07-09-2004 02:05									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: And you are making a false assumption that complexity is somehow prefered over simplicity. Remember, evolution has no goals? To say that there is a 'best system' or that evolution creates 'flawed designs' is saying that it has a goal.

a) I, or generally, humans, or whatever, can prefer complexity to simplicity, or whatever that has no bearing on the fact that [b]evolution[b] has no goal. Hell, even if complexity was better in terms of survivability, evolution wouldn't have that goal ( because that would be assuming that survivability is the goal of evolution).
I ask, once again: does the hurricane have a goal? does a volcano?

b) I didn't imply that complexity was inherently better than simplicity. I just said that evolution isn't the best method to design systems ( bringing the example that the complex systems it designs are not necessarily optimal, much like the way that the various products of a chemical reaction aren't necessarily the most stable ones)

quote: And besides, we humans might make a big guffaw, but it's the simplest lifeforms that will continue on after we're all dead.

Also, not necessarily. If humanity leaves the planet, that may not be so.

Dauphin:

quote: The better make-up that allows you to eat grass would still be selected for, just not as rapidly as the ability to avoid lions UNLESS the ability to eat grass is in some way related to the ability to avoid lions.

Actually,IIRC when the evolutionary pressure is something completely else, that will be what will determine the competitiveness of lifeforms in a population. I think this has been supported by latest studies, since I remember reading about it some time ago...

It's amazing how evolution is similar to chemical thermodynamics, kinetics and molecular dynamics, the more I think about it, the more it amazes me.

	07-09-2004 02:17									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Dauphin: quote: The better make-up that allows you to eat grass would still be selected for, just not as rapidly as the ability to avoid lions UNLESS the ability to eat grass is in some way related to the ability to avoid lions. Actually,IIRC when the evolutionary pressure is something completely else, that will be what will determine the competitiveness of lifeforms in a population. I think this has been supported by latest studies, since I remember reading about it some time ago... It's amazing how evolution is similar to chemical thermodynamics, kinetics and molecular dynamics, the more I think about it, the more it amazes me.

You mean that studies have shown that organisms don't evolve on more than one pressure at any time? I doubt that very much. I think I must be misunderstanding you.

	07-09-2004 02:23									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: You mean that studies have shown that organisms don't evolve on more than one pressure at any time? I doubt that very much. I think I must be misunderstanding you.

Well, IIRC, the experiment was like that. They had bacteria, IIRC, that were identical 'cept this one gene that had something to do with processing nutrition of some sort. One group was better than the other, still after many generations there were members of both groups left. I don't remember the details very well, sadly.

	07-09-2004 02:36									#94
	Put an end to popups!

I would have two initial questions: Were they in different proportions to the original cultures? Were the results the different depending on alternative selection pressures unrelated to processing nutrition?

	07-09-2004 02:37									#95
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Azazel quote: And you are making a false assumption that complexity is somehow prefered over simplicity. Remember, evolution has no goals? To say that there is a 'best system' or that evolution creates 'flawed designs' is saying that it has a goal. a) I, or generally, humans, or whatever, can prefer complexity to simplicity, or whatever that has no bearing on the fact that [b]evolution[b] has no goal. Hell, even if complexity was better in terms of survivability, evolution wouldn't have that goal ( because that would be assuming that survivability is the goal of evolution). I ask, once again: does the hurricane have a goal? does a volcano? b) I didn't imply that complexity was inherently better than simplicity. I just said that evolution isn't the best method to design systems ( bringing the example that the complex systems it designs are not necessarily optimal, much like the way that the various products of a chemical reaction aren't necessarily the most stable ones)

I agree with you that evolution has no goal. I'm just pointing out that also means it can't produce flawed designs, because there is no goal.

quote: Also, not necessarily. If humanity leaves the planet, that may not be so.

That's a big if. But if we do leave the planet, it's guaranteed we'll take along simple life forms with us, which will still probably out live us in that case.


But isn't there bacteria or whatever that can survive in a vacuum? I remember reading something about that, that bacteria could survive on an asteroid in space and whatnot. So we've been beaten in that regard, too.

	07-09-2004 04:00									#96
	Got spare money?

aliens are overrated.

seriously. this isn't one of my nonsensical comments I usually make.

So what if we discover intelligent life hundreds of millions of light years away? How does that change life on earth?

Star Trek lore (ST 8) says that the discovery of alien races existing unites humanity and ends global conflicts. But I don't see that happening in reality.

	07-09-2004 10:59									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin My objection is to the removing of environment to the equation of convergent evolution and replacing it with the generic needs of 'higher' animals.

I didn't remove the environ from the equation - environ means nothing though if it does not constitute some kind of pressure. This is where the needs of organisms enter the picture.

Suppose a population of plants is growing in a nitrogen poor environment. The individuals with a mutation that allows nitrogen-fixing microbes to form a symbiotic relationship has an advantage, thus is selected for.

Now suppose the environment is lacking in, hm, titanium instead. It wouldn't create a pressure on the plants in this case.

	07-09-2004 11:07									#98
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd And you are making a false assumption that complexity is somehow prefered over simplicity. Remember, evolution has no goals?

Complex organisms tend to have an advantage over simpler ones, like having better senses and such.

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd To say that there is a 'best system' or that evolution creates 'flawed designs' is saying that it has a goal.

Not necessarily. For any given environment there would be an optimal organism that can make the most out of it, even if such an organism is merely hypothetical. Hence, a "flawed design" is just another organism that does not maximise its use of that environment.

Specialists, however, get wiped out in catastrophic changes.

	07-09-2004 11:54									#99
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Complex organisms tend to have an advantage over simpler ones, like having better senses and such.

Well, not always. Actually the real survivors on Earth are bacteria and after that, insects. More complex species come and go, depending on the environment and local conditions.

I wouldn't say that e.g. mammals have an advantage over bacteria, even if they are complex... surely bacteria will persist longer. Complex organisms only exist if the conditions and environment are right, but the simple ones are always there.

quote: Not necessarily. For any given environment there would be an optimal organism that can make the most out of it, even if such an organism is merely hypothetical. Hence, a "flawed design" is just another organism that does not maximise its use of that environment.

Hmm... nothing in the world is perfect. I wouldn't call everything in the world "flawed" just because it isn't the hypothetical "perfect" means of achieving a given goal... Mainly this is because there are no goals in nature, and the word "flawed" only enters into it if we invent some perfect state or goal that we think species should approach.

Even "making the most out of it" isn't a goal in nature: you must remember that a perfectly optimised species that "makes the most out of it" would probably be destroyed when conditions change slightly, so such species do not survive in evolution. The ones that do survive are adaptable to a variety of environments - I wouldn't call them "flawed" just because they survive!

	07-09-2004 13:41									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger I didn't remove the environ from the equation - environ means nothing though if it does not constitute some kind of pressure. This is where the needs of organisms enter the picture.

Kuci did.

quote: Suppose a population of plants is growing in a nitrogen poor environment. The individuals with a mutation that allows nitrogen-fixing microbes to form a symbiotic relationship has an advantage, thus is selected for. Now suppose the environment is lacking in, hm, titanium instead. It wouldn't create a pressure on the plants in this case.

The latter has no selection, but it has no convergence either.

	07-09-2004 14:12									#101
	Support Apolyton

[q]I would have two initial questions: Were they in different proportions to the original cultures? Were the results the different depending on alternative selection pressures unrelated to processing nutrition?
As I've said, details are sketchy. I don't remember much ( though I think they were in the same numbers, at the beginning )

	07-09-2004 17:59									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: While this makes SHGb02+14a interesting, the chances that it actually represents an intelligent signal from beyond remain extremely slim.

As was mentioned, no way would an intelligent civilisation broadcast a direct signal out into space for the purpose of being found!! Thats a sure way to get your ass kicked.
Better to just work on going to the areas of the galaxy/universe your interested in via a probe or craft - atleast then if you find your neighbour is a huge green tenticled hair folical sucker-upper, at least you only loose a craft and not your whole damn race

i hate aliens............they gona kick our butts!

	07-09-2004 18:24									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: As was mentioned, no way would an intelligent civilisation broadcast a direct signal out into space for the purpose of being found!! Thats a sure way to get your ass kicked.

Are you claiming that we're not intelligent?

	07-09-2004 18:51									#104
	Put an end to popups!

So, what have we resolved from this thread? Only that an infusion of alien DNA was the culprit behind our quick evolution? Ok, granted. That this alien DNA is slowly replacing human DNA as a method of controling this good earth for the Fungoo Federation?

Who could argue?

	07-09-2004 20:05									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

well maybe that might be our only chance, maybe they'll recognise themselves in us and want to be our friends?

we could become a part of the galactic fungoo federation

I also think we can conclude that aliens do exist(otherwise we wouldn't), and therefore we should hate them as they might want to eat us....or worse.
So we shouldn't under any circumstances be telling them where we are....please.

	11-09-2004 17:18									#106
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Jarouik Well, not always. Actually the real survivors on Earth are bacteria and after that, insects. More complex species come and go, depending on the environment and local conditions.

Since bacteria have different strains and insects have different species, you can't just lump them in one big group.

quote: Originally posted by Jarouik I wouldn't say that e.g. mammals have an advantage over bacteria, even if they are complex... surely bacteria will persist longer. Complex organisms only exist if the conditions and environment are right, but the simple ones are always there.

Again, yes and no. Even the simplest lifeforms must depends on the existence of proper conditions.

quote: Originally posted by Jarouik Hmm... nothing in the world is perfect.

That's because all organisms are evolved.

quote: Originally posted by Jarouik I wouldn't call everything in the world "flawed" just because it isn't the hypothetical "perfect" means of achieving a given goal... Mainly this is because there are no goals in nature, and the word "flawed" only enters into it if we invent some perfect state or goal that we think species should approach.

Even if this is the case, there are still obvious flaws. For example, the layer of blood vessels in the human eye is right in front of the light sensitive cells, obstructing the functionality of the eye. This is clearly flawed.