Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Or Kill Me => Topic started by: The Good Reverend Roger on January 23, 2007, 06:57:39 am

Title: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on January 23, 2007, 06:57:39 am
We tend to think of ourselves as the height of life on Earth, and especially the height of the primate family.

Of course, this is utter bullshit.

You see, contrary to what you might think, there really isn't a lot of food in jungles, and competition is really fierce for what limited chow there is. 

The most fit monkeys got the food.  The least fit monkeys had to drop down out of the trees, and go looking for grub out on the savannah.  However, the savannah is a dangerous place, so our ancestors had to learn to stand up (to see over the grass to watch for prey and predators), and grow brains (to learn to use rocks to supplement our pitiful natural weaponry).  And it was all downhill from there.

So we're the loser monkeys.  The failures of the monkey world.

Of course, we had our revenge on our smartass, more-fit cousins, by locking them in cages where everyone can see them whack off.

Or Kill Me.

(Note to pedantic types:  Yeah, yeah, I know we didn't evolve from modern day monkeys, but shared a common ancestor.  It's a colloquialism.  Get over it.  Nobody likes a know-it-all.)
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Cain on January 23, 2007, 09:36:46 am
Thats true of all evolution though, wouldn't you say?  I keep saying the winners of the animal world were (until very recently anyway) sharks.  400 million years and only minor changes in their evolution.

Of course, if we were the pinnacle of evolution I'd question why we'd build a society where we end up living in what resembles an ant colony, instead of fucking all day like Bonobos.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on January 23, 2007, 09:59:10 am
Also our weak links don't get eaten anymore. Fkin equal rights and social conscience kills lulz. Humanity is natures reject bin.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: hunter s.durden on January 23, 2007, 01:52:05 pm
Cain, do you live like an ant? I don't. Some of us have taken advantage of our evolutionary gifts.

Roger, there is a group that wants to free chimps and higher primates from zoos because they think it is wrong to lock up a "person" who hasn't committed a crime.
They need to see what you just wrote.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Cain on January 23, 2007, 02:01:37 pm
I don't, I avoid work and sleep till 10am every day.  But I know lots of people who do.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: hunter s.durden on January 23, 2007, 02:05:43 pm
And thats their problem.
I guess some evolved more than others.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: AFK on January 23, 2007, 02:34:00 pm
Also our weak links don't get eaten anymore. Fkin equal rights and social conscience kills lulz. Humanity is natures reject bin.

No, they still get eaten.  Not in a literal sense but in a socio-economic sense, the weak do get eaten.  But instead of rotting and returning back to the ground, they become empty animated shells.  Or they just live the rest of their lives on the couch, drinking PBR, and watching Judge Judy et al, all day. 
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: hunter s.durden on January 23, 2007, 02:50:45 pm
A fate worse than classic death.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Thurnez Isa on January 23, 2007, 02:58:12 pm
Thats true of all evolution though, wouldn't you say?  I keep saying the winners of the animal world were (until very recently anyway) sharks.  400 million years and only minor changes in their evolution.


in the mammal kingdom i woudl say rats. Such a simplistic creature, that could thrive both living in the shadows of humans and would do just as well without...
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on January 23, 2007, 03:21:36 pm
Crocodiles have been around a while too. They've gotten a little smaller in response to food level fluctuations but that's about it.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Thurnez Isa on January 23, 2007, 03:28:14 pm
crocodiles aren't thriving
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on January 23, 2007, 03:46:49 pm
Nothing's thriving. We've kinda seen to that. Bacteria, viri, cockroaches maybe.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Cain on January 23, 2007, 03:48:04 pm
Cabbages.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Thurnez Isa on January 23, 2007, 03:57:28 pm
rotants
some forms of insects
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on January 23, 2007, 03:58:11 pm
Cabbages.

If it came down to a war between us and cabbages I'd give us a fighting chance. There's a lot to be said for a tactical military strike with conventional and nuclear weapons v's lying, half buried in the ground getting slightly bigger whenever it rains.

*edit* just in case I'm wrong, of course, maybe we should organise concentration camps right now.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Idem on January 23, 2007, 03:59:39 pm
Nothing's thriving. We've kinda seen to that. Bacteria, viri, cockroaches maybe.
Fuck, we've made alot of them STRONGER with medicine.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on January 23, 2007, 04:00:29 pm
Nothing's thriving. We've kinda seen to that. Bacteria, viri, cockroaches maybe.
Fuck, we've made alot of them STRONGER with medicine.

Hell yeah - penecillin won the battle but, ultimately, might well turn out to have lost us the war.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Suu on January 23, 2007, 04:17:40 pm
Nothing's thriving. We've kinda seen to that. Bacteria, viri, cockroaches maybe.
Fuck, we've made alot of them STRONGER with medicine.

Only bacteria can be considered to be medicinally resistant as you can't kill a virus. Viruses reconfigure themselves to attack our cells and reproduce, they aren't a living thing and no matter what we have to let them take their course. Unfortunately there is only so much our immune system, orange juice, and chicken soup can do. Tuberculosis resurfaced from HELL recently from what I understand, and killed a few thousand people in NYC alone.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Thurnez Isa on January 23, 2007, 04:27:25 pm
reminds me of andrew Nikiforuk's book "The Fourth Horseman" which rides as one of my favorite books of all time
ill try to find an online version of it
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Suu on January 23, 2007, 04:45:45 pm
reminds me of andrew Nikiforuk's book "The Fourth Horseman" which rides as one of my favorite books of all time
ill try to find an online version of it

No pun intended there, right?  :-D
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: AFK on January 23, 2007, 04:48:29 pm
Hey! I do the puns around here.  Go find your own shtick! 
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Thurnez Isa on January 23, 2007, 04:59:54 pm
I could not find it for the life of me...

http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Horseman-History-Epidemics-Scourges/dp/0871317214/sr=8-2/qid=1169570841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-9814726-4261442?ie=UTF8&s=books

this is the book im talking about
if anyone finds an online copy in your interweb travels send me the link
its actually an interesting read even if you don't agree with his final conclusions

Quote
When the Fourth Horseman rides again, creating civilization in unforseeable ways, modern medicine will take its traditional seat in the last row of history's bleechers. Docters have never arrested or changed the course of an epidemic and likely never will. Although their drugs and vaccines may create an illusion of competence, pestilence will continue to remind the masses that the youngest science is still wearing a diaper, and probably a dirty one of that. Physicians will never make a difference during plagues until they give up the germ theory and view epidemics as crude disturbances in human culture. However hard we try, we can't beat the superorganism, bribe the horseman, or ignore the immuntable presence of pestilence in history

Quote
Future plagues will come and go, leaving stigmas as distinct as leprosy and sociel markers as potent as AIDS. Built on the energy of germs, civilizations ultimately rise and fall on their rhythm.

Quote
The great medical ecologist Rene Dubos never tired of reminding disbelievers of the unpredictable ways in which microbes an the Fourth Horseman set the boundaries of our history. Dubos didn't buy the modern idea that humans control their own "biological and cultural distiny" and called our relatively plague-free existance a "mirage". He knew life without Pestilence was a grand illusion... no matter how pervasive the illusion, the Fourth Horseman always takes his quarter.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on January 23, 2007, 06:21:03 pm
i still think the octopuss is pretty damn cool
being able to squeeze outta tiny holes and take down sharks an all.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jasper on January 23, 2007, 09:33:41 pm
The Con is way ahead of you, I'm afraid SC.

A friend of mine recently had the epiphany that a species' success is based on how good they are at being fat and lazy.  Take crocodiles, sharks, etc.  All very reserved with actual effort.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on January 23, 2007, 11:14:23 pm
The Con is way ahead of you, I'm afraid SC.

A friend of mine recently had the epiphany that a species' success is based on how good they are at being fat and lazy.  Take crocodiles, sharks, etc.  All very reserved with actual effort.

I used to keep snakes. You never seen anything so efficient. My burmese could prolly have gone 6months with no food without suffering too much. (she never had to in case you were wondering)
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Suu on January 24, 2007, 12:26:51 am
Burmese Pythons are gorgeous! Woooo...

Ever since that Diamondback Rattler almost killed me when I was 5, I've liked snakes.  :-D
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jasper on January 24, 2007, 01:16:46 am
I'd never keep anything that had no concept of society in my house.  No reptiles please.  They bring me no joy.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2007, 08:04:46 am
Burmese Pythons are gorgeous! Woooo...

Ever since that Diamondback Rattler almost killed me when I was 5, I've liked snakes.  :-D

Burmese have a bad rep but I never encountered one that showed any aggression, other than when you first wake them up. Boas on the other hand are bastards, I got bit on the face by an 8 footer - fucker missed my eye by about half an inch.

For a real lulz try a retic, most of those fuckers are totally psychotic and they get real big too.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Triple Zero on January 24, 2007, 09:33:37 am
However, the savannah is a dangerous place, so our ancestors had to learn to stand up (to see over the grass to watch for prey and predators), and grow brains (to learn to use rocks to supplement our pitiful natural weaponry).  And it was all downhill from there.

So we're the loser monkeys.  The failures of the monkey world.

we're the nerdy monkeys.

with our nerdy glasses and pencilholders, not allowed to play in the jungle anymore with the cool monkeys.

bonobos throw the greatest parties.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on January 24, 2007, 02:44:27 pm
The Con is way ahead of you, I'm afraid SC.

A friend of mine recently had the epiphany that a species' success is based on how good they are at being fat and lazy.  Take crocodiles, sharks, etc.  All very reserved with actual effort.

I'll have you know that sharks are not lazy. They lack gas bladders so to climb or sustain their level in the water collum they have to be constantly in motion. As for success, Osteichthian fishes (bony) are far more successful than Condricthian (cartilaginous) fishes such as sharks, inhabiting a far wider aray of habitats.

As for reptiles, they require a large amount of time for sunning to maintain a relative body temperature, which requires them to be still while they thermoregulate. This only comes off as being lazy. Animals like us who have internal thermoregulation require a larger amount of food input to energeticly put out this heat. We are active and able to be active and that requires us to eat more.

Applying human characteristics like "lazy" to non-primates doesn't really hold up well.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2007, 02:48:52 pm
Agreed! Just watch how quickly a constrictor will strike and kill it's prey. Sloth don't even enter into it. Economical is what it is.

*edit* Komodo dragons OTOH - thats' fkin lazy. One bite then follow the thing around for three days till it dies of blood poisoning.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on January 24, 2007, 03:11:20 pm
Thats economy of action as well. Just ask the people who are trying to capture and kill all the monitors escaped into the everglades. Those suckers are fast.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jenne on January 24, 2007, 04:23:30 pm
Economy of action, I thought, was an evolutionary skill.  One that means the species has evolved to produce the most amount of action with the least amount of effort/output.

Highly evolved skill, at that.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on January 24, 2007, 06:57:24 pm
Not to mention that sloth and laziness are psychological afflictions and not physical ones.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: hunter s.durden on January 24, 2007, 07:08:11 pm
They can be physical.
It's simply less common.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on January 24, 2007, 07:32:05 pm
They can be physical.
It's simply less common.

Weakness of muscles and tiredness all the time isn't lazyness, its anemia.

Laziness is always a psychological problem, at least in great part, and usually completly.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: hunter s.durden on January 24, 2007, 07:45:03 pm
Po-ta-to / Po-tah-to

I see what you're saying though.
I never differentiated.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2007, 08:35:24 pm
Thats economy of action as well. Just ask the people who are trying to capture and kill all the monitors escaped into the everglades. Those suckers are fast.

You have seen the documentary where two dragons tree the cameraman and the sound guy? Had a look on youtube but no joy. Monitors are the nuts - I love the way they walk about with those little bulldog legs and the tounge. Much attitude.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jasper on January 24, 2007, 08:54:26 pm
By lazy I assumed everyone would understand that I meant disinclined to waste energy. 

Pardon me, carry on with the pedantry.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jenne on January 24, 2007, 09:04:54 pm
Well, I guess it's the definition of "lazy" that is at question then, eh?

I mean, animals like a crocodile don't have a mental compunction to conserve energy for the hell of it...it's all about survival for them.  They are an old, old species, so this is an evolutionary behavior for them as well.  It's what's kept them from evolving PAST how we've first encountered them.  In a sense, anyway.

So what's a biological, survival mechanism for reptiles is for us a disfunction of post-post modern advances in society.

Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jasper on January 24, 2007, 09:34:20 pm
Oh, the hell with it.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jenne on January 24, 2007, 10:24:29 pm
:lol:

Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jasper on January 24, 2007, 10:40:55 pm
Wait, you 'got it'

Holy shit, you're my favorite human for the next two hours.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jenne on January 24, 2007, 11:27:33 pm
I love it when you're "fake exasperated."  And then you get "fake pissy" when no one understands you.

(you are faking it, right?)
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2007, 06:55:40 am
Cain, do you live like an ant? I don't. Some of us have taken advantage of our evolutionary gifts.

Roger, there is a group that wants to free chimps and higher primates from zoos because they think it is wrong to lock up a "person" who hasn't committed a crime.
They need to see what you just wrote.

Fuck those smug little bastards.

TGRR,
Has no sympathy for our superior kin.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2007, 06:56:24 am
Nothing's thriving. We've kinda seen to that. Bacteria, viri, cockroaches maybe.

Rats never had it so good.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2007, 06:57:36 am
i still think the octopuss is pretty damn cool
being able to squeeze outta tiny holes and take down sharks an all.

Let me know when they start attacking cities.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jasper on January 25, 2007, 08:42:54 am
I love it when you're "fake exasperated."  And then you get "fake pissy" when no one understands you.

(you are faking it, right?)

You calling me a liar?
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on January 25, 2007, 08:49:07 am
I love it when you're "fake exasperated."  And then you get "fake pissy" when no one understands you.

(you are faking it, right?)

You calling me a liar?

Has to be either that or you're menstruating.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jasper on January 25, 2007, 09:14:24 am
Exactly, out my ass. 

<Returns to exasperated mode>
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jenne on January 25, 2007, 06:08:47 pm
I love it when you're "fake exasperated." And then you get "fake pissy" when no one understands you.

(you are faking it, right?)

You calling me a liar?

Hmf.  No.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jasper on January 25, 2007, 06:13:22 pm
*Wicked smirk*

Gotcha.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jenne on January 25, 2007, 06:14:28 pm
:lol:
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Sepia on January 26, 2007, 09:51:38 am
Your original post reminds of either a Brion Gysin or a William Burroughs rant, Roger. I'm flipping through books to see if I can find it. I think it was a "we evolved a little bit and now have to work vs. our monkey ancestors that can lounge in the trees" sort of thing.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on January 27, 2007, 06:55:00 am
Your original post reminds of either a Brion Gysin or a William Burroughs rant, Roger. I'm flipping through books to see if I can find it. I think it was a "we evolved a little bit and now have to work vs. our monkey ancestors that can lounge in the trees" sort of thing.

I'd be interested in reading that.

But my contention is that we were losers from the get-go.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Dr. Cow Ass on February 02, 2007, 04:24:34 am
In recent years it seems we've stopped evolving and concentrated multiplying, over population and stupidity are the result of this.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jasper on February 02, 2007, 06:31:35 pm
Oversimplifications can occur.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Messier Undertree on February 03, 2007, 11:41:45 pm
In recent years it seems we've stopped evolving and concentrated multiplying, over population and stupidity are the result of this.

Heh. I knew you'd be back.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on February 04, 2007, 12:43:43 am
In recent years it seems we've stopped evolving and concentrated multiplying, over population and stupidity are the result of this.

Evolution is change, whether for better or worse.

No species ever stops evolving, until it is extinct. Even the ancient ones that outwardly haven't changed in millions of years.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Rev. St. Syn, KSC on February 04, 2007, 12:47:31 am
You know, something you don't see every day?

White dogshit.

It's true!

/king of situational comedy
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jasper on February 04, 2007, 01:25:36 am
You know, something you don't see every day?

White dogshit.

It's true!

/king of situational comedy

Yes I do.

Sean Hannity.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on February 04, 2007, 05:48:04 am
You know, something you don't see every day?

White dogshit.

It's true!

/king of situational comedy

Yes I do.

Sean Hannity.

Every day?

I pity you.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jasper on February 04, 2007, 07:07:09 am
It werz a joke. 

I don't watch fox, or even tv.  it was just an opportune moment to call Hannity dogshit.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Sepia on February 05, 2007, 12:04:47 am
First is a rambling about how communication is the original sin, if you've read Burroughs' earlier hatred for women this roughly the same idea. Man was put into a slumber and god created woman from his rib and ever since we've been in a slumber trying to respond to her first "Hello". Gysins words, not mine. Then he chats abit about how all animals communicate but noone writes down how, dogs for instance bark to eachother about "bad men there? bad men here" etc.

"...The dogs too, they followed Adam and Eve out of the garden, as you remember - the only animal that followed them out of the garden was the dog. The cat came slinking along later and never opened its yap...And monkeys came swinging out of the trees later and made more people, 'cause who did they fuck? They fucked monkeys.. and made people. And what verybody says, in the Arab world, about monkeys is that They know - they could talk of they wanted to, but they know better - 'cause if they talked they'd have to work.. So - as soon as you communicate, you have to work - that's a basic law..."

Not completely at where you were headed Roger but I'd thought I'd post it anyway. Will be writing down his rant about "the bad animal" tomorrow.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 05, 2007, 07:01:25 pm
In recent years it seems we've stopped evolving and concentrated multiplying, over population and stupidity are the result of this.

But how does all of this relate to Black people?

 :lol:

Your fans are dying to know.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Mangrove on February 05, 2007, 07:49:54 pm
I want to know how anyone who is not millions of years old would be able to tell that humans had stopped evolving.

I'm not an expert or anything, but I've read that it takes like...you know...a rather long time.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 05, 2007, 07:53:52 pm
I want to know how anyone who is not millions of years old would be able to tell that humans had stopped evolving.

I'm not an expert or anything, but I've read that it takes like...you know...a rather long time.

We have evolved measurably since the Roman era.

But we haven't gotten any wiser.  Sure, we're smart, but we don't have good sense.

Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Cain on February 05, 2007, 07:58:46 pm
Wasn't it Dawkins who suggested we have memes instead of physical evolution?

Given 99% of memes are retarded.....
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: LMNO on February 05, 2007, 07:58:56 pm
Since when has good sense been a favorable evolutionary trait?

As far as I can tell, there should be a lot more people who are right fucking bastards than having good sense, evolutionarily speaking.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Mangrove on February 05, 2007, 07:59:21 pm

We have evolved measurably since the Roman era.

This is good to know.

Quote

But we haven't gotten any wiser.  Sure, we're smart, but we don't have good sense.



The troofs are most horrible ITT.

Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Cain on February 05, 2007, 07:59:51 pm
Actually, cooperation is a better trait.  I'm sure BMW can tell us about evolutionary psychology.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Random Probability on February 05, 2007, 08:03:22 pm
We have evolved measurably since the Roman era.

But we haven't gotten any wiser.  Sure, we're smart, but we don't have good sense.

Evolution occurs due to changes in the environment (among other things).  You will of course notice the change in the human environment between Roman times (organized representative government, advanced social infrastructure, education and sciences), balanced against the intervening thousand or so years of the Christian Age (aka the Dark Age) which were marked by ignorance, fear, superstition, disease, pestilence, etc.  Human beings adapted to a system that violently punished intelligence and natural leadership.

I fear that the current leaders of our society are the same asshats that chucked the Roman system all those years ago.

Remember:  The Dark Ages are only a light switch away.....
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 05, 2007, 08:20:41 pm
We have evolved measurably since the Roman era.

But we haven't gotten any wiser.  Sure, we're smart, but we don't have good sense.

Evolution occurs due to changes in the environment (among other things).  You will of course notice the change in the human environment between Roman times (organized representative government, advanced social infrastructure, education and sciences), balanced against the intervening thousand or so years of the Christian Age (aka the Dark Age) which were marked by ignorance, fear, superstition, disease, pestilence, etc.  Human beings adapted to a system that violently punished intelligence and natural leadership.

I fear that the current leaders of our society are the same asshats that chucked the Roman system all those years ago.

Remember:  The Dark Ages are only a light switch away.....

Well, I was talking about the fact that sword-arm reach has made us taller.

But your answer is good, too.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on February 05, 2007, 11:09:47 pm
Actually, cooperation is a better trait.  I'm sure BMW can tell us about evolutionary psychology.

Ehh...me, psychology?

In primates, cooperation does seem to be a more advanced or derived trait. However, this does not hold true for all mamallian orders. Solitary can work too, if you are strongly built, fierce and a top predator. Example: Bears and mountain lions.

But really, I'm not the best person to go to on the psychology end. I know evolutionary physiology better.

Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Cain on February 05, 2007, 11:11:40 pm
Oh, sorry.  I thought you may have touched on evolutionary psychology.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on February 05, 2007, 11:21:59 pm
Oh, sorry.  I thought you may have touched on evolutionary psychology.

Thats more of an biological anthropologists thing, really. I may have stated my opinion somewhere, earlier. I seem to remember saying something about human evolution in a couple of threads, but can't for the life of me remember where or what was said.

May have to do some thread archeology.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Cain on February 05, 2007, 11:23:40 pm
I read a book on it nearly two years ago now.  I may it confused with that and this board.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on February 08, 2007, 10:28:06 pm
You know, something you don't see every day?

White dogshit.

It's true!

/king of situational comedy

Too true. Ya don't see this every day. I used to see it a lot when I was a kid from people walkin their dogs and leavin their loads behind, but not so much anymore.

(is it white cause the flies sucked all the brown out of it?)
((I know it isn't but that's a funny thought))
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on February 08, 2007, 10:37:39 pm
(http://www.b3tards.com/uploads/dsm.jpg)
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Benaclypse on February 16, 2007, 02:47:33 am
At least we're still devolving.  There's a pretty thought.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on February 16, 2007, 07:35:37 pm
Oh, sorry.  I thought you may have touched on evolutionary psychology.

Thats more of an biological anthropologists thing, really. I may have stated my opinion somewhere, earlier. I seem to remember saying something about human evolution in a couple of threads, but can't for the life of me remember where or what was said.

May have to do some thread archeology.

I remember now. It was about the fear of the unknown, and how it may have been useful at some point, but is no longer useful now.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Ambassador KAOS on March 25, 2007, 12:29:54 pm
I just ate a whole lot of yogurt, which brings me to my point.
I don't beleive in evolution.  Sure the process by which one set of genetic traits becomes dominant by alpha male getting more pieces of ass when he gets back to the lion's den makes good sense, but that also kills off other benevolent traits that might be otherwise usefull that he didn't possess.  I don't think the idea is wrong, just the aspect that the most usefull things are dominant.  This may be true of other species who eat their retarded young, but for some reason we have ceased doing that and now an oversized chunk of the population (of America at least), is a bunch of redneck hillbillys.  In truth, poor and stupid people fuck more and make more babies than the wealthy intelligent.  I propose that we reassess with this information to invallidate my argument that evlolution is a failed system and put a dumb hillbilly who can barely speak english in the president's office and that we all watch more TV, specifically wrestling, nascar and TNN ("we fuck pigs") and buy more merchandise in these markets to help support the obviously superior genetic traits of the classic shit-kicking hick on welfare with 8 kids.  Praise the plastic lawn Jesus.

How is this relavent?  I think it support the least fit monkey theory by giving a more modern day example.
AKK
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Triple Zero on March 25, 2007, 12:41:50 pm
what you describe here is not what is generally understood as "evolution" (in the "on the origin of species" kind of meaning)

you seem to forget that evolution is not a matter of a few generations of hillbillies.

how old is the USA? some 500 years right? that's a mere blip on the scale of evolution.

besides, you, with your individual-mind are not in any position to have a good idea on what "the fittest" may mean, in the "survival of the fittest", the species-mind decides what is fit and what is not.
for the same, might as well be a bunch of rednek hillbillies reverting back to monkeys, if that's what happens to be most numerous when push comes to call.

and in the end, the DNA doesn't even care whether it's monkeys or cockroaches or the lacto-bacteria in the yoghurt you just ate

don't confuse yourself with the idea that evolution actually has a "purpose", it sort of comes before "purpose", without evolution it would all be meaningless chemical and nuclear reactions and now we got life and species and suddenly it seems something had "meant" this to be. well, yeah, it's sorta like that, but it also isn't. depends on how you look at it, but you can't look at it from one way and then apply the same conclusions to the other viewpoint unless you want to fool yourself.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Ambassador KAOS on March 25, 2007, 01:53:30 pm
what you describe here is not what is generally understood as "evolution" (in the "on the origin of species" kind of meaning)

don't confuse yourself with the idea that evolution actually has a "purpose", it sort of comes before "purpose", without evolution it would all be meaningless chemical and nuclear reactions and now we got life and species and suddenly it seems something had "meant" this to be. well, yeah, it's sorta like that, but it also isn't. depends on how you look at it, but you can't look at it from one way and then apply the same conclusions to the other viewpoint unless you want to fool yourself.

Who wouldn't want to fool themselves? 

There is no correct answer to that question.  But you do make a point with the circular logic you have presented.  "It's sorta like that, but not" of course and isn't at the same and separate times!  The truth of the matter is, I refuse to admit that redneck hillbillys are more genetically advanced, especially if it's true, because fuck them and that's why.  What truth is is what you say it is, because... who wouldn't want to fool themselves? :fnord:
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Idem on March 25, 2007, 07:10:17 pm
what you describe here is not what is generally understood as "evolution" (in the "on the origin of species" kind of meaning)

don't confuse yourself with the idea that evolution actually has a "purpose", it sort of comes before "purpose", without evolution it would all be meaningless chemical and nuclear reactions and now we got life and species and suddenly it seems something had "meant" this to be. well, yeah, it's sorta like that, but it also isn't. depends on how you look at it, but you can't look at it from one way and then apply the same conclusions to the other viewpoint unless you want to fool yourself.

Who wouldn't want to fool themselves? 

There is no correct answer to that question.  But you do make a point with the circular logic you have presented.  "It's sorta like that, but not" of course and isn't at the same and separate times!  The truth of the matter is, I refuse to admit that redneck hillbillys are more genetically advanced, especially if it's true, because fuck them and that's why.  What truth is is what you say it is, because... who wouldn't want to fool themselves? :fnord:
what
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 25, 2007, 07:13:03 pm
I just ate a whole lot of yogurt, which brings me to my point.

Stopped reading right there.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 25, 2007, 07:13:27 pm
what you describe here is not what is generally understood as "evolution" (in the "on the origin of species" kind of meaning)

don't confuse yourself with the idea that evolution actually has a "purpose", it sort of comes before "purpose", without evolution it would all be meaningless chemical and nuclear reactions and now we got life and species and suddenly it seems something had "meant" this to be. well, yeah, it's sorta like that, but it also isn't. depends on how you look at it, but you can't look at it from one way and then apply the same conclusions to the other viewpoint unless you want to fool yourself.

Who wouldn't want to fool themselves? 

There is no correct answer to that question.  But you do make a point with the circular logic you have presented.  "It's sorta like that, but not" of course and isn't at the same and separate times!  The truth of the matter is, I refuse to admit that redneck hillbillys are more genetically advanced, especially if it's true, because fuck them and that's why.  What truth is is what you say it is, because... who wouldn't want to fool themselves? :fnord:

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNG!
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 25, 2007, 08:32:31 pm
I just ate a whole lot of yogurt, which brings me to my point.
I don't beleive in evolution.  Sure the process by which one set of genetic traits becomes dominant by alpha male getting more pieces of ass when he gets back to the lion's den makes good sense, but that also kills off other benevolent traits that might be otherwise usefull that he didn't possess.  I don't think the idea is wrong, just the aspect that the most usefull things are dominant.  This may be true of other species who eat their retarded young, but for some reason we have ceased doing that and now an oversized chunk of the population (of America at least), is a bunch of redneck hillbillys.  In truth, poor and stupid people fuck more and make more babies than the wealthy intelligent.  I propose that we reassess with this information to invallidate my argument that evlolution is a failed system and put a dumb hillbilly who can barely speak english in the president's office and that we all watch more TV, specifically wrestling, nascar and TNN ("we fuck pigs") and buy more merchandise in these markets to help support the obviously superior genetic traits of the classic shit-kicking hick on welfare with 8 kids.  Praise the plastic lawn Jesus.

How is this relavent?  I think it support the least fit monkey theory by giving a more modern day example.
AKK

Social Darwinism =/= biological evolution

Furthermore, social darwinism is bullshit.

How many times do I have to tell these fuckos?
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Thurnez Isa on March 25, 2007, 08:37:48 pm
and for KAOS give him long nonsensual paragraphs that no one with any once of life has the time or care to read
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 25, 2007, 08:38:48 pm


Social Darwinism =/= biological evolution

Furthermore, social darwinism is bullshit.

How many times do I have to tell these fuckos?

It's no good preaching proper science to yahoos, BMW.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Triple Zero on March 25, 2007, 08:40:11 pm
Social Darwinism =/= biological evolution

Furthermore, social darwinism is bullshit.

How many times do I have to tell these fuckos?

question, just because i don't know what social darwinism is, but am i correct to assume your point is somewhere along the lines of what i just said?
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Idem on March 26, 2007, 12:00:56 am
what you describe here is not what is generally understood as "evolution" (in the "on the origin of species" kind of meaning)

don't confuse yourself with the idea that evolution actually has a "purpose", it sort of comes before "purpose", without evolution it would all be meaningless chemical and nuclear reactions and now we got life and species and suddenly it seems something had "meant" this to be. well, yeah, it's sorta like that, but it also isn't. depends on how you look at it, but you can't look at it from one way and then apply the same conclusions to the other viewpoint unless you want to fool yourself.

Who wouldn't want to fool themselves? 

There is no correct answer to that question.  But you do make a point with the circular logic you have presented.  "It's sorta like that, but not" of course and isn't at the same and separate times!  The truth of the matter is, I refuse to admit that redneck hillbillys are more genetically advanced, especially if it's true, because fuck them and that's why.  What truth is is what you say it is, because... who wouldn't want to fool themselves? :fnord:
what
I mean, srsly, wtf was that?  I couldnt make sense out of any of it.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 26, 2007, 12:09:01 am
what you describe here is not what is generally understood as "evolution" (in the "on the origin of species" kind of meaning)

don't confuse yourself with the idea that evolution actually has a "purpose", it sort of comes before "purpose", without evolution it would all be meaningless chemical and nuclear reactions and now we got life and species and suddenly it seems something had "meant" this to be. well, yeah, it's sorta like that, but it also isn't. depends on how you look at it, but you can't look at it from one way and then apply the same conclusions to the other viewpoint unless you want to fool yourself.

Who wouldn't want to fool themselves? 

There is no correct answer to that question.  But you do make a point with the circular logic you have presented.  "It's sorta like that, but not" of course and isn't at the same and separate times!  The truth of the matter is, I refuse to admit that redneck hillbillys are more genetically advanced, especially if it's true, because fuck them and that's why.  What truth is is what you say it is, because... who wouldn't want to fool themselves? :fnord:
what
I mean, srsly, wtf was that?  I couldnt make sense out of any of it.

Oh, it's just more "dadaism = teh kchaos!!111", is all.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 26, 2007, 01:00:45 am
Social Darwinism =/= biological evolution

Furthermore, social darwinism is bullshit.

How many times do I have to tell these fuckos?

question, just because i don't know what social darwinism is, but am i correct to assume your point is somewhere along the lines of what i just said?

Yeah, evolution doesn't have a purpose, you are right. Your post was good.

Social darwinism is the bogus idea that you can take bioevolutionary principles and relate them to culture. Its bullshit. Furthermore, its one of the things that hitler used to justify the holocaust.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 26, 2007, 01:07:00 am
Social Darwinism =/= biological evolution

Furthermore, social darwinism is bullshit.

How many times do I have to tell these fuckos?

question, just because i don't know what social darwinism is, but am i correct to assume your point is somewhere along the lines of what i just said?

Yeah, evolution doesn't have a purpose, you are right. Your post was good.

Social darwinism is the bogus idea that you can take bioevolutionary principles and relate them to culture. Its bullshit. Furthermore, its one of the things that hitler used to justify the holocaust.

And Numa videos.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 26, 2007, 01:23:58 am
Social Darwinism =/= biological evolution

Furthermore, social darwinism is bullshit.

How many times do I have to tell these fuckos?

question, just because i don't know what social darwinism is, but am i correct to assume your point is somewhere along the lines of what i just said?

Yeah, evolution doesn't have a purpose, you are right. Your post was good.

Social darwinism is the bogus idea that you can take bioevolutionary principles and relate them to culture. Its bullshit. Furthermore, its one of the things that hitler used to justify the holocaust.

And Numa videos.

 :lulz:

Yeah, um...

pretty much.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Triple Zero on March 26, 2007, 09:50:04 am
what you describe here is not what is generally understood as "evolution" (in the "on the origin of species" kind of meaning)

don't confuse yourself with the idea that evolution actually has a "purpose", it sort of comes before "purpose", without evolution it would all be meaningless chemical and nuclear reactions and now we got life and species and suddenly it seems something had "meant" this to be. well, yeah, it's sorta like that, but it also isn't. depends on how you look at it, but you can't look at it from one way and then apply the same conclusions to the other viewpoint unless you want to fool yourself.

Who wouldn't want to fool themselves? 

There is no correct answer to that question.  But you do make a point with the circular logic you have presented.  "It's sorta like that, but not" of course and isn't at the same and separate times!  The truth of the matter is, I refuse to admit that redneck hillbillys are more genetically advanced, especially if it's true, because fuck them and that's why.  What truth is is what you say it is, because... who wouldn't want to fool themselves? :fnord:
what
I mean, srsly, wtf was that?  I couldnt make sense out of any of it.

i think "there may or may not have been a point to that"

(i'm guessing the latter)
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Ambassador KAOS on March 26, 2007, 10:52:33 am


(i'm guessing the latter)

Actually there was.
it's very rare that nothing of use is can be found in my writing.  Maybe nothing of use to you, but I'm certain someone would find something entertaining or enlightening in there.

I know I was entertained.
I refuse to dissect that piece though, because it would take too long as it draws references from various things that may or may not be apparent, but da da wasn't one of them, FYI rog.
So basically, if you want to write it off go for it, if you want to dissect it, do that too.
I already got my thrills worth of orgasm out of that one.

Porn.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: LMNO on March 26, 2007, 03:26:14 pm
AK, if you're going to disagree with Evolution, I'm sure you've read the original Darwin, plus the hundred or so years of commentary and clarification of his work, right?


Right?
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Ambassador KAOS on March 26, 2007, 03:53:25 pm
Yes every piece of paper-=EVER! I also read everyone's mind on the topic since it's inception.  I am the foremost expert.

(hangs head in shame)

My education on the matter is admittedly not that extensive.  I was assigned to write a paper on it in HS.  I did a half assed job. 

When I say that I disagree  with evolution, I don't deny it's relavence, I just dissagree with the various emphasises I've seen attatched to it.  Usually (though not always) this takes on the form of the term I saw for the first time above "social darwinism" which it seems is extensively agreed up in this thread to be bullshit.

I need not preach further on the matter, doing so is likely to call attention from those that have a clue.

 :taco:
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 26, 2007, 04:04:08 pm
Yes every piece of paper-=EVER! I also read everyone's mind on the topic since it's inception.  I am the foremost expert.

(hangs head in shame)

My education on the matter is admittedly not that extensive.  I was assigned to write a paper on it in HS.  I did a half assed job. 

When I say that I disagree  with evolution, I don't deny it's relavence, I just dissagree with the various emphasises I've seen attatched to it.  Usually (though not always) this takes on the form of the term I saw for the first time above "social darwinism" which it seems is extensively agreed up in this thread to be bullshit.

I need not preach further on the matter, doing so is likely to call attention from those that have a clue.

 :taco:

Biological evolution is fact. If you deny it, you deny all the biological sciences, because its pretty much the base of our understanding of life.

You also look like a downright fool. Next you're gonna be telling us that you think people should believe in animism and that witch doctors heal by casting out the spirits.  :roll:

Save yourself the trouble and get a good biology textbook. Should be one at your local library.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Ambassador KAOS on March 26, 2007, 04:48:39 pm

Biological evolution is fact. If you deny it, you deny all the biological sciences, because its pretty much the base of our understanding of life.



Read closer next time, that was never the topic I questioned.  If you got that impression you severely misinterpreted.

Not being a douche, just saying.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 26, 2007, 05:38:50 pm

Biological evolution is fact. If you deny it, you deny all the biological sciences, because its pretty much the base of our understanding of life.



Read closer next time, that was never the topic I questioned.  If you got that impression you severely misinterpreted.

Not being a douche, just saying.

WTF?  It sure as fuck was.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Idem on March 26, 2007, 08:30:10 pm

Biological evolution is fact. If you deny it, you deny all the biological sciences, because its pretty much the base of our understanding of life.



Read closer next time, that was never the topic I questioned.  If you got that impression you severely misinterpreted.

Not being a douche, just saying.
what
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 26, 2007, 10:57:34 pm

Biological evolution is fact. If you deny it, you deny all the biological sciences, because its pretty much the base of our understanding of life.



Read closer next time, that was never the topic I questioned.  If you got that impression you severely misinterpreted.

Not being a douche, just saying.

WTF?  It sure as fuck was.

Yeah, thats what I'm thinking.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Ambassador KAOS on March 27, 2007, 06:33:29 am
Because you asked for it, cards go on the table now.

I find the opening statement here to be entertaining and thought provoking.  My replies however were loaded with sarcasm.  This was mainly due to the fact that I did not take the article seriously as it is not clear how much of the the variables involved in mankind's evolution allow for the production of specific beneficial traits in response to environmental signals VS genetic predisposition.

I do not deny that biological organisms genetically adapt.  This, to me is a self evident truth that can easilly be understood by viewing a single life cycle of birth, growth, deterioration and death with further evidence backed by genetic mutations and cancers.

To help explain the sarcasm I used I will share with you a bit of my background on the subject.

I spend 40 hours on duty at an institution of higher education.  one of the departments in my wing is the Biology labs and as such I frequently interact with the proffessors there.  As one might infer, evolution is a hotly debated topic even among proffessors, especially so among biology proffessors.

A campus wide survey showed that 39% of the faculty believed that human life has existed in present form only(it's a lineral college so this doesn't surprise me).  26% believed in various forms of evolution (be it guided, natural or otherwise) and the rest (35%)were unwilling to commit to any sort of answer.

My problem with so many evolutionary arguments is that is simply not clear how intelligence and environmental factors correllate to what is and is not favorable.

By this I mean that when bubba IQ 65 shoots a dear this does not indicate superiority, it simply proves that he shot a deer.  In all likelihood even taking into account theories of collective unconscious and memes if bubba had not been taught how to use a weapon and how to hunt he very likely would not survive independantly in the wild.

Humans have come to thrive on the surface for various reasons. 

One of the major contributing factors is superior methods of communication.  From language, writing, printing press, radio, telephone and televesion and internet; mankind has allowed for samples of the species to have more accessability to information and thus allowed otherwise weaker members of the species to thrive.

This really throws a monkey wrench in the whole darwinian paradigm of survival of the fittest as well many attitudes of human superiority as humans consider themselves at the top of the food chain.

This is further backed by studies that low income and low education families reproduce in greater numbers than high income and high education families.

This is not a trend, this is a by far the law.

Further, ancient texts of Plato are beyond the innitial grasp of many moderately educated and even some well educated portions of the human population, though like a dog, if you beat the lesson in long enough it will eventually stick.

When i said "I don't believe in evolution" what my sarcasm was really communicating is "I don't think humans have gotten any smarter, and being at what we percieve as the top of the food chain does not make us superior."

In this fashion if you were to ask a bacteria in the mariana trench it would probably tell you it was the supreme species.  In it's world it is all it percieves.  Indeed humans cannot survive (naturally) there, or even breathe under water (naturally). 

This is offset however, by the fact that those same bacteria could not survive under the sets of gravity we are accustom to.  Which is more resiliant then?  Niether.  Instead they are both suited to their environments and niether is superior.   This is why when bubba shoots a deer, or even when an educated man shoots a deer he is not establishing anything more than primal dominance, not intellectual superiority.

To do so he would have to become a deer and be a better deer than the one he killed.  This is unlikely as the deer has more experience at being what it is.

If that isn't enough to convince you that nothing is superior to anything else, refer to the second law of thermodynamics.

If you dissagree, post superior factual data and I will admit to being wrong if you sway my opinions.

Ambassador KLOK KAOS



Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2007, 07:40:42 am
BMW, this one's all yours.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 27, 2007, 02:01:01 pm
BMW, this one's all yours.

Goody. I'll eat this later, when I have a little more time.  :D
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Ambassador KAOS on March 27, 2007, 02:36:40 pm
BMW, this one's all yours.

Goody. I'll eat this later, when I have a little more time.  :D

Please do, in all honesty I don't like being ignorant to facts and I don't hold tightly to precepts and opinions.  If you have something good to offer I'll eat it up.  That goes for anyone.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Idem on March 27, 2007, 03:48:30 pm
tl;dr
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Triple Zero on March 27, 2007, 06:05:23 pm
tl;dr

and if you did, you'd have said

what

so, yeah.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 27, 2007, 07:15:49 pm
Because you asked for it, cards go on the table now.

I find the opening statement here to be entertaining and thought provoking.  My replies however were loaded with sarcasm.  This was mainly due to the fact that I did not take the article seriously as it is not clear how much of the the variables involved in mankind's evolution allow for the production of specific beneficial traits in response to environmental signals VS genetic predisposition.

Okay, this first statement is good. Natural selection vs Genetic drift (that is, what amount of genetic evolution is due to direct enviromental selection for beneficial traits and what is due to stocastic selection, basically random combinations of traits in a population) is actually a valid debate in evolutionary biology today. Very high profile. Lots of math. I really barely understand the data myself.


Quote
I do not deny that biological organisms genetically adapt.  This, to me is a self evident truth that can easilly be understood by viewing a single life cycle of birth, growth, deterioration and death with further evidence backed by genetic mutations and cancers.

Here is where you get off track. Organisms do not adapt. Naturally, the genetics of an individual are fixed over a lifetime (lets leave out horizontal gene transfer for the moment). Evolution in the biological and genetic sense occurs on the population level, that is, it is the change in genetics of a population as effected by enviromenal and drift over time. Mutations are mearly changes in phenotypic traits due to genotypic combinations, and they are not something that just arises in a person life, they are passed from parents to offspring. Cancer, while people maybe more subseptable to it due to genetic traits, it doesn't necessarily have any connection to genetic predisposition. When you say adaptation in this paragraph, you mean behavioral, which is an entirely different subject than what I am talking about.


Quote
To help explain the sarcasm I used I will share with you a bit of my background on the subject.

I spend 40 hours on duty at an institution of higher education.  one of the departments in my wing is the Biology labs and as such I frequently interact with the proffessors there.  As one might infer, evolution is a hotly debated topic even among proffessors, especially so among biology proffessors.

A campus wide survey showed that 39% of the faculty believed that human life has existed in present form only(it's a lineral college so this doesn't surprise me).  26% believed in various forms of evolution (be it guided, natural or otherwise) and the rest (35%)were unwilling to commit to any sort of answer.

Science isn't based upon public opinion though. Its not based upon opinion at all. Its based on evidence, and for evolution, the evidence has become so obvious that I have no real sympathy for those who would flail against it.

Quote
My problem with so many evolutionary arguments is that is simply not clear how intelligence and environmental factors correllate to what is and is not favorable.

By this I mean that when bubba IQ 65 shoots a dear this does not indicate superiority, it simply proves that he shot a deer.  In all likelihood even taking into account theories of collective unconscious and memes if bubba had not been taught how to use a weapon and how to hunt he very likely would not survive independantly in the wild.

Evolution isn't about what could be. Its about what works, and has worked. If things didn't work, they wouldn't be around today; the very reason that humans exist today is because they can survive and reproduce to the next generation. All other ideas about this are purely philosophical.

Quote
Humans have come to thrive on the surface for various reasons. 

One of the major contributing factors is superior methods of communication.  From language, writing, printing press, radio, telephone and televesion and internet; mankind has allowed for samples of the species to have more accessability to information and thus allowed otherwise weaker members of the species to thrive.

And for the moment that has worked. Those individuals are fit enough to survive and reproduce. Under previous conditions things may have been different, but evolution doesn't take into account previous conditions. Only the present.

Quote
This really throws a monkey wrench in the whole darwinian paradigm of survival of the fittest as well many attitudes of human superiority as humans consider themselves at the top of the food chain.

No it doesn't throw the monkey wrench into survival of the fittest. Those individuals who can survive under the conditions too. Seeing as the conditions include modern medical systems and the like, more individuals survive to adulthood to reproduce. Thats all a mesure of fitness is: the ability of an individual to survive to adulthood and reproduce. If they can reproduce, they are fit. If their ofspring don't survive to reproduction, they end up being unfit, and do not reproduce. No more to it than that.

Also, biology doesn't deal in the whole philosophical question of superior and inferior. If we want to talk about newer or younger forms of life, meaning those that have greater complexity of systems or newer morphology, we used the word derived. A statement could be something like "a human is a more derived form than a mollusk", which is a true.


Quote
This is further backed by studies that low income and low education families reproduce in greater numbers than high income and high education families.

This is not a trend, this is a by far the law.

Further, ancient texts of Plato are beyond the innitial grasp of many moderately educated and even some well educated portions of the human population, though like a dog, if you beat the lesson in long enough it will eventually stick.

When i said "I don't believe in evolution" what my sarcasm was really communicating is "I don't think humans have gotten any smarter, and being at what we percieve as the top of the food chain does not make us superior."

Okay, theres your problem. Evolution is merely change over time. It doesn't have to mean smarter, it doesn't have to mean bigger, it doesn't have to mean more complex. Processes can be evolved to simplify. If there is no need for greater intelligence, then it won't be selected for. Though I would say that intelligence is as much a factor of your childhood as it is your genetics. You don't have to believe humans have increased in intelligence over the last 3000 years to know that evolution is real. In fact, I would tell you that evolution in such a large and diffuse population as humans have is going to be very slow. You aren't going to see much general change over even 10,000 years. Now, you get an isolated population with a founder effect, THEN you'll start to see some change pretty quickly, both by natural selection and genetic drift. The galapagos finches are prime examples of this.

Quote
In this fashion if you were to ask a bacteria in the mariana trench it would probably tell you it was the supreme species.  In it's world it is all it percieves.  Indeed humans cannot survive (naturally) there, or even breathe under water (naturally).
 

No offence, this statement is ridiculous. Asking a bacteria if it was the supreme species in its relm....*sigh*

Still, I can make something of this. Its true, humans cannot survive in the mariana trench. We don't have to. Its not our environ. We didn't evolve there, we are not naturally adapted to that situation. So, compairing the two is moot.

Quote
This is offset however, by the fact that those same bacteria could not survive under the sets of gravity we are accustom to.  Which is more resiliant then?  Niether.

Each is suited to their own environ. They are obviously fit enough, or they wouldn't be around.

Quote
Instead they are both suited to their environments and niether is superior.   This is why when bubba shoots a deer, or even when an educated man shoots a deer he is not establishing anything more than primal dominance, not intellectual superiority.

What is with this superiority stuff? Really, it has no place in biology.

Quote
To do so he would have to become a deer and be a better deer than the one he killed.  This is unlikely as the deer has more experience at being what it is.

Another ridiculous statement. I'm sorry, it just is.

Quote
If that isn't enough to convince you that nothing is superior to anything else, refer to the second law of thermodynamics.

If you dissagree, post superior factual data and I will admit to being wrong if you sway my opinions.

Ambassador KLOK KAOS

Im gonna give you a link to something I wrote, and you can decide for yourself if I believe in human superiority or not.

http://pseudobuddhaodiscordopastafarian.blogspot.com/search?q=The+process+of+sustaining (http://pseudobuddhaodiscordopastafarian.blogspot.com/search?q=The+process+of+sustaining)

Thanks for listening.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: LMNO on March 27, 2007, 07:27:01 pm
Apart from the BBScode fuckup, that was a very interesting read, BMW.  thanks.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 27, 2007, 07:31:51 pm
Apart from the BBScode fuckup, that was a very interesting read, BMW.  thanks.

ARRRGGGHHH....I fucking suck at the internets...

BMW,

Has done this same screw up twice today already.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Ambassador KAOS on March 27, 2007, 07:47:18 pm
You missed the instructions on the end. 

You're argueing matters of opinion. 

You have your opinions and you like them better than mine. 

That's cool. 

You have failed to sway my opinions with your critique, lacking data to support it.  Many (most) of your points I disagree with.  Specifically that organisms do not adapt.  They do adapt, their genes even alter under certain circumstances (excessive radiation, cancer).  This is how those survivability traits become predominant, by climbing to the top of the DNA ladder so to speak.  There is more but I already feel I am wasting space because I can't agree with so much of what you have.

Any data you did use to support that was factual I can assure you was already accounted for before you added it. 

It is apparent you assume I am stupid.  How many times are you going to keep making this mistake? (agreed I can act dumb, that is an act for entertainments sake a good majority of the time because I'm not a bullshit claimer, learn that).

Agreed, I am not all knowing.  I feel I know very little.  But niggah please...

More importantly, there is no one truth.  Show me a study that says milk is bad for you and I'll show you one that says it's good.  Both are liable to be correct on some level and no grid works universally.

You cannot calculate infinity.

It is my supreeme understanding that the majority of people who wander  into this forum are retarded and are shuffled out as quick as they came in.

You will find as I post more that there is much value in many things that I have to say.  You will find if you dig and read without negative bias that I already have posted plenty of ideas, some of which are sure to entice you on some level.

Not everything that I post will be a gem.  I promise that.

I don't ask that anyone ever agree with my opinions.  I do expect that they respect them as I do theirs.*

I will read your article as u proposed it to me in a polite manner.


*And even if I tell someone that their is fucking dead wrong and they are ignorant and retarded, I don't take away their right to their opinion, in doing so, I respect their right to their opinion.

I really feel this sort of round for round shit I have to keep imprinting on you should really be self evident and I have to wonder why...

Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2007, 07:48:18 pm
You're argueing matters of opinion. 

No, he fucking isn't.

Did you go to school in Kansas?
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 27, 2007, 07:52:10 pm
Quote
You have failed to sway my opinions with your critique, lacking data to support it.  Many (most) of your points I disagree with.  Specifically that organisms do not adapt.  They do adapt, their genes even alter under certain circumstances (excessive radiation, cancer).  This is how those survivability traits become predominant, by climbing to the top of the DNA ladder so to speak.

No. No No NO.

*sigh*

Why the fuck do I even try?
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: LMNO on March 27, 2007, 07:52:29 pm
AKK, exactly what do you consider an "opinion", as it relates to the discussion at hand?


As far as I can see, BMW is posting confirmed Biological consensus, not "opinion".
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: LMNO on March 27, 2007, 07:53:28 pm
Quote
You have failed to sway my opinions with your critique, lacking data to support it.  Many (most) of your points I disagree with.  Specifically that organisms do not adapt.  They do adapt, their genes even alter under certain circumstances (excessive radiation, cancer).  This is how those survivability traits become predominant, by climbing to the top of the DNA ladder so to speak.

No. No No NO.

*sigh*

Why the fuck do I even try?


Is AKK saying mutation == adaptation?


That's retarded.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Triple Zero on March 27, 2007, 07:55:34 pm
Why the fuck do I even try?

hey BMW, for what it's worth, i really commend you for trying. i know i couldn't have done it without pulling my hair out and giving up halfway.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on March 27, 2007, 07:56:18 pm
Quote
You have failed to sway my opinions with your critique, lacking data to support it.  Many (most) of your points I disagree with.  Specifically that organisms do not adapt.  They do adapt, their genes even alter under certain circumstances (excessive radiation, cancer).  This is how those survivability traits become predominant, by climbing to the top of the DNA ladder so to speak.

No. No No NO.

*sigh*

Why the fuck do I even try?


Is AKK saying mutation == adaptation?


That's retarded.

Yeah it is.

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Ambassador KAOS on March 27, 2007, 08:00:29 pm
Why the fuck do I even try?

hey BMW, for what it's worth, i really commend you for trying. i know i couldn't have done it without pulling my hair out and giving up halfway.

And that is why I am allowed to exist.

I give him props too. 
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 27, 2007, 08:01:12 pm
Quote
You have failed to sway my opinions with your critique, lacking data to support it.  Many (most) of your points I disagree with.  Specifically that organisms do not adapt.  They do adapt, their genes even alter under certain circumstances (excessive radiation, cancer).  This is how those survivability traits become predominant, by climbing to the top of the DNA ladder so to speak.

No. No No NO.

*sigh*

Why the fuck do I even try?


Is AKK saying mutation == adaptation?


That's retarded.

I think hes trying to say that genetic evolution not only occurs on the individual level, but we can all become fantastic four if we wash ourselves with radioactive goop.

The last sentence reads like that guy that I tore appart in that thread in Apple Talk.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 27, 2007, 08:03:36 pm
Why the fuck do I even try?

hey BMW, for what it's worth, i really commend you for trying. i know i couldn't have done it without pulling my hair out and giving up halfway.

I was good untill after his responce.

 Then I was doing this ----> :argh!:
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Ambassador KAOS on March 27, 2007, 08:10:36 pm
Let it  be known that I am an egotistical blowheart with a lot of wind.

I warned you guys when I introduced myself here.

The good news is I like you guys.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: LMNO on March 27, 2007, 08:14:17 pm
The bad news is that it seems as if you can't back your egotism up with, you know, anything.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2007, 08:32:51 pm
Let it  be known that I am an egotistical blowheart with a lot of wind.

I warned you guys when I introduced myself here.

The good news is I like you guys.

Look, if you want to know what you're doing wrong, I'll tell you...in a PM or publicly.

If not, well, you wouldn't be the first person here to back the Titanic up for another run at the iceberg.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Ambassador KAOS on March 27, 2007, 08:55:14 pm
Let it  be known that I am an egotistical blowheart with a lot of wind.

I warned you guys when I introduced myself here.

The good news is I like you guys.

Look, if you want to know what you're doing wrong, I'll tell you...in a PM or publicly.

If not, well, you wouldn't be the first person here to back the Titanic up for another run at the iceberg.

Please do tell. 

cuz this is old.



Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 27, 2007, 08:57:37 pm
Let it  be known that I am an egotistical blowheart with a lot of wind.

I warned you guys when I introduced myself here.

The good news is I like you guys.

Look, if you want to know what you're doing wrong, I'll tell you...in a PM or publicly.

If not, well, you wouldn't be the first person here to back the Titanic up for another run at the iceberg.

Please do tell. 

cuz this is old.





Well, unfortunately, I now have to go to work and hassle the general public for no good reason.

However, hang in there, and when I return tonight, I'll bring you up to speed.  Do you want this public, or in a PM?
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Ambassador KAOS on March 27, 2007, 09:02:20 pm
I'll leave that up to your discretion.  you have my email, if you want I can upload yim again, I took it off a while ago because I never use the thing.

Much appreciated.

Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Jenne on March 27, 2007, 09:05:13 pm
Why the fuck do I even try?

hey BMW, for what it's worth, i really commend you for trying. i know i couldn't have done it without pulling my hair out and giving up halfway.

000 is right...I'm glad you responded.  Some of that REALLY needed saying...apparently for those of us who have the ears to listen, but that's usually the case anyway.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 27, 2007, 09:45:10 pm
Why the fuck do I even try?

hey BMW, for what it's worth, i really commend you for trying. i know i couldn't have done it without pulling my hair out and giving up halfway.

000 is right...I'm glad you responded.  Some of that REALLY needed saying...apparently for those of us who have the ears to listen, but that's usually the case anyway.

Thanks 000, Jenne. I actually like clarifying stuff like this. Its nice to know someone is  listening.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on March 27, 2007, 09:58:00 pm
Don't want to derail a classic roasting but, TBH (yuo know me) I don't give a fuck either way. I couldn't help my curiosity getting piqued with your big post BMW. You seemed to be saying that evolution was more about survival of the most complex or something and not survival of the fittest (which is what I'd been led to believe darwinism was all about) Can you clarify for me? Is this another one of those Schroedinger-wave things that's been misconstrued by the general public?

*knows fuck all about biology other than where the schlong goes
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 27, 2007, 10:13:50 pm
Don't want to derail a classic roasting but, TBH (yuo know me) I don't give a fuck either way. I couldn't help my curiosity getting piqued with your big post BMW. You seemed to be saying that evolution was more about survival of the most complex or something and not survival of the fittest (which is what I'd been led to believe darwinism was all about) Can you clarify for me? Is this another one of those Schroedinger-wave things that's been misconstrued by the general public?

*knows fuck all about biology other than where the schlong goes

To clarify, no, I was not saying that evolution is survival of the more complex. Evolution is change over time, simply. I believe you may have been confused by the bit where I was talking about not using the term superior or inferior, but derived, meaning in either complexity of systems or recentness of morphology. It doesn't describe which is more fit, it just places development of biological systems, morphology and species in context with each other over time. When I say that something is a more derived organism or form than another, that more often than not means that it is a more recent evolutionary development. Less often it will mean that it has higher complexity. For example, "The mamalian lung is a more derived form than the lung of an amphibian". Thats dealing both with development and complexity. Sometimes you will hear people use the term "primitive" (as in less or more primitive) to place relationships. Or even higher and lower. Neither of these things has anything to do with superiority or inferiority.

Complexity may throw you off too. But the reason it is used for placement in evolutionary relationships is life over evolutionary time has a general increasing trend in complexity.

These are just terms that evolutionary biologists use to put species in relationship to each other evolutionarily. Evolution, to repeat, is the genetic change in a population over time, in relationship to enviromental, ecological and stocastic factors.

Does that help?

Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on March 27, 2007, 10:19:39 pm
Excellent. I never knew about the complexity thing but I suppose it makes sense, started with amoebas or something after all. Never shared a discussion board with so many science heads before, kinda cool learning some of this shit.

Cheers
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Idem on March 27, 2007, 10:20:47 pm
tl;dr

and if you did, you'd have said

what

so, yeah.
:lulz:

Yep, only do that when it's something incredibly stupid or nonsensical AND I feel like reading it.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 27, 2007, 10:29:41 pm
Excellent. I never knew about the complexity thing but I suppose it makes sense, started with amoebas or something after all. Never shared a discussion board with so many science heads before, kinda cool learning some of this shit.

Cheers

The really interesting part is when you get into bacterial evolutionary biology. The least derived forms, the archea, and bacteria in general, have super fast reproduction (division by binary fission) AND they can transfer genes in between each other (horizontal gene transfer).

So, the evolutionary tree of bacteria is like this giant spiderweb/mess. Who knows which genes originated where? Or how they even originated in the first place? I mean, how the hell did the process for building proteins originate? Or DNA for that matter?

This shit facinates me.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on March 27, 2007, 10:41:40 pm
The whole idea of cells just totally fucked me up TBH. I did higher biology at school (but left half way through) and every time I looked at any kind of cell I was thinking "fuck me that's a tiny little factory I'm looking at"

Totally blows me away. And that's before you even get to the notion that there's a tiny little controller in there running the whole nation of little factories in perfect sync. Brain usually locks up right around the double helix.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 27, 2007, 10:44:38 pm
The whole idea of cells just totally fucked me up TBH. I did higher biology at school (but left half way through) and every time I looked at any kind of cell I was thinking "fuck me that's a tiny little factory I'm looking at"

Totally blows me away. And that's before you even get to the notion that there's a tiny little controller in there running the whole nation of little factories in perfect sync. Brain usually locks up right around the double helix.

My animal phys professor gave me a really cool way to think about a cell in three dimentions, enlarging it to the size of a college building. Maybe I'll post it sometime.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on March 27, 2007, 10:48:30 pm
TBH unless it's factory sized I can't imagine a cell any other way.

I'm the same with silicon chips - basically they are huge fucking things the size of a city with lots of little people passing bits of paper around, then Raquel Welsh turns on a huge shrinking ray and "zzap!" you got your chip/cell
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: B_M_W on March 27, 2007, 10:58:07 pm
TBH unless it's factory sized I can't imagine a cell any other way.

I'm the same with silicon chips - basically they are huge fucking things the size of a city with lots of little people passing bits of paper around, then Raquel Welsh turns on a huge shrinking ray and "zzap!" you got your chip/cell

Okay, size of a large building then. The cell membrain a cinderblock wall, except it porus and made of a gooey substance. There are proteins and carbohydrates in the wall, on the inside and outside that are like long thick ropes and blocks of proteins the size of fat albert. Then you got the mitochondria, which are the size of semis. Ribosomes are the size of basket balls. Charged Ions are about the size of tic tacs. and water molecules are grains of sand.

I find that puts it in perspective for me alot.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 28, 2007, 09:08:24 am
Let it  be known that I am an egotistical blowheart with a lot of wind.

I warned you guys when I introduced myself here.

The good news is I like you guys.

Look, if you want to know what you're doing wrong, I'll tell you...in a PM or publicly.

If not, well, you wouldn't be the first person here to back the Titanic up for another run at the iceberg.

Please do tell. 

cuz this is old.





I did.  Bad move on my part.

TGRR,
Figured he was wasting his time.  This guy is fucking HOPELESS.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Ambassador KAOS on March 28, 2007, 09:54:31 am
You're really too nice.

It breaks my heart to see such civility during roast week.

Dance O' monkey dance.

With <3

AKK

(to clarify rog, in case you get confused, I'm still just having fun =P, sometimes it's hard to get inflection on teh intarw3b.)
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 10, 2009, 07:31:05 pm
Bump for AKK.   :lulz:
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Roaring Biscuit! on May 11, 2009, 05:37:53 pm
i cant believe i was tricked into reading that.  holy fuck that guy was retarded.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 12, 2009, 03:48:24 am
i cant believe i was tricked into reading that.  holy fuck that guy was retarded.

He was so bad, he's an archetype here.

Somehow, I think he'd be pleased by that.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Roaring Biscuit! on May 13, 2009, 05:38:39 pm
his posts  remind me of the time a couple of friends thought we'd watch some gospel channel for kicks, little did we know it would be absolutely hilarious..  i definitely recommend if you can, christianity is hilarious (at least televangelists logic is...)
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 14, 2009, 05:13:34 am
his posts  remind me of the time a couple of friends thought we'd watch some gospel channel for kicks, little did we know it would be absolutely hilarious..  i definitely recommend if you can, christianity is hilarious (at least televangelists logic is...)

I follow televangelists like some people follow pro-wrestlers.   :)
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: fomenter on May 14, 2009, 05:38:57 am
best i ever saw was out of Texas a pretty well known local TV preacher he had the hardest "for money" pitch i have ever seen and would speak gibberish in the "bctrgwuinwgr halilua praise Jesus " middle of what he was saying it was awesome i wish i could remember his name ..
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 14, 2009, 05:55:23 am
best i ever saw was out of Texas a pretty well known local TV preacher he had the hardest "for money" pitch i have ever seen and would speak gibberish in the "bctrgwuinwgr halilua praise Jesus " middle of what he was saying it was awesome i wish i could remember his name ..

Robert Tilton?  <---the all time champeen

W.V.Grant, Jr?
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: fomenter on May 14, 2009, 06:04:32 am
nailed it in one, Robert Tilton. its been a few years but i recognized the name the second i saw it..

 :lulz:  that guy has given me hours of entertainment
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 15, 2009, 03:42:04 am
nailed it in one, Robert Tilton. its been a few years but i recognized the name the second i saw it..

 :lulz:  that guy has given me hours of entertainment

His meltdown in the 90s was LEGENDARY.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: fomenter on May 15, 2009, 04:32:04 am

the talking in tongues always gave me the impression the schizophrenia was on the edge of taking over and he was about to give in and roll with that shit ..

 what was the break down? i missed it. any links to see it?
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 15, 2009, 04:38:50 am

the talking in tongues always gave me the impression the schizophrenia was on the edge of taking over and he was about to give in and roll with that shit ..

 what was the break down? i missed it. any links to see it?

Basically, he woke up one night screaming that he was the pope, threw his wife down a flight of stairs (amazingly, she was not seriously injured), and ran down the street naked shrieking that rats were eating his brains.  He then disappeared for a few years, and came back on BET, peddling miracle water like nothing ever happened.

There's a million sources, some good, some not-so-good.  Just google "robert tilton meltdown".

Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: fomenter on May 15, 2009, 04:54:42 am
it couldn't have happened to a better man  :lulz: 

i will look it up
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: fomenter on May 15, 2009, 05:44:08 am
he went nuts  :D.. i wish he had done it on camera  :lulz:
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Doktor Howl on October 10, 2011, 09:34:13 pm
Bump.

Because I miss Robert Tilton.

But not Fomentor.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2019, 06:56:00 pm
Bump.

Because I miss Robert Tilton.

But not Fomentor.

Still don't miss Fomentor.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: nullified on March 01, 2019, 06:59:52 pm
Bump.

Because I miss Robert Tilton.

But not Fomentor.

Still don't miss Fomentor.

He was the guy who decided to start stinking up the forum for a moderator position at the Church of Google, right?

Yeah, I don’t miss him either. I do miss the lols when I saw his crummy little kingdom turn to mulch at his feet, leaving him nowhere to go.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Fujikoma on March 31, 2019, 04:48:24 pm
That was an interesting read. Is BMW still around? If so I've read just a tiny smidge about epigenetics and I know for a fact I didn't get much from it, and what I thought I understood was actually horse-shit... guess it's lazy to ask for someone smart to spell it out for me, I should probably tear through a bazillion words trying to parse it and come out actually understanding less.

It keeps coming up in the news from time to time, with some very interesting implications.

EDIT: Also, I haven't really checked this forum in ages... can someone please summarize what happened with the mulch kingdom?
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2019, 05:07:44 pm
That was an interesting read. Is BMW still around? If so I've read just a tiny smidge about epigenetics and I know for a fact I didn't get much from it, and what I thought I understood was actually horse-shit... guess it's lazy to ask for someone smart to spell it out for me, I should probably tear through a bazillion words trying to parse it and come out actually understanding less.

It keeps coming up in the news from time to time, with some very interesting implications.

EDIT: Also, I haven't really checked this forum in ages... can someone please summarize what happened with the mulch kingdom?

BMW, aka Kai, is around from time to time.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Cramulus on April 01, 2019, 03:29:40 pm
Least Fit Monkey theory reminds me of a rule of the corporate world - that people get promoted to their highest level of incompetence.

They give you an easy job, you can handle it, you get promoted
to a slightly harder job, you can handle it, you get promoted
to a slightly harder job, you can handle it, you get promoted
to a slightly harder job, you can handle it, you get promoted etc etc etc

eventually, you reach a level where you're struggling

because you don't excel at that job, you stop getting promoted and land there forever

Therefore, corporations are loaded up with people that suck ass at their jobs.
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Faust on April 01, 2019, 03:46:28 pm
Least Fit Monkey theory reminds me of a rule of the corporate world - that people get promoted to their highest level of incompetence.

They give you an easy job, you can handle it, you get promoted
to a slightly harder job, you can handle it, you get promoted
to a slightly harder job, you can handle it, you get promoted
to a slightly harder job, you can handle it, you get promoted etc etc etc

eventually, you reach a level where you're struggling

because you don't excel at that job, you stop getting promoted and land there forever

Therefore, corporations are loaded up with people that suck ass at their jobs.

The Peter principle, I have seen it. But there is a modifier, that sometimes these jobs are hard for anyone to handle and that anyone promoted into it would have a comparable level of incompetence, it's not that people wind up in jobs they suck at, its just that a lot of higher level jobs are sucky.

Faust,
Used to code for a living and enjoyed it, now writes emails and sits in meetings and does not enjoy it
Title: Re: Rev Roger's Least Fit Monkey Theory:
Post by: Fujikoma on April 01, 2019, 04:03:03 pm
I always got stuck at ground-level employee. I mean, I've been handed odd tasks like, "Train this entire team"... but I never got a promotion out of it, nor did I want one.

EDIT: I guess it's like Bruce Lee used to say, a belt is just something to hold your pants up.