|
|
| Page 4 of 5 |
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24655
Location: Your Mom
|
 Posted: Thu, 9th Dec 2010 19:33 Post subject: |
|
 |
| iconized wrote: | | Isn't evolution a biological phenomena of the survival of the fittest, so the strongest specimen pass on their genes(simplified)? In our modern times it is the weak who have the highest fertility rate. |
You have to scale evolution with the complexity of the organism. A flamingo at some point got a beak (tool) that gave it better chance of finding food. Humans got bigger and bigger brains (tool) to the point where it was no longer about who had the strongest muscles or could run away from predators faster than others. Since the human brain is a result of evolution, any tools and technology developed with our evolved brain is all part of evolution. And how do you count fertility rates? Planned/limited births is a norm in the west even though we could probably produce six-ten times as many babies biologically.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Dec 2010 19:41 Post subject: |
|
|
Survival of teh fitest is part of evolution but evolution is not survival of teh fittest, It's an adaptation to a new niche or new environment. Since we populated the entire surface of our planet, not many niches are left to adapt for. Like Frant states, teh human organism is also extremely complex, not some fish species "growing" legs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Dec 2010 19:44 Post subject: |
|
|
I think I left out few steps in my reasoning but IMO evolution is purely biological. The development of technology was made possible by evolution but is not a part of evolution. Technology allowed us to fight diseases. People with genetic diseases who would have died in the old days can now pass on their genes. The whole principle of survival of the fittest has been cancelled. In the west successful people have a lower fertility rate than the social under classes. Maybe people will find this discriminatory but successful people often have better genes.
Formerly known as iconized
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Dec 2010 20:03 Post subject: |
|
|
| iconized wrote: | | I think I left out few steps in my reasoning but IMO evolution is purely biological. The development of technology was made possible by evolution but is not a part of evolution. Technology allowed us to fight diseases. People with genetic diseases who would have died in the old days can now pass on their genes. The whole principle of survival of the fittest has been cancelled. In the west successful people have a lower fertility rate than the social under classes. Maybe people will find this discriminatory but successful people often have better genes. |
Evolution is partly biological, partly behavioural, and partly genetical.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rofl_Mao
Posts: 3187
Location: Nederland
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Dec 2010 20:19 Post subject: |
|
|
| ixigia wrote: | A bit of sad lulz
 |
Sadly I think that's more or less the truth. I pity the poor animals that are born to be "processed" in factory farming. 
I don't want to eat that shit no more. Somehow that gives me some kind of clean feeling, like I'm keeping my soul clean. I think church is a load of BS, but treating living creatures with respect just feels right to me 
| Lopin18 wrote: | I think you played too much Fallout 3, Pedo Perk acquired.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Dec 2010 20:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| fisk wrote: | | iconized wrote: | | I think I left out few steps in my reasoning but IMO evolution is purely biological. The development of technology was made possible by evolution but is not a part of evolution. Technology allowed us to fight diseases. People with genetic diseases who would have died in the old days can now pass on their genes. The whole principle of survival of the fittest has been cancelled. In the west successful people have a lower fertility rate than the social under classes. Maybe people will find this discriminatory but successful people often have better genes. |
Evolution is partly biological, partly behavioural, and partly genetical. |
Biology has many branches, both behaviour and genetics can be seen as a biology branch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology#Branches_of_biology
The human species is still evolving but not necessarily in a useful manner. For example teen age girls in the west start menstruating at an increasing younger age, you can wonder what causes that and can we call it evolution?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24655
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Dec 2010 22:37 Post subject: |
|
|
| iconized wrote: | | fisk wrote: | | iconized wrote: | | I think I left out few steps in my reasoning but IMO evolution is purely biological. The development of technology was made possible by evolution but is not a part of evolution. Technology allowed us to fight diseases. People with genetic diseases who would have died in the old days can now pass on their genes. The whole principle of survival of the fittest has been cancelled. In the west successful people have a lower fertility rate than the social under classes. Maybe people will find this discriminatory but successful people often have better genes. |
Evolution is partly biological, partly behavioural, and partly genetical. |
Biology has many branches, both behaviour and genetics can be seen as a biology branch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology#Branches_of_biology
The human species is still evolving but not necessarily in a useful manner. For example teen age girls in the west start menstruating at an increasing younger age, you can wonder what causes that and can we call it evolution? |
Evolution is almost infinitely complex and in short time periods it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions about any widespread changes. The human organism has evolved into a highly adaptable organism that can survive in a multitude of environments, situations and instances. Our adaptability (both physical and mental) is a result of evolution and the reason we're #1 on the food chain. I guess we differ on definition (what is included in the term evolution, direct biological changes or also indirect changes and developments coming from the biological changes?).
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Dec 2010 22:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| iconized wrote: | | I think I left out few steps in my reasoning but IMO evolution is purely biological. The development of technology was made possible by evolution but is not a part of evolution. Technology allowed us to fight diseases. People with genetic diseases who would have died in the old days can now pass on their genes. The whole principle of survival of the fittest has been cancelled. In the west successful people have a lower fertility rate than the social under classes. Maybe people will find this discriminatory but successful people often have better genes. |
Oh yeah, what you describe is a well recognised (albeit controversial) phenomena in scientific circles.
I referred to it as a 'progressive terminal increase in excess recessive homozygosity at primary sociobiologic phenotype loci due to genetic drift', in my thesis. I covered it in detail actually, which is one of the reasons it still hasn't been published properly.
A now strictly institutional meta-analysis performed in 2006 concluded that if the current reproductive trends continue without intervention; in 500 years the average global IQ will have dropped by 40 points, referring to comparatively non-normative IQ tests of course. Thus the majority of the population will be what we currently consider mildly mentally retarded, but with relatively high adaptive functioning.
A film came out partially based on said study called 'Idiocracy', where an average guy travels 500 years into the future and finds himself the most intelligent human alive. Not sure if it's any good though. 
"Techniclly speaking, Beta-Manboi didnt inject Burberry_Massi with Benz, he injected him with liquid that had air bubbles in it, which caused benz." - House M.D
"Faith without logic is the same as knowledge without understanding; meaningless"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Dec 2010 23:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | iconized wrote: | | fisk wrote: |
Evolution is partly biological, partly behavioural, and partly genetical. |
Biology has many branches, both behaviour and genetics can be seen as a biology branch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology#Branches_of_biology
The human species is still evolving but not necessarily in a useful manner. For example teen age girls in the west start menstruating at an increasing younger age, you can wonder what causes that and can we call it evolution? |
Evolution is almost infinitely complex and in short time periods it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions about any widespread changes. The human organism has evolved into a highly adaptable organism that can survive in a multitude of environments, situations and instances. Our adaptability (both physical and mental) is a result of evolution and the reason we're #1 on the food chain. I guess we differ on definition (what is included in the term evolution, direct biological changes or also indirect changes and developments coming from the biological changes?). |
Well scientifically the term evolution is used to refer to a progressive change in a populations genetic compliment from generation to generation as a result of natural selection/genetic drift. The capacity to build tools is an evolutionary development, the tools themselves are not. Try and make the distinction that although adaptation can result from evolution, they are not the same thing. The process of evolution is not always a wholly beneficial one, the current trend of human evolution is an example of that.
"Techniclly speaking, Beta-Manboi didnt inject Burberry_Massi with Benz, he injected him with liquid that had air bubbles in it, which caused benz." - House M.D
"Faith without logic is the same as knowledge without understanding; meaningless"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24655
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 01:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | | Frant wrote: | | iconized wrote: |
Biology has many branches, both behaviour and genetics can be seen as a biology branch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology#Branches_of_biology
The human species is still evolving but not necessarily in a useful manner. For example teen age girls in the west start menstruating at an increasing younger age, you can wonder what causes that and can we call it evolution? |
Evolution is almost infinitely complex and in short time periods it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions about any widespread changes. The human organism has evolved into a highly adaptable organism that can survive in a multitude of environments, situations and instances. Our adaptability (both physical and mental) is a result of evolution and the reason we're #1 on the food chain. I guess we differ on definition (what is included in the term evolution, direct biological changes or also indirect changes and developments coming from the biological changes?). |
Well scientifically the term evolution is used to refer to a progressive change in a populations genetic compliment from generation to generation as a result of natural selection/genetic drift. The capacity to build tools is an evolutionary development, the tools themselves are not. Try and make the distinction that although adaptation can result from evolution, they are not the same thing. The process of evolution is not always a wholly beneficial one, the current trend of human evolution is an example of that. |
Evolution is pure pragmatism and doesn't "care" one way or another, it's simply a function based on among other things genetic mutation (which you obviously know, I'm just clarifying that I know it even though I'm no expert). So I understand what you're saying.
I think what someone tried to convey was that we've left the "natural evolution" by taking control of our own biology and conforming the nature to our needs, thus slowing down our own evolution to some extent. I don't know if I agree but I understand the argument.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13522
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 01:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Nalo on Wed, 3rd Jul 2024 06:59; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 02:15 Post subject: |
|
|
Technology does definatly have an impact - But not for the good IMO. Because of modern medicine the species as a whole isn't really moving in a better direction when it comes to our biology. More and more people are procreating that would have died or been less successful in the olden days. So technology is -definatly impacting our evolution - But instead of what I would consider 'positive' evolution, it is actually working against us and making our gene pool weaker across the board. Be it teeth, vision, disease.. We definatly aren't in anywhere near as good as physical shape as our ancestors were. On top of that we are making killer bacteria strains stronger with our ever increasing technology to kill them.
And again, suggesting that humans didn't evolve to eat a diet of meat is not correct. In fact, there is far more evidence suggesting that humans ate a diet primarily consisting of meat back in the caveman days. You'll find most estimates place meat being 65-75% of a humans daily diet back then. And look at what happens in Humans when one has a large amount of protein consumption. You get larger muscles, and generally tend to be stronger. While we can now get enough protein from plants and other things these days - This just wasn't possible without a large amount of meat consumption even 50 years ago. All I know is that Bruce Lee's diet was largely a meat diet. He even made protein shakes by blending raw meat. That dude was healthy as fuck, and strong as fuck. He sure as shit knew what he was doing.
Again, these days you can get what you need in your daily diet without eating meat. Totally agree on that. To suggest that the human body 'was not made for meat' really is just not correct though. For tens of thousands of years we required meat, and we ate a lot of it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bxrdj
Posts: 1469
Location: Far from Home
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zipfero
Posts: 8938
Location: White Shaft
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 09:41 Post subject: |
|
|
| zipfero wrote: | | ixigia wrote: | A bit of sad lulz
|
<3 hamburgers |
But they didn't cooked the meat 
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Waargh
Posts: 6997
Location: hell on earth
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 15:30 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | Technology does definatly have an impact - But not for the good IMO. Because of modern medicine the species as a whole isn't really moving in a better direction when it comes to our biology. More and more people are procreating that would have died or been less successful in the olden days. So technology is -definatly impacting our evolution - But instead of what I would consider 'positive' evolution, it is actually working against us and making our gene pool weaker across the board. Be it teeth, vision, disease.. We definatly aren't in anywhere near as good as physical shape as our ancestors were. On top of that we are making killer bacteria strains stronger with our ever increasing technology to kill them.
|
Give it a few decades and the issue of genetic deterioration will become less and less of an issue once we master genetic engineering. And as far as physical attributes go... you'd have to go way back in time to find any significant differences, it's just that being in prime condition isn't a factor in survival anymore. Life expectancy is far more important anyway, and has increased drastically in a relatively short amount of time - and will continue to do so.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 18:01 Post subject: |
|
|
fuck diz thread
im going to eat some steak right now 
>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ♪ Viva La Vida ♪ <<<<<< <<<<< <<<<<< <<<
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 19:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| inz wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | Technology does definatly have an impact - But not for the good IMO. Because of modern medicine the species as a whole isn't really moving in a better direction when it comes to our biology. More and more people are procreating that would have died or been less successful in the olden days. So technology is -definatly impacting our evolution - But instead of what I would consider 'positive' evolution, it is actually working against us and making our gene pool weaker across the board. Be it teeth, vision, disease.. We definatly aren't in anywhere near as good as physical shape as our ancestors were. On top of that we are making killer bacteria strains stronger with our ever increasing technology to kill them.
|
Give it a few decades and the issue of genetic deterioration will become less and less of an issue once we master genetic engineering. And as far as physical attributes go... you'd have to go way back in time to find any significant differences, it's just that being in prime condition isn't a factor in survival anymore. Life expectancy is far more important anyway, and has increased drastically in a relatively short amount of time - and will continue to do so. |
Absolutely, genetic modification will be the saviour of mankind. But the limitation isn't a need to master genetic engineering, it's all the bullshit ethical regulations and moral objections that severely limit the freedom of modern geneticists.
Being one myself ( specialisation in viral engineering and gene therapy) I know just how many bureaucratic hoops one has to jump through just to do a bit of transgenics on rats for fucks sake. The worst part is that all this legislation is thought up by individuals who have absolutely no knowledge of the science itself, it's fucking bullshit I tell you!
Which is why my ongoing private experiment into viral vector refinement would actually be considered unethical and likely be grounds for dismissal from the lab I work in. If I actually declared the details of the experiment in it's entirety of course...
For biotechnology to truly advance it takes immoral assholes like me who are willing to ignore some of the dogmatic restrictions. It's been this way in science forever. But I would like to mention that the UK has some of least restrictive ethical regulations out of all the countries with the technology to actually push boundaries. BONUS!
"Techniclly speaking, Beta-Manboi didnt inject Burberry_Massi with Benz, he injected him with liquid that had air bubbles in it, which caused benz." - House M.D
"Faith without logic is the same as knowledge without understanding; meaningless"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 19:43 Post subject: |
|
|
Just thought i'd add my 2 cents to the original topic. Back to the comparisons of plant eating animals vs meat eating animals:
herbivores have eyes on the sides of their head. Allowing them to see predators (and run from them)
carnivores have eyes in front of their head. Allowing them depth perception for hunting prey
Humans have eyes in front of their head.
Herbivores have bacteria in their GI tract that allows the digestion of cellulose which is the cell walls of plants. (The bacteria produce an enzyme which breaks cellulose down)
carnivores do not
Humans do not. (The E.coli in our digestive systems produce/extract a lot of our electrolytes, however)
As far as an evolutionary standpoint, do you ever "smell" when someone is cooking steak, hamburgers, etc and it makes you hungry? That smell which elicits a reaction of hunger is part of evolution. Our ancestors who survived 1000's of years ago in africa learned to "be hungry" when they smelled cooked flesh. Thus, they were able to consume a large amount of calories in a "small" meal (when compared to a similar calorie value of plants). And in turn, they survived and procreated where others did not. We humans are geared up to eat both meat and veggies...and a diet of only one or the other isn't advised either.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 19:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| Cyberia309 wrote: | Just thought i'd add my 2 cents to the original topic. Back to the comparisons of plant eating animals vs meat eating animals:
herbivores have eyes on the sides of their head. Allowing them to see predators (and run from them)
carnivores have eyes in front of their head. Allowing them depth perception for hunting prey
Humans have eyes in front of their head.
Herbivores have bacteria in their GI tract that allows the digestion of cellulose which is the cell walls of plants. (The bacteria produce an enzyme which breaks cellulose down)
carnivores do not
Humans do not. (The E.coli in our digestive systems produce/extract a lot of our electrolytes, however)
As far as an evolutionary standpoint, do you ever "smell" when someone is cooking steak, hamburgers, etc and it makes you hungry? That smell which elicits a reaction of hunger is part of evolution. Our ancestors who survived 1000's of years ago in africa learned to "be hungry" when they smelled cooked flesh. Thus, they were able to consume a large amount of calories in a "small" meal (when compared to a similar calorie value of plants). And in turn, they survived and procreated where others did not. We humans are geared up to eat both meat and veggies...and a diet of only one or the other isn't advised either. |
All good points; as for the statement about our lack of bacterial enzymes to catalyse the hydrolysis of cellulose, well we still have a vestige of such in the appendix. But obviously there is a reason it is degenerate, while our gall bladder is still fully functional (albeit not essential).
"Techniclly speaking, Beta-Manboi didnt inject Burberry_Massi with Benz, he injected him with liquid that had air bubbles in it, which caused benz." - House M.D
"Faith without logic is the same as knowledge without understanding; meaningless"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 20:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | | Cyberia309 wrote: | Just thought i'd add my 2 cents to the original topic. Back to the comparisons of plant eating animals vs meat eating animals:
herbivores have eyes on the sides of their head. Allowing them to see predators (and run from them)
carnivores have eyes in front of their head. Allowing them depth perception for hunting prey
Humans have eyes in front of their head.
Herbivores have bacteria in their GI tract that allows the digestion of cellulose which is the cell walls of plants. (The bacteria produce an enzyme which breaks cellulose down)
carnivores do not
Humans do not. (The E.coli in our digestive systems produce/extract a lot of our electrolytes, however)
As far as an evolutionary standpoint, do you ever "smell" when someone is cooking steak, hamburgers, etc and it makes you hungry? That smell which elicits a reaction of hunger is part of evolution. Our ancestors who survived 1000's of years ago in africa learned to "be hungry" when they smelled cooked flesh. Thus, they were able to consume a large amount of calories in a "small" meal (when compared to a similar calorie value of plants). And in turn, they survived and procreated where others did not. We humans are geared up to eat both meat and veggies...and a diet of only one or the other isn't advised either. |
All good points; as for the statement about our lack of bacterial enzymes to catalyse the hydrolysis of cellulose, well we still have a vestige of such in the appendix. But obviously there is a reason it is degenerate, while our gall bladder is still fully functional (albeit not essential). |
I thought gallbladder helps with digesting fat from food or sth like that. I know you can live without it (my dad got his removed because of gallbladder stones), but I thought it has some beneficial function (unlike appendix which is only there to inflame  )
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 21:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| dingo_d wrote: | | AnimalMother wrote: | | Cyberia309 wrote: | Just thought i'd add my 2 cents to the original topic. Back to the comparisons of plant eating animals vs meat eating animals:
herbivores have eyes on the sides of their head. Allowing them to see predators (and run from them)
carnivores have eyes in front of their head. Allowing them depth perception for hunting prey
Humans have eyes in front of their head.
Herbivores have bacteria in their GI tract that allows the digestion of cellulose which is the cell walls of plants. (The bacteria produce an enzyme which breaks cellulose down)
carnivores do not
Humans do not. (The E.coli in our digestive systems produce/extract a lot of our electrolytes, however)
As far as an evolutionary standpoint, do you ever "smell" when someone is cooking steak, hamburgers, etc and it makes you hungry? That smell which elicits a reaction of hunger is part of evolution. Our ancestors who survived 1000's of years ago in africa learned to "be hungry" when they smelled cooked flesh. Thus, they were able to consume a large amount of calories in a "small" meal (when compared to a similar calorie value of plants). And in turn, they survived and procreated where others did not. We humans are geared up to eat both meat and veggies...and a diet of only one or the other isn't advised either. |
All good points; as for the statement about our lack of bacterial enzymes to catalyse the hydrolysis of cellulose, well we still have a vestige of such in the appendix. But obviously there is a reason it is degenerate, while our gall bladder is still fully functional (albeit not essential). |
I thought gallbladder helps with digesting fat from food or sth like that. I know you can live without it (my dad got his removed because of gallbladder stones), but I thought it has some beneficial function (unlike appendix which is only there to inflame ) |
Gallbladder stores and concentrates bile which is made in your liver. You're right in that bile breaks down fat for digestion. You can live without your GB as your liver will just produce a constant "stream" of bile. And after you eat a fatty meal, you won't be able to digest all the fat and some will pass through you undigested. In that case, your stool will float..and it's called steatorrhea.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 21:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| Cyberia309 wrote: | | dingo_d wrote: | | AnimalMother wrote: |
All good points; as for the statement about our lack of bacterial enzymes to catalyse the hydrolysis of cellulose, well we still have a vestige of such in the appendix. But obviously there is a reason it is degenerate, while our gall bladder is still fully functional (albeit not essential). |
I thought gallbladder helps with digesting fat from food or sth like that. I know you can live without it (my dad got his removed because of gallbladder stones), but I thought it has some beneficial function (unlike appendix which is only there to inflame ) |
Gallbladder stores and concentrates bile which is made in your liver. You're right in that bile breaks down fat for digestion. You can live without your GB as your liver will just produce a constant "stream" of bile. And after you eat a fatty meal, you won't be able to digest all the fat and some will pass through you undigested. In that case, your stool will float..and it's called steatorrhea. |
Notice how I say our gallbladder is still fully functional...
Yep Cyberia, our gallbladder is also quite large relative to our gastrointestinal system. Back in pre-history guess what would essentially be the only source of fat in sufficient quantities that we would need a small reservoir in order to fully digest it before it passes through the body? You got it, lipidic animal tissue, you could simply call it meat though as we're talking about the same food source.
Accordingly, in herbivores it is either entirely absent or far less developed, though there are small amounts of fats in a herbivorous diet from nuts and seeds etc.
"Techniclly speaking, Beta-Manboi didnt inject Burberry_Massi with Benz, he injected him with liquid that had air bubbles in it, which caused benz." - House M.D
"Faith without logic is the same as knowledge without understanding; meaningless"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 22:25 Post subject: |
|
|
I wasn't disagreeing with your statement AM..just letting dingo know what the GB does..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 22:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | | Cyberia309 wrote: | | I wasn't disagreeing with your statement AM..just letting dingo know what the GB does.. |
Yeah I know, that first sentence was to dingo when he mentions "I thought it had some beneficial function" which of course it not something I made claim against. |
Oh I was referring to the non essential fact, I mean it's better to have it, than not, right?
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 22:51 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
