The best joke since flat earth theory

I haven’t laughed like this in a long long time. Please take a minute to listen to this up-coming Einstein. He even made the peanut butter theory so tiny and unimportant.

48 thoughts on “The best joke since flat earth theory

  1. That was a great video I watched a few of his other videos they are great. If you go to the guys youtube channel he makes it quite clear that it is satire.

  2. Hey! You stolded my thought SG! I was gonna ask about the trilobites.  Weren’t those little buggers aquatic?

  3. BB- there’s no evidence that trilobites were “buggers”.  “Bugs”, yes; “buggers”, no.

  4. This explains why escargot costs so much in French restaurants; snails can move pretty fast when they really have to! 

    Always soak your fossil pasta in red wine before microwaving.

  5. there’s no evidence that trilobites were “buggers”.  “Bugs”, yes; “buggers”, no.

    Heh, sorry, mispoke.  Anyway, maybe that’s why they are dead, god smote for being buggers.

  6. You are all wrong..this is a serious video.

    The evidence is subtle, but can be found in his hatred of idolatry. If he were doing a satire, he would have reverently put the cross down before picking up the bible—because that is the stereotype of Christians.

    But as a True Believer, who is taught that idols are evil things, he whipped that cross to the other side of the room, letting it hit the wall with a loud clatter, in order to get to the object of real value—the bible.

  7. What really saddens me is someone is agreeing with this video completely somewhere in the world.  What I found really funny about it though is the idea that pasta can run.

  8. satire or not professor Stanly Miller is boiling in his grave



    but unfortunately it isn’t satire the guy has an open debate on youtube where people really took him seriously I think the reversal evolution theory is right , humans are getting dumper and mostly it is because of the direction of the modern media towards pre-programed customers to buy their sponsors products, it wouldn’t be an issue if the dump humazee on the video was in 8 years old but he is probably over 15 years old and using 5th grade science to disprove evolution.
    not to mention that adding to the poor scientific knowledge for a human being in his age , he has no consideration for anything called open-mined thinking method (earth was build in 6 days , thats undeniable).
    92% of humans believe in god.
    66% of humans believe in the need to enforce their believe on others.
    78% of humans believe cloning is evil.
    so the bottom of line I would like to quote Les Jenkins ‘‘what the f**k is wrong with you people…’‘
    m.wael alkel

  9. I think the reversal evolution theory is right

    De-evolution is not really possible.  If we as a species were to eventually become akin to chimps again (or rather, return to a form that is like our common ancestor with chimps) this would not be de-volution, it would be evolution.  Generally there would need to be environmental pressures that would affect us to become like that, but these need not be “natural” environmental pressures. 

    Just because we’ve done a good job of removing natural selection from our own species’ existence doesn’t mean other things, such as poor diets, lack of excersize and generally poor education won’t in the long run affect us just as much as the need to run and hunt and survive against predators did our ancestors.

    In a way, these things are also natural selection, we just don’t like that term for them because we see them as “man-made”. Of course, everything is of the natural world, including humans and our creations, habits and actions. Just because there is conscious effort behind one environmental pressure vs. a more natural one such as global climate doesn’t make it less valid or effective in forcing those best adapted to said pressure to be the surviving members of the species. Either way, it’s still evolution.

  10. BB- Right.  Dawkins explains “Dollo’s Law”, the principle that says that evolution doesn’t go backwards, very well:  there is nothing to forbid evolution retracing its steps, it is simply astronomically unlikely.  Since the trajectory of evolutionary change is dependent upon so many factors, and can thus go in so many directions, any particular path is quite unlikely.  For us to now evolve into something like our common ancestor with chimps would require our entire environment to change in very precise ways, that would favor more chimp-like animals, and that is so unlikely that it can be safely ruled out as next to impossible.

    m.wael alkel- look at some more videos from “MostFamousDavid”, for instance Proof the world was made in Six Days, and come back here.  It is satire, but so deadpan that it took me in too, at first.  Delicious.

  11. No here is the thing, natural selection would promote the few lead of the most intelligent individuals (group a), however (group b) is the pet, slave, customer names and methods change but the effect is the same.
    and as long as group a are acting naturally (egoists) then it is always in their best interests to keep group b uneducated, dumb, and in large population so group a can make the biggest benefit out of them, in return they would help group b survive the natural selection by supplying them with technological and medical advance so this way group a would always have customer, soldiers, and raw materials for new ideologies.
    group a try to artificially direct group b evolution by pointing out the beneficial evolved individual (since they want group a to be as smart as possible to achieve more for them selves), today the media points out how great is it to be a football team member or a cheer leader in school as you get all the hot chicks/guys and popularity among others, while it shows that being a smart individual leads you to be the unwanted geek/nerd who gets beaten up and has no friends.
    Our idols between the industrial era (after separating religion from the state) and now changed from Ayn Rand, Charles Darwin and Martin Luther King to Paris Hilton, Jesus Christ and 50 Cent.
    Not to mention that religion does a great factor in this devolution using genetic memory (still a theory though).
    But unfortunately group a (us) should realize that the group b scum can take over us if stay divided and few and then they will burn and bury us alive its time to group to take a utilitarian approach toward their group if they are to survive the savages.
    And such evolution (devolution in this case) happened before in nature when dogs evolved from wolfs, if humans type b wont need their intelligence to survive their environment humanity is going to take a turn creating 2 different species.
    m.wael akel

  12. Your are failing to understand the difference between progress and evolution.  You state that we are evolving into two separate species, but call one devolution.  Both of your instances are evolution, there is no “moving forward” requirement to evolution. A species changes over a period of time due to common traits being passed to descendants that are beneficial in a specific environment.  It need not be a specific direction to be evolution, if it’s adaptation it is evolution.

    Your example of dogs species evolving from a wolf species is not devolution either.  The species were bred to emphasize specific traits for specific environments over thousands of years until we have what we have today.  The only difference between humans forcing selective breeding on dogs and natural selection getting to a similar results on it’s own is the amount of time it took (thousands of years as opposed to hundreds of thousands or millions). Natural selection or selective breeding still result in evolution.

    And as far as genetic memory goes, are you sure it’s even a theory and not some new age crackpot idea?  There is a huge difference between some spiritual guy thinking something up and a scientific theory.  Are you getting genetic memory confused with a meme?  A meme is a viral thought, but really has no direct connection to genetics as it’s just a thought.

    As to your first example of group A and B, that sounds a bit like a global conspiracy theory to me.  Given your comments about “them” burning and burying us alive, I’m curious as to which group you think you fall into? I personally don’t think there is any evidence to show that the current oppression of the masses by a relatively small minority has or will do anything to split the human race into two distinct species.  At least not in the next thousand years or so.

  13. And as far as genetic memory goes, are you sure it’s even a theory and not some new age crackpot idea?  There is a huge difference between some spiritual guy thinking something up and a scientific theory.  Are you getting genetic memory confused with a meme?  A meme is a viral thought, but really has no direct connection to genetics as it’s just a thought.

    genetic memory is a well established theory depending on real scientific evidence , although it might be wrong but it is still a very good theory, one of the evidence was a few experiments held on chimpanzees and human infants , it is know that fear from touching hot objects is something all mammals learn out of trying the caused pain for at least once (although an involuntary movement works immediately when why feel that pain)but it was only human infants (among all mammals) who wouldn’t ever touch the fire flames taking into consideration that these infants haven’t been exposed to any hot objects or any adult guidness , human babies just like chimp babies would touch a burning piece of coal , an oven , or even a blade but only human baby would avoid touching the flame.
    since homo sapience were the first to discover fire that most likely caused fatal injuries among them for generations until to started to get passed through human genetic memory.
    plus the human genome changes the sequence in the average of 0.00000005733333 chromosomes every year some say mutations , some say it is genetic memory.

    you have to understand that evolution is a process that by natural selection allows living organisms through mutation , genetic shifts and genetic memory to acquire abilities that makes them adapt to their environment.
    yet the best trait that allows living organisms to adopt to any environment is intelligence and it is the reason why we can as humans survive with no oxygen out in space or go into a radio active area without getting effected (using man-made equipment)and live in the coldest spots using (man -made clothe) so we can say that the goal of evolution now is to produce more and more intelligent organisms so we survive the change in our environment.
    this why any approach from evolution to allow intelligent living organisms to lose this trait is called devolution because it isn’t caused by natural selection which means when the other smart group who are forcing this artificial selection stops supporting the less developed organisms these less developed parasites would go into extinction.
    as wolfs can sur

  14. wolfs can survive the wilds without humans while boodles can’t.
    and it is a very popular misunderstanding to think that when we say devolution we mean that we are evolving into our ancestor (because it’s impossible) but when we say devolution we mean acquiring new treats on account of the best trait (intelligence)

    ‘‘As to your first example of group A and B, that sounds a bit like a global conspiracy theory to me.  Given your comments about “them” burning and burying us alive, I’m curious as to which group you think you fall into? I personally don’t think there is any evidence to show that the current oppression of the masses by a relatively small minority has or will do anything to split the human race into two distinct species.  At least not in the next thousand years or so.’‘

    it is no conspiracy theory , it is the personal natural behavior and I hate to categorize my self so I will use my father as an example.
    group a : iq > 100 (includes my father and Mr. Nicolas)
    group b : iq < 100
    both my father and Mr. Nicolas used their intelligence to act in their human nature and serve nothing but their own interests so they each one of them ended up with a big leading company that produces energy drinks.
    my father has his energy drink (Fire)which consists of sugar water and a tin with the picture of a hot guy and a hot chick jogging (no one would but a picture of 2 nerds in the lab)
    Nicolas has an identical drink except for a different picture with the same content and a different name (benzene).
    it’s in my father’s and Nicolas interest for people to be dump or no one would buy their drink any more , not to mention the money they are going to lose out of new people getting smarter and entering the same business.
    by time these people in group B will be the vast majority of the people since my father and Nicolas are doing their best to direct their evolution and turn them into dogs that work the dirty jobs and pay what they made for water and sugar.
    the large population of savages would get so large in number that they can over through my father and Nicolas (since it’s in the human nature if you can’t explain x or understand x in any way then x is evil, destroy x.).
    and because Nicolas and my father would be busy liquidating each other (its in best interest to get rid of each other) the savages group b will destroy group a and then because there is no one to produce medical advances and intelligent man made-equipment, group b will be taken out by natural selection (water with sugar and the picture of hot chicks don’t grow on trees) and then if they don’t start getting smarter , boof , they will be replaced by a smarter specie and humans will extinct or live a very primitive life.
    but if group a did a utilitarian approach to each other they are going to end up with a vast majority of group a but very technologically advanced that the don’t need to mentally enslave group b as there is robots to do their jobs and enough alternative energy to be enough to produce the luxury and the goods

  15. for every one and group b would have became the unwanted and the unneeded minority that is known as evil.
    the conclusion is as smart people you all guys should despite the fool and make fun out of the dump and make them the unneeded for your own good.
    and if you think that evolving into 2 different species is going to take millions of years then you are wrong it already started as humans evolution is accelerating check : 
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Humans-Are-Evolving-Now-Faster-Than-Ever-73169.shtml
    http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1043228620071210
    excuse my poor English since I learned this language only 2 years ago.

  16. since homo sapience were the first to discover fire that most likely caused fatal injuries among them for generations until to started to get passed through human genetic memory.

    m.wael alkel, I wouldn’t call that “genetic memory”, and I don’t think any geneticist would either.  It is simply natural selection.  “Genetic memory” implies that the genes learn stuff.  They don’t.  It’s just the genes that work that get passed on.

    yet the best trait that allows living organisms to adopt to any environment is intelligence and it is the reason why we can as humans survive with no oxygen out in space or go into a radio active area without getting effected (using man-made equipment)and live in the coldest spots using (man -made clothe) so we can say that the goal of evolution now is to produce more and more intelligent organisms so we survive the change in our environment.

    That “best” trait, intelligence, may well be what does us in, in the form of overpopulation, pollution, and advanced weaponry, while less intelligent grasses and cockroaches go on.  And while it is true that there are trends towards higher intelligence in some lineages (ours, for instance), to say that evolution has a “goal” is incorrect.  Evolution cannot see the future, and it is not a being, so it can have no “goals”.  What works survives.

    excuse my poor English since I learned this language only 2 years ago.

    Your English is fine, but you need to do a bit more work on evolution.  At your website, for instance, I see that you’ve posted two pictures of conjoined twins as examples of human “mutations”.  While the causes of conjoined twins are not fully understood, they are not generally considered the result of mutations, but of various physical factors that cause the fertilized egg to split into two, as in homozygotic twins, but not separate completely.  In general, though, your arguments are good.  But I don’t see any evidence that the human race is on the way to split into two species either.

  17. Your English is fine, but you need to do a bit more work on evolution.  At your website, for instance, I see that you’ve posted two pictures of conjoined twins as examples of human “mutations”.  While the causes of conjoined twins are not fully understood, they are not generally considered the result of mutations, but of various physical factors that cause the fertilized egg to split into two, as in homozygotic twins, but not separate completely.  In general, though, your arguments are good.  But I don’t see any evidence that the human race is on the way to split into two species either.

    According to our professor in college a recessive mutation of the duplication type occurred in chromosome #7 some where between position 95,046,118 and position 95,044,965 and if this mutation is carried by the mother and the father , and both a the egg and the sperm had the mutated gene present then there is a 2% chance that the fertilized egg is fused with an unfertilized egg resulting in some thing that looks like a zygote but actually it is 2 different groups of cells and each one of them keeps its own characteristic behavior, but hey my professor is 80 years old and he thinks he found the breast cancer gene so his theories aren’t much reliable and considering that biology isn’t my field of expertise (I am an A.I student) then if you are sure of your information i would love to remove the photo.(he is still looking for the exact position along with other colleagues but they need a 4,000,000$ sequencing machine and a few parents of homozygotic twins.)

    m.wael alkel, I wouldn’t call that “genetic memory”, and I don’t think any geneticist would either.  It is simply natural selection.  “Genetic memory” implies that the genes learn stuff.  They don’t.  It’s just the genes that work that get passed on.

    Alot of genetic engineers would disagree with you for a 3 main reasons
    1-Epigenetic experiments and observation show that   although mutations happen randomly, 70% of mutations express beneficial traits that help to adopt to the environment. (Ask the thousands of bugs exposed to radiation in the lab lol)
    2-natural selection require a sample to fail in adopting to the environment in order to be taken out but there is many traits that are useless but never cause a failure and still it shades out, examples would be that our jar is 40% flatter than humans 1000 years ago although they could live today with our diet and their jars but it would never be useful , the example I used at the beginning requires all humans without the flame fear gene die burning in order for natural selection to be the cause , although any human can learn it the hard way just like any other animal by trying and learning (we are excellent learners).
    3-Identical twins are spouse to have identical DNA but DNA analyses upon birth shows that the differ 1.7% because of the genetic influence of the environmental conditions inside the womb.
    All these evidence points at one of 2 options:
    1-memory is recorded in the DNA and inherited through cell division.
    2-Enviroment and life events influence switching on and off of certain genes to adapt to the conditions. 
    Since we know so little about the behavior of these proteins and their self structuring system it is so scientifically wrong for you to say that genes don’t learn stuff with that kind of certainty.
    Evolution is a system after all, even if it’s depended on random factors, the natural selection implies a systematical order, and every system has a goal (goals aren’t only for beings) and the goal of this system is to produce the living organism that can adapt to the largest Varity of conditions and environment.
    Intelligence on the other hand gives us the chance to explore unlimited knowledge and with the knowledge we acquire we can alter our environment for us to survive.
    There is nothing that we can’t do with the needed amount of knowledge, give humanity time and intelligence and they will defeat HIV, cancer, crime, and even shall live for ever.
    Cockroaches might be perfect for the current environment but they can’t survive any environment

  18. From Wikipedia:
    Genetic Memory
    Molecular biology

    In molecular biology, genetic memory resides in the genetic material of the cell and is expressed via the genetic code used to translate it into proteins. The genetic code enables cells to record the information needed to construct the protein molecules that make up living cells and therefore store a blueprint for all the parts that make up an organism. This genetic memory in the form of species-specific collections of genes (genotype) is passed on from cell to cell and from generation to generation in the form of DNA molecules. Genetic memory can be modified by epigenetic memory, a process by which changes in gene expression are passed on through mitosis or meiosis through factors other than DNA sequence.

    Somatic memory

    Somatic memory is limited to the organism and not passed on to subsequent generations. However, its mechanism may involve mitotically stable genetic memory.

    Cellular memory

    All cells in multicellular organisms are derived from a pluripotent zygote and contain the same genetic material (with a few exceptions). However, they are capable of recording a history of their development within the organism leading to their specialized functions and limitations. Cells often employ epigenetic processes that affect DNA-protein interactions to record this cellular memory in the form of mitotically stable changes of the genetic material without a change in the DNA sequence itself. This is typically achieved via changes of the chromatin structure.[3] Examples are methylation patterns of the DNA molecule itself and proteins involved in packaging DNA, such as histones (also referred to as “histone code”).

    In animals

    A case of somatic genetic memory is the immunological memory of the adaptive immune response in vertebrates. The immune system is capable of learning to recognize pathogens and keeping a memory of this learning process, which is the basis of the success of vaccinations. Antibody genes in B and T lymphocytes are assembled from separate gene segments, giving each lymphocyte a unique antibody coding sequence leading to the vast diversity of antibodies in the immune system. If stimulated by an antigen (e.g. following vaccination or an infection with a pathogen), these antibodies are further fine-tuned via hypermutation. Memory B cells capable of producing these antibodies form the basis for acquired immunological memory.[6] Each individual therefore carries a unique genetic memory of its immune system’s close encounters with pathogens. As a somatic memory, this is not passed on to the next generation.

    I think it’s very important for us to all realize the difference here between genetic memory and somatic memory.  What I get out of the above is this:

    1) Genetic memory is the ability of chromosomes to “remember” what they are and what they do.  This is passed on to descendants in the form of either asexual or sexual reproduction. 

    2) Somatic memory is a cell’s or biological system’s ability to catalogue and “remember” it’s past history.  The example provided is the immune system’s ability to “remember” pathogens through vaccination.  Somatic memory is not an inheritable thing.

    Your example of fear of hot stoves or flames would be at best somatic memory of the entire nervous system (especially the brain), and thus is not inheritable.  If it were inheritable, then children wouldn’t avoid touching the stove after touching it once, they would just never touch it in the first place.

    Another example of Somatic memory not being an inheritable trait is the immune system.  When a child is born, it has no resistance to any disease.  Through breast feeding it gains some of the mother’s immunities, and this is further enhanced by vaccinations and just plain old experiencing bad things like the common cold.  However, at birth, the child has no immune system memory.

    I believe M. Wael that you are having some confusion over these two forms of cellular/genetic memory, as well as the thing we more commonly refer to as memory (as in, I remember what I ate for dinner last night – at best this is nervous system somatic memory).  You earlier attributed religion to genetic memory, when in fact it cannot have anything to do with it (it would have to be an inheritable trait, hard coded into the genetics of those who have it for it to be genetic memory). If religion were a genetic memory trait, then babies born to Catholic parents would be born Catholics, and no-one born Catholic would ever become anything but a Catholic.  Not even Catholics believe this to be true (in fact, if they did, it would put a huge dent in the collection of tithes I would think).

    I still think that you may be confusing a viral thought (meme) with genetic memory in the case of religion.

    As for some of the other stuff you say:

    Evolution is a system after all, even if it’s depended on random factors, the natural selection implies a systematical order, and every system has a goal (goals aren’t only for beings) and the goal of this system is to produce the living organism that can adapt to the largest Varity of conditions and environment.

    The weather is a system also, does that have a goal too? Though evolution has been dependent on natural selection in the past, natural selection is not a requirement of the evolutionary process.  As your example of dogs evolving from wolves, artificial selection can also force evolutionary change. 

    You seem to be equating “systems” to sentient beings, which is clearly not the case.  There is no driving intelligence or goal to evolution, any more than there is a driving intelligence behind the weather, planetary motion, plate tectonics, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

    < /Yule Brenner>

    .

  19. 1-memory is recorded in the DNA and inherited through cell division.
    2-Enviroment and life events influence switching on and off of certain genes to adapt to the conditions.
    Since we know so little about the behavior of these proteins and their self structuring system it is so scientifically wrong for you to say that genes don’t learn stuff with that kind of certainty.

    2) This has been demonstrated.  But:
    1) There is no evidence that memories are recorded in DNA and passed on to decendent organisms through the germ line, and there’s very good reason to believe that it doesn’t happen.  Now, as BB pointed out, the immune system does pass on a kind of “memory” to descendent immune cells, and there are other kinds of cellular memory that may or may not involve DNA.  But for the kind of memory you are talking about, where fear of fire is learned and passed on to descendents (if I understand you correctly), there would have to be a mechanism to encode changes in the brain in the germ cells, and there ain’t no such thing.

    That’s why Lamarck was wrong, and Weissman was right: there’s no inheritance of acquired characteristics through the germ line.

    About conjoined twins: you can google them, as I did, and decide for yourself.  As I said, there seems to be no consensus on why they happen.  By the way: the organisms that are the result of mutations are called “mutants”.

    About goals: BB said it.  Evolution may appear to have goals, but it does not have goals the way an intelligent animal has goals: it does not think about the future, and it has no desires.

    One last thing- you say

    Epigenetic experiments and observation show that although mutations happen randomly, 70% of mutations express beneficial traits that help to adopt to the environment. (Ask the thousands of bugs exposed to radiation in the lab lol)

    Now, it might be that 70% of the mutated fruit flies in some lab survive to pass on their mutations, but that is only because the experimentors are a lot weirder than Mother Nature, and they are likely to preserve freaks, to get that grant money for their project.  How many mutations are beneficial in the wild is very difficult to ascertain, but I’d be curious where you got the figure of 70%- most biologists will tell you that it’s closer to 1% or even less.  But you don’t need more than that for evolution to happen, given enough time and enough organisms.

  20. Your example of fear of hot stoves or flames would be at best somatic memory of the entire nervous system (especially the brain), and thus is not inheritable.  If it were inheritable, then children wouldn’t avoid touching the stove after touching it once, they would just never touch it in the first place.

    I said it the human infants didn’t touch the flames from the first place, it is a part of there instincts.

    The weather is a system also, does that have a goal too?

    the weather’s goal is producing change in temperature, air movement and water cycling using the factors of the exposure period to the sun, the distance between the area and the sun, the air pressure, humidity, the surface material at this area, the area height and the cloud movement, observing most of these factors shows that they are very random still any system has goal intelligent or not.

    I believe M. Wael that you are having some confusion over these two forms of cellular/genetic memory, as well as the thing we more commonly refer to as memory (as in, I remember what I ate for dinner last night – at best this is nervous system somatic memory).  You earlier attributed religion to genetic memory, when in fact it cannot have anything to do with it (it would have to be an inheritable trait, hard coded into the genetics of those who have it for it to be genetic memory). If religion were a genetic memory trait, then babies born to Catholic parents would be born Catholics, and no-one born Catholic would ever become anything but a Catholic.  Not even Catholics believe this to be true (in fact, if they did, it would put a huge dent in the collection of tithes I would think).

    I am not confusing genetic memory with the somatic, my field of studies is applying biological based systems into mechanical based systems such mechanisms are evolution and genetic memory (imagine a windows operating system that instead of giving you the send/don’t send error window, it calls an A.I procedure that debug the error in the source code the it compiles it and delete the corrupted program to replace it with the new one so your operating system learns) 
    here is an exact translation from a chapter in our hand outs in the genetic memory class (put some effort to understand it because it took me 3 hours to translate it)
    and talking about the immunity system you should know that all scientists agree that there is 2 different types of immune adopting systems, 1- is genetically oriented immune system which is a system that through genetic memory became able to identify the pattern of many harmful organisms , such as the immunity we have against various kinds of bacteria that might be extremely harmful to other organisms but our body is able to identify it and kill it with no anti-bodies from earlier infection, vaccine , breast feeding ,or transformation from mothers blood during pregnancy.
    2- the adaptive amount system that requires one of the factors I mentioned before based on somatic memory.
    and I am wondering why you left out several chapters on the same Wikipedia page that you quoted. 
    ‘‘through experiments held by professor Mao S. Wong. in 2006 he discovered that human brain emit highly coherent photons. Our DNA uses wave frequencies of this light
    to direct all of the physiological processes of the human body. recent evidence presented by Dr. George aunbar shows that brains conversation with the body isn’t only by chemical or electrical impulses   but also by waves
    and frequencies. Our brains are the info-readin, info-retrieval and info-readout mechanism that creates a force field surrounding us which influence every cell of our body by a minor change in their genetic code in the average rate of 0.00000005733333 chromosomes yearly’‘
    in a simpler term, if you and your decedent after you keep eating the exact dinner at the exact time using the exact tools for approximately 17441861.479177992975464 years, it will become in the human nature (an instinct) to eat dinner the same way you do.

  21. Now, it might be that 70% of the mutated fruit flies in some lab survive to pass on their mutations, but that is only because the experimentors are a lot weirder than Mother Nature, and they are likely to preserve freaks, to get that grant money for their project.  How many mutations are beneficial in the wild is very difficult to ascertain, but I’d be curious where you got the figure of 70%- most biologists will tell you that it’s closer to 1% or even less.  But you don’t need more than that for evolution to happen, given enough time and enough organisms.

    the 70% isn’t the rate of mutations that happens but the rate of the beneficial approach of the mutation to help the new organisms to adopt to nature for example we place 100 humans in a cold environment that they can hardly survive then after a certain period of accommodation in these harsh condition if we artificially motivate a mutation in the genes that controls hormones and hair distribution and growth , the average of 70 of these people will survive with a beneficial mutation that helps them live in this environment.
    and man I wouldn’t use the term ‘freaky experiment’
    since it is a very religious based thought , these people are usinf these animals so they can save your grand sons and dauters from cancer, stuipedity and other deseas.
    they are the only hope for people with a disconnection in their spine.

  22. the 70% isn’t the rate of mutations that happens but the rate of the beneficial approach of the mutation to help the new organisms to adopt to nature for example we place 100 humans in a cold environment that they can hardly survive then after a certain period of accommodation in these harsh condition if we artificially motivate a mutation in the genes that controls hormones and hair distribution and growth , the average of 70 of these people will survive with a beneficial mutation that helps them live in this environment.

    Sorry, I just don’t believe this, unless you’re talking about directed genetic engineering that knows what mutation to cause, and I seriously doubt we can do that in something like this case yet.  Sources, please.

  23. unfortunately the only source where i had this 70% information based on is professor Clause Rautchenraoukh’s experiment on flies in lower temperature with radiation exposure but as I told you he is my 80 years old college professor who thinks that he found (the crime gene and the breast cancer gene) so he isn’t that reliable for me since it isn’t in my field of expertise but when it comes to genetic memory all the evidence that i missioned in the post before can be found in the following books with even more scientific evidences that support this theory.
    Chromatin and Gene Regulation: Molecular Mechanisms in Epigenetics by Bryan Turner
    al zakira alginia (Ancestral memory) by Malek Aied.
    Genome-wide non-mendelian inheritance of extra-genomic information in Arabidopsis (press release) by Lolle SJ, Victor JL, Young JM, Pruitt RE.
    and there is some really good arguments on http://geneticmemory.org

    by the way does any of you have an good background in physics and astronomy

  24. I am wondering why you left out several chapters on the same Wikipedia page that you quoted.

    OK, now you’re implying that I am attempting to mislead through omission. So very sorry I didn’t quote the entire freaking article or provide a direct link (I guess I figured doing a search for “Genetic Memory” on Wikipedia was simple enough.) Also, I guess I should have found some JAMA or other peer reviewed journal instead of Wikipedia for my information.  I did not mean to mislead anyone.

    Anyway, I think I am beginning to understand your ideas, but…

    recent evidence presented by Dr. George aunbar shows that brains conversation with the body isn’t only by chemical or electrical impulses but also by waves
    and frequencies. Our brains are the info-readin, info-retrieval and info-readout mechanism that creates a force field surrounding us which influence every cell of our body by a minor change in their genetic code in the average rate of 0.00000005733333 chromosomes yearly

    Do you have a source for this claim?  Perhaps a peer reviewed article that Dr. Aunbar published supporting this claim? A force field?  Waves and frequencies? Given such a wild claim I have to ask the following questions:

    1)What evidence is there to support any of this?
    2) What is a force field?
    3) What frequencies does the human body use and can they be measured?

    I have to seriously doubt the veracity of this claim unless you can provide some solid evidence that any of it is more than some guy’s imagination. Just because the guy who said it has a “Dr.” in front of his name does not make it so. If you doubt this, just ask “Dr.” Kent Hovind about the science of creation (oh dear, I hope that doesn’t draw any crazies here!)

  25. unfortunately the only source where i had this 70% information based on is professor Clause Rautchenraoukh’s experiment on flies in lower temperature with radiation exposure but as I told you he is my 80 years old college professor who thinks that he found (the crime gene and the breast cancer gene) so he isn’t that reliable for me

    And yet, you appear to be quoting his work as if it were reliable for you.  You seem to chalk your professor up as a crackpot, has he had any of his experiments published in peer reviewed journals (where his experiments would be replicated successfully multiple times before being published)?  For real science, replication of an experiment is the key, not just developing wild ideas. 

    While it’s true that some wild ideas do turn out to be truth, we never can be sure about these things unless they can be observed by multiple independent experiments.

    by the way does any of you have an good background in physics and astronomy

    I do not have a “professional” background in these fields, but I fail to see how it’s relevant to our discussion of a biological phenomena. I think it’s far more important to be rational and have a good grounding in the scientific method and skepticism than to be as familiar with specific facts (unless you are a physicist or astronomer of course).

    That is to say, it’s more important to know how to think than to just know an encyclopedia of facts. I’m not accusing you of “not knowing how to think”, but I would like to encourage you to be a bit more critical of what you are saying and believing.

  26. Our brains are the info-readin, info-retrieval and info-readout mechanism that creates a force field surrounding us which influence every cell of our body by a minor change in their genetic code in the average rate of 0.00000005733333 chromosomes yearly’’

    Excuse me, “force field”? Are you serious? What is a “force field” anyway?

    0.00000005733333 chromosomes yearly that come to 0.000005733333 chromosomes in a 100 year old human. That come to 0.003115941 genes changed in a 100 year old man. Since gene changes are whole numbers, it would take about 30,000 years for a human to experience a change in a single gene by your numbers.

  27. dude brain frequencies (minor electro magnetic field) can be measured and their existance isn’t a subject of a debate , they are testable , observable but what they do is still uncertain and a subject for the debate since there is no testable or measurable explaination for their job , and this is why genetic memory is a theory and not a fact , in other words these frequancies might be resposible for directed non-random change in the dna or might be doing something else(or not doing anything at all.
    the fact that your genom changes a minor change by time is testble and measurable using a sequancing machine with a decent aqquiricy (You can do it on your self if such an analsys machine is avilabe), the rate of change on the other hand changes depending on the aquiricy of the machine and the number that was puplished dependend on the most advance available machine in 2005 so i think you may find a better avregr rate of change now but it would propably be 0.000000057xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx , i wasnt quating the doctor but am qouating his testable experiments and his logical pridiction (theory) , if you have a better theory that explains the change in behavior and instinct in terms of traits that doesn’t conflict with the organizms survival so natural selecation cant take them out. (the examples i gave before) please lets hear it and it would be scientificly acceptable if its build on more scientifical evedince than the genetic memory.
    untill then genetic memory is the only explainantion.
    your argument is very similar to the greationist argument that if science is still uncertain about the orgin of life then all the scientific abiogenesis theorys are pridictions!
    but a pridiction based on scientific facts is a theory so if they have a better logical explination supported by evedince bring it on ,else, all the abiogenesis theorys survive.
    as some one said once ‘’ science givs proof but no certainy while religion gives certainy and no proof.’‘
    and man i got tiered of researching on this subject , it isn’t my field so ask some one in the genetic engineering society except if you want to argue about some thing in c++ ,java ,lisb and artificial intelligence.

  28. dude brain frequencies (minor electro magnetic field) can be measured and their existance isn’t a subject of a debate , they are testable , observable but what they do is still uncertain and a subject for the debate since there is no testable or measurable explaination for their job , and this is why genetic memory is a theory and not a fact , in other words these frequancies might be resposible for directed non-random change in the dna or might be doing something else(or not doing anything at all.

    Or not doing anything at all- you got it.  Yes, there are electromagnetic fields generated by the brain.  That is no surprise: any electrical activity generates a field.  They are simply a necessary by-product of what the brain does.

    But there’s a bit of difference between a field which can be likened to the 60Hz hum around power cords, and a field that is:
    -powerful enough to cause mutations in the germ cells two feet away
    -directed by an intelligence that understands the genetic code well enough to know exactly where to cause what kind of mutation in the genome, and
    -precise enough to focus in on all (or even just some) of those egg and/or sperm cells.

    You might as well believe in God and have done with it.

  29. -precise enough to focus in on all (or even just some) of those egg and/or sperm cells.

    mutations can be passed through cell division.

    You might as well believe in God and have done with it.

    god (as in christianity , jewdism and islam) was a valid theory until the 11 century when there was new scientific facts that proved these teachings to be wrong.
    the theory of living on a giant turtle’s back got replaced with living on a flat earth then got replaced with living on a round earth and might one day get replaced with living in the matrix one day , its the matter of who presents more data.
    god (as a high spirtual entity) was still a valid theory until the 18th century when mathmatics biology and physics took his place as a logical explaination.
    so this is what science is all about, using facts to come up with the most logical explianation for any phenomena (theory) and if a better logical explianation come afterward then the theory get replaced and once a theory gets proven then it is a fact.
    so as i told you , present a logical explanation for the disappearance of some traits that doesn’t conflict with natural selection ,why there is instincts that some have and some others don’t ,why when an organism stop using an organ for generations it fades away although he can live with it in his environment freely, why is the continues change in our genome and why we are different from our late ancestor in many ways , why do identical twins have 98% match while they were 100% match when the zygote divides into 2 embryos, why there is activated and deactivated genes that we don’t know how and when they might activate or deactivate (the human tail).
    once you have a theory with as little evedince as genetic memory presents then genetic memory is as dead as god but until then it is a valid theory (and it wasnt me who made it up), and if you are intrested in it you might want to buy the books I reffered to since they have the bigest amount of data about this theory in an organised way then disprove it and come up with a better theory to explain these things and ill be your first follower.

  30. m.wael alkel- I like your style and your intentions, but I still say that genetic memory, in the sense of learned experiences being encoded in the germ line, is no more likely than our being in the Matrix: there’s no evidence for it, and considerable evidence against it, going back to Weissman in the 1890’s.  All of the examples you mention are either straightforward cases of natural selection, or things that are not fully understood yet.

    For instance: if an organ is no longer necessary to an animal, then natural selection will eventually cause it to disappear.  Even if an animal can live fine with the unused organ, it still costs something to make and maintain, and it will thus be selectively advantageous (even if only slightly) to not have the organ.

  31. zilch i understood your last example therefor i agree i lost the argument but hey don’t why both agree that intelligence currently isn’t being fully used by many people nowadays and through natural selection they might evolve into humans with less intelligence, and i think we both agree that between 1850 until 1980 was such a delightful experience in the human history where science started to accelerate like no time before will the believes in myths and legends started to fade away, isn’t it a lame that in the year 2007 there is millions of people with a disconnected spine who might have a hope with human cloning in walking , moving their hands or even shaking their heads (in some cases) because god said so, isn’t it a lame to watch our best minds die if we can clone them and try to simulate their life events all over again but we cant because god said so, isn’t it a lame to let go of project direct mars with the coast of 2 billions to put humans on mars while spend billions of billions on wars to control a source of power that might finish soon because god said so , it isn’t a lame for 5 college students to blow them selfs up in thousands of inecent people on 9/11 because god said so, and it isn’t a lame for holding back robotics,genetics and medicen because god said so, or people forgot burning chemists and engineers in the name of Christianity or they forgot beating women and enslaving people in the name of Islam.
    back in the 60s students were had evolution in their biology classes and celebrated taking bullshitology (theology) out of their schools.

  32. While it’s true that selective pressures are different nowadays, and many people are surviving who wouldn’t have ten thousand, or a thousand, or even a hundred years ago, including people who are not very intelligent, the fact is that genetic evolution is so glacially slow in comparison to cultural evolution that it doesn’t really make that much difference to our fate.

    Much more to the point are the various lamenesses you mention, with which I mostly agree.  Let me know if you’re ever in Vienna, and the drinks are on me.

  33. man you are one of Freud’s people, your scientists such as Siegfried Marcus developed the automobiles technologies in 40 years between(1850-1890) that we would need 200 years to develop.
    and we have also to give the credit to mandel’s pean plants, but i always wonder since he is a monk , if he knew that genetics will hold serious arguments against religion would he have done his research.

  34. Not that I know for sure, but I suspect that Mendel was a monk for the same reason that Darwin studied for the ministry: back then, it was the way to go for people interested in naturalism: there was no profession of “botanist” or “biologist” in the mid-nineteenth century.  Lots of paleontology, biology, and botany was done by men of the cloth, since they had lots of free time.

    And I’m not really an Austrian, though I’ve lived here for quite a while: I’m still an American citizen.  But I’m not really an “American” either: I’m an Earthling.  What are you?

  35. well with a Chinese mother and a Syrian father raised in Greek Cyprus and studied in an American school you can say earthling although i suspect that i got adopted from planet Zolo6 in the ‘i hate 90% of the human society today’ galaxy

  36. Whoa, that’s seriously “multi-kulti” as they say.  Sounds a bit like a friend of mine whose mother is Korean, father Moroccan, grew up in Vienna, and is studying in England.  But she hates only 85% of human society. LOL

  37. Why white gold?  Just curious.

    The only clarinets I’ve made so far are “chalmeaux”, that is, medieval clarinets, and they are of wood.  I don’t work much with gold.

  38. 1-its just a show off clarinet for shows and stuff , i have 1 silver for training
    2- gold doesn’t react to weather and environment like wood, and i want a thing that stays for hundreds of years with the same shape.
    3- i saw a white gold hand made clarinet that used to belong to the cessar in a museum in Moscow and i loved it.

    the wood gives some passion to music but its a matter of time before it gets old especially if you are living on an island with high humidity.

  39. Zilch:

    My sense of humour has been described as everything from “assholish” to “really strange” but I have never heard it referred to as “delicious” before. Thank you; you made egotistically searching the internet for messages about myself worthwhile.

  40. Hey, MFD.  Credit where credit is due, mon.  If you’re ever in Vienna, drop me a line.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *