intersting! but to discuss this thing we should define “instincts” and where they came from! we should start find what the source of instincts! it is there in ur brain since u were born! but how did u got it?

I saw that donkey smile Elixir

well, let’s see! cats do act like that! they would die to defined their kittens! But if they failed to they will eat them up! is not that true? or is it a myth? am not sure abt it! but if it is so then we have to find another reason!

what other animals do we know about? not too many! a hippo for instance is a vegetarian animal yet it can kill a human being or any animal that it might regard as a threat to its horde! a male hippo for sure! and it have many female mates!

am not discussing but trying to see what kind and how much data do we have to start processing! so do really all animals act so? besides we should find what is that source that pushes them to do so! it will be very helpful! we can not refer to it as only genetic domination!

we should set our strategy to do that (I mean discuss the topic) and probably each of us has got his own so am asking to unite the starting point of this discussion! that is why I 1st want to find the source! because it is obvious that animals are willing to die for their offsprings!

Slvador, Luckily I have the answer to the “why only one” question. You can find it in a Biology Textbook called Campell and Reece. The answer is taht these animals won’t be able to support all the offsprings if mating with many partners. Why not screw everything that moves? Remember that female humans for instance have something that we call period? Animals don’t screw with everything for many reasons, The ones I can think of is:
1. They might be doing it actually but due to fertility periods issues you can’t notice it.
2. Females in many kinds of animals do choose their husbands and not vice versa like in monkeys. So even if u want to stick ur weener up her garage she won’t let u do it.
3. A female being the property of somewhat stronger male. Like in the case of chickens. U would be scared and actually exposing ur life to danger if u dared to hit on the other cock’s chicks.

Btw, where did u get that cat-eats-its-offsprings thingy? I’ve never heard about it. I’m supposing you didn’t hear that from A7mad ebn el jeeran. On the same account, which animal were u refering to Slvador when u said that some animals marry only one? And if you don’t see the genetic domination as top prio then what’s top prio in ur opinion and how can u explain an animal’s willingness to protect its offsprings with its life?

Suggest a start Genki. I’m totally with you on that point

Viruses? they only reproduce! they never eat and they never do anything except using another living cell DNA to reproduce! that would be another thing to add!

Elixir, 5doni 3ala gad 3aglati.. bas how on this freaking blazed earth did that cat explain to you that the reason why she abandoned/ate her kittens was because she couldn’t protect them? And did u see it urself eating the kittens? Did u see the other cats chew those 2 kittens?

If I was a blind donkey, I would be smiling now

XZeeR, please do tell us , in what do u use ur mind !!, maybe we can learn, and stop thinking about “worthless and wont produce any positive outcome in the end” things??
and start hinking of things that can do “Good” , things like the things ur thinking of !!

i had the same thinking of Elune on that matter , and i often wondered about the Human behavior,
and i really want to talk the matter further , but i cant see that happening while ur acting all “smart-ass” and “cool”, again NOT having a facebook account Gives us More time to think on such things !!!

WoW! I will be dropping some mighty comment here once I’m done with this jar of labaneh.

hello,

i disabled my facebook account :p
so now i can comment
i heard the cats eat their children if they lack the milk in their breast to feed all of them, so eating some will provide her the ability to feed the others.

i heard this long time ago, so i can’t recall the setting. now why can’t we say that animals like their children, and it is love the thing they trying to protect, not because they have the same genes, and what about the monkeys that raise another monkey’s child as their own and protect them, they definitely don’t have the same genes, but still they protect them, so i don’t think it is the joy of spreading their genes what drives them ONLY. i think they appreciate other stuff.

the animals i had in mind that marry one, elephants and (since i watched good luck chuck) the penguins

i can see yuri’s point, but this goes against the idea of having sex as the top priority or spreading the genes, the love for survival for the whole specie is reasonable and acceptable.

to be honest, the more we think about it, the more i hard ti is to point one thing as the all the time top priority. i believe many aspects have different weights, and depending on the pros and cos of every action, the mammal or the living being choose which one.

spreading the genes 20 points
getting laid 10 points
protecting kids 20 points
hunger drive 15 points
.
.
.
etc

im hungry , severO food fest today ?

pretty late but I’m in too

i did , and remember “people are Bas6ards” la7ez el ” 6 “

I thank God that Darwin died long time ago before I knew him! You know if he was living today with his other geek friend “Froid” they would say that the motivation for the new media and communication systems was pornography , ya I know most of you would support him for that, and hence sex is the ultimate motivation.

They would also say that armies were first thought of just for the sack of raping women and girls, and that the only reason for the cold war and iraq war is raping.

What else, they would give sex full credit for the rise of many sporys such as basketball, you know cheer leaders are the reason for the developing of basket. Also soccer! You can see lots of nude women at the stadiums.

I even discovered that my ass support him. He once told me that froid is an asshole I can get along with him very fine, and I can see why sex was the only concern in his life.

LOL!

walla3aaatttt … walla3atttttt

That is funny! Actually I remembered this post sometime ago and wanted to talk a bit about this theory! Accidentally I was reading a book about the natural world called “The 70 great mysteries of the natural world: unlocking the secrets of our planet”. The book contains 70 articles that address the latest finding in some of the natural world mysteries as the book name implies and is written by some of the most renowned scientists worldwide. Anyways, this theory is referred to as the selfish gene theory, which implies that creatures are means of gene replications (rather than genes being means of replications of creatures). To say the truth I am impressed by the level of discussion we had here, because most of what we said turned to be the steps for the scientific discussion of the issue, but we lacked the experimental part. But to start, I would quote the book on some of the myths and misunderstanding of the theory.

“First, selfish gene theory does not imply that individuals want to spread their genes. Evolution is a theory of design, not motivations. It explains why knees and leaves and livers are designed the way they are, and consequently why they work the way they do. It does not suggest that knees and leaves and livers are motivated by an unconscious desire to spread genes… at no point do such explanation invoke ulterior genetic motives”.

“Second, selfish-gene theory does not imply that genes are the sole determinants of behavior or that genetic effects are fixed and immune to environmental influence…hence when explaining the behavior the question is not “genes or environment?”. Rather it is “given the evolved design of the organism, which aspects of its environment are important, and why?”

The book later talks about a rule called Hamilton’s rule that is used to understand altruism behavior in individuals of the same species. This rule has three factors to be weighted, which are costs, benefits and relatedness. Costs and benefits are weighted for each individual, for instance the ground squirrel that alert others about predators is bringing attention to him self. The cost here is his death, but the benefit is saving plenty of other copies of the gene make up of this species (the sum of the saved genes here is much larger than the one that would be saved if he just ran away).

About relatedness, ants are the model here. The queen of ants produce the males asexually, so they share 0.5 of here genes, and these mate with her again and produce females that share 0.5 of here genes too. For the female worker ants the male shares 0.25 of their genes, while their sisters share 0.75 of their genes and that exactly what drives a conflict between the queen and the workers, for the queen males and females are 0.5 of her genes, while for workers males are less efficient way of preserving the genetic code for this type of ants, so the balance is shifted toward the female production.

It is nice to note that female workers gave up their reproduction abilities because their offspring are 0.5 of their genes while their sisters are 0.75 of their genes. Interesting, don’t you think so?

To say the truth, I came to appreciate the evolution theory and Darwin after studying the theory very well. But about Freud, my opinion (which is represented here and in a different post by me) is still the same.