I'm re-watching 'Cosmos' with Carl Sagan. Last saw it in bits 'n pieces when it originally aired. At the time my understanding is that he copped some criticism from his peers (again, not as bad as the poor bugger Giordano, yet...) which in the media/information age is no small thing. Yet, viewing his speculations about inhabited worlds and what forms of life there may (probably) be 'out there' it seems like no big deal today!!
OK so, with what we now know 20+ years later, the questions are just as interesting but now we move onto just what kind of life is it going to be? OK, as promised. Convergent evolution.
"How likely is it that we will encounter biological life (v's robotic probes) AND
how similar are the 'solutions' that evolved life can arrive at
given that we can assume you need a planet or moon for it to evolve on?
e.g. would water dwelling creatures ever develop civilisation? or is it only gas breathers...
You'd think that some kind of manual dexterity would be needed to
'just bang the rocks together guys'
So, what would the universals be in the race to sentience? And is altruism and empathy some sort of universal constant for transcending the tribal stage? Or is constant warring the way to go?
We just happen to have evolved as a species through geographical scattering. Perhaps if we'd been more concentrated and homogenous we'd just all be still sitting around the fire waving jawbones at each other
AND... if the robots arrive, what use would they have for empathy anyway? EEEK!!
Hmmm...why don't you ask some difficult questions for a change, huh?
When it comes to the Life sciences I defer to the expertise of Geneboy. Maybe you should get his input? His blog is at... http:greatunansweredquestions.blogspot.com
What I will say is this...
Standard policy for NASA and the ESA (dunno about the others) is to base their science on what we already know. Hence, Mars exploration is driven by the mantra, 'follow the water'.
The next generation of rovers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExoMars and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory ,will be doing just that. Ditto with any future missions to Europa, Enceladus and any other moons that might have a liquid water ocean under their crusts. The only example we have to go on is the life here on Earth and this is the only solid basis for the expenditure of megadollars in space. Speculative notions about alien life will remain just that until something new and unexpected is discovered. I happen to agree with this policy, but with one caveat.
_________________ Nietzsche was wrong - god never lived.
iPondR Graduate Thinker
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
Posts: 534
Location: Aussie Prawn Facility; District 10
Posted:
Mon May 17, 2010 9:48 pm
BornAgainAthiest wrote:
Prepare to be surprised!
Time and again life has surprised us with what it can survive and what it can do, given enough time, opportunity and raw materials.
I couldn't agree more! I think that's more the discussion I'm looking for here... I realise that we're not going to be able to go into the intricacies of genetics and evolution... that's not to say that we couldn't
speculate
about what other biospheres there might be and the nature of such (and how they have been depicted on film and in books) - compared to the likely realities of whats
probably
out there mitosis-ing away right NOW!
Is that an example of freethought? That's something that matters to me right now. Otherwise, is it all just the endless questioning of this religion and that? We need to expand the discussion which is the true contribution of Sagan and others IMO. We are no longer special and unique snowflakes in the cosmic soup, we could well be quite common. God made backups? (is he that unsure of himself?)
So, thanks for the linx, and here's a few more;
To recap, convergent evolution asks the question
'are there common themes for lifeforms regardless of the exact evolutionary path?'
- obviously we need a LOT more info to answer that one, but we know more & more each year, so why not take a shot at it? (I should find other links, it's a short page) - are there certain 'universals' in the solutions to making life?
Last but not least (for now) - the idea that we are more likely to encounter the technology of a species, perhaps long after they themselves are long gone.
Pamela: And taking this a step further, one of the coolest ideas that I think I've read about is a type of stellar engine where you
actually start moving the entire solar system
.
Fraser: What?
Coo-ool
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:19 pm
[quote="iPondR"]
BornAgainAthiest wrote:
Will get back to you about Con.Evol. soon iPondR. Promise.
In the meantime, [
YADA YADA, come on I'm waiting BAA, it's not rocket science you know!
].
SHIT! Sorry 'bout that mate.
Ummm... look, I'm writing this from an Internet cafe 'cos I'm out of town. I'll be back home tomorrow-ish. Message you then, ok?
Btw, I'll have two points to make about convergent evolution.
About the uptake of available resources by living systems and the formation of similar structures for similar functions by different branches of the taxonomic web.
(Jeez! I'm w-e-l-l out of my depth here. Hope Geneboy doesn't come down too hard on me if I mess up.)
Bye,
BAA.
_________________ Nietzsche was wrong - god never lived.
iPondR Graduate Thinker
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
Posts: 534
Location: Aussie Prawn Facility; District 10
Posted:
Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:18 am
BornAgainAthiest wrote:
(Jeez! I'm w-e-l-l out of my depth here. Hope Geneboy doesn't come down too hard on me if I mess up.)
OK,
loosen up BAA
, this is not a PhD level discussion!! You're probably not a biologist-y science dude and neither am I (although Biology was my fave at highschool) - and I'm SURE GeneBoy knows stuff-all about convergent evolution [OK I've thrown down the gauntlet!!!!!!]
So, dear esteemed colleague and fellow Infidel 'Geneboy' - we're asking for dispensation for a geekfest of
SPECULATION
- Weeeeee! However if we get too stupid please slap us down.
So, what I'm saying is... let's do a Carl Sagan IMHO session... we don't need to get too technical and critters created in the free Spore editor tool are welcome!
OK, so. First principles. The name of the game is a 'holiday from the second law of thermodynamics' - as you said, life forms need energy. What are the most common objects in the universe? Big balls of fusing gas.
In the tradition of the Southpark Underpants Elves... "big balls of gas>>[something something]>>
LIFE!
"
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
The Red branch of the tree is the home of the Eukaryotes, of which we humans seem to be a member. The Blue branch are the Bacteria and the Green, the Archaea.
My understanding tells me that the Reds succeeded in doing something that the Blues and the Greens didn't. Somehow the Reds found a way of up-taking and using matter and energy (the available resources) from their environment. It looks like the Blues and Greens couldn't match this feat and so stayed in their evolutionary niches - where we find them today.
Now, I have to qualify this statement by describing what I mean by 'success'. In terms of sheer numbers the Bacteria probably outnumber all other types of life on Earth, many times over. So, when I talk about evolutionary success, I don't mean numbers, I mean diversity of forms. Diversity that allows new possibilities and new ways of making use of raw materials. In terms of diversity, the Reds are the clear winners, containing the Animal, Plant, Fungi and Algae kingdoms. I don't know too much about Slime Moulds or Protozoa, but I do understand Animals and Plants exhibit the greatest diversity of forms found on this planet.
Turning to the topic of CE, here are the questions I find intriguing.
The Reds and the Greens are shown splitting off from one another early on in the history of life. But what if the Greens had been just as or more successful as the Reds?
Would this mean that the Archaea could have evolved to fill all the evolutionary niches the Eukaryotes have?
If they had, would CE get to work and produce eyes, wings, lungs and brains (Archaean Animalia) or seeds, petals, fruit and nuts (Archaean Plants) or rhizomes and spores (Archaean Fungi)?
Could CE have produced life that looks similar to the Animal/Plant/Fungal forms we are familiar, but which is in fact radically different on a cellular level?
If so, what does that suggest about extraterrestrial life?
Thanks,
BAA.
_________________ Nietzsche was wrong - god never lived.
iPondR Graduate Thinker
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
Posts: 534
Location: Aussie Prawn Facility; District 10
Posted:
Wed Sep 08, 2010 7:07 am
BornAgainAthiest wrote:
Turning to the topic of CE, here are the questions I find intriguing.
The Reds and the Greens are shown splitting off from one another early on in the history of life.
But what if the Greens had been just as or more successful as the Reds?
Would this mean that the Archaea could have evolved to fill all the evolutionary niches the Eukaryotes have?
If they had, would CE get to work and produce eyes, wings, lungs and brains (Archaean Animalia) or seeds, petals, fruit and nuts (Archaean Plants) or rhizomes and spores (Archaean Fungi)?
Could CE have produced life that looks similar to the Animal/Plant/Fungal forms we are familiar, but which is in fact radically different on a cellular level?
If so, what does that suggest about extraterrestrial life?
Thanks,
BAA.
BAA, it's been a while getting back to this one... but first some housekeeping, a cross post;
"It also puts a new slant on the question of why the laws of physics seem to be so fine-tuned for life. It could be that it's only fine-tuned in this corner of the universe."
fine tuned-ness may well be a 'localised' phenomenon i.e. the disposition of 'matter' in the universe seems to be important in how cosmologists direct their observations and interpret them...
I would not be surprised if these were the after effect of some gravity-wave type phenomenon, but that's just IMHO... i.e. NOT designed!
If this localised (ie still on a vast scale) fine structure constant fine-tunedness is true, this would also have an effect on the SETI type of estimates etc
NOW - to convergent evolution, and the flights of fancy!
Is what you're asking "if another branch of life had taken off (i.e. achived dominance) would they have evolved to higher (& possibly similar to what we have now...) forms?
WOW what a mother of all questions that one is... remember though, that in a real sense, we ARE a result of the common ancestor of ALL branches of life on the planet (so far as we know)
there's no easy way to test what would have happened if the greenies took over (can you imagine the simulation?!?!) OK again it's anyone's guess.
And, basically, that's what I'm asking on a cosmic scale. How 'familiar' would exo-biology (dont ya love sci-fi!) be to our understanding of 'life'
e.g. if there was another 'm class' planet (!) I'd like to know would wings emerge! [this is not strictly what is meant by convergent evo. but, whatever!]
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
As I said before, it's way too late to get this stuff back!
Regulus (in Leo) and Mizar (the Big Dipper/Plough/Great Bear) are 77 and 78 light-years away, respectively.
More thoughts on ConEvo tomorrow!
Bye,
BAA.
OMFNG!! You mean....!! Look out Altair!!
Party of Five and Freinds INCOMINGGGG!
Civilizations about to fall... although maybe Picard will save them! LOL ROFL... another effing time travel episode
[actually, they better have some pretty good antenna gear! those signals aren't so strong and were not deliberately aimed at anywhere in particular off planet...]
BTW, I'M REALLY DISAPPOINTED GUYS!!
Where have you been hiding this clever lass! (yes there's an L there!) Why hasn't someone pointed this anomaly out? [is it just me, or is this a young geena davis for geeks, sigh]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWT66OtVKuk&NR=1
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:23 pm
OMFNG!! You mean....!! Look out Altair!!
Party of Five and Freinds INCOMINGGGG!
Civilizations about to fall... although maybe Picard will save them! LOL ROFL... another effing time travel episode
[actually, they better have some pretty good antenna gear! those signals aren't so strong and were not deliberately aimed at anywhere in particular off planet...]
Good point mate. The Inverse Square Law, put simply, says that if you double the distance a signal travels, you quarter it's power. The flip side of this that CCD's (working in the optical range of the EM spectrum) are now so sensitive they can register individual photons hitting them across intergalactic distances. So, it's not such a stretch to imagine that in a few decades, we might be able to do something similar at radio frequencies and at the ultra-low signal strengths required to hear Ferengi game-shows or similar!
"Quark! Come on down!"
BTW, I'M REALLY DISAPPOINTED GUYS!!
Where have you been hiding this clever lass! (yes there's an L there!) Why hasn't someone pointed this anomaly out? [is it just me, or is this a young geena davis for geeks, sigh]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWT66OtVKuk&NR=1[/quote]
She's
hot
! Unlike W.I.S.E., which is very
cool
indeed.
BAA.
_________________ Nietzsche was wrong - god never lived.
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:05 pm
NOW - to convergent evolution, and the flights of fancy!
Is what you're asking "if another branch of life had taken off (i.e. achived dominance) would they have evolved to higher (& possibly similar to what we have now...) forms?
WOW what a mother of all questions that one is... remember though, that in a real sense, we ARE a result of the common ancestor of ALL branches of life on the planet (so far as we know)
there's no easy way to test what would have happened if the greenies took over (can you imagine the simulation?!?!) OK again it's anyone's guess.
And, basically, that's what I'm asking on a cosmic scale. How 'familiar' would exo-biology (dont ya love sci-fi!) be to our understanding of 'life'
e.g. if there was another 'm class' planet (!) I'd like to know would wings emerge! [this is not strictly what is meant by convergent evo. but, whatever!][/quote]
First off, because birds, lizards, insects and mammals have acquired wings, there must be an evolutionary advantage in having them. So, given similar conditions to those on Earth, it seems entirely reasonable to me to propose that extraterrestrial life will follow this evolutionary path too. Assuming alien life is cellular (or some equivalent) I can see stretched membranes (like insect, bat or flying lizard wings) or feather-like structures evolving to take advantage of the gaseous atmospheres of other planets.
So far we don't know about any Earth-like planets with Oxygen-Nitrogen atmospheres and temperatures around the Triple Point of water. But that can't be too far away. Here's what we do know...
1. There a other solar systems out there.
2. There are high-mass planets out there which aren't gas giants and are smaller than Neptune or Uranus.
3. These are orbiting within the 'snow-line' of their respective stars, so they can't be icy on their surfaces - they're too warm for that.
4. Therefore, they must have gaseous atmospheres and/or liquids covering their rocky centers.
5. We have have detected Water Vapor in their spectral signatures, indicating that the water
is
present - at least in it's gaseous phase.
The next class of exoplanet we can expect to find are rocky, Earth-like ones orbiting Sun-like stars on Earth-like orbits, where liquid, solid and gaseous water can exist. Detection of the planets transiting their stars will probably come first, via the Kepler probe. Next year, perhaps? Following that, if Earth-based telescopes can't get their spectra, well have to wait until the JWST launches in 2014. Once we get a decent handle on how many of these suckers there are in Kepler's field of view, then it's just a number-crunching exercise to come up with a reasonable estimate of how many such planets there are in the Milky Way. This will impact the results of the Drake Equation in a huge way.
End run...
Alien life
should
evolve wings, wing-like structures or their equivalent, to take advantage of the lifting power provided by thick, gaseous atmospheres. The record of life on Earth suggests that it's too good a opportunity to miss. The statistics (mentioned above) are in favor of it too, thru sheer weight of numbers. If there are billions of other 'Earth's' out there I'd be very surprised indeed if wings didn't evolve. If they didn't, that would suggest some kind of universal mechanism
against
them which Earth somehow managed to avoid. Such a mechanism seems counter to Occam's razor, logic and common sense to me. Ok?
Thanks,
BAA.
_________________ Nietzsche was wrong - god never lived.
iPondR Graduate Thinker
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
Posts: 534
Location: Aussie Prawn Facility; District 10
God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator.
...hmmm now why oh why should that have drawn the ire of the religious leaders? are they THAT insecure? surely they KNOW the TRUTH and of course the truth which they hold self evident should be sufficient to not only shield them from being falsely hel accountable for their record over the ages but surely they would ANTICIPATE that the truth would be borne out by the advance of science? [I'm sorry but claiming that scientists are biased does not protect you from the self correcting nature of the scientific method (unless you are funded by a drug, alchohol, oil or tobacco company, that is)]
Hawking wrote:
According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing.
Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of science.
OK!! now obviously this is not good enough for some!
random guy on internet wrote:
mack says:
September 9, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Your are ignorant in thinking that Hawking can claim a universe exist because of a “law” that makes it possible to exist yet cannot explain the “existence” of the law and its origins.
Hawking has explained nothing! Freagin’ duh!
So, let me get this straight, one of the smartest guys on the planet (who holds the post that Isaac Newton once held) thinks that the ability of science (a facts based epistemic process) can explain the process by which the universe came into being out of NOTHING (actually that's not a valid term in physics) and can explain why there is something rather than nothing and give credible mechanisms for the existance of a 'fitness landscape' of universes.... all THAT and more...
BUT, wait for it... ALL THIS, a process spanning thousands of years since the last iceage, tthe accumulated wisdom of entire civilizations, philosophers, mathematicians, computer scientists, cosmologists... the CERN supecollider the LHC,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics
and, all that, versus some guy called 'mack' in his bedroom who thinks that the old
'you still can't say whyyyyy'
is a slam dunk argument for a totally inexplicable supernatural creator being without which the universe would look exactly the same as it does now, but 'mack' can say
look god dunnit...
What's even more ironic (or in the case of 'mack' moronic) is that well... science can say quite a LOT about the origin of physical laws! [hmmm maybe another thread??] so where do we move the goalposts to now?? [AlphaOmega, RoryR, et.al. you still around?] - having said ALL THAT, now let's go back to that first quote by Hawking... he said "God
may
exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator." He didn't even spoil it for the god-bod's he left it open for them to continue to pontificate and generally crap-on and of course...
sell books to the credulous
I prefer this comment on u toob;
Quote:
DanHipp 5 hours ago
The elephant in the room that no one is talking about is the difference in intelligence between King, Chopra, and priesty McThug on the one hand, and Hawking and Mlodinow on the other. Why would anyone believe the clearly dumber ones, except out of an empathy for their condition?
OK, so if ANYONE tries to get on here and quote-mines Hawking, trying to make it look like he's supporting theistic universe 'poofing' and
I WILL JUMP DOWN YOUR THROATS AND USE YOUR LUNGS FOR LUNCH!!
Comprende?
Example;
Quote:
"Consideration of particle emission from black holes would seem to suggest that God not only plays dice, but also sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen." -Stephen Hawking
This is NOT an example that Hawking 'believes' in the existence of god. It is a comment on the famous quote by Einstein the 'God does not play dice with the universe' (and shitloads have been written about that one!!!!) it doesn't mean that Einstein believed in (the usual kind ie theistic) god! Read my lips (all who dare to enter this arena...) belief need not come into it. It's quite legit to use the word 'god' as a metaphor in discussing the cosmos... it is a position holder for something that can observe the universe from the 'outside' (an absurdity of course but a metaphor nonetheless)
I think I'll trust a physicist over a Jesuit any day, especially when the subject is physics.
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
iPondR Graduate Thinker
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
Posts: 534
Location: Aussie Prawn Facility; District 10
Posted:
Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:15 am
Hi B_A_A & all n sundry here's an update on the question of convergent evolution (or, it's life Jim, but not as we know it...)
Article discussing;
Quote:
This paper presents a causative model for the origin of the vertebrate skeleton based on the premise that the body is a mosaic enlargement of self-organized patterns engrained in the membrane of the egg cell. Drawings illustrate the proposed hypothetical origin of membrane patterning and the changes in the hydrostatic equilibrium of the cytoplasm that cause topographical deformations resulting in the vertebrate body form.
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
kurdistan101 Confident Learner
Joined: Sep 02, 2010
Posts: 67
Posted:
Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:26 pm
Brian37 wrote:
I am with both Hawkins and Dawkins ONLY in the sense of the sheer number of galaxies and bigger number of stars in all the galaxies and the sheer number of planets we would find. AND that the atoms that make up amino acids are part of the universe. So strictly from a statistical view we should expect to find some sort of life out there.
HOWEVER, being that material is the same and atoms are the same, we do no know of any material that would be able to overcome the distance of space. I doubt whatever life like us that we could find out there would be able to get to us. I think the only thing we'd be able to do is talk to them, but what ever message got to them would be long after we are dead and then the time to respond. I think that is the best we can do.
I don't think we have been visited nor do I think anything out there could.
BUT it wouldn't surprise me the variety of galaxies and combos of stars and planets in the entire universe, there might be solar systems with more than one earth like planet with some sort of evolution happening.
I have read some of the posts in this thread, and it was disappointing, until I got to your post Brian. Here is the thing, knowing these things you have posted, it would take massive technologies from alien life to reach us, and they would have to be higher intelligent life forms to get to our planet in person. it seems stupid to think that if they get to us they would destroy us, I am amazed to see some of you to have this sort of attitude towards this Idea, you guys are thinking like hillbillies, and I am surprised to hear that someone like Hawking would hold this view. that we would be in danger. truly we haven't evolved much we are still in the "FIGHT or FLIGHT" mind set.
Brian37 wrote:
I don't think we have been visited nor do I think anything out there could.
I agree with you brian.
_________________ ''By simple common sense I don't believe in God, in none" ~ Charlie Chaplin
"I am at peace with God. My conflict is with Man"
Charlie Chaplin.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Sorry 'bout that mate. 
