Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Discuss Evolution

13

Comments

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited February 2019
    Grond0 wrote: »
    @FinneousPJ I'm not sure that's really different from the idea of a deterministic universe - and as I said my understanding was that ThacoBell was not arguing for that.

    Of course, I'm not talking about @ThacoBell

    P.S. I Still think this discussion should be in the religion thread

    Post edited by FinneousPJ on
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,040
    edited February 2019
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    Grond0 wrote: »
    @FinneousPJ I'm not sure that's really different from the idea of a deterministic universe - and as I said my understanding was that ThacoBell was not arguing for that.

    Of course, I'm not talking about @ThacoBell

    P.S. I Still think this discussion should be in the religion thread

    I considered this but it's possible to believe or not believe in evolution for reasons that are not religious in nature.

    Some religious talk is inevitable when discussing evolution but it is not the main point of this thread.

    Post edited by mlnevese on
    Balrog99ThacoBelllolienArtona
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 11,916
    I was careful not to bring anything up that wasn't already mentioned, and to keep it in the specific scope of my one clarification request.

    FinneousPJlolien
  • DrHappyAngryDrHappyAngry Member Posts: 1,554
    Just wanted to throw out there that species can also change without the genes themself changing via epigenetics.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

    By altering the proteins around DNA, you can cause genes to the flipped on or off. That's a really gross oversimplification of it, but you can read the wikipedia article for more. One experiment, introduced a protein in chicken embryos at specific spots during the right point in development, and they grew dinosaur-like tails, by re-enabling the genes for tails. The point being they had ancestors that had tails, and still had the genes for them, but they were just switched off. If you were designing a chicken, why would it still have genes for a dino-tail?

    ThacoBellFinneousPJ
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 11,916
    @DrHappyAngry What if the process of evolution was designed, but not what arises from it?

    Or what if a "base set" as it were, was designed, but given the potential for infinite variation?

    I don't really see why "design" and "evolution" are constantly considered mutually exclusive.

    FinneousPJ
  • DrHappyAngryDrHappyAngry Member Posts: 1,554
    Neither of those examples you gave has the chicken itself being designed, though. You're more suggesting a framework that was designed that happened to give rise to the chicken.

    Grond0mlneveseFinneousPJThacoBell
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @DrHappyAngry What if the process of evolution was designed, but not what arises from it?

    Or what if a "base set" as it were, was designed, but given the potential for infinite variation?

    I don't really see why "design" and "evolution" are constantly considered mutually exclusive.

    Right, that's not a true dichotomy, just like "random" and "created" are not ;)
    Neither of those examples you gave has the chicken itself being designed, though. You're more suggesting a framework that was designed that happened to give rise to the chicken.

    Indeed, and worth reiterating, with no evidence.

    mlnevese
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 11,916
    Neither of those examples you gave has the chicken itself being designed, though. You're more suggesting a framework that was designed that happened to give rise to the chicken.

    My second example could include a designed chicken. It could have been designed with possibility for variation built in.

  • DrHappyAngryDrHappyAngry Member Posts: 1,554
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Neither of those examples you gave has the chicken itself being designed, though. You're more suggesting a framework that was designed that happened to give rise to the chicken.

    My second example could include a designed chicken. It could have been designed with possibility for variation built in.

    OK, that's a bit different than how I had originally interpreted your statement. At that point you're ignoring common descent and it's not really compatible with evolution. It's more trying to reconcile design with genetics. Which still leaves the question, if you were designing a chicken, why would it have dinosaur DNA and the multitude of vestigial traits? Why would human ankles be made up of so many small bones if they hadn't had a more recent 4 legged ancestor, instead of being fused into fewer bones for a more stable structure like an ostrich has?

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    Let's discuss Eevelution

    KamigoroshiThacoBellArtonasarevok57
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 11,916
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Neither of those examples you gave has the chicken itself being designed, though. You're more suggesting a framework that was designed that happened to give rise to the chicken.

    My second example could include a designed chicken. It could have been designed with possibility for variation built in.

    OK, that's a bit different than how I had originally interpreted your statement. At that point you're ignoring common descent and it's not really compatible with evolution. It's more trying to reconcile design with genetics. Which still leaves the question, if you were designing a chicken, why would it have dinosaur DNA and the multitude of vestigial traits? Why would human ankles be made up of so many small bones if they hadn't had a more recent 4 legged ancestor, instead of being fused into fewer bones for a more stable structure like an ostrich has?

    I'm just spitballing. Why would a creation have to look a certain way at all? It look however the a creator intended and react in whatever way they deemed appropriate.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Neither of those examples you gave has the chicken itself being designed, though. You're more suggesting a framework that was designed that happened to give rise to the chicken.

    My second example could include a designed chicken. It could have been designed with possibility for variation built in.

    OK, that's a bit different than how I had originally interpreted your statement. At that point you're ignoring common descent and it's not really compatible with evolution. It's more trying to reconcile design with genetics. Which still leaves the question, if you were designing a chicken, why would it have dinosaur DNA and the multitude of vestigial traits? Why would human ankles be made up of so many small bones if they hadn't had a more recent 4 legged ancestor, instead of being fused into fewer bones for a more stable structure like an ostrich has?

    I'm just spitballing. Why would a creation have to look a certain way at all? It look however the a creator intended and react in whatever way they deemed appropriate.

    Again, this should be in the other thread, but let's go anyway. How would you tell something created from something not created?

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 11,916
    @FinneousPJ We don't have to go down this tunnel. I just see a lot "evolution" OR "creation" in this thread, but nobody really gives a reason why they would be mutually exclusive, or even what creation would even look like. Nothing says it would have to follow any kind of expectation, but "If creation, I think it would look like this." comments keep coming up. Why would it be expected to look differently/non-compatible with evolution? What SHOULD creation look like, if not an infinitely complex and changing web of life?

    Balrog99
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @FinneousPJ We don't have to go down this tunnel. I just see a lot "evolution" OR "creation" in this thread, but nobody really gives a reason why they would be mutually exclusive, or even what creation would even look like. Nothing says it would have to follow any kind of expectation, but "If creation, I think it would look like this." comments keep coming up. Why would it be expected to look differently/non-compatible with evolution? What SHOULD creation look like, if not an infinitely complex and changing web of life?

    No idea, I'm not advocating for it.

  • DrHappyAngryDrHappyAngry Member Posts: 1,554
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @FinneousPJ We don't have to go down this tunnel. I just see a lot "evolution" OR "creation" in this thread, but nobody really gives a reason why they would be mutually exclusive, or even what creation would even look like. Nothing says it would have to follow any kind of expectation, but "If creation, I think it would look like this." comments keep coming up. Why would it be expected to look differently/non-compatible with evolution? What SHOULD creation look like, if not an infinitely complex and changing web of life?

    As an engineer, there's a lot of biology, like eyes, that I look at and say to myself, if this were designed, the designer should be fired. Eyes have been covered plenty of times, so how about the laryngeal nerve? The nerve that allows manipulation of the larynx. It wraps way down through the neck, down around the aortic arch, then back up to the larynx. It's about 3 times the length it needs to be. All tetrapods share this unnecasarily long nerve. In giraffes this nerve is 15 feet long! Some dinosaurs are hypothesized to have had laryngeal nerves over 90 feet long.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve

    Some of the types of creationism you've suggested are incompatible with the part of evolution that says species share a common descent. I will say that the idea of a designer creating a framework and supplying initial material is not incompatible with the idea of evolution. I disagree with that for other reasons I'm not going to get into here, but I do agree that line of thinking is compatible with evolution.

    ArtonaBalrog99ThacoBellmlnevese
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 11,916
    Whenthe only requirement for the survival of species is "good enough" you are bound to get some interesting anatomy.

  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,040
    edited March 2019
    The fact is design does not exclude evolution. I think it's interesting how every time.a see a discussion about evolution it gravitates towards creation.

    If God or aliens designed some or all life on Earth it does not exclude the fact that life evolved and adapted to new environments.

    Let me clarify I don't personally believe in design. If life was designed the engineer should be fired :)

    Post edited by mlnevese on
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member Posts: 14,518
    A literal reading of Genesis might not fit the geological or evolutionary record, but on a broader level, it's perfectly possible to believe in an intentionally designed creation that later experienced evolution without creator input.

    Somebody designed my bath mat, but that didn't stop it from getting infested with bacteria and turning from a clean, fluffy matrix of cellulose into a gross mass of decaying organic matter that had to be scraped off my bathroom floor with a razor. The manufacturer created it, but the manufacturer didn't manually guide its development once it left the factory.

    Balrog99ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 11,916
    Let it be known that it wasn't the Creationists that first brought up creation in this thread ;)

    @semiticgod Even with a literal reading (which I subscribe to most of the time) there is a lot in the Bible that is vague. Though we don't need to dive into that here.

  • DrHappyAngryDrHappyAngry Member Posts: 1,554
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Let it be known that it wasn't the Creationists that first brought up creation in this thread ;)

    Actually @DreadKhan brought it up first with asking how it would be testably different if something evolved vs being designed, and most of my points have been to address that.

  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,870
    Is it time to discuss speculative evolution yet? Yes? Good!

    Gotta love that youtube channel. <3
    Both the thought of how things have evolved up to this day and the potential outcomes of further evolution after humans left the stage has always interested me rather deeply. What the latter makes so interesting is that it's basically fantasy within what's scientifically plausible. For instance, the critters in After Man, The New Dinosaurs and Man After Man (all iconic books written by Douglas Dixon... though the last one isn't exactly for everyone's taste) are just sooo fascinating.

    Neeldess to say that whole field is rather speculative. Hence its name: speculative zoology. ;)

    DrHappyAngrymlnevese
  • DrHappyAngryDrHappyAngry Member Posts: 1,554
    edited March 2019
    Is it time to discuss speculative evolution yet? Yes? Good!

    Gotta love that youtube channel. <3
    Both the thought of how things have evolved up to this day and the potential outcomes of further evolution after humans left the stage has always interested me rather deeply. What the latter makes so interesting is that it's basically fantasy within what's scientifically plausible. For instance, the critters in After Man, The New Dinosaurs and Man After Man (all iconic books written by Douglas Dixon... though the last one isn't exactly for everyone's taste) are just sooo fascinating.

    Neeldess to say that whole field is rather speculative. Hence its name: speculative zoology. ;)

    Taking a look at the video now. I do think it's funny when people portray humanoid dinosaurs, though. Most of the bipedal dinosaurs would have been better at being bipeds than we are, with a lot more of their bones fused together in their ankles than humans have, and have millions of years more evolution to make them better at moving on 2 legs. So I don't think they would switch to a more upright posture. If you're talking about an intelligent tool using dinosaur, you might be looking at something like a raptor with more articulated arms and hands. The head very well could start to evolve to be more human like, though. If they're using tools to hunt and kill instead of their jaws, and cooking their food, the jaw could become much smaller. The skull could also get taller and more rounded to accommodate a bigger brain.

    *Edit finished the video and still have to disagree about the upright posture. Other dinosaurs, like T-Rex manage to enlarge their skulls with bigger jaws, without the need to switch to a more upright posture. You just need to bulk up the neck to handle it. If the jaw is shrinking while the brain is getting larger, that takes some of the weight off. While it's all speculative, it seems less likely to completely restructure their bodies for a new posture than to bulk up the neck.

    Kamigoroshimlnevese
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,870
    @DrHappyAngry Indeed, which are also things pointed out in the latter half of the video I linked. The time stamp 13:45 even shows a more plausible intelligent sauroid by C.M. Kosemen.

  • DrHappyAngryDrHappyAngry Member Posts: 1,554
    @DrHappyAngry Indeed, which are also things pointed out in the latter half of the video I linked. The time stamp 13:45 even shows a more plausible intelligent sauroid by C.M. Kosemen.

    Yup, edited my above post once I finished watching it, probably the same time you were writing that one ;)

    So let's talk about alien life a bit. I think we'd see very similar shapes to what we have on Earth, with the main factor being so long as the gravity is close to Earth's. Earth had a huge amount of diversity during the Cambrian, but most of those odd shapes lost out in the evolutionary arms race. I think you'd see things shaped like fish and whales to move through water, and bug and tetrapod like (although the number of legs wouldn't necessarily be the same) things crawling around on the ground.

    If gravity's a lot stronger, but still a solid planet surrounded by gas, I'd think more squat life forms, with weight distributed over a big area could be the norm.

    Arthur C Clarke got into some interesting stuff with theorizing what life would be like on Jupiter. In the novel 2010 he describes ray like creatures moving through the dense gas, and animals like balloon jelly fish floating up and down to gather light or nutrients.

  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 5,383
    @DrHappyAngry Indeed, which are also things pointed out in the latter half of the video I linked. The time stamp 13:45 even shows a more plausible intelligent sauroid by C.M. Kosemen.

    Yup, edited my above post once I finished watching it, probably the same time you were writing that one ;)

    So let's talk about alien life a bit. I think we'd see very similar shapes to what we have on Earth, with the main factor being so long as the gravity is close to Earth's. Earth had a huge amount of diversity during the Cambrian, but most of those odd shapes lost out in the evolutionary arms race. I think you'd see things shaped like fish and whales to move through water, and bug and tetrapod like (although the number of legs wouldn't necessarily be the same) things crawling around on the ground.

    If gravity's a lot stronger, but still a solid planet surrounded by gas, I'd think more squat life forms, with weight distributed over a big area could be the norm.

    Arthur C Clarke got into some interesting stuff with theorizing what life would be like on Jupiter. In the novel 2010 he describes ray like creatures moving through the dense gas, and animals like balloon jelly fish floating up and down to gather light or nutrients.

    with that being said, creatures don't need to be based off of carbon, all life here on earth is carbon based

    now naturally there is more carbon in the universe as apposed to the other stuff that helps us live ( like sodium and such ) and carbon easily combines with lots of atoms making it the "go to" for life making

    but it is theoretically possible to have life forms that aren't based of the carbon model, for example you could have sodium based life forms or even magnesium based life forms, depending on how their solar system was formed, you could have more elements that we dont have be way more abundant in their solar system to make it so life just happens to be that way

    perhaps in their solar system carbon is more rare than say uranium is here on earth, but on planet XFC-23874 maybe the whole planet is made out of sodium and instead of having oxygen and hydrogen and nitrogen for an atmosphere it might be rich with chlorine or fluorine instead, and somehow sodium based life forms have found a way to flourish, while ironically their living environment would be deadly for us, but our living environment would also be highly deadly for them

    mlnevese
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,617
    sarevok57 wrote: »
    @DrHappyAngry Indeed, which are also things pointed out in the latter half of the video I linked. The time stamp 13:45 even shows a more plausible intelligent sauroid by C.M. Kosemen.

    Yup, edited my above post once I finished watching it, probably the same time you were writing that one ;)

    So let's talk about alien life a bit. I think we'd see very similar shapes to what we have on Earth, with the main factor being so long as the gravity is close to Earth's. Earth had a huge amount of diversity during the Cambrian, but most of those odd shapes lost out in the evolutionary arms race. I think you'd see things shaped like fish and whales to move through water, and bug and tetrapod like (although the number of legs wouldn't necessarily be the same) things crawling around on the ground.

    If gravity's a lot stronger, but still a solid planet surrounded by gas, I'd think more squat life forms, with weight distributed over a big area could be the norm.

    Arthur C Clarke got into some interesting stuff with theorizing what life would be like on Jupiter. In the novel 2010 he describes ray like creatures moving through the dense gas, and animals like balloon jelly fish floating up and down to gather light or nutrients.

    with that being said, creatures don't need to be based off of carbon, all life here on earth is carbon based

    now naturally there is more carbon in the universe as apposed to the other stuff that helps us live ( like sodium and such ) and carbon easily combines with lots of atoms making it the "go to" for life making

    but it is theoretically possible to have life forms that aren't based of the carbon model, for example you could have sodium based life forms or even magnesium based life forms, depending on how their solar system was formed, you could have more elements that we dont have be way more abundant in their solar system to make it so life just happens to be that way

    perhaps in their solar system carbon is more rare than say uranium is here on earth, but on planet XFC-23874 maybe the whole planet is made out of sodium and instead of having oxygen and hydrogen and nitrogen for an atmosphere it might be rich with chlorine or fluorine instead, and somehow sodium based life forms have found a way to flourish, while ironically their living environment would be deadly for us, but our living environment would also be highly deadly for them

    Sodium is a metal. Not really a good choice for basing a life-form on. Silicon, boron or phosphorous might be better choices. All of those have novel chemical properties that could possibly be exploited by life processes.

    mlnevesesemiticgod
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,040
    edited March 2019
    The fact is we don't know how life would evolve if not based on carbon or even of it could evolve if not based on carbon. That's actually why programs like SETI concentrate their searches on systems that have an oxygen-water planet.

    Particularly I believe there are things out there we would have difficulty to recognize that are alive. After all we have things on Earth we are not sure are alive such as viruses.

    IF we ever solve the energy problem for interstellar travel we are sure to be surprised by what we will find out there.

    Post edited by mlnevese on
    Balrog99sarevok57Artona
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member Posts: 14,518
    For those who might not be aware: the "silicon-based life" idea doesn't actually refer to computer-based life. The reason silicon has drawn some interest as a theoretical basis for life is because, like carbon, silicon is capable of forming four bonds per silicon atom, which means it could create the same double-sided strands that allow carbon to form highly complex molecules. Most elements can only create molecules of a certain level of complexity, but life requires much more complicated chemicals to self-replicate successfully. A protein molecule can involve hundreds of atoms bonded together, and you can really only get molecules that large when you can connect things in strands.

    Thing is, we don't know if silicon could realistically form those complex strands and eventually result in self-replicating life, simply because we have no idea what the properties of those strands would be. You wouldn't be able to just take a typical hydrocarbon, replace all the carbon atoms with silicon, and expect it to work in any particular way. If silicon-based life did exist, it would probably be very radically different from carbon-based life. I recall that one of the theories said that silicon-based life would actually have to reside in sulfuric acid because water would not be a proper solvent for the right materials.

    mlneveseBalrog99
Sign In or Register to comment.