Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[Nietzsche]

My point is, that chance alone accounting for all life on Earth is made more problematic by the time constraints, which are ever more apparent.
natural selection works best in smaller gene pools, and often grinds to a halt in larger ones. hence there is a self defeating side of the algorithm, where the more successful the population, the less it's able to evolve. Conversely the process is most effective in small, stressed populations which are more susceptible to extinction and deleterious mutations.

It doesn't work best in smaller gene pools, it works more quickly. The animal doing 'best' won't have a smaller gene-pool. Evolution speeds up because as an animal nears extinction those who are able to breed will more reliably pass down their traits, not being 'lost' in the greater whole. Conversely it becomes slower in a larger group because by having more members mutations have a smaller chance of becoming predominant, as the baseliners are outbreeding the mutant members via volume.

i.e. natural selection alone -as a process- selects losers in this sense

See the above.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think we more or less agree on that part of evolution- natural selection, the process itself- it's ability to drive change has a self defeating component. i.e. to create something very different, very complex, to create a human from a single cell, natural selection has to avoid creating anything too successful in between and getting stuck there- and this tricky balance has to be replicated for all the wonderful diversity of complex and beautiful life on Earth

Not when there are no marks of a Creator at all.

what are the marks of a creator of anything? functional design, for a specific purpose- why would a sentient intelligence wish to create a universe?

 

[Nietzsche]

what are the marks of a creator of anything? functional design, for a specific purpose- why would a sentient intelligence wish to create a universe?

Remember what I said about appendages meant for the same task being so incredibly dissimilar in construction? An Engineer wouldn't have to do that, nor would a good Engineer allow it. Had an Engineer done that he would be fired.

Let's use the manatee. Why does it still have fingernails? Why are some snakes still born with tiny, tiny legs? An engineer would've scrapped the legs entirely. Why does the laryngeal nerve travel down the neck, around the arteries of the heart and travels back up the neck to innervate the larynx? Specifically why does it do that in a giraffe? An engineer would just make a direct connection, especially in the giraffe.

A sentience wouldn't work in that manner. But an accumulation of mutations and traits? That remain so long as they don't get you killed or render you incapable of breeding? That makes more sense.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Let's use the manatee. Why does it still have fingernails?

I had a very similar conversation with a co-worker about vestigial organs and he was almost insulted that I would suggest such a thing.

I of course mentioned the appendix and the fact that some humans are still born with little tails that get cut off at birth, and he got straight angry.

He then read about it for a couple of weeks and came back with not such a harsh tone, but still demanded that all things in our bodies serve a purpose, because of the perfection of creation... He later had to have his gall-bladder taken out because it became so inflamed that it couldn't be repaired. He still lives today as a functioning healthy adult... I winked and told him it was a lesson from god.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Remember what I said about appendages meant for the same task being so incredibly dissimilar in construction? An Engineer wouldn't have to do that, nor would a good Engineer allow it. Had an Engineer done that he would be fired.

Let's use the manatee. Why does it still have fingernails? Why are some snakes still born with tiny, tiny legs? An engineer would've scrapped the legs entirely. Why does the laryngeal nerve travel down the neck, around the arteries of the heart and travels back up the neck to innervate the larynx? Specifically why does it do that in a giraffe? An engineer would just make a direct connection, especially in the giraffe.

A sentience wouldn't work in that manner. But an accumulation of mutations and traits? That remain so long as they don't get you killed or render you incapable of breeding? That makes more sense.

Another way to look at it, is how the animal managed to go through such drastic changes in form and still function around the same frame, the way an engineer uses similar chassis for cars, even if it means extra redundant moldings on each model

there is no inherent law of natural selection itself, which obliges life to become rich, complex, diverse. without a blueprint, any intended destination, it should be perfectly 'content' to arrive at a single simple efficient dominant homogenous species, a monopoly.
just as our convo about free markets- wouldn't survival of the fittest alone create a biological monopoly by your argument? The only reason it doesn't in the economy, by your argument again, is because of creative intelligence interfering- the government, a plan- with the specific purpose in mind of diversifying a more rich variety of 'life' and 'species' in the economy?

 

[Nietzsche]

Another way to look at it, is how the animal managed to go through such drastic changes in form and still function around the same frame, the way an engineer uses similar chassis for cars, even if it means extra redundant moldings on each model

...Evolution can not, and does not, allow for the 'switching' around of parts. It's about natural growths & abnormalities.

just as our convo about free markets- wouldn't survival of the fittest alone create a biological monopoly by your argument? The only reason it doesn't in the economy, by your argument again, is because of creative intelligence interfering- the government, a plan- with the specific purpose in mind of diversifying a more rich variety of 'life' and 'species' in the economy?

Because there is more at work in nature. You have a literally unfathomable number of chemical processes going on every second along with various types of radiation from the sun and radiation inherent in the earth, microscopic creatures. The magnetosphere plays a small role as well. An 'economy' model is far, far, far, far too simple to act as useful analogy. There is not nearly enough going on, not nearly enough variables. And I haven't even gotten into macro-scale variables and influence such as the weather, other animals, plants and what have you. It isn't enough

there is no inherent law of natural selection itself, which obliges life to become rich, complex, diverse. without a blueprint, any intended destination, it should be perfectly 'content' to arrive at a single simple efficient dominant homogenous species, a monopoly.

You continue to show how little you know about the mechanism. The changes are always occurring. Each individual is a transitional one, because there is change. And again, evolution is not about efficiency. It's about being "good enough". What happens however, is that you will sometimes find a super-efficient animal. Instead of using Crocodiles, or a specific animal, let's look at some animals that share remarkably similar shapes.

This is a shark-

The type of shark is trivial, we are not interested in that. I want you to look at the shape.

Now, here are a collection of other animals-

Those animals? Not sharks. They aren't even fish. The first is an Ichthyosaur and the second is a Mosasaur. A reptile and a mammal, respectively(the Mosasaur was named such because they initially thought it was a reptile). They diverged from fish loooooooong ago, but they managed to evolve superficially similar shapes. However, the important part there is superficial. If you were to look at the flippers, you'd notice that they still have individual fingers, and both obviously still had lungs. But they lived entirely in the water. Why make a new water-creature if you've already got one type of creature whos' entire existence is based around water? Because those things above? They were at one point entirely land-based animals. Their ancestors crawled out of the ocean, became land animals, and then went back into the ocean. That's just sloppy work.

A designer with a plan wouldn't go through such a circuitous route to get the same basic shape he had started with.

Like I stated, evolution only quickens in small groups because there is less genetic material to go around, thus the various smaller mutations can become dominant. There are some Newts in California that circle the interior of the state. When you look at the groups individually, you notice something. Each group can interbreed with their two closest kin. But you get further away than that and the unions are not chemically viable. Why? Because the Newts evolved ever-so-slightly differently from each other, and only the populations still adjacent to one another retain chemical viability.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

...Evolution can not, and does not, allow for the 'switching' around of parts. It's about natural growths & abnormalities.

flexibility means having features allowing for different functions and so inherently means redundant features, not necessarily bad design is the point

Because there is more at work in nature. You have a literally unfathomable number of chemical processes going on every second along with various types of radiation from the sun and radiation inherent in the earth, microscopic creatures. The magnetosphere plays a small role as well. An 'economy' model is far, far, far, far too simple to act as useful analogy. There is not nearly enough going on, not nearly enough variables. And I haven't even gotten into macro-scale variables and influence such as the weather, other animals, plants and what have you. It isn't enough

so if instead of using creative talent for business plans, marketing, product research and development, we simply applied millions of random changes to the way a company does business, we'd get a rich vibrant diversity of successful companies?

The excruciatingly specific attributes of our planet and solar system and universe specific to what happened on Earth... that's part of the point

You continue to show how little you know about the mechanism. The changes are always occurring. Each individual is a transitional one, because there is change. And again, evolution is not about efficiency. It's about being "good enough". What happens however, is that you will sometimes find a super-efficient animal. Instead of using Crocodiles, or a specific animal, let's look at some animals that share remarkably similar shapes.

This is a shark-

The type of shark is trivial, we are not interested in that. I want you to look at the shape.

Now, here are a collection of other animals-

Those animals? Not sharks. They aren't even fish. The first is an Ichthyosaur and the second is a Mosasaur. A reptile and a mammal, respectively(the Mosasaur was named such because they initially thought it was a reptile). They diverged from fish loooooooong ago, but they managed to evolve superficially similar shapes. However, the important part there is superficial. If you were to look at the flippers, you'd notice that they still have individual fingers, and both obviously still had lungs. But they lived entirely in the water. Why make a new water-creature if you've already got one type of creature whos' entire existence is based around water? Because those things above? They were at one point entirely land-based animals. Their ancestors crawled out of the ocean, became land animals, and then went back into the ocean. That's just sloppy work.

A designer with a plan wouldn't go through such a circuitous route to get the same basic shape he had started with.

Like I stated, evolution only quickens in small groups because there is less genetic material to go around, thus the various smaller mutations can become dominant. There are some Newts in California that circle the interior of the state. When you look at the groups individually, you notice something. Each group can interbreed with their two closest kin. But you get further away than that and the unions are not chemically viable. Why? Because the Newts evolved ever-so-slightly differently from each other, and only the populations still adjacent to one another retain chemical viability.

I appreciate the detailed response here, I don't think we disagree on the history as much as the implications. The fact the diversity is so rich is partly because of these fantastic journeys of life, in and out of water, land, the sky, over/ underground- millions of species of plants and animals, over millions of years (leaving us an energy source vital to our civilization and appreciation of the universe).. all from one primordial seed of energy/matter encapsulating the necessary information

and amongst all this on Earth ONE single species able to marvel at it all

instead of one giant mass of successful algae dominating the globe and thinking about nothing.. THAT would be far less sloppy, far more efficient, far less redundancy, duplication, repetition... but a better design? more consistent with creative intelligence?

again- all by chance can't be ruled out, I just think brilliant engineering is far more probable

 

[Nietzsche]

flexibility means having features allowing for different functions and so inherently means redundant features, not necessarily bad design is the point



so if instead of using creative talent for business plans, marketing, product research and development, we simply applied millions of random changes to the way a company does business, we'd get a rich vibrant diversity of successful companies?

No. The market is an artificial thing. It's bound only by the rules we decide to apply and follow. But it can break those rules whenever it wants. Will there be repercussions? Yes. If you're caught. However no one can 'cheat' at evolution. The rules are constant, immutable.

The excruciatingly specific attributes of our planet and solar system and universe specific to what happened on Earth... that's part of the point

That isn't a very good argument simply because as I stated, life could be downright abundant and we'd never know for several reasons. One, anything we find will most likely be immeasurably older or younger than us(the Angels or Apes concept). Two, they could be so radically different and well, alien to us that we would not recognize it as life in the first place nor us them. Three, there's the problem of distance. Four, there's the issue of technological advancement, namely that there is no reason to assume that our path is the one another civilization(one made up, I stress, of aliens) would go down.

I appreciate the detailed response here, I don't think we disagree on the history as much as the implications. The fact the diversity is so rich is partly because of these fantastic journeys of life, in and out of water, land, the sky, over/ underground- millions of species of plants and animals, over millions of years (leaving us an energy source vital to our civilization and appreciation of the universe).. all from one primordial seed of energy/matter encapsulating the necessary information

That's a lot of needless death to me.

and amongst all this on Earth ONE single species able to marvel at it all

No. Not one. Not originally. Read below.

instead of one giant mass of successful algae dominating the globe and thinking about nothing.. THAT would be far less sloppy, far more efficient, far less redundancy, duplication, repetition... but a better design? more consistent with creative intelligence?

What of our cousins? I'm not talking chimps here, I mean Neanderthals and other nigh-humans. As smart as we are. We know they had burial rights and rituals, and those tend to only come about from religion. If we were the intended goal, what about them? What did they do so wrong to not deserve the Word of God? From your view, that is.

again- all by chance can't be ruled out, I just think brilliant engineering is far more probable

But the system works just fine without divine intervention. I mean, you can go with the Deist perspective, with God as the Eternal Watchmaker who lays the foundation and then ceases & refuses to interfere, but I do not think that's what you're going for.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

just as our convo about free markets- wouldn't survival of the fittest alone create a biological monopoly by your argument?

There is a strong analogy between business and it's relationship with economics and evolution with it's relationship with ecology.

Ever heard of business niche? Such as, the more fast food businesses there are, the more the fast food "niche" is filled, and the harder it is to get into that industry.

Same with evolution and ecology. When the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct, many ecological niches became vacant. Mammals filled those niches that were left open by the dinosaurs, ranging from the apex predator niche, to the large grazing herbivore niche. Before the mass extinction, all mammals were small and limited to the niche of burrowing and hiding to survive. It was next to impossible for them to get a foothold to fill, say, an apex predator niche. There was too much competition.

People wonder why intelligence to the level of humans hasn't evolved multiple times on Earth. Well they would have us to compete with. But when we evolved into what we are today, there were no superintelligent animals to compete with. The niche was open.

If a bear were to be introduced to tiger territory, it would be very difficult for both of them to be apex predators. There's a good chance one would drive the other to extinction, or one would be forced to occupy a different niche (perhaps become an omnivorous scavenger) or simply leave the region.

When birds first evolved, they had pterosaurs as competition for the flying vertebrate niche. Pterosaurs already had small numbers before the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction, and scientists think it's due to birds out-competing them. One of them had to go, and it ended up being the pterosaurs. If that asteroid had never hit, pterosaurs probably would have still been driven to extinction due to birds.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is a strong analogy between business and it's relationship with economics and evolution with it's relationship with ecology.

Ever heard of business niche? Such as, the more fast food businesses there are, the more the fast food "niche" is filled, and the harder it is to get into that industry.

Same with evolution and ecology. When the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct, many ecological niches became vacant. Mammals filled those niches that were left open by the dinosaurs, ranging from the apex predator niche, to the large grazing herbivore niche. Before the mass extinction, all mammals were small and limited to the niche of burrowing and hiding to survive. It was next to impossible for them to get a foothold to fill, say, an apex predator niche. There was too much competition.

People wonder why intelligence to the level of humans hasn't evolved multiple times on Earth. Well they would have us to compete with. But when we evolved into what we are today, there were no superintelligent animals to compete with. The niche was open.

If a bear were to be introduced to tiger territory, it would be very difficult for both of them to be apex predators. There's a good chance one would drive the other to extinction, or one would be forced to occupy a different niche (perhaps become an omnivorous scavenger) or simply leave the region.

When birds first evolved, they had pterosaurs as competition for the flying vertebrate niche. Pterosaurs already had small numbers before the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction, and scientists think it's due to birds out-competing them. One of them had to go, and it ended up being the pterosaurs. If that asteroid had never hit, pterosaurs probably would have still been driven to extinction due to birds.

Thanks for the detailed response-

so the contradiction still applies. Atheists (generally speaking) use the same basic process (survival of the fittest) for two diametrically opposed arguments.

When applied to free markets- survival of the fittest would create runaway monopolies- and not just in each niche, but multinational conglomerates owning and running every aspect of the economy, the greater point being that this would inherently degrade competition and quality of service/products and take progress backwards. So the divine intervention of a mythical being (the honest, benevolent politician) is required to maintain a rich healthy productive diversity by intelligent design.

Then the exact opposite effect applies to biology, where 'survival of the fittest' alone fills each niche most efficiently, achieving 'perfect' design through constant gradual improvement and competition, without any interference, plan, governance. Any interference in nature by intelligent beings (genetic modification, changing land use etc) only corrupts and damages this elegant natural, self correcting process.


.. on intelligence, that intelligence niche was empty during >150 million years of diverse complex species- and was never filled. i.e evolution alone was not enough- It required that perfectly aimed weighted asteroid to surgically remove the physically dominant species that would otherwise rule indefinitely, yet one more staggering fluke to compound the rest. At some point 'luck' v 'loaded dice' is fighting a losing battle I think

 

[Nietzsche]

Thanks for the detailed response-

so the contradiction still applies. Atheists (generally speaking) use the same basic process (survival of the fittest) for two diametrically opposed arguments.

When applied to free markets- survival of the fittest would create runaway monopolies- and not just in each niche, but multinational conglomerates owning and running every aspect of the economy, the greater point being that this would inherently degrade competition and quality of service/products and take progress backwards. So the divine intervention of a mythical being (the honest, benevolent politician) is required to maintain a rich healthy productive diversity by intelligent design.

I think you just shot your own argument in the foot. We both know that has never existed.

Then the exact opposite effect applies to biology, where 'survival of the fittest' alone fills each niche most efficiently, achieving 'perfect' design through constant gradual improvement and competition, without any interference, plan, governance. Any interference in nature by intelligent beings (genetic modification, changing land use etc) only corrupts and damages this elegant natural, self correcting process.

Yes, but prey animals(because the vast majority of 'perfect' designs are carnivores) are still evolving as well. And sometimes the balance is shifted.

.. on intelligence, that intelligence niche was empty during >150 million years of diverse complex species- and was never filled. i.e evolution alone was not enough- It required that perfectly aimed weighted asteroid to surgically remove the physically dominant species that would otherwise rule indefinitely, yet one more staggering fluke to compound the rest. At some point 'luck' v 'loaded dice' is fighting a losing battle I think

That has more to do with the lack of mammals honestly. Mammals are decidedly new when compared to the other types of life, and we didn't stand a chance against the dinosaurs because they were perfect designs. Look at the Tyrannosaurus Rex. It's the strongest mouth to have ever existed, with forward-facing eyes, and two massive legs to propel it, and a tail to serve as counterbalance. The arms are withered and almost useless because it's a mouth with legs.

But she was over-designed. She did one thing extremely well. And when those circumstances changed, she died. Likely survived longer than the herbivores simply because for a while there was a meat buffet, but so passed the glory of the world anyway.

The mammals simply couldn't compete with dinosaurs and not just the super-ancient ones. When the Terror-Birds existed, we were still on the bottom of the food chain. The story of mammals is just as long and ancient as the story of feathered, flying birds.

 

[metis]

There simply is no such thing as a "perfect design". Secondly, we well know that mutations put forth variety, and then random genetic drift and natural selection tend to narrow down the varieties that continue on.

Thirdly, the ToE is substantiated by the fossil record, so there is no doubt it happened even if we certainly do not know all the details. Like one of the researchers pointed out, namely, that if they find a fossilized rabbit at the same level of the Cambrian Explosion, then we all will have to go back to the drawing board.

Fourthly, we have seen speciation take place over recent decades,.

Fifthly, genome testing has verified a great many evolutionary relationships that had been hypothesized.

Sixth, there is simply no objective evidence whatsoever for a divine creation.

Seventh, I am not an atheist.

 

[jonathan180iq]

so the contradiction still applies. Atheists (generally speaking) use the same basic process (survival of the fittest) for two diametrically opposed arguments.

You're supposing that survival of the fittest should have produced one single, ultra efficient, "thing" and then made no advancement towards higher lifeforms because it would have reached it's climax, right?

Like the "global alga" idea...?


If there are, let's just say, just 1,000 different environments all over the planet, then you would at least have 1,000 different algae types, wouldn't you? The global environments are neither stagnant nor similar.

Some branches of the original starter would go extinct. Some would prosper. Some would live in extreme conditions. Some would live very sparsely. Some would overpopulate. Et cetera , et cetera...

Let's just say 1 of those 1,000 colonies becomes mixotrophic and digests bacteria from their environment for sustenance. Then the entire game is changed as the autotrophic colonies are now somewhat inferior to survival based on their reliance on factors outside of their control. (They're still suited for their environment, but they're not as resilient or adaptable as their mixto-cousins.) Their populations decrease due to certain environmental changes and the mixotrophic populations increase due to their ability to regulate and sustain themselves even during poor environmental periods.

Now add in a second, spontaneous mixto group somewhere else on the planet.

Bing-bang-boom - you have the beginnings of advanced speciation.

"But you still only have 1 type of organism, just divided into different species - how do you explain the vast biodiversity on Earth."

The passing of time, the changing of environments, the introduction of mutations, and the organism's adaptations to those changes is all that is needed.

The jump from algae to angiosperm, for example, probably took more time than we can comprehend - but it's better supported than saying "magic happened and poof!"

From algae to angiosperm - Algae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even in the best economic analogy that we can come up with, we're still only looking at one particular market. The Earth is naturally divided into hundreds, maybe hundreds of thousands, of individual markets. There is simply no way that one single solitary organism can cover the whole of the Earth and then not have to worry about anything else and stop adapting.

And before you say it, even if you suggest that humans are an exception to this rule, we can't even go outside in certain places without immediately dying. We are not suited for many of the places where we have established settlements - we require and influx of outside resources to even sustain our existence. We are dependent upon the exploitation of other resources to sustain us - we are not at all adapted for our environments.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Those animals? Not sharks. They aren't even fish. The first is an Ichthyosaur and the second is a Mosasaur. A reptile and a mammal, respectively(the Mosasaur was named such because they initially thought it was a reptile). They diverged from fish loooooooong ago, but they managed to evolve superficially similar shapes.

I didn't notice this before. You're actually mistaking.

Mosasaur was in fact a reptile. Though it is not directly related to Ichthyosaurs and obtained it's aquatic traits independently from them.

You're probably getting mosasaurs confused with basilosaurus, a prehistoric whale. This is the animal they initially thought was a reptile but turned out to be a mammal (a whale).

 

[Nietzsche]

I didn't notice this before. You're actually mistaking.

Mosasaur was in fact a reptile. Though it is not directly related to Ichthyosaurs and obtained it's aquatic traits independently from them.

You're probably getting mosasaurs confused with basilosaurus, a prehistoric whale. This is the animal they initially thought was a reptile but turned out to be a mammal (a whale).

Oh damn it. My point remains the same, but gah I feel like an idiot.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

When applied to free markets- survival of the fittest would create runaway monopolies- and not just in each niche, but multinational conglomerates owning and running every aspect of the economy, the greater point being that this would inherently degrade competition and quality of service/products and take progress backwards. So the divine intervention of a mythical being (the honest, benevolent politician) is required to maintain a rich healthy productive diversity by intelligent design.

Like I said, it is an analogy, but analogies only go so far.

Organisms and ecology is only economical in the sense that organisms are trying to find ways to live, and there's different methods (niches to fill) to help them live.

There's other analogies that go with it, like certain traits are more "expensive" than others, in terms of the amount of food (or calories) it requires.

An example being ectothermic (cold blooded) and endothermic (warm blooded). Endothermy brings with it a lot of advantages. An endotherm doesn't have to rely on the environment to regulate their temperature. They can live in more places than an ectotherm. But endothermy is more expensive; they have to eat more than an ectotherm that weighs the same. Ectotherms don't have to worry about food as much and can go longer without it.

Same with human brain power. The brain is a "gas guzzler". People wonder why we're not as muscular as the other great apes. That would just equate to more calorie requirements. An early human with no civilization with a superbrain and the strength of a gorilla, would have to eat so much food that it couldn't live realistically. The brain hogs 20 to 25% of our calorie intake. That is a lot for an organ that is only around 3% of our weight.

Today, none of that really matters. The human brain has effectively "payed for itself"; with it, we've developed agriculture and civilization and produce an abundance of food. But we're sitting on top of a long history of hunters and gatherers.

Anyway, that was a ramble. Like I said, the analogy only goes so far. Where there isn't an analogy is the fact that organisms in the wild aren't trying to produce goods and services for other organisms. Key word is "trying". Organisms do mooch off of other organisms, but it's not the aim of one organism to have another mooch off of it (usually).

Then the exact opposite effect applies to biology, where 'survival of the fittest' alone fills each niche most efficiently, achieving 'perfect' design through constant gradual improvement and competition, without any interference, plan, governance. Any interference in nature by intelligent beings (genetic modification, changing land use etc) only corrupts and damages this elegant natural, self correcting process.

Hey it happens. Things tend to come along and disrupt the balance of nature, but natural always eventually recovers.

Asteroid comes along, wipes out millions of years of evolution. But something else comes along and brings back the balance of nature.

.. on intelligence, that intelligence niche was empty during >150 million years of diverse complex species- and was never filled. i.e evolution alone was not enough- It required that perfectly aimed weighted asteroid to surgically remove the physically dominant species that would otherwise rule indefinitely, yet one more staggering fluke to compound the rest. At some point 'luck' v 'loaded dice' is fighting a losing battle I think

I oversimplified the whole intelligence niche thing, but it's not that simple. This is where we're making the mistake of thinking that there's simply "intelligence" and "nonintelligence". Like most things, it's relative. We're simply more intelligent than all other organisms out there. It's not like, one day there's a bunch of unintelligent organism, then we came into existence and are now intelligent.

It's gradual. Proceeding the emergence of humans, going back in time, there's a general trend of less and less intelligent animals. Meaning going forward in time from the beginning (of complex life) animals were getting more and more smarter.

i.e. the first reptiles were smarter than amphibians. The therapsids and archosaurs were smarter than the first reptiles. The dinosaurs where smarter than the archosaurs. Birds are smarter than the non-avian dinosaurs. Or cynodonts were smarter than therapsids. Mammals smarter than cynodonts. Primates smarter than other mammals. Finally, humans smarter than other primates. But we have to keep in mind we're part of the primate group. The smartest order of animals.

We're sitting on top of a long progression of a rise in intelligence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh damn it. My point remains the same, but gah I feel like an idiot.

I didn't notice this before. You're actually mistaking.

Mosasaur was in fact a reptile. Though it is not directly related to Ichthyosaurs and obtained it's aquatic traits independently from them.

You're probably getting mosasaurs confused with basilosaurus, a prehistoric whale. This is the animal they initially thought was a reptile but turned out to be a mammal (a whale).

Piltdown Whale!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Like I said, it is an analogy, but analogies only go so far.

Organisms and ecology is only economical in the sense that organisms are trying to find ways to live, and there's different methods (niches to fill) to help them live.

There's other analogies that go with it, like certain traits are more "expensive" than others, in terms of the amount of food (or calories) it requires.

An example being ectothermic (cold blooded) and endothermic (warm blooded). Endothermy brings with it a lot of advantages. An endotherm doesn't have to rely on the environment to regulate their temperature. They can live in more places than an ectotherm. But endothermy is more expensive; they have to eat more than an ectotherm that weighs the same. Ectotherms don't have to worry about food as much and can go longer without it.

Same with human brain power. The brain is a "gas guzzler". People wonder why we're not as muscular as the other great apes. That would just equate to more calorie requirements. An early human with no civilization with a superbrain and the strength of a gorilla, would have to eat so much food that it couldn't live realistically. The brain hogs 20 to 25% of our calorie intake. That is a lot for an organ that is only around 3% of our weight.

Today, none of that really matters. The human brain has effectively "payed for itself"; with it, we've developed agriculture and civilization and produce an abundance of food. But we're sitting on top of a long history of hunters and gatherers.

Anyway, that was a ramble. Like I said, the analogy only goes so far. Where there isn't an analogy is the fact that organisms in the wild aren't trying to produce goods and services for other organisms. Key word is "trying". Organisms do mooch off of other organisms, but it's not the aim of one organism to have another mooch off of it (usually).



Hey it happens. Things tend to come along and disrupt the balance of nature, but natural always eventually recovers.

Asteroid comes along, wipes out millions of years of evolution. But something else comes along and brings back the balance of nature.




I oversimplified the whole intelligence niche thing, but it's not that simple. This is where we're making the mistake of thinking that there's simply "intelligence" and "nonintelligence". Like most things, it's relative. We're simply more intelligent than all other organisms out there. It's not like, one day there's a bunch of unintelligent organism, then we came into existence and are now intelligent.

It's gradual. Proceeding the emergence of humans, going back in time, there's a general trend of less and less intelligent animals. Meaning going forward in time from the beginning (of complex life) animals were getting more and more smarter.

i.e. the first reptiles were smarter than amphibians. The therapsids and archosaurs were smarter than the first reptiles. The dinosaurs where smarter than the archosaurs. Birds are smarter than the non-avian dinosaurs. Or cynodonts were smarter than therapsids. Mammals smarter than cynodonts. Primates smarter than other mammals. Finally, humans smarter than other primates. But we have to keep in mind we're part of the primate group. The smartest order of animals.

We're sitting on top of a long progression of a rise in intelligence.

Rambles are OK with me, that's kinda the nice thing about the forum, getting them out of our heads here so we don't inflict them on friends and family!

This all gets to the point though, that natural selection isn't quite as simple, immutable, all powerful as it might superficially appear- our sentience was not an inevitable eventual result of the first replicator, but depended on some extremely improbable events- and still only happened once in millions of species. And perhaps this is why the galaxy is so quiet- even if we found a million other Earths, that were endowed with life one way or another.. we might expect dinosaurs on all of them before another sentient life form.

And this is what makes us utterly distinct from every other living thing, our unique capacity to observe, know and ponder existence- to be having this debate right now.

So to put this in context- let me ask you a hypothetical, if it turned out that we were in fact alone in the universe... the only means by which the universe is able to be aware of and contemplate it's own existence.. would this give you pause? or would you feel comfortable writing this off as yet one more incredible coincidence?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

our sentience was not an inevitable eventual result of the first replicator, but depended on some extremely improbable events- and still only happened once in millions of species.

Are you talking about the asteroid being the improbable event?

This is why I mentioned that there already was a general trend of animals getting smarter, with or without the asteroid.

So through enough time, something with our level of intelligence would have eventually emerged. Maybe it would have taken longer, but none-the-less, still happen. If humans went extinct today, it's likely that eventually something else with our intelligence would come along. We know for sure that animals would get smarter anyway.

If the asteroid wouldn't have hit, dinosaurs would still get smarter and smarter. Birds, for instance, are very smart. Their intelligence rivals mammals. They were already around long before the asteroid hit, and dinosaurs gave rise to them. And they were already on their way to success before the asteroid hit as well.

And perhaps this is why the galaxy is so quiet- even if we found a million other Earths, that were endowed with life one way or another.. we might expect dinosaurs on all of them before another sentient life form.

This is why I don't like to use the word "sentient" in that context. I think simply saying we're "sentient" is egotistical on our part. We're simply "more" sentient than the other animals on Earth.

You say we might find dinosaur like creatures on another planet, thus no "intelligent" beings for us to talk to. I can take that to another extreme and say we might find aliens with brains many times more powerful than ours and they simply look at us as "dinosaurs" and not worthy of speaking to.

And this is what makes us utterly distinct from every other living thing, our unique capacity to observe, know and ponder existence- to be having this debate right now.

We really don't know that for sure. Other intelligent animals have demonstrated a significant level of curiousity, so perhaps they ponder but to a lesser degree.

We don't have any special parts of the brain that allow us to think the way they do. It's merely due to the sheer number of neurons. So in reality, we just do cognitive functions that all other mammals do but to a more extreme level.

I think people make the mistake of thinking we're so special. We're really not that special. We're still animals like all other animals, more so than not.

So to put this in context- let me ask you a hypothetical, if it turned out that we were in fact alone in the universe... the only means by which the universe is able to be aware of and contemplate it's own existence.. would this give you pause? or would you feel comfortable writing this off as yet one more incredible coincidence?

I think consciousness and "awareness" is relative.

The discussion in this thread might give you a better idea of how I would feel about the realization of us being "alone" in the Universe.

Why was consciousness naturally selected? | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There simply is no such thing as a "perfect design". Secondly, we well know that mutations put forth variety, and then random genetic drift and natural selection tend to narrow down the varieties that continue on.

Thirdly, the ToE is substantiated by the fossil record, so there is no doubt it happened even if we certainly do not know all the details. Like one of the researchers pointed out, namely, that if they find a fossilized rabbit at the same level of the Cambrian Explosion, then we all will have to go back to the drawing board.

Fourthly, we have seen speciation take place over recent decades,.

Fifthly, genome testing has verified a great many evolutionary relationships that had been hypothesized.

Sixth, there is simply no objective evidence whatsoever for a divine creation.

Seventh, I am not an atheist.

'perfect' was a label Nietzsche and I agreed on for e.g. Horseshoe crabs- a design that is good enough to effectively halt evolution in that species.
and hence the drift, variety ceases. Just one of the complications to the process, that this 'dead end' must be avoided for improvement to continue.

3rd to 5th.. as I said to Nietzsche, we don't disagree on the history so much as the cause/implications, chance or a blueprint

6th, there's no objective evidence for how a magician correctly identifies your card, that doesn't make chance the best explanation