, therefore I list both just as example, if anyone knows, please let me know I'd love to know what the diff is. ) or even on a sugar rush, now you can't tell them to sit still, keep quiet and focus on the test at hand and tell them that if they get an answer right they'll get a toy, sweetie, food etc . So what will you have to do?? Calm them down at the root... i.e the brain, SO you give them enough dosage to calm them down enough to take the test. After that they return to their super hyper self OR they become addicts (I'm just throwing that in there as a joke, I know reading these long winded messages can become quite the pain without some sort of humour within )

Now results, does that prove without a shadow of a doubt (let's assume this test was carried out over hundreds of monkeys with the exact same results... making your theory 'perfect' in a sense) something my uncle said once that is SO true in marketing and science... it only needs to be proven in a lab to be classified as 'proof' so if you were to say that (example) marijuana actually makes a monkey concentrate more on a topic than without, that dosage has been manufactured for that specific monkey and his system, not to create a high, but just to calm him down and focus ~(something we take for granted, but I had many times where I just can't seem to read the question in an exam... reading the line over and over, getting to the 3rd word and forgetting about the 1st )~ on the test at hand, of course, even the slightest bit of focus you can have onto one thing the better you will do in it, so hundred monkeys, hundred dosages of hash and hundred confirmations that a certain dosage of marijuana can increase concentration in monkeys... general public throws it open and finally it becomes 'marijuana makes you focus' (not saying it is what happened and not blowing your theory down at all axe, as I said, bear with me) people use their own dosages, of course making them high and now any delusion that they see is their 'focus'... yeah right.

Ok, great, now that I have somewhat covered the theory, here comes my idea:

As mentioned before mother nature is a very sensitive b****... the smallest fuckup and her PMS gos overtime and before you know it everything's dying, so... keeping that in mind let's go this way.

Remember that little runt of the litter?? You remember that wittle puppy that looks so cute?? huh?? awwwwww, with his bent tail and discoloured eyes and what not?? oh dear you just want to keep him oh so close to your heart and snuggle wuggle wif him oh so long... yeah... don't do that... Mother nature likes to try to be perfect... (term natural selection ring a bell anyone?? not evolution.. well, not quite) in that term it states that the weakest of the group be killed, to prohibit that it's weak genes (Denim baby! ) get to go further than the tip of his disfunctional...tail, so in nature the runt of the litter will usually not get enough room to suckle on it's mothers tit (sorry, got a spellcheck at 'teet') and die of starvation... humans intervene and call this 'saving' God... if only they look at the bigger picture and not just their emotions... (-YA HEAR THAT YA HIPPIES!!! SCREW ALL OF YOU... into a wooden board... and set it alite...- -calm down M0, it's a theory, not an assault- -damn-)

That gazelle that was mauled down by the Leopards in Africa, that Deer that was suffocated by mountain lions, that poor whale taken down by Great Whit... OK WE GET IT! sheesh... ok, well he was basically coming to the end of his life, not only being killed to spare the species of his genes but also to feed the stronger party at that time

(Wait... this is back into evolution M0... I don't get what this all has to do with monkeys taking drugs = -BUT DON'T YOU SEE!?!?- -Calm down M0... Whoosaah, WHOOOSAAAH!

Now... Natural selection states that the strongest (natural) unit of a group move forward, the weakest (natural) member... does not (just a hint... look at government to see Natural selection IN ACTION!..... these are the characters that actually need to die) so technically IF you were to prove that (example) marijuana were to make you more focused, and that you will accomplish tasks better... why even bother if there is already someone that can do it without the use of the drug?? (-i.e Natural selection in my eyes rules that out...- -and we don't want Mother nature pissin' blood and killin' us all now do we- -no sir we do not...-)

If you have thoughts let me know, please improve wherever possible, ask if clarification is needed and as always, enjoy the read

P.s. Thanks goes out to Caveman for his 'schizophrinic behaviour' I thoroughly enjoyed using that technique, but I won't make it a habit

[M0rd3kaI]

Oh another thing I want to say in light of Jam's post and Axe's post... surprisingly a certain type of cow has the closest genetic profile to human beings.... orangutang... suck your feces...

[Edit: citation needed... might be false... don't flip out... I will ignore you]

[Rick69]

In response 5butjam... I slightly disagree (by the minutest of degree) with his idea.

Now, as far as "Natural Selection" and "survival of the fittest" and random genetic mutations in population which give them a selective advantage over others, thus they are more likely to survive and pass on their stronger (in relative comparison) genes to the following generations is the perfect, textbook definition answer (how am I certain? I have been drowned in this soup of knowledge for the last 2 goddamn years until it is permanently etched on to my brain... which they probably check when I'm asleep).

Anyways, up to that point, Butjam (still makes me shiver when I type that) and I are on the same page. Except... I believe drugs do affect evolution.

Here's how I see it; now, obviously, drugs do not physically literally affect DNA, thus they cannot affect evolution right? Well, in my perspective, not necessarily: you see, why would one use a drug? Many are illegal and have harmful consequences... so why bother? Maybe because they have grown a dependency on them... as now that either helps them stay healthy (at least mentally according to their imagination) or it has now become part of the body's regular cravings. Continuing this li'l theme, we will use the most common drug on Earth as an example: alcohol. Sure it's legal but it's dangerous & enslaves many & probably kill (ain't figures to back me up on this but I know alcohol kills... at least in huge numbers in Scotland.

So this seems it's straying a bit... nope. How about a more direct example: a few men are ill & they need a vital medicinal drug to ail themselves. Now some just get better with the strength of their immune system alone and BOOM... natural selection of evolution just plays out its course making all arguments invalid. But what about the other men; one's rich... he goes up and buy his drug to save himself. Maybe another is a thief... he steals it and lives. Heck, maybe the chemist just uses the drug on himself. But the fact is... all these men failed to fight illness naturally... yet they lived. Of these "cheaters of evolution (per se)" some will reproduce and continue their damaged/weaker-in-comparison-genes to the next generation and this generation of "slap Darwin in the face with wads of cash -ers" may continue this by any other method other than the natural one. BUT... this has to be wrong... the are producing offspring weaker than the natural "Darwin's-law-abiders" and they continue to reproduce anyway. Thus the vital drug goes ahead and screws up evolution shattering the "survival of the fittest" to "survival of whoever can get the drug first - wins - and get a special prize of continuing their weaker genes to be mocked in the future."

I.E. I would say drugs DO affect evolution and quite significantly... I'd go as far as to say drugs are one of the biggest setbacks to evolution.


And as far as the monkey business goes, check out the following links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-pc_M2q ... plpp_video (Good)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIAoJsS9 ... plpp_video (Even better/more interesting).