Humor III

Just funny and not worth discussing?? Perhaps the admins who looked at it payed too much attention to the editor's 'special effects'??My guess was that series was filmed at an outdoor zoo where the mounds were feeding or observering grounds being highly prided by the aminals.The discussion would be about animal "behavior" and how it can be modified and should evolution itself be altered by humans and yoked to technology so that not only might new behaviors but new genetics ought appear. Could it be done without selective breeding and knee jerk thought of eugenics?It is not survival if I have the upper hand and simply edit down my posts to get my points across. So the video showed my once again that the idea I have termed "ecosystem engineering" and such is needed and is needing a discussion, but THAT ideahttp://aexion.org/eeintroduction.aspxgoes beyond simple behavioral modifications to whole energy and matter flows.Perhaps there are some that think the "monkey" was "more evolved" but I did not see it that way.Perhaps I am wrong and this IS NOT human influenced behavior so if there is a primatologist who thinks differently it would be much more hilarious to have my cherry plucked from a virtual wine glass by such a poster than to think that the tiger was simply not able to hold down its alchohol.Edited by Brad McFall, : "be"

Well, I just finished listening to Lynn Margulis
Thursday, Feb. 14 - "Darwin's Truths and Symbiogenesis," at Cornell's Biotech Building, Room G-10, at 7 p.m., a lecture by Lynn Margulis, Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

and by her, Dawkins is "coming around" to her view.Thus I suppose I can see that Dawkins".net" may be degenerating but to think that EvC can not gain say JAD's negative position as a student of Crow,I think is false and THAT is precisely because we DO allow all sides to be considered.Let me just say here that if anyone wants to talk with me about Margulis in another thread I would be happy as I have got a rather clear notion of what she means and intends by "symbiogenesis". She has phrased it in terms of Darwin's word "check"(thinking (perhaps wrongly) that "environment=body")) and for this reason either Dawkins MUST come around or else she has to be wrong to disagree with Will Provine (she did tonite) that "neo-Darwinian" math can not understand genome acquistion. I know where I stand but her placing of natural selection as unable to generate novelty explains to me better how Creationism can continue to expand, playing off the difference in the last paragraph. This is not going to degenerte as long as Percy keeps EvC powered. Margulis took a couple of pictures ofmy pet Ostrcods of EVC. I think I really do understand what she is talking about. She even mentions "infinity" in the span of one generation holistically.