Jump to content

Welcome to Phylogeny Explorer Project

Welcome to Phylogeny Explorer Project, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be apart of Phylogeny Explorer Project by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Last week
  3. Lee

    Nummulite Fossil

    I was inspired to sketch this up after watching AronRa interview Robert Schneiker on his analysis of the Sphinx and Gobekli Tepe. One viewer asked the question on whether there were fossils in the Sphinx. This is my rendition of a nummulite which i believe is the kind of fossil they were talking about. I used a photo on wikipedia as reference "Nummulite, Life and Rocks 1894. R A Lydekker"
  4. Earlier
  5. Thanks for update, Victor. Onwards and upwards goes science and learning and change.
  6. An update on the classification of catsharks. A new paper by Soares, Marcelo and de Carvalho has just been published examining the phylogeny of the 16 species in the genus Scyliorhinus. The paper looked at 84 morphological characters on specimens of the 16 Scyliorhinus species, 4 of the 18 Cephaloscyllium species, the 2 species of Poroderma, specimens of almost all the other scyliorhinid genera and 1 specimen of proscyliid (to use as the root of the cladogram). A strict consensus cladogram supported that the genera Scyliorhinus, Cephaloscyllium and Poroderma compose a monophyletic clade: Scyliorhininae. This brings a few changes to the 3 previously made classifications I had entered in the Phylogeny Explorer's tree. This new paper seems to instead support a similar yet slightly different classification of the three major scyliorhinid clades: Scyliorhinidae I: Apristurus, Asymbolus, Bythaelurus, Cephalurus, Figaro, Halaelurus, Haploblepharus, Holohalaelurus, Parmaturus, Schroederichthys Scyliorhinidae II: Atelomycterus, Aulohalaerus Scyliorhininae: Cephaloscyllium, Poroderma, Scyliorhinus Nothing is written on stone however, and this classification will likely further change in the future with new research. Additionally, this paper doesn't address the classification of Pseudotriakidae, Gogolia filewoodi and Pentachus profundicolus, which the Chondrichthyan Tree of Life (https://sharksrays.org/) built by Dr Gavin Naylor has nestled in between these three major Scyliorhinid clades, while also making Scyliorhinidae a paraphyletic clade. Considering this is by far the most diverse group of extant selachimorphs (sharks), keeping track of these phylogenetics papers is important to ensure the accuracy of our tree. Soares,_Marcelo_&_de_Carvalho_(2020)_Phylogenetic_Relationship_of_Catshark_Species_of_the_Genus_Scyliorhinus.pdf
  7. Dear Jesse. I am sorry this post has been left for so long. I am not an expert on insects, but I will share my thoughts and suggestions. I think this is a lacewing or related or similar family. It is very typical, including the wings and you might be amazed at the variety of lacewing. Take this one ( taken from the Treknature website gallery. A Thread-winged Lacewing (Nemoptera sinuata) also known as the Spoon-tailed Lacewing from the Lacewing (Neuroptera) family from Turkey. Given the quality and indistinctiveness, e.g. colour, shape, this might lead others to not bother putting the effort in to identify it as there are likely to be many species that fit, especially limited to the image/desription. There are many groups that may be willing or able to help, but if this seems a lot of trouble and you are considering the effort to benwfit, they might also be thinking the csame to locate the species, if that makes sense. And in order to narrow it down yourself, you could start with geographical location, then the colouration, size and shape. If you can then find a local list of species, this cmay help, too. It is always difficult to get a good clear picture of such rerlatively small living things without professional equipment and macro lenses. So, if you do this often orf again, even the addition of a 2 or 3x lens to put over you phone or on a camera (or move out and zoom in with a good high multiplication optical lens) this will help. There are probably mny new species that have been photographed, but do not get recognised or vattributed because of the quality or lack of information, which is a shme, but hopefully, ever better new technology will change this. The Phylogeny Explorer Project will be trying to collate a lot of detail on all species in order to help identify things and allow anyone without expertise to do so with search facilities. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, Jesse.
  8. Welcome to Phylogeny Explorer Project. Please feel free to look around and get to know the others. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.

  9. Welcome to Phylogeny Explorer Project. Please feel free to look around and get to know the others. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.

  10. There are certain customs, arguments or claims which seem to make sense, but you can’t quite put your finger on why or if it is true or false. And they can fool you, like an optical illusion. For me, the ontological argument for God (Anselm’s version) was one. Others include conversion experiences with a one-way (non-returnable) valve, Faith, God knows best, don’t test God, last one in the pool is a rotten egg, go and do X or I won’t be your friend anymore, don’t grass/tell on people (it’s just not done/an unwritten rule), countless logical fallacies, using emotion as a trump card in an argument. There are some things which have a down side but have a balanced up side to make it worthwhile. The early bird catches the worm. Study hard and get a wider choice of job. Have kids and give up on things to see the joy it brings. In fact there was a historical act of Sati (or Suttee), largely practised in India amongst Hindus which also presented (albeit potentially illusory) an upside to the downside, but the reward was in the life hereafter, which was not proven to exist in this life, although believed. This is where a (female – of course!) widow would sacrifice herself on the burning funeral pyre of her deceased husband. I don’t imagine even the nastiest of husband’s would ever be poisoned at dinner by his wife and in fact, his health would seem to be a pretty important part of her life, hoping she dies first. The day your husband dies, especially if he was a good man, would be all the more painful. The only other type of voluntary death, other than suicide, seems to also be amongst religious tradition or extremism. Beyond that, people would put themselves in harm’s way for the sake of others or make a self-sacrifice for the sake of other close relatives or friends. This is altruism. But an extreme form exists within several animal species. Matriphagy. White widow. No greater love. Theodicy. Some animal species make the ultimate sacrifice. This includes (certain) spiders, earwigs, pseudo-scorpions and (vertebrate) caecilians. In some spiders, females produce a liquid from their mouths from pre-digested food and/or eggs to feed their young for a few days. After gaining weight/size, a day after the spiderlings have moulted/shed their first exoskeleton, the mother instinctively goes through a process. She walks around the web, vibrating the thread and releasing new thread, which stimulates the spiderlings into coming to a prominent or central place on the web. The mother then comes and presses against the newly congregated mass of spiderlings who then make her their first victim and (by the process) they collectively and conveniently now have a clear understanding/lesson of how future victims/prey will be recognised and what they should do to entice and subdue it. They all start a frenzy and begin injecting venom into her, which she clearly finds painful and could run away from, but she doesn’t. Within minutes to a couple of hours, all her juices have been sucked out and her life empties into the stomachs of her offspring, leaving a shell. This is not exclusive to mothers. Virgin females will also sacrifice themselves in this way. Males often die soon after mating too or become victim of the mated partner. The spider species involved seem to have larger offspring with faster growth rates and so potentially preventing other options of offspring survival. This seems a horrible (but sadly not that rare a) branch of natural selection, resulting in such horrific (but evolutionarily logical) results and logic. Surely it would have been better for the mothers to have just said, ‘no way’ and died out as a species. I wonder if some form of, ‘coping with the suffering’ evolved too? What an amazing example of a species who’s males and females, mothers and virgin females give their all, solely for the propagation of the species and, seemingly nothing else. Unless someone perhaps knows of a budding arachnid Bach or Renoir, leaving behind a gift for the species to enjoy. I am reminded of other species that suffer because of things like parasites (e.g. eating into your eye and controlling your brain or eating you from the inside out). For those of you who are theists, atheists, moral objectivists, subjectivists, nihilists, free-willers or determinists, it’s not very nice to think about and varyingly easy to explain or justify. Sometimes, the truth hurts, whether you like or accept it or not. There is an extreme (theoretical at least) philosophical view that I have considered since long before I even knew what philosophy meant or was, although I have more recently found it to be a recognised and serious position. If I could press a button and instantly destroy (and make) all life on earth extinct, (without any suffering), I would do it. Even in my theistic life, no-one could convince me that an eternity in heaven could be good, and the everlasting part just made it worse or made me wonder if that was just phase 2 and something else might be planned (by God) for later, still leaving some option open for me having to make a choice or be forced to do something or go somewhere I didn’t want to go. Heaven was always a place I was not convinced that was consistent, unchangingly or perfect, and hell was, whilst bad, at least consistent. I do not mean to be dismissive or speak lightly of this, but these things did plague my mind. To me, heaven was never a motive for becoming or staying a Christian, though hell was a place that put fear in me long after I defected. The reason (for my quite extreme philosophical view) is subjective and I would be forcing my view and action on everyone in the process, therefore removing democracy and other people’s view or preferences. I basically don’t like suffering, for myself or others or anyone or any living thing that suffers or even could suffer (even potentially through evolution over billions of years), so I wanted to take control of the world in order to prevent ANYONE from ever suffering in any way, but particularly suffering heavily, which many will continue to do, even if it may not be YOU personally, but you and I represent everyone, including that person in a horrific state of suffering. To me, it is not a case of taking a chance, hoping I will be lucky. It is the experiential knowledge that many of us do suffer and some, terribly, some randomly and some predictably and no-one expects it for our child when we choose to create life. The worst type of human suffering probably includes torture (physical and emotional) but may not be limited to this. Accident, disease or illness are others. If I consider the most extreme possible example of a child or baby being tortured, (and take an is/ought type of position) then (for me) this cannot justify or be compensated by any amount of good, so cannot justify life in the first place IF such a bad incident could occur, and I suggest it can, has, does and will continue to do so. As no life equates to no pain or suffering or knowledge or a representative that exists to experience such, then not existing is not a bad thing, it just isn’t anything, so we don’t exist to ponder goodness or badness or weigh up the options. Put another way, if a person never existed to start with, s/he will never suffer or experience anything, good or otherwise, so will be none the wiser, can have no regrets or hopes or anything. S/he is in a neutral position. When I say s/he, s/he has never existed in the first place of course, so there is no person or mind to exist and consider or see in hindsight about the options. There are millions of potential sperm that will never see the light of day, have no regrets and (thankfully) never suffered. YOU can only experience and appreciate good things because you exist and are here. And if a 100% suffering-free life were guaranteed, I still see no benefit (perhaps other than a selfish one) to having children, given the option (non-existence). As there is no such mechanism to destroy the earth, certainly without suffering anyway, then I have to constrain my ideology to the life that exists now. From today, anyone alive will be dead in 120 or so years (less or plus any medical advancements in restricting or developing the ageing process). So my current theory is to stop all human pregnancy and so force the extinction of humankind by about 2100-2150, when people will be too old to reproduce anymore and die off naturally. This would be problematic in the detail, e.g. providing for the latter few years with food, medicine, warmth without electricity or gas etc. unless euthanasia options were on hand, which, under the impending circumstances, might have been considered and be available. Sadly, I need universal consensus, the law and no exceptions to implement this, which is unlikely. It also doesn’t stop the suffering and future evolution of the rest of life on earth. So, my theory seems exactly that – theoretical and not very practical. I would also add that I am very lazy and hypocritical. Whilst I have been both a vegetarian and a vegan before, I am currently largely a carnivore, but (theoretically) hold a vegan position, I’m just not committed (yet) to indulge myself. Do as I say, not as I do. Addendum. This may be better placed in the Forums under philosophy, so I may copy it there, too. This is a blog experiment and is for thought consideration. It is entirely theoretical, impossible to come true or be placed in anyone’s hands and it is open to challenge and if at any time the prospect loomed, I am sure I would have second thoughts or want a lot more feedback on the position to assert or reject/override my viewpoint. Further, I have presented the reasons behind it, but would like to add one more which is rather like the philosophical trolley problem. This is what I think I would like to be dealt with if I am to consider my position again: Imagine you were offered a drug to put you in an extremely high sense of pleasure. The condition is that someone will have a similar opposite sense of displeasure or suffering. Would you trade this? Would you trade it for a moderate amount of suffering in someone? Or if the person was a member of your family? Where would one draw the line? There are many selfish people in the world who probably would; probably because they don’t know the suffering person. Which is why I opt to remove democracy from them at least, for the sake of the suffering. It is no less painful for a suffering person, whether it is someone you know or not. It is only our subjective indifference to an anonymous person that drives us to ignore or mitigate their suffering. My position is that (to reflect reality) we should consider ultimate suffering and to the closest of our loved ones, though I go much further and would justify the slightest amount of suffering for the smallest amount of time to even one person as not worth coming into existence, even if life were otherwise virtually perfect. If you were to have the power to create intelligent life, and knew that all types of suffering (including extreme) would be a part of the result, albeit mixed with varying highs, would you go ahead? Try to put yourself in the position of the many who will be less fortunate and suffer, particularly in an extreme way. Few of us experience extremes on either side, but if (and as) we know that many will suffer badly, many being children and babies, is it not selfish and a horrific risk to self AND others, to justify such creation, be it creating life to start with or pro-creating? I have children myself, which makes me selfish and perhaps hypocritical. If we simply prevent further pro-creation, we are not disappointing or failing anyone, because there is no-one that exists to be disappointed (or thankful that they were not brought into existence to potentially suffer). Put in one sentence, would you allow yourself or a member of your family or your own child to suffer horrifically in exchange for others existing and having pleasure? To jump to any other statement (like destroying the world or banning human reproduction) without seriously considering the reasoning and alternative implications is not to understand or do the argument justice. The argument may seem an atheistic one, but for many believers, to have no children is to guarantee that they will not be creating the possibility of another soul going to hell (or heaven), but I appreciate there are other theistic considerations involved here. If a person’s house is destroyed, (say in a storm or fire with all the memories, souvenirs, photos and things of material value) there are feelings and emotions in the minds of existent people who may witness this and be sad at its demise. If there is no intelligent mind or creature (left) in existence (when a house is destroyed), there is no regret or sorrow or happiness. There is neutrality. No pain or suffering or joy or happiness or morality. Just nothing. Without or at the end of existence, suffering ends and no longer exists. No-one exists to experience or miss anything good. This position is undemocratic and if I had the power to press such buttons, this is a one-man dictatorship of the most extreme kind. It will never happen. Remember that I am just theorizing and may have more thinking to do on it. I would probably be better devoting my time/life to convincing people of this. If 12 thugs want to beat a child up and will take tremendous pleasure in it, is this a democratic or utilitarian decision? Would you, if you had the power, subjectively be willing to override their choice/pleasure and prevent this from occurring in order to save one person’s suffering? Democracy is all well and good when it coincides with our view. For me, it is the majority of the world who do not yet comprehend the reality of the suffering problem and how their selfishness allows it, that makes me want to take the control away from them. The world is not as overt as the thugs in the example, but for those innocent people suffering, they don’t care about where the pain comes from, they just want it gone. I think most people are selfish and do not consider the extreme suffering or want to take a chance that it won’t be them or their family. But I am taking the position that everyone is equally valued and the one suffering baby represents each of us or our own child(ren). For you to be selfish and take a chance (like the Covid-19 situation of isolation) affects everyone, not just you. In the virus situation, I believe people should, if need be, be forced into situations, e.g. of isolation (thus violating their human rights) in order to prevent them from potentially infecting others – a greater right. No amount of joy in all the people of the world is more important than (or worth or justifies) the terrible suffering of just one person. I am suggesting that one pain-free solution is to stop pro-creating (as impractical as this is, I’m just arguing theoretically to support my position and reasoning). I am simply arguing that this neutral, not existent position is superior to any world where suffering exists (and/or can’t be guaranteed to stop) and I would be happy to be convinced otherwise, if it makes sense to me. Any reasoned response is welcome. No arguing or attacks, just show the flaws in the position and what the alternatives are and it will be considered. Remember that destroying the world in any way that causes suffering, is not my position, and given that there is no way of doing this, I do not hold the position of destroying the world. I feel that stopping pro-creation in humans is only a short term, temporary solution to suffering and recognise that it does not stop other species’ suffering or evolving into more intelligent and suffering species. This is why I would prefer the theoretical, ‘destroy all life on earth instantly without suffering’ option, as impractical as this would ever be. The crux of the issue that needs to be understood and may not be fully appreciated are: · To recognise that to not exist has no input or choice or regret. Only those living can determine worth. · That for a single baby that is horrifically suffering, (and we must acknowledge that this is highly likely happening and will happen if we continue as we are and there is no way of stopping it) is not worth (in exchange) all the joys for all the people of the world, and if we come to a point where no people even exist to weigh this option up, it’s a no-brainer. This is not a suicide view. For those already living, life could or should continue. It is more a decision about the unborn, those who do not or yet live. They don’t exist/are not alive to experience or choose or appreciate life (so, ‘they’ are not missing out as there is no-one that is missing out – so this is a neutral point at worst), but life has been prevented from experiencing suffering, ever, which is good. There is a philosopher who follows some of this viewpoint (antinatalism and the asymmetry argument) called David Benatar. Check him out. Popular youtuber, Alex O’Conner (aka Cosmic Skeptic) has also spoken on the topic. Both of these (and I’m sure, many others) have better explanations than I have. I have just rambled, wrote as I thought and didn’t have time to edit or lay it out systematically. I’ll leave that to experts/others.
  11. Addendum. This may be better placed in the Forums under philosophy, so I may copy it there, too. This is a blog experiment and is for thought consideration. It is entirely theoretical, impossible to come true or be placed in anyone’s hands and it is open to challenge and if at any time the prospect loomed, I am sure I would have second thoughts or want a lot more feedback on the position to assert or reject/override my viewpoint. Further, I have presented the reasons behind it, but would like to add one more which is rather like the philosophical trolley problem. This is what I think I would like to be dealt with if I am to consider my position again: Imagine you were offered a drug to put you in an extremely high sense of pleasure. The condition is that someone will have a similar opposite sense of displeasure or suffering. Would you trade this? Would you trade it for a moderate amount of suffering in someone? Or if the person was a member of your family? Where would one draw the line? There are many selfish people in the world who probably would; probably because they don’t know the suffering person. Which is why I opt to remove democracy from them at least, for the sake of the suffering. It is no less painful for a suffering person, whether it is someone you know or not. It is only our subjective indifference to an anonymous person that drives us to ignore or mitigate their suffering. My position is that (to reflect reality) we should consider ultimate suffering and to the closest of our loved ones, though I go much further and would justify the slightest amount of suffering for the smallest amount of time to even one person as not worth coming into existence, even if life were otherwise virtually perfect. If you were to have the power to create intelligent life, and knew that all types of suffering (including extreme) would be a part of the result, albeit mixed with varying highs, would you go ahead? Try to put yourself in the position of the many who will be less fortunate and suffer, particularly in an extreme way. Few of us experience extremes on either side, but if (and as) we know that many will suffer badly, many being children and babies, is it not selfish and a horrific risk to self AND others, to justify such creation, be it creating life to start with or pro-creating? I have children myself, which makes me selfish and perhaps hypocritical. If we simply prevent further pro-creation, we are not disappointing or failing anyone, because there is no-one that exists to be disappointed (or thankful that they were not brought into existence to potentially suffer). Put in one sentence, would you allow yourself or a member of your family or your own child to suffer horrifically in exchange for others existing and having pleasure? To jump to any other statement (like destroying the world or banning human reproduction) without seriously considering the reasoning and alternative implications is not to understand or do the argument justice. The argument may seem an atheistic one, but for many believers, to have no children is to guarantee that they will not be creating the possibility of another soul going to hell (or heaven), but I appreciate there are other theistic considerations involved here. If a person’s house is destroyed, (say in a storm or fire with all the memories, souvenirs, photos and things of material value) there are feelings and emotions in the minds of existent people who may witness this and be sad at its demise. If there is no intelligent mind or creature (left) in existence (when a house is destroyed), there is no regret or sorrow or happiness. There is neutrality. No pain or suffering or joy or happiness or morality. Just nothing. Without or at the end of existence, suffering ends and no longer exists. No-one exists to experience or miss anything good. This position is undemocratic and if I had the power to press such buttons, this is a one-man dictatorship of the most extreme kind. It will never happen. Remember that I am just theorizing and may have more thinking to do on it. I would probably be better devoting my time/life to convincing people of this. If 12 thugs want to beat a child up and will take tremendous pleasure in it, is this a democratic or utilitarian decision? Would you, if you had the power, subjectively be willing to override their choice/pleasure and prevent this from occurring in order to save one person’s suffering? Democracy is all well and good when it coincides with our view. For me, it is the majority of the world who do not yet comprehend the reality of the suffering problem and how their selfishness allows it, that makes me want to take the control away from them. The world is not as overt as the thugs in the example, but for those innocent people suffering, they don’t care about where the pain comes from, they just want it gone. I think most people are selfish and do not consider the extreme suffering or want to take a chance that it won’t be them or their family. But I am taking the position that everyone is equally valued and the one suffering baby represents each of us or our own child(ren). For you to be selfish and take a chance (like the Covid-19 situation of isolation) affects everyone, not just you. In the virus situation, I believe people should, if need be, be forced into situations, e.g. of isolation (thus violating their human rights) in order to prevent them from potentially infecting others – a greater right. No amount of joy in all the people of the world is more important than (or worth or justifies) the terrible suffering of just one person. I am suggesting that one pain-free solution is to stop pro-creating (as impractical as this is, I’m just arguing theoretically to support my position and reasoning). I am simply arguing that this neutral, not existent position is superior to any world where suffering exists (and/or can’t be guaranteed to stop) and I would be happy to be convinced otherwise, if it makes sense to me. Any reasoned response is welcome. No arguing or attacks, just show the flaws in the position and what the alternatives are and it will be considered. Remember that destroying the world in any way that causes suffering, is not my position, and given that there is no way of doing this, I do not hold the position of destroying the world. I feel that stopping pro-creation in humans is only a short term, temporary solution to suffering and recognise that it does not stop other species’ suffering or evolving into more intelligent and suffering species. This is why I would prefer the theoretical, ‘destroy all life on earth instantly without suffering’ option, as impractical as this would ever be. The crux of the issue that needs to be understood and may not be fully appreciated are: · To recognise that to not exist has no input or choice or regret. Only those living can determine worth. · That for a single baby that is horrifically suffering, (and we must acknowledge that this is highly likely happening and will happen if we continue as we are and there is no way of stopping it) is not worth (in exchange) all the joys for all the people of the world, and if we come to a point where no people even exist to weigh this option up, it’s a no-brainer. This is not a suicide view. For those already living, life could or should continue. It is more a decision about the unborn, those who do not or yet live. They don’t exist/are not alive to experience or choose or appreciate life (so, ‘they’ are not missing out as there is no-one that is missing out – so this is a neutral point at worst), but life has been prevented from experiencing suffering, ever, which is good. There is a philosopher who follows some of this viewpoint (antinatalism and the asymmetry argument) called David Benatar. Check him out. Popular youtuber, Alex O’Conner (aka Cosmic Skeptic) has also spoken on the topic. Both of these (and I’m sure, many others) have better explanations than I have. I have just rambled, wrote as I thought and didn’t have time to edit or lay it out systematically. I’ll leave that to experts/others.
  12. There are certain customs, arguments or claims which seem to make sense, but you can’t quite put your finger on why or if it is true or false. And they can fool you, like an optical illusion. For me, the ontological argument for God (Anselm’s version) was one. Others include conversion experiences with a one-way (non-returnable) valve, Faith, God knows best, don’t test God, last one in the pool is a rotten egg, go and do X or I won’t be your friend anymore, don’t grass/tell on people (it’s just not done/an unwritten rule), countless logical fallacies, using emotion as a trump card in an argument. There are some things which have a down side but have a balanced up side to make it worthwhile. The early bird catches the worm. Study hard and get a wider choice of job. Have kids and give up on things to see the joy it brings. In fact there was a historical act of Suti (or Suttee), largely practised in India amongst Hindus which also presented (albeit potentially illusory) an upside to the downside, but the reward was in the life hereafter, which was not proven to exist in this life, although believed. This is where a (female – of course!) widow would sacrifice herself on the burning funeral pyre of her deceased husband. I don’t imagine even the nastiest of husband’s would ever be poisoned at dinner by his wife and in fact, his health would seem to be a pretty important part of her life, hoping she dies first. The day your husband dies, especially if he was a good man, would be all the more painful. The only other type of voluntary death, other than suicide, seems to also be amongst religious tradition or extremism. Beyond that, people would put themselves in harm’s way for the sake of others or make a self-sacrifice for the sake of other close relatives or friends. This is altruism. But an extreme form exists within several animal species. Matriphagy. White widow. No greater love. Theodicy. Some animal species make the ultimate sacrifice. This includes (certain) spiders, earwigs, pseudo-scorpions and (vertebrate) caecilians. In some spiders, females produce a liquid from their mouths from pre-digested food and/or eggs to feed their young for a few days. After gaining weight/size, a day after the spiderlings have moulted/shed their first exoskeleton, the mother instinctively goes through a process. She walks around the web, vibrating the thread and releasing new thread, which stimulates the spiderlings into coming to a prominent or central place on the web. The mother then comes and presses against the newly congregated mass of spiderlings who then make her their first victim and (by the process) they collectively and conveniently now have a clear understanding/lesson of how future victims/prey will be recognised and what they should do to entice and subdue it. They all start a frenzy and begin injecting venom into her, which she clearly finds painful and could run away from, but she doesn’t. Within minutes to a couple of hours, all her juices have been sucked out and her life empties into the stomachs of her offspring, leaving a shell. This is not exclusive to mothers. Virgin females will also sacrifice themselves in this way. Males often die soon after mating too or become victim of the mated partner. The spider species involved seem to have larger offspring with faster growth rates and so potentially preventing other options of offspring survival. This seems a horrible (but sadly not that rare a) branch of natural selection, resulting in such horrific (but evolutionarily logical) results and logic. Surely it would have been better for the mothers to have just said, ‘no way’ and died out as a species. I wonder if some form of, ‘coping with the suffering’ evolved too? What an amazing example of a species who’s males and females, mothers and virgin females give their all, solely for the propagation of the species and, seemingly nothing else. Unless someone perhaps knows of a budding arachnid Bach or Renoir, leaving behind a gift for the species to enjoy. I am reminded of other species that suffer because of things like parasites (e.g. eating into your eye and controlling your brain or eating you from the inside out). For those of you who are theists, atheists, moral objectivists, subjectivists, nihilists, free-willers or determinists, it’s not very nice to think about and varyingly easy to explain or justify. Sometimes, the truth hurts, whether you like or accept it or not. There is an extreme (theoretical at least) philosophical view that I have considered since long before I even knew what philosophy meant or was, although I have more recently found it to be a recognised and serious position. If I could press a button and instantly destroy (and make) all life on earth extinct, (without any suffering), I would do it. Even in my theistic life, no-one could convince me that an eternity in heaven could be good, and the everlasting part just made it worse or made me wonder if that was just phase 2 and something else might be planned (by God) for later, still leaving some option open for me having to make a choice or be forced to do something or go somewhere I didn’t want to go. Heaven was always a place I was not convinced that was consistent, unchangingly or perfect, and hell was, whilst bad, at least consistent. I do not mean to be dismissive or speak lightly of this, but these things did plague my mind. To me, heaven was never a motive for becoming or staying a Christian, though hell was a place that put fear in me long after I defected. The reason (for my quite extreme philosophical view) is subjective and I would be forcing my view and action on everyone in the process, therefore removing democracy and other people’s view or preferences. I basically don’t like suffering, for myself or others or anyone or any living thing that suffers or even could suffer (even potentially through evolution over billions of years), so I wanted to take control of the world in order to prevent ANYONE from ever suffering in any way, but particularly suffering heavily, which many will continue to do, even if it may not be YOU personally, but you and I represent everyone, including that person in a horrific state of suffering. To me, it is not a case of taking a chance, hoping I will be lucky. It is the experiential knowledge that many of us do suffer and some, terribly, some randomly and some predictably and no-one expects it for our child when we choose to create life. The worst type of human suffering probably includes torture (physical and emotional) but may not be limited to this. Accident, disease or illness are others. If I consider the most extreme possible example of a child or baby being tortured, (and take an is/ought type of position) then (for me) this cannot justify or be compensated by any amount of good, so cannot justify life in the first place IF such a bad incident could occur, and I suggest it can, has, does and will continue to do so. As no life equates to no pain or suffering or knowledge or a representative that exists to experience such, then not existing is not a bad thing, it just isn’t anything, so we don’t exist to ponder goodness or badness or weigh up the options. Put another way, if a person never existed to start with, s/he will never suffer or experience anything, good or otherwise, so will be none the wiser, can have no regrets or hopes or anything. S/he is in a neutral position. When I say s/he, s/he has never existed in the first place of course, so there is no person or mind to exist and consider or see in hindsight about the options. There are millions of potential sperm that will never see the light of day, have no regrets and (thankfully) never suffered. YOU can only experience and appreciate good things because you exist and are here. And if a 100% suffering-free life were guaranteed, I still see no benefit (perhaps other than a selfish one) to having children, given the option (non-existence). As there is no such mechanism to destroy the earth, certainly without suffering anyway, then I have to constrain my ideology to the life that exists now. From today, anyone alive will be dead in 120 or so years (less or plus any medical advancements in restricting or developing the ageing process). So my current theory is to stop all human pregnancy and so force the extinction of humankind by about 2100-2150, when people will be too old to reproduce anymore and die off naturally. This would be problematic in the detail, e.g. providing for the latter few years with food, medicine, warmth without electricity or gas etc. unless euthanasia options were on hand, which, under the impending circumstances, might have been considered and be available. Sadly, I need universal consensus, the law and no exceptions to implement this, which is unlikely. It also doesn’t stop the suffering and future evolution of the rest of life on earth. So, my theory seems exactly that – theoretical and not very practical. I would also add that I am very lazy and hypocritical. Whilst I have been both a vegetarian and a vegan before, I am currently largely a carnivore, but (theoretically) hold a vegan position, I’m just not committed (yet) to indulge myself. Do as I say, not as I do.
  13. Here in the club section is good Here we do not walk over the other forums you should be able to make new forum topics here.
  14. Hi Borg. Just saw the post and would like to join book club. Is there anywhere I should go other than here to "officially" join/be part of the discussion?
  15. In the club we have forums that you can use to talk about the books we are going to cover. The club has its own rules so if its a controversial book you can talk about it in this forum. Please note do respect one and other.
  16. That's right, a cross or sword type symbol is often used as an instant visual marker to distinguish extinct from extant taxa and is of particular use in lists, databases, trees and dendrograms of living (when comnbined of course with previously living) organisms. You will find errors on the current Explorer which we will not be correcting as we are focusing on a new tree whilst the current one remains for interest. To determine whether a taxon is extinct, all of its descendents (branches and leaf nodes/species) must also be extinct. If this is not the case (e.g. with dinosaurs), then the taxon or clade node must be listed as extant. Put simply, where an extinct symbol is on any branch node, you could snip (the branch off there) or colour code it to show that it is entirely extinct without exception from that point forth, moving to the more recent.
  17. A cross next to the name means its extinct.
  18. why do some names in the phylogeny explorer project have a cross next to the name?
  19. Guest

    king

    Night Elf ?
  20. Guest

    king

    zergling hatchery ultralisk
  21. It wouldn't be the first time that someone compared Trump to a primate, though I reckon that Orangutans are absolutely far more intelligent, moral & empathic beings than Trump could ever be...
  22. brachiosteve

    Sex

    A lot of life is symbiotic. Most animals can’t exist without plants and some plants can’t exist without animals and some plants can’t exist without other plants and the same with some animals. And this can be extended to bacteria. For evolution to even occur in most animals, there is a requirement for a male to meet a female and for them to get along, (at least for a bit), or be tempted or for one to dominate the other. This practise needs to be so powerful and independent, that no amount of change (in the animal or environment etc.) can prevent it. Evolution has enabled some extreme changes in order to keep this magnetic force going. Some moths (e.g. which may be rare or not spatially close) can detect a partner 7 miles away. Similar effects occur with sound in mammals. Whales can be heard over a hundred miles away, and wolves, sloths, foxes, cats etc. all have distinct sounds that can be detected far away, e.g. as a warning or to attract a mate. When did people first link the act of copulation with pregnancy? There is no doubt that by linking the two and also knowing how the process works and by implication how to stop it, has significantly affected human evolution and as we can now screen genetic variations/abnormalities and may extend this in future to choosing eye or hair colour etc. Remember Adolf, the tall, blond haired, blue eyed Adonis who ruled Germany and wanted to create a perfect Arian race? Is it possible that any other animals link copulation with pregnancy? Naturalistically, many animals naturally (without learning) look after their young and can control their temperament, e.g. between family and hunting. Some fish/birds/reptiles etc. can return to the same place thousands of miles away (migration in winter or spawning/laying eggs/mating), without any logical or learned way of actually knowing it. I wonder how much the effect of war paint or gyms, fashion or sweet shops and fast food, cosmetic surgery (to name but a few factors) have affected human evolution in the selection process? Sex, whilst a wonder of nature, is pretty well understood in terms of what the body does and feels or produces to arouse the desires it does, as many nature documentaries like to show, be it on the farm, at the zoo or in the wild. Some animals can die of exhaustion (or get eaten) in the process. Some do it once in a lifetime, others live only for it and others die soon after it. Some individuals never do it for various reasons and some do it in a way that is not pro-creative or for the entertainment of self or others. In a time when man did not see the link between the act and the pro-creative result of intercourse, (and in a time when there were no hospitals or medical practitioners), [when was this and/or how old is contraception?] if women hoped or feared for having a child and if they thought it was down to a god or prayer or a certain time or luck or worth or if it was related to something they did or how good or bad they were? Did they even link it to being with a partner or being in a relationship as opposed to being single/being a virgin? Imagine being a woman and witnessing a horrifically painful birth or even a still birth, how scared you must be all the time. Thanks to science for all their advancements and for making life so much easier and more comfortable and safe and long and happy and ….
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines