The costa rican moth caterpillar

Quote from Canute
Why? And what does 'superior' mean? You're entitled to hope, but you're not entitled to assume. In what way can one form of life be 'superior' to another?

My concept argues that all life has evolved for the purpose of producing a species (currently the human species) capable of hosting our consciousness. Our consciousness being the reproductive cell of a higher species. This is a radical concept but I am entitled to argue it and put it forward for critique. I get irritated in the extreme by those who do not recognise a property in consciousness that is not present in single cell organisms. If people do not want to place any value on humanity (or do not recognise a property in our human consciousness that is not present in bacteria) then that is their business. But let them speak for themselves and not the rest of us.
 
They are certainly a disadvantage when running, something extremely important for deer defence. Large antlers are only on the male and are far too cumbersome to be useful for fending off prey or help in a physical contest against rival deer.
Click to expand...
Robert, here we go again it seems. You are jumping to a few unfounded conclusions. As an aside, before I delve into my problems with the substance of the quote, I will point out an error in wording that should be corrected (in bold). I know what you mean, but it should be corrected anyways because not everyone will.

Deer do have large antlers, but also have large, muscular necks for supporting them. While running, they may catch on branches and things, but I don't think that it will hinder them to the point that they are a disadvantage. From my observation, bucks run just fine. I also disagree with the fact that you think antlers cannot be used to battle other deer, or predators. Would you want to mess with an adult deer that is running head down towards you? I certainly wouldn't. And, if it came down to it, I don't think a cougar or wolf would think it worth the risk of being punctured by those antlers either. There is also recent footage that shows male deer 'sparring' with eachother.
I collaborate with genes of many other species so can pass on good things to progeny, longer legs, sharper teeth, anything they’ll need to face tomorrow’s environment.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by, "collaborate with the genes of many other species"?
 
Originally posted by Idle Mind
Deer do have large antlers, but also have large, muscular necks for supporting them. While running, they may catch on branches and things, but I don't think that it will hinder them to the point that they are a disadvantage
Click to expand...
Well if we are talking about bull alaskan moose(I don't think we are but is that the point?) then the antlers ARE a disadvantage. They take alot of the bodies resources to grow and they are a strain on the neck because the moose doesn't have to hold them up year round, it grows them for the breeding season and after that they fall off. They definately don't assist the animals survival and do make life much harder, it is theorised that the giant prehistoric moose became extinct because its antlers started growing too big.
BUT I don't see the problem, the reason the antlers get so big is because the moose with the biggest antlers will win the fights, which is a pre-requisite for breeding, so the antlers are going to keep getting bigger over the generations.
Robert, there are bizarre facets of the animal kingdom that make one question the random nature of darwins theory, but this is not one of them.
 
Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
, it is theorised that the giant prehistoric moose became extinct because its antlers started growing too big.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the interesting comments. Here are some of my thoughts on this particular interesing subject (yes, Dr lou, i know that it isn't your theory, so I am not questioning you)

Strangely enough this would be an anti-darwinian theory. It would be strange to see antlers growing bigger in each succesive generation if bigger antlers meant lower reproductive succes. If I remember correctly this moose was quite a big fellow. Big animals have the tendency to go extinct more easily than moderate sized animals since big means that it is on the edge of the possible niche spectrum. A change in environment might suffice, or changes in predation, a virus that drove the species to the edge of possible population recovery and past it. Who knows? But it would be strange to assume the antlers did it, because they look big to us. That is a very superficial reason.
 
I agree that it doesn't seem too realistic because you would think that once the antlers became too big for some, the males with the smaller antlers would simply defeat the disabled mooses with the larger antlers.
But I can sort of see it.
The breeding habits of todays alaskan moose ensure that the antlers of the future generations will simply keep getting bigger. There needs to be a point where the antlers are simply too big to survive. Perhaps an entire generation came out that toppled over that limit. Their fathers antlers might have been getting on the heavy side but still effective weapons, their sons antlers could have been too heavy to do anything(I hope not, horrible way to die), another factor that assists the growth of the antlers is the amount of food the male has access too. If there were a season of plenty, a generation who's fathers had antlers nearly too big might just get antlers that are too big.
Still like I said, you would think there would have to be a couple of individuals with smaller antlers that could continue the line, but, over time, you never know.
 
Originally posted by Robert Jameson
My concept argues that all life has evolved for the purpose of producing a species (currently the human species) capable of hosting our consciousness. Our consciousness being the reproductive cell of a higher species. This is a radical concept but I am entitled to argue it and put it forward for critique. I get irritated in the extreme by those who do not recognise a property in consciousness that is not present in single cell organisms. If people do not want to place any value on humanity (or do not recognise a property in our human consciousness that is not present in bacteria) then that is their business. But let them speak for themselves and not the rest of us.
Click to expand...

This is probably the most absurdly anthropocentric paragraph I've ever read. Do you have a single piece of evidence for this lofty role you assign to humanity, or do you just miss God? Can you also explain the method by which you distinguish between what is conscious and what is not?
 
ugh:(
Thanks for the heads up canute...
I never did read roberts longer posts thoroughly, I assumed he had a theory trying to explain why nature was so genius(understandable), not "why humans are so great"(lame), this motive is what has lead to just about every religion out there. Needless to say it is an obvious byproduct of the humans unrivalled ego.
Trying to figure out why we suck so much compared to everything else would be a more valid project IMO.

Don't you see robert, you placing value on human conciousness doesn't make it valuable to the universe. Of course it seems valuable to us, we are the species in question, you have to imagine the perspective of other life forms or an unbiased observer.
When I personally do that, my "humans are a pruning procedure" theory seems to be obvious.
That is unless of course science has it downpat already and the universe is merely a line of random natural occurences and the history of earth's events inspiring strange convenient links in my mind is no more than me being a stupid human with no idea(not out of the question by a long shot).
These are the only 2 theories with logical indications in their favour in my not-so-humble opinion:cool:
 
Last edited:
Quotes form Idle Mind

before I delve into my problems with the substance of the quote, I will point out an error in wording that should be corrected (in bold). I know what you mean, but it should be corrected anyways because not everyone will.

Thanks for that Idle mind. I obviously meant “fending off predators”; not prey. I am currently doing a final read before having 500 copies of my book printed POD.

I concede that the deer’s can still run fast, its antlers can be useful for fending off predators (thanks) and are used in contests with rival deer. But as is pointed out in a later posts by Dr Lou Natic they have grown larger than their optimum size. A deer with horns like a bull would be able to run faster, fend off predators more easily and better contest with rival deer. If natural selection were driving evolution then this should be the optimum size for deer antlers. As Dr Lou pointed out; the genes for the optimum size antlers have always been there.

What do you mean by, "collaborate with the genes of many other species"?

In my ebook (God Gametes) I argue for an external gene pool (EGP). It probably sounds a little crazy but basically it is the source of all genes. So the costa rican moth can source the genes of a viper and the deer can make his antlers look like a tree.

I have used the word “collaborate” in this quote because in this section of my book I relate the God Gametes concept to how genes within our body collaborate. For example; a species that has teeth for chewing meet will also have a gut for digesting meet. So genes for making moths and deer (and vipers and trees) all have a common source and can work together to build greater complexity. Again it probably sounds a little crazy but there are too many holes in the Darwinian paradigm and hopefully my model answers some of the questions that survival of the fittest can not.

Quote from Dr Lou Natic

BUT I don't see the problem, the reason the antlers get so big is because the moose with the biggest antlers will win the fights, which is a pre-requisite for breeding, so the antlers are going to keep getting bigger over the generations.

Robert, there are bizarre facets of the animal kingdom that make one question the random nature of darwins theory, but this is not one of them.

You are assuming the moose with the biggest antlers will win the fight but I do not agree. Firstly they would drain the animals strength in both growing them and carrying them around. But more importantly they would be too heavy in a fight. Being heavy they would be too slow to manoeuvre and have less force for penetrating the body of rival moose.

But as you correctly point out there are many other bizarre facets of the animal kingdom that can not be explained by Darwinism so we should all be looking for a different model to explain the evolution of greater complexity.

Quote from Canute

Can you also explain the method by which you distinguish between what is conscious and what is not?

I say hello. If it answers back it is conscious.
 
Originally posted by Robert Jameson
You are assuming the moose with the biggest antlers will win the fight but I do not agree. Firstly they would drain the animals strength in both growing them and carrying them around. But more importantly they would be too heavy in a fight. Being heavy they would be too slow to manoeuvre and have less force for penetrating the body of rival moose
Click to expand...
No, I am mooching off Sir attenborough's research here(again) but 29 times out of 30 the moose with the larger horns will win. In the 1 out of 30 where the outcome is different an obscure mishap must have occurred.
They are not a hinderence in a fight. They are a hinderence for moving through woodlands, they ARE a pain in the neck and they do use alot of the bodies energy to grow, but in a fight the discomfort seems to leave the moose and they can flail them very well. Probably linked to adrenaline.
It is well known that the bigger the male's antlers the more breeding the male will do.

If I say hello and it answers back it is concious
Click to expand...
What if it says "aloha" or "meow" or "click" or "squeak" or what if it sonars a 3d image answer to your forehead but you don't have the physical capability to recieve it? Must something use the human's english dialect to be concious?
 
Originally posted by Robert Jameson
Quote from Canute

Can you also explain the method by which you distinguish between what is conscious and what is not?

I say hello. If it answers back it is conscious.
Click to expand...


I try to give people the benefit of the doubt (email discussions are a dicey business). However if you really mean this then you're completely off your rocker. Presumably my answering machine is conscious and anyone who doesn't speak English or American is not. I conclude that it's not a matter you've thought about before or you thought the question wasn't worth answering.
 
Dr Lou Natic

I will concede the antlers point with reservations. Maybe the guys with the big antlers are just better all round and can still win the fight even with the handicap of the extra weight? I really do not know. It just does not seem right to me?

Quote from Dr Lou

What if it says "aloha" or "meow" or "click" or "squeak" or what if it sonars a 3d image answer to your forehead but you don't have the physical capability to recieve it? Must something use the human's english dialect to be concious?

I hope you realise I was not being serious with that comment. I am not going to argue the point that humans are superior to bacteria. As I said in an earlier post; if people want to argue that point then go ahead. As long as they are talking for themselves then that is fine by me.
 
In that case I take back what I said. I didn't realise you were just expressing a personal belief. I thought you were saying your ideas were true.
 
But as is pointed out in a later posts by Dr Lou Natic they have grown larger than their optimum size.
Click to expand...
Dr Lou was talking about moose, not deer. It cannot be assumed that since something is true for one species, it is true for another. I completely disagree that the antlers of deer are past their optimum size.
 
Quote from Canute

In that case I take back what I said. I didn't realise you were just expressing a personal belief. I thought you were saying your ideas were true.

I do not know if it is true.

From Chapter 1 of God Gametes -:

God Gametes makes a distinction between what can be proven scientifically and what we can learn from observation yet not prove. Our theory, and much of Darwinism, are based on intuition and not proven fact. A theory cannot claim to be scientific unless it can be tested and supported experimentally.
God Gametes is simply putting forward a model that claims life on earth is part of a universal system. It takes what knowledge we have about life on this planet and the universe around us to then look at how well the evidence fits the model. By advancing a theory this way it is often possible to gain credibility for a model supported by scientific observation; and maybe discredit an alternative hypothesis that does not conform as well, to what we know to be true.
We need to recognise that some of the really big questions may never yield to scientific enquiry. It is hoped however that by postulating an idea and building models we can advance our knowledge of the living systems surrounding us, to get a better appreciation of “why we are here.”

Quote from Idle Mind

Dr Lou was talking about moose, not deer. It cannot be assumed that since something is true for one species, it is true for another. I completely disagree that the antlers of deer are past their optimum size.

Does it matter? I am not an expert on moose or deer but I do know that things like the peacock’s tail and antlers on (shall we say moose) grow to more than their optimum size. And even in an arms race where cheetahs get faster to catch gazelles, and gazelles get faster to avoid being eaten by cheetahs, there is no net benefit to either; (i.e. the Red Queen effect). So what is happening here. Enormous energy is going into producing elaborate displays, running faster, growing taller, etc., etc., with no benefit in terms of reproductive success. Does not that suggest there is a reason for greater complexity that can not be explained by Darwinism?
 
Originally posted by Robert Jameson
I am not an expert on moose or deer but I do know that things like the peacock’s tail and antlers on (shall we say moose) grow to more than their optimum size. And even in an arms race where cheetahs get faster to catch gazelles, and gazelles get faster to avoid being eaten by cheetahs, there is no net benefit to either; (i.e. the Red Queen effect). So what is happening here. Enormous energy is going into producing elaborate displays, running faster, growing taller, etc., etc., with no benefit in terms of reproductive success. Does not that suggest there is a reason for greater complexity that can not be explained by Darwinism?
Click to expand...

I am no supporter of neo-darwinism but you've got to be fairer than this. How do you know the peacocks' tail is beyond its optimum size? Is there some evidence? Is the human brain past its optimum size? What does the concept of 'optimum' mean in this context - optimum for the purpose you think is most important, optimum for reproductive success, optimum for running away from predators, optimum for camouflage, or etc etc. The concept of 'optimum' is a complex and contingent one. Are you suggesting that displays and the ability to run do not aid reproductive success? I'd guess that it's self-evident that they do to most people.

I do agree that alternative models can explain the evidence, and possibly even better than narrow Darwinian models, but it isn't good enough to just ignore the evidence.
 
edgar, I don't mean to be rude, but if you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, then could you please refrain from posting in this thread.
 
edgar,

Thank you, your statement basically brings the conversation back to where it started. I though have been busy (finals week) so I don't have any input as of yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top