Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Darwin and the Bowerbird


It's easy being a social darwinist. The strong destroy the weak. Confirmation for this is found throughout nature. The most successful creatures are the bloodiest. The kings of the animal world are those at the top of the food chain, which is to say the predators. How we admire them! They are the most perfect examples of the undeniable proof of Darwin's dictum about 'survival of the fittest'. It is only right and proper that we should emulate their behaviour. God forbid we should emulate their victims.

And you won't find a bigger fan of Charles Darwin than yours truly. I am privileged to have him sit on my left shoulder and whisper in my ear. And I always listen. His explanation for human behaviour (amongst other things) is never wrong. But what's that Charles? You never used the phrase 'survival of the fittest'? Apparently it was some other fellow's words. Apparently Darwin put it in the foreword of his second edition of 'Origin of the Species' and regrets it. Had he known that it would come to encapsulate, and misrepresent, his description of the behaviour of species he wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole.

Darwin does not extol particular kinds of behaviour. Certainly he demands that any species (or indeed any entity) that wishes to self perpetuate must ensure the viability of its offspring. Viability here means that its offspring must be able to do what it just did, ie. produce more offspring. Beyond this he ceases to care. If humans, say, have a tendency to go mad after the age of forty or so, and this does not screw with the viability of their offspring (whom one presumes are already adult), well that's fine with him. Alternatively, if humans can better assist their offspring by living to old age, Darwin gives this his blessing too. It's all good, provided each generation is capable of ensuring the viability of those they in turn give birth to. It's as simple as that.

So where does the 'fittest' come in? To be perfectly honest, it doesn't. If creatures can ensure the viability of their offspring and yet somehow fail in the 'fitness' stakes (whatever that is) Darwin doesn't give a shit. Under Darwin they are successful, regardless. A few years back, scientists discovered a mushroom-like fungus that lived underground and occupied an area so large it spanned several countries. Belgium was one I recall (Hey Miraculix, you're probably standing on it mate). The scientists declared that this was, in all probability, the largest living creature in the world, weighing in at thousands of tons. It leaves the blue whale for dead. It is also the oldest living creature, having been there for countless millennia. That this entity has persisted, in spite of ice ages, warm spells, you name it, means that Darwin gives it his blue ribbon for excellence.

Indeed, every creature that copes with environmental depredations and ensures the viability of its offspring gets this blue ribbon. Darwin has no favourites. He is no more interested in the 'food chain' than he is in my motorcycle's drive chain. If Darwin was the judge of a beauty contest he would declare that any of the contestants who can get laid is the winner. Can you dig it? Darwin has no favourites. He does not say that this is better than that. Thus if lions can avoid having their jaw broken by the flashing heels of a springbok, and go on to catch one and ensure the viability of their offspring, Darwin pops a champagne cork. And likewise, if springboks have the ability to break a lion's jaw and bring about its death then the lion's depredations will be kept to a wary minimum. Thus, the springbok's continuance is assured, and Darwin jams a cigar in its mouth (not that the springbok would care for it, but you get the idea). The lion and the springbok are equal in the eyes of Darwin. They both get the blue ribbon and 'fittest' ain't nowhere to be seen.

And then there's the bowerbird. Ha! You thought I'd forgotten. The bowerbird is really singular. He's so called because he builds a 'bower' - an elaborate structure of twigs, variously decorated with flowers, leaves, berries, rocks, shells, and, lately, bits of modern plastic detritus (blue straws and bottle tops being particularly popular). The bower serves no purpose beyond appealing to the female. It is not a nest - the female builds the nest separately and lays eggs there. Nor does the bower provide shelter. It is merely, believe it or not, the male's expression of artistic intent, for no purpose other than impressing the female. It is literally a work of art. Astoundingly no two bowers are the same. Each is a unique expression of the male's sense of the sublime (I avoid the word 'unique' like the plague, but here it is true). The female likewise will choose the male by means of her own artistic taste. And Darwin? He claps his hands and laughs with delight.


Where's the 'survival of the fittest' here? What sort of 'fittest' consists of being the greatest artist? The truth is that 'fittest' is bullshit. Social darwinists are dimwits who utterly fail to understand Darwin. Predators, such as lions and tigers, represent the tiniest fraction of the uncountable number of creatures every single one of which receives Darwin's unconditional blessing.

We humans differ from the rest of creation insofar as we are able to choose how we behave. We may choose the means by which we obey the truth of Darwin. Neither lions, nor springboks, nor any other creature can do this. Nor can they influence others to wonder at themselves and how they might fulfil Darwin's imperatives and make the world a better place while they're at it. Only we can have a discussion as to how this might be done. It's what sets us apart and makes us singular. To those social darwinists too dim to appreciate the spectacular array of possibilities the world presents us, I say - be that stupid four-legged beast red in tooth and claw. Just leave Darwin out of it. Darwin does not think you're special. He has no more time for you than he does for a happy, little, art-mad bowerbird.

29 comments:

nobody said...

I know Americans are nutty for that crocodile hunter cove. But as a looong-time fan of David Attenborough, I could never stomach him. Too much crash-tackling. I'll take Attenborough's hushed reverence any day.

Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that if you watch Attenborough's Life of Birds in one ep there, he features bowerbirds. Have a look, it's unbelieveable. Actually every single show he's ever done is beyond brilliant. He's one of my all-time heroes. His autobiography is good too. Yoroshiku.

Miraculix said...

"Each is a unique expression of the male's sense of the sublime (I avoid the word 'unique' like the plague, but here it is true)."

Ah yes, that most definite by-product of having worked in PR/advertising: avoidance of the tattered piece of shoe leather that is the word unique, exceeded perhaps by only one word in the modern lexicon...

"Isn't that just amazing?"
"Your Twinkie (tm) casserole was amazing!"
"Isn't global warning the most amazing thing?"

...ad infinitum. Ya-yo gack. We are a prejudiced lot, we jaded veterans and rudderless survivors of the Meme Wars...

"Get that cliche away from me right now!"

Meanwhile, your take on Darwin is spot on. I don't even bother mentioning his theories anymore in polite discussion, he's been so badly misrepresented in the sound bite century, where all ideas must be reduced to their comic book form such that the "average" can grok them. I'm no social darwinist, but I will admit to a certain streak of elitism as a result of my long-standing position atop the intellectual totem pole. So it goes.

As for Europe's multi-national subterranean mushroom, I remember reading an article about it some months back -- and if I'm not standing on it, I'm surely standing in it... =)

Anonymous said...

and talking of unique animals
(pretentious git! (not you nob) I'm skulking)
Tony

the Silverfish said...

Nice post. In my tenor as a Biologist I had the absolute pleasure of meeting and working with three of the greatest minds of this or any other time. Their names are and were Gerry Durrell , David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins.

I met and worked with Durrell in 1985 while he was working towards founding the Wildlife Preservation Trust Canada org which was and remains a sister org. to his Jersey Wildlife Trust. The mans zest for all things living and his propensity for drinking Gin like water were truly things to behold with awe. Sadly this zest led to his downfall and he passed away in 1995 due to liver failure. He was truly a great man and is much missed by this writer.

I met Attenborough in 1999 while he was making a documentary for the BBC on the snake pits of Manitoba called the Greatest Wildlife Show on Earth. The man could simply not believe the amount of Garter snakes that we have here in Manitoba. I'm not talking lots or many snakes I'm talking gazillions of the buggers. Still he took it all in with as you have so apply stated a hushed reverence which I found to be quite comforting.

And finally Dawkins who I met two years ago as he was a guest speaker at a forum that I attended on the teratogenicity of radioactive isotopes on living tissue. The man simply blew me away.

I mention these men not to impress but rather to make mention that each of these men were and are staunch supporters of Darwinism for the same said reasons stated in your post, and I figure that if it's good enough for them then it's damn well good enough for me.

Again I say Good Post.

kikz05 said...

attenborough:))))))))) my first thought:)love him. definitely in the top 5 of my hero list :)

croc hunter was lucky he lived as long as he did, boomin' fool. i miss him....guess i alwayz will.

mind you...he was appealing to a certain female 'old brain synapse' in that primal young turk(i-can-find-it-subdue-it-and-kill-it-if-i-wanna-while-clearin-a-barbedwire-fence-atta-dead-run-laughing-field-dress-it-and-bring-it-to-ya-smilin...O BABY!) sorta way>:)

'member the one w/the bushpilots herdin somethin in helicopters?

we just had a recent rerun of attenborough's birds here on PBS :)

to quote tina turner:
simply the best!

notamobster said...

You really should have mentioned the opposable thumb...

Brilliant repose on the survival of the fittest. I really enjoyed the croc hunter, but only in a morbid, hope he gets eaten sort of way. Stingray? Natural selection... hmmm

There is something to be said for being a cautious observer, is there not?

Penny said...

well, I like birds. alot.

and i liked this fellow, first off he is beautiful, what colours!
even his eye!

I wonder what his call is like?

When I am out and about, on my bike, I always listen for birds, I don't have to see them, but I can hear them.
If I can see them and hear them it is all the better

digressing here, sorry.........
anyway, interesting.

I have always thought of survival of the fittest, as some sort of manipulative proclamation, made by those, who are in power.

You know, the 1 percent?

Who can announce loudly there superior ways and intellects, and how that allows them to crap all over the rest of us, cause it is survival of the fittest (or law of the jungle) are they much the same , cause I think they are?

Then the rest of us, all fight amongst are selves, cause we believe if we were just somehow a little more like the 'fittest' we would be top of the heap also.

The sad truth however is....... the top of the heap has gotten there by sponging off (by choice or exploitation)of the rest of us, wether it is our labour, our money, or good works, whatever.

Thinking of the many great artists whose beautiful works have made others richer, the industrialist who exploits the labour market, etc.,

So, where am I going with this?
I don't know, basically I don't buy into that theory, I actually feel we get further cooperating with each other.

And I still liked the bird , his beautiful colours and his crazy art work

nobody said...

The Triantiwontigongelope! I always loved that poem as a kid.

Otherwise Miraculix, it's funny, as I was walking down to the cafe the bullshit nature of the word 'unique' was running through my head.

Silverfish - Yep, all those guys. I read Dawkins' God Delusion and liked it a lot. Funnily enough, I'd arrived at all his arguments myself but I'd given them different names. The 'cosmic teapot' I had as the 'pink fairy' but it was essentially the same. Mind you, I saw a thing by Dawkins lately wherein he tore down alternative medicine. I wish I'd been there to have a chat with him about the nature of Big Pharma. His 'faith' in modern medicine I find somewhat ironic. But mostly he's worthwhile.

Re Irwin, Australia's most famous grumpy old woman, Germaine Greer, commented on the justice of Irwin getting killed by a beastie and I was with her. Mind you I live not far from Irwin's big safari park thingy and he's been quasi-deified here. As for his show, I've never seen it. I was OS when it started and by the time I'd come back I'd had enough.

And Pen, you noticed did you? That lower pic is the satin bowerbird and yep, it has an insanely purple eye. The female is green but has the same eyes. Really spooky to look at. But their calls are nothing to write home about. One member of the family, the green cat bird, sounds like a strangled cat. I have a friend who lives in the mountain and hates them, ha ha.

African Warrio said...

Speaking of lions and Tigers. They are two most popular animals on Earth. They are also used by NWO environmentalists aka population control crowd.

They(lions and tigers) represent what people want. Courage and Bravery. Both evil and good use these two animals. As in the case of NWO cowards who have not courage.

the Silverfish said...

Not pickin a fight here but, as far as Dawkins comments on the so called alternative meds, PLEASE.

Having worked in the Medical field for some years I can state
there is no one on this planet more opposed to big pharma than this writer.
Second in Canada and I feel that things are not to much different in OZ we have some 25,000 scripted meds on the market of which 250 are needed for a good quality health care in a third world country.

Seeing that we are not in a third world country, I would say that we can very easily do with some 200 medications as in Canada we don't have to do deal with things like Malaria and such.

That being said I have absolutely NO use for the so called alternative Medicines as in the Chinese crap, ie Quackupunture, Rhino horn and Bear gall bladder shit. The damage done by these QUACKS is beyond condemnation. It might well have worked for ignorant peoples that had absolutely no idea of microbes and other pathogens as well as nothing to lose, but in todays world it has NO place whatsoever and should be outlawed where ever it is practiced.

The ONLY ones who benefit from this alternative crap are the ones who bilk the rubes who believe in it and pocket the proceeds, the patient is then left to his or her own devices.

Time and time again these alternative medical practices have been shown to be without base, with the exception of good dietary habits these things are ALL false.

These things include , Reflexology ,Therapeutic touch and Counting the bumps on your head. The list just goes on and on.

Time and time again I have found that when in need these fucking Quacks turn to some form of modern medicine in a goddamn heartbeat as though it might be their last. No Dr Kung Yuck Fooey for them No Siree.

To these QUACKS I say Physician heal thyself.

Anonymous said...

I'm a bit reluctant to ask this nobody - how's your dad is he out of hospital yet?
Tony

nobody said...

As ever, my position on this matter is - That it's not that simple. I've never partaken in alternative medicine beyond osteopathy. So I'm not great defender.

I've mostly been blessed with good health. But when I was a kid I wore braces on my teeth for two years. This ruined my teeth and, according to an orthodontist no less, is responsible for my back problems. Unbelieveably this same orthodontist said that what had been done to my teeth was so bad that the only way to right it was to cut the bottom part of my skull off and slide it and my teeth forward and bolt them back on again.

I'm meant to think that yes, they were wrong then, but they're right now. 'Trust us'. 'Trust my white coat and framed diplomas'. Not me, not any more. At least the alternative quacks will not maim you. I could also go into a friend of mine who has MS. Modern medicine did nothing for her. She nearly died. Her and her husband fled to the alternative and she improved rapidly and now leads a fairly normal life.

I'm something of a luddite and between two systems, one based on natural things and one based on industrial chemicals I know which I prefer. Another recollection - as a kid every time I had a virus the doctor prescribe anti-biotics. We trusted them too. Madness.

Anyway, I refuse to take a black and white position on the matter. For every bullshit alternative quack you can find, I'll match you with a tamiflu, a stillnox, an oxycontin, etc etc.

Here's a thought - no cell in the human body is more than one cell away from a nerve or a blood supply. Unbelievable. The body is INSANELY complex. For modern medicine to say they have the answers and we should trust them is nuts.

And we KNOW they lie to us. We KNOW the pharmaceutical industry is full of perfect villains. We KNOW they corrupt doctors. For mine, big Pharma is to medicine what GM is to crop rotation. And there was Dawkins shooting down the faith-based medicines without acknowledging the shortcomings of the 'science-based' version. His implicit message was that the science version you can 'trust'. Not me. Not anymore. Sorry Richard. Sorry Silverfish.

Anonymous said...

With no respect at all silver you have this north american thing going where you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Not ALL alternative meds is futile. Check it!
You're just pushing your bullshit attitude on us - we don't wear it mate.
Tony
ps no further correspondence will be entered into

Anonymous said...

While I'm in the mood too nobody
The road between Longreach and Winton…
I have always thought Hawks (the bird) were loners or at most a couple
Whilst travelling the road above I took note of at least 50 (no more than 80) in a flock
All flying around together and landing and taking off together – you know like friggin pigeons
Maybe it was the abundance of food on the highway that attracted them - I don't know
Thought this may be of interest to you (I have been meaning to tell you this for a while seeing as you’re a bird person – who isn’t)
Tony

nobody said...

There are no motherfuckers here so we can all keep cool. Yes? There are no hunters and there are no prey here, so there's no need for any baiting, nor for rising to it.

Otherwise the old man had two bouts in hospital connected with his pneumonia/bronchitis. He's on his third re-occurrence now. But I recognised the signs early this time and he's at home on anti-biotics. He does hate the hospital.

But to be honest mate, the physical thing (the blood, vomit and fecal matter) I could handle. What I'm having trouble with lately is that he's losing his mind. All of the previous was nothing compared to this. I'm now dealing with a series of mad charades with me as the only member of the audience. And it's and audience participation show, dig it.

And I mentioned stillnox before. I now know ALL about stillnox. I've confiscated it now, but when he took it, it was like I had gone insane. Horrible, horrible.

Anyway it's not too bad at the moment. He has extended periods of lucidity. He still drives for instance. But I'm going to have to put a stopper on that at some point.

Speaking of which, hey kikz, how's your daughter?

nobody said...

Aargh, typing jinx!

And aargh, you don't tell me what they were. There's only about ten pages of raptors in the slater guide you know...

I'll go and have a read and see if I can figure out what they were.

Otherwise you have no idea how many people tell me how they saw some amazing birds and when I ask them what they saw say, 'Um, I don't know but they were colourful!'.

Anyway I'm pretty sure we can scratch wedgetails, sea eagles, ospreys and peregrine falcons. That's four down and fifty to go...

Anonymous said...

It was that they were all together nobody I didn't know eagles flocked
But reading a bit I see kites will nest together in big groups so I suppose whatever I saw could flock together??
Tony

Penny said...

ah nobody, you got your bird guide out?
I have petersons and audobon, but north american birds of course, intersting about the call of that colourful bird. Or it's family member, strangled cat.

There is a bird hear, this is called a "cat bird" that actually makes a call like a cat.

It isn't much to look at, and i have seen it, but the irony of a cat that calls like a bird?
My cat killed so many darn birds and brought them home, I couldn't stand it anymore, I did the bell and all that, and still, dead little sparrows and wrens, and she was so pleased, bringing them home to me! Along with her fighting, cause she is little but fierce, she had to become a house cat. And so she is.

As for alternative meds, the most common alternative med seekers usually are people who have exhausted the conventional routes of meds.

Usually not the other way.

I have myself, used alternative meds, as have members of my family.
With great success.

I think sometimes, negative attitudes displayed towards alternative therapies, are the same as when chiropracters were looked down upon, as some sort of rubbish also.

Yet, my back and leg were killing me, and my md, said sciatica, go to the chiropractor, nothing I can do for you except painkillers.

There was a time not so long ago, an md would have never suggested that.

Anyway, to each his own, but, that is my take on alternative treatments.

How did we get on this topic anyway?

but, I saw a news article recently, that said two control groups, one anti-depressant, one placebos, both groups improved about the same, does anyone think doctors will stop prescribing anti-depressants?

nobody said...

I've got bird guides for all over the world - Japan, China, Hong Kong, South East Asia, Brazil, the US, and Hawaii. And Oz, sure.

I used to have a cat but after he killed a red-whiskered bulbul I swore I'd never do it again.

kikz05 said...

so sorry to hear of your troubles noby. hats off to you, for lookin after your daddy.

daughter is ok.. for now. we hav first visit @scottish rite in early oct.

i'll be gettin ready for that damn hurricane today.. food, etc.. we could end up w/o power for a coupla days, even this far north, north 40 of dallas proper.

nobody said...

Geez kikz,

I've been watching the news of that hurricane and I did think of you. But I thought that there's no way it'll reach Dallas. What did I know? All the best mate. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

And not forgetting the distinct possibility that we're all being bullshitted to and that it's not that bad after all. Um, weird to say this, but I hope that that's the case here.

in retrospect said...

notamobster invited me to your blog to specifically read your "Darwin and the Bowerbird" posting, in conjunction with the posting on my blog. This is a very interesting article with regard to the axiom of “Survival of the Fittest”. But please note that I agree that Darwin never stated anything regarding survival of the fittest, especially within the context of Human intelligence. But even Darwin had doubts with his hypothesis because one of his greatest failures was providing an explanation of how Homo sapiens came into existence, and why there is a missing link of over 2 million years or more, which could explain the evolution of our “unique” species. Out of all the recorded and unsolved mysteries that humanity has encountered, our own origins remain at the top of this list of unknowns. However, I agree with everthing else you stated about Darwin, including the fact that he was impartial, did not pick favorites, and eventually admitted that there were "unknowns" within his hypothesized findings.

nobody said...

Very good. However if you are agreeing that Darwin admitted that there are 'unknowns', then you are agreeing with yourself since I said no such thing. But otherwise I'm glad it meets with your approval.

in retrospect said...

I see your point Nobody, and I did not intend to misquote you. Whether Darwin had any doubts or not, will never be known because he never published anything I could find that would insinuate that he did (unless he whispered this into your ear while sitting on your shoulder). However, an omission of explanation to evidence of an evolved species, such as humans, was a failure by someone, such as Darwin, to explain our unique abilities. I also wish to state that I am not a creationist, and as far as I will go with the religious theories is tolerating their blind faith and eyes wide shut superstitions. I would tend to agree with the findings/explanations of Zecharia Sitchin with regard to our abnormally advanced Human qualities, before I would embrace Darwin's boilerplate theories. Show me one other Earth creature on this planet that even comes close to our evolved(?) capabilities. In accordance with Darwin's theoretical hypothesis, we should still be barely walking upright and living in the stone age. But look where we are today. Your article was great though. I will take better care in my replies, and make sure that I show whatever you said in "quotes".

nobody said...

To a certain extent, IR, you're talking to the wrong fellow. Like I said in this very piece I don't care for the word unique. And besides, I don't think we are unique. There are many creatures who use tools for instance. Hell, even birds do it. There are also creatures possessed of variations of existentialist thought.

You may or may not have noticed, but I describe myself loosely as a nihilist Buddhist. I've stepped off the self-impressed merry-go-round that, amongst other things, has driven man to invent religion. This being the mindset of 'Surely when I die that cannot be the end of me?' The correct answer to this question, 'Yes, that is the end of you', is so perfectly unpalatable that it will always be rejected. ANY other answer is acceptable and will be taken. The nature of these ego-affirming answers to the ego-seeking question are limited only by the human imagination. Thus we have more regligions than there are stars in they sky. And unsurprisingly each one contradicts the other. Sure enough, people wake up to the contradictions and reject religion. But they still refuse to let go of the self (or ego if you prefer Freud's self-serving definititions) that drove us all there to begin with.

Subsequently, people like Darwin still get rejected. We really detest the fact that he says we're not special. Well, I'm over that. As far as I'm concerned we're just jumped-up, self-impressed monkeys.

Otherwise, what if there was a creature as smart as us (or close enough to make us nothing special)? How would we handle this? Would we suffer them to live, to challenge our superiority? Given that no one knows why the neanderthals died out, might that be a possibility? Works for me. Ciao.

in retrospect said...

Yes I agree that the fear of the unknown, especially the unknowns of what happens to us after we die, is where religion derives its power over the masses by inventing Heaven and Hell. But even this imagined belief didn’t pacify many who feared pain during death, and the story in certain denominations invented the Rapture, which will whisk the believers away seconds before the end times… but what if you die before the end times? People also wanted to know why God would allow so much suffering of innocent people to continue; thus the far-fringe interpretation of the New Testament version of Revelations/Armageddon and the second coming of Christ… on and on it goes like a daily scripted Soap Opera. Religion can promote good spiritual fellowship and cause bloodshed; both acts are committed in the name of God. This also drives Pentecostal Christians to support our USA-Zionist/Neocon Rulers’ need to perpetuate their endless and costly War on Terror… because this evolving conflict with a contrived invisible enemy will lead to the final battle of Armageddon and the second coming of Christ. However, most of these devout Christians wouldn’t even know who their “alleged” Christ was if they fell over him, and more than likely would crucify him again if He did not fulfill their expectations. The question I ask many of them is “How do you know that David Koresh, who was the religious leader of the Texas Branch Davidians, wasn’t the in-the-flesh second coming of Jesus Christ? And look what we did to him and his followers.”

My view of what happens to us after death is that we return to where we came from before our birth. The subconscious mind is energy, in which energy can change form but cannot be destroyed. Short and simple, but subject for rejection never the less because it does not provide the answer that people seek… but it does imply that there is something beyond death.

I do not see searching for the truth of our origins, nor the evident facts of our superior intellect as a human refusal “…to let go of the self (or ego if you prefer Freud's self-serving definititions).” After all, a simple virus-organism-driven plague, carried by a simple flea can wipe-out millions of humans without the use of modern weapons. It is hard to compare Humans with other animals using simple tools, like a chimpanzee using a blade of grass to capture ants from their mound, or a squirrel placing nuts in the highway for cars to break open, or an animal with existentialist capacity, as demonstrated with an elephant burial ground. Call it ego if you desire, but I would like to see a dolphin build a submarine, or a chimp build a computer. Humans are superior within almost all aspects by comparison to the lower life forms on Earth… but I reiterate that we are still vulnerable to an attack from a giant beast or infection from something as simple as a microscopic virus or bacteria. Would it be fair to say that this is the balance of Nature? And Nature will always eventually win in an imbalanced playing field of life. Chow.

nobody said...

Well, we're certainly susceptible to a virus. But it'll be odds on that the big one that does it will be man-made by those who've stated that the global population needs to be thinned to 500 million.

It will be the ultimate expression of men impressed with their superiority.

in retrospect said...

That’s what I am saying regarding the fact that Nature will always win on an imbalanced playing field of life… Humans created this imbalance, and as you previously pointed out, our final demise will most likely be man-made. We don’t fit into this eco system, never did, and never will… our egotistical tendencies get in the way!

There was a book I read, after hearing the interview of the book’s editor on Rense.com. The book is titled: “Alien Interview”. You will have to have an open mind to the facts presented in this book, which has the transcripts of the 1947 interview of the only “physical” alien survivor of the Roswell UFO Crash incident. It was a profound interview and answers many of the theological and evolutionary questions we were knocking around over the weekend (IMHO). The book can be downloaded as an e-book for $5.00USD. The link is below. Thanks for sharing your thoughts Nobody.

http://www.lulu.com/content/2144178

Anita said...

Silverfish said: To these QUACKS I say Physician heal thyself.

Haha, that is the biggest indictment of modern medicine there is. Doctors as a group are among the unhealthiest people, not known for their longevity.