Evolution Almost Had Its Way With Me, Appendix...

 

 

And I am a caesarean, there’s two strikes against the evolution I love so much. It tried to select me out, but science selected me in. I shouldn't be here were it not for modern science pro-longing me. My genes might be faulty as far as appendix and womb-stay goes, but I don’t care, I have other attributes.

Last year my appendix was close to bursting, okay so it didn't burst (Which is when you really worry) but it did come close enough to worry. Like I said, were it not for modern medicine, I wouldn't be here. If I had not had it removed, I would have been poisoned.

As for the caesarean thing, well, I'm glad in that case for both my mother and me. I was two weeks overdue, they cut me out :) Here I am today, still kicking.

smebro smebro
22-25, M
7 Responses Jul 11, 2007

My response to your question about my stance on conservation: http://www.experienceproject.com/uw.php?e=39916 (not quite properly proof read, but as best as i can do at this time of night :P)

I was going to mention that. For all intents and purposes, the looping universe as the source of our universe is essentially unfalsifiable, and hence much like the teapot that orbits the sun :P

and the biggest problem with that looping universe idea is the same as the problem with religion, the loop would need to begin somewhere, and that would require a whole new fr<x>amework to work out the origin of the origin. Sky-hook; just as god comes from no-where, this loop would begin no-where. To be a true system it needs a beginning…but then again, where did evolution begin?

I've never read a sci-fi story with that idea, but would be interested to look it up if you can remember. I got the idea from a New Scientist article about scientists working at creating miniature bubble universes with hawking radiation (Or through some almost indescribable mechanism) and these small universes would apparently vanish even before readings could be taken. That and the obvious question as to why the universe seems 'set up' for life. Anyway, I take that as seriously as I do the simulation argument, just neat ideas to play with.<br />
Ah, but wildlife conservation is relevant, because you have demonstrated that you believe our intellects to be a direct result of, and part of, evolution. So are we to care for our lesser minded relatives? or should we focus on what this intellect is here for... a long lived species? I have the opinion that before we start worrying about turtles on islands that may go extinct, we should ensure that we're looking out for number one. That means setting up the whole of the human race as best as possible, and figuring out long term strategies that ensure our survival. I think the same thoughts in regards to the overblown global warming saga, the only reason I would worry about the earth going through climatic thrashes, is if it means trouble for our species. <br />
Because in the end, the worst that can come from us is another great extinction, and after each extinction is a flourish of variation amongst the animals of the earth. So no matter how much damage we do to the earths creatures, life will go on as long as this planet favours it, evolving through changing weather. So why should we try to help other species unless their absence will directly harm us, or if they offer something we cannot gain elsewhere (One could argue in favour of whales and dolphins, but probably not cheetah or tiger.) This will be pretty heartless to many people, but in the bigger picture it’s only realistic, and creatures will eventually fill an empty niche once again.<br />
I'm pretty flexible in this view, so let me know what you think.

Alas, I completely missed the wit behind your evolution reference. I must have been in a very literal fr<x>ame of mind (as I often am). I quite enjoy the idea of civilisation as the source of new universes model, which I first read about in an SF novel, the name and author of which I forget. :P And wildlife conservation???? Now there's a tangent!! Surely there's a better place for a response to that. Hmm, I shall have to think.

True...although flimsiness is subjective in regards to our niche which was, back when we were as chimp in mind, trees/grassland (No need for shells or horns there).<br />
My evolution reference was a joke; I think you probably knew that. Otherwise how would I even pause to consider universes that support life as an evolutionary model...a theory I've been pondering is that a universe that is set to the standards of intelligent life will inevitably create it, setting in motion societies of convergent development that eventually lead into sciences that...create new universes! See how that works, a loop of universes that support life because the creators based it on their own...this explains a lot, and the idea of converging societies is not too far-fetched, especially when adding memes to the mix. Certain memes might also be inevitable, leading every society to a point where it creates the new universe out of interest or perhaps something else. <br />
But If I were living 500 years ago, I surely wouldn’t be here, that being said, I wasn’t. So today, I enjoy the benefits of an evolving mind.<br />
Hey Tardy! What do you think about wildlife conservation? Important or no?

Well, it's good to have you with us, still! Also, I think you're misrepresenting evolution :P Part of evolution is behavioural adaptation, and human medicine is an obvious example of this which *directly* impacts on the organism's survivability in different circumstances and environments ie it is a selection advantage. It is just carried in memes, not genes! No purely genetic analysis could hope to explain the success of homo sapiens. We're a pretty flimsy species on the basis of physical phenotype alone.