Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
Hrolf The Ganger 13 Apr 16 4.03pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Evolution is random, it doesn't happen by necessity, it just can proliferate by a development being advantageous, typically to the capacity to successfully pass on genetic material across generations (and beneficial traits can become maladaptive). The real decider is the environment, and how a trait benefits the chance of being passed on to future generations. Generally, the assumption is that if a trait gives a positive advantage in the environment, it is more likely to proliferate through the species and if its detrimental its likely to become extinct. Also, maladaption is an issue. A once beneficial trait, can become detrimental when the environment changes, and as evolution occurs over gulfs of time, it generally means that becomes detrimental. For example, the human stress response. This is very well adapted to about 80% of the human time line. However increasingly with civilisation responding to a stress in a primal manner (the flight or fight response) is damaging. The problem of course is that the efficiency of the flight or fight response in primal environments, meant that alternative traits were probably extinguished before the first humans even existed - and because it won't actually reduce your chance of spreading genetic material, its going to remain. Evolutionary benefit also isn't individual benefit. Bright plumage increases a birds chance of reproduction more than its chance of being eaten, will of course proliferate and it just ends up sharpening up how close to mating season the first bright colours arrive.... Evolution would, if we attribute it with sentience, give you cancer at the age of 40, if it meant increasing your chance to get a girl pregnant at 15. You should give a nod to Dawkins for that post.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 16 4.05pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You should give a nod to Dawkins for that post. Or maybe Adam Johnsons defence...
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 13 Apr 16 4.07pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Or maybe Adam Johnsons defence... Don't think I have read any of his work.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 16 4.13pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
The type of life on other planets really depends on the rules of evolution. We only know evolution on this planet and here we see examples of parallel evolution. If there are certain constants in the formation of life and how it evolves in the universe then we could suppose that life might be restricted to certain forms and perhaps resemble forms on similar planets. Until we have examples of extraterrestrial life then we can't even begin to predict the range that might exist. One could assume that any life will be designed for survival and replication but there are many forms of life here of all shapes and sizes which are remarkable in their specificity with regard to adaptation to environment. If we have all this variation on Earth then its hard to imagine how much there might be elsewhere. Arguably the biggest question would be around how life originates, rather than evolves. We can probably safely say that once life occurs, it evolves and provided its not wiped out in the earliest phases it will spread and evolve over the life of the planet provided its capable of sustaining some of those life forms. But how life begins, presumably involving amino acids, to construct RNA and DNA and single cell lifeform's is the great unknown factor.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 13 Apr 16 4.29pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Arguably the biggest question would be around how life originates, rather than evolves. We can probably safely say that once life occurs, it evolves and provided its not wiped out in the earliest phases it will spread and evolve over the life of the planet provided its capable of sustaining some of those life forms. But how life begins, presumably involving amino acids, to construct RNA and DNA and single cell lifeform's is the great unknown factor. According to Dawkins, given enough time and presumably, the right ingredients, life will form eventually despite the improbability.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 16 4.38pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
According to Dawkins, given enough time and presumably, the right ingredients, life will form eventually despite the improbability. Time, environment and ingredients. Its likely that some kind of atmospheric factor was involved - as life seems to have occurred at some point, rather than continually and spontaneously through history. I suspect there is a limited window in a planets lifecycle were 'life can occur, rather than just evolve'.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hoof Hearted 13 Apr 16 5.52pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Yes, but it creates the knowledge, that my own view point is itself flawed, and contains an unreliable bias, and with time, whilst not remaining objective, I can approach the subject with increased critical capability. Humans, are paradoxically, not very good at any one thing, as a species. This kind of means they don't use up a lot of neural capacity on 'super senses' (meaning there is more 'capacity' to learn). This, opposable thumbs, and an abnormality in the larynx, are largely responsible for the adaptation of humans as a 'highly successful species'. The abnormality of the larynx, whilst increasing the risk of choking, allows for 40,000 plus vocalisations, rather than between 10-40 seen in most mammals. This capacity for language, plus a relatively unspecialised brain (with great learning capacity) is mostly what attribute intelligence to (Language allows the sharing of experience, and knowledge, which arguably is the single most significant thing separating humans from other mammals). But in truth, we're not actually all that intelligent, we just have a capacity to share knowledge and information, which makes us look and feel more intelligent (i.e. we can define what is and isn't intelligent, which brings us back to an humanocentric view of existence). I'd back Stephen Hawking against Tibbles any day on Mastermind though
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 13 Apr 16 7.25pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
I'd back Stephen Hawking against Tibbles any day on Mastermind though Hawking is s*** at climbing trees though and you rarely get people posting pictures of Hawking to their friends on Facebook. Balance.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Apr 16 9.31am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
I'd back Stephen Hawking against Tibbles any day on Mastermind though Mastermind is a measure of specific intelligence, i.e. that valued highly by humans. If the subjects were fairly balanced, it'd include hunting as a comparison, in which case Mr Tibbles would be looking at good score. Cats are remarkably intelligent hunters - we just don't regard that as 'particually intelligent' because we don't regard hunting as a symbol of status. Plus they've achieved all of Hawkings survival needs, without the use of technology. Hawkings wishes he could s**t in a box of litter and cover it up.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Apr 16 9.33am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Hawking is s*** at climbing trees though and you rarely get people posting pictures of Hawking to their friends on Facebook. Balance. Well not nice pictures.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 14 Apr 16 9.37am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Hawking is s*** at climbing trees though and you rarely get people posting pictures of Hawking to their friends on Facebook. Balance. He's sh1t at that too
Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre with Superfly in the chorus |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stuk Top half 14 Apr 16 2.08pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Mastermind is a measure of specific intelligence, i.e. that valued highly by humans. If the subjects were fairly balanced, it'd include hunting as a comparison, in which case Mr Tibbles would be looking at good score. Cats are remarkably intelligent hunters - we just don't regard that as 'particually intelligent' because we don't regard hunting as a symbol of status. Plus they've achieved all of Hawkings survival needs, without the use of technology. Hawkings wishes he could s**t in a box of litter and cover it up. Sarah Palin does. That says it all. If you took away Hawking's tech, both him and tibbles are scoring zero in a verbal test.
Optimistic as ever |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.