Survival and evolution of life -past & future

[Doctor_Occupant]

Neanderthals may have gone extinct precisely because they lacked the same kind of intelligence to allow them to adapt to the changing climate

Isn't there some evidence that rather than dying out the Neanderthals were bred into the - oh, darn it, cro-magnon? - population and sort of homogenized?

Or has that particular theory been squished?

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Neanderthals may have gone extinct precisely because they lacked the same kind of intelligence to allow them to adapt to the changing climate

Isn't there some evidence that rather than dying out the Neanderthals were bred into the - oh, darn it, cro-magnon? - population and sort of homogenized?

Or has that particular theory been squished?

No, there is definitely evidence to support that theory:

http://record.wustl.edu/archive/1999/04 ... rthal.html

Neanderthal culture was very different though. Modern human sites showed identical ornaments at various distant sites, indicating trade and travel, whereas at Neanderthal sites, the objects found in each case were different, showing it unlikely they communicated with each other over distances.

It seems likely, at least from the cultural evidence, that if there was any interbreeding, it was an absorption of some Neanderthal into modern human stock, rather than some kind of large-scale merger of two societies.

 

[Justin_Anstey]

...

 

[Mister_Awesome]

I think any animal will exhibit self-destructive behavior when it becomes overpopulated, just as a survival technique. Humankind is clearly no different.

 

[Doctor_Occupant]

We should focus our resources on adapting to any change not persisting with this folly of a belief that it is possible to preserve the planet as it is indefinitely.

What can a few concerned people in the West do about the damage that's inevitably going to be done by those billions of people in China, India and elsewhere in the developing world? Are they going to accept being told that they can't have what we have had?

I don't think the public around these parts are willing to tolerate much more nagging either- "you've got to stop doing this", "you can't have that," etc...

It's rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Oh. Well, in that case.



drop the bomb.
Apocalypse now.

 

[wembley8]

"Synergistic evolutionary traits occaisionally combine to produce a new, more powerful feature than the sum of its parts, as in the beetle example. "

The beetle is not exactly a shining success in evolutionary terms though; and similarly intelligence has only been around for en eyeblink and already we are in trouble from several directions, mainly of our own making.

Thanks for the Calvin reference - it does look like a respectable, if minority, theory. ideas about intelligence evolving in response to social pressure from other humans still make more sense to me.

"Neanderthals may have gone extinct precisely because they lacked the same kind of intelligence to allow them to adapt to the changing climate, which was possessed by their modern human counterparts. "

Or they may have become extinct because they do have the same kind of intelligence. We don't know either way. All we know is that all the other intelligent hominid species are extinct, and we are developing a number of highly creative ways to do the same to ourselves.

Fats:

"[Water crisis] This is a threat to civil order, civilisation and our political structure, but it isn't a threat to the survival of the species."

It is if, like oil, it triggers conflicts between well-armed nation-states.

"The Sahara is inhabited by many species.... including those good ol' adaptable humans in the form of the Bedouin. "

So we have turned it from a fertile, well-populated area with cities to one where a handful of nomads scratch out a meagre living. A scary image for the future of the planet.


Justin
"The ecosystem will surely recover from anything that we can do to it,"

Oh really?

 

[feen5]

The beetle is not exactly a shining success in evolutionary terms though

I think youll find that beetles are in fact one of the best examples of success in evolutionary terms. They form the largest family of insects and therefore the largest family of animals on the planet and they have been around since the beginning of life on dry land. If you don't call that an evolutionary success i hate to think what your idea of a total evolutionary failure is.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

"Synergistic evolutionary traits occaisionally combine to produce a new, more powerful feature than the sum of its parts, as in the beetle example. "

The beetle is not exactly a shining success in evolutionary terms though; and similarly intelligence has only been around for en eyeblink and already we are in trouble from several directions, mainly of our own making.

Thanks for the Calvin reference - it does look like a respectable, if minority, theory. ideas about intelligence evolving in response to social pressure from other humans still make more sense to me.

"Neanderthals may have gone extinct precisely because they lacked the same kind of intelligence to allow them to adapt to the changing climate, which was possessed by their modern human counterparts. "

Or they may have become extinct because they do have the same kind of intelligence. We don't know either way. All we know is that all the other intelligent hominid species are extinct, and we are developing a number of highly creative ways to do the same to ourselves.

Fats:

"[Water crisis] This is a threat to civil order, civilisation and our political structure, but it isn't a threat to the survival of the species."

It is if, like oil, it triggers conflicts between well-armed nation-states.

"The Sahara is inhabited by many species.... including those good ol' adaptable humans in the form of the Bedouin. "

So we have turned it from a fertile, well-populated area with cities to one where a handful of nomads scratch out a meagre living. A scary image for the future of the planet.


Justin
"The ecosystem will surely recover from anything that we can do to it,"

Oh really?

The bombadier beetle has evolved into several different species and is distributed all over the world. How is that not a "shining success in evolutionary terms"?

With respect to the Neanderthals, the evidence is there in their ornaments that they didn't communiacte over distance between groups, like the modern humans did, so there is evidence that their intelligence was different, as I already mentioned.

You still keep implying that a major catastrophe, like a world war would somehow lead to exctinction, rather than just a large-scale reduction in population. I can't see a mechanism in any of your examples that would lead to the complete extinction of homo sapiens, as opposed to just the end of current social, economic and political structures.

Would it be possible for you to detail exactly how you forsee any crisis leading specifically to biological extinction for humanity?

 

[Anonymous]

I think the problem is that some people have a sketchy idea about what evolution actually is...

Agree with the above post 8)

 

[Doctor_Occupant]

I think the problem is that some people have a sketchy idea about what evolution actually is...

You're right.

Any chance of being pointed at a good explanation?

 

[Anonymous]

See Matt Ridley 'The Red Queen'. Quite good

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I think the problem is that some people have a sketchy idea about what evolution actually is...

You're right.

Any chance of being pointed at a good explanation?

Although primarily intended as a reference for debating creationists, the talk.origins archive has a good outline section describing evolution at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#what

 

[Doctor_Occupant]

Thanks, both. The Red Queen goes on the list of books to buy and the link I can explore when I'm supposed to be working.

 

[Doctor_Occupant]

Alright - did some reading and yes, my understanding of evolution was at best rather sketchy.

It's now less sketchy and my immediate conclusions are: evolution isn't really as major a player as I thought.

Natural selection, in the face of massive environmental change, will be.

In order to make any significant changes to the human population, it's not genetic engineering or evolution we need to look to but social engineering and revolution.

So, a new question: do memes evolve? To clarify: once "in the wild" does a meme change over time and adapt itself or does it remain the same old idea?

 

[Anonymous]

Well, Iwill have to think. I have problems with the idea of genetic transmission of memory as we understand it. I don't anything can be coded via memory operation from the neocortex. However, in order for certain behaviours, without learning, such as the intense fear of snakes that chimps seem to have, there may be something in highly charged emotional memories that operate in the most primitive parts of the brain. Thus, they are not memories as such, more like experience - perhaps...(I can think of other explanations, but am trying to keep on track for this debate).

 

[Doctor_Occupant]

Thus, they are not memories as such, more like experience - perhaps...(I can think of other explanations, but am trying to keep on track for this debate).

Without wanting to fall into my usual trap of arguing a semantic point needlessly...

...aren't experience and memories coming from the same place? I know you can have memories without necessarily experiencing something....oh, wait, I see what you mean.

It's possible that the fear of snakes you're talking about is imprinted on Chimps very early on in life. A snake has to be something a chimp would fear since they'd be a threat to any age chimp. So is it possible that chimps are engaged in educating their young from a very very early age and the first message they pass along is "snakes are evil"?

Humans do something very similar in corporate culture. Usually, when one enters a workplace there is a certain amount of indoctrination that takes place. There are certain things that are 'done' and 'not done' although the reason for the behaviour may have been lost, the justification is usually "we've always done it this way" - thus the behaviour remains while the impetus behind it has long since faded away.

 

[IamSundog]

I'll join the church of the LPOL. It's kind of hard to argue AGAINST the notion that we ought to focus our efforts towards preservation of our own species, seeing as how that directive is pretty much woven into the cloth we're made from.

Earlier there was a mini-debate about the statement that "nature is our enemy and must be conquered". I would say it this way: that the universe is completely ambivalent about us. It provides this lovely sunshine and water and oxygen that nurtures us, but it also lobs killer comets at us. We cannot trust it to be nice. We can't "conquer" it - that would be impossible, and self-destructive - but we can make ourselves as invulnerable as possible to its dangers. I like to believe there's a way to do this and to reap the full benefit of nature's "genius" that is simlultaneously respectful and sustainable.

The great failing of religions, and the hardest idea for people to give up if they're going to transition to LPOL, is the notion that there's a great parent in the sky whose job is to take care of us and make everything OK. We have to grow up and realize that this isn't true - we're on our own. There may or may not be a Creator, but there is scant evidence of It suspending probability, geo-thermal dynamics, or celestial mechanics to save Its creations. Even if you believe that there's a God that sometimes intervenes via miracle, would you presume to know that He will in any particular disaster? We know with certainty that disasters will come and that Earth will die someday. Can one presume to know that it is His Will that we go extinct? That would be like failing to pull a child from the path of an oncoming car by saying the disaster must God's will.

As an intelligent species we're like kids in our late teens on the verge of adulthood. Are we going to move out and become self-sufficient and responsible, psycho-theo-logically, or stay on in our old bedroom in Mom's house?

Here endeth the reading from the book of Sundog. (Cue organ music)

 

[Mr_Eamcat2]

Interesting topic everyone - my small brain thinks it has something to say, it may not be the most brilliant thing you've heard all day, but bear with me:

Do we actually know where we came from?

I think we need to know this to determine what our purpose is, if indeed there is one.

Now, I'm a bit odd in that I sort of have a psuedo-scientific/spiritual take on life, so I offer you this asbratc from Mr Eamcat's World View™;

Take it as read that we evolved naturally on this planet without the assistance of ETs.

Take it that consciousness can exist in many forms, and that The Earth may, being greater than the sum of her parts, have some sort of consciousness.

So here we are, on the verge of a technological revolution, capable of the most wondrous things, space travel, genetic engineering, nanotechnology etc etc.

We are successful because we are an extremely adaptable and intelligent species - 'the ape that got lucky' - but we're only here because conditions on the planet enabled us to evolve so successfully, as brilliant as we are.

So, take into account our incredible thirst to explore, seek new territory, learn, find an earth-like planet......you see where I'm going?

I think our purpose in life is to allow The Earth to 'reproduce' by seeding the cosmos with earth-like colonies. We'll need to take along everything from this planet that we need to survive elsewhere - to maintain the balance so to speak - thereby recreating certain conditions and self regulating systems that we enjoy here.

If I'm talking rubbish, it may make a good book one day in which my purpose in life will be to make lots of money and live on a beach somewhere hot.

Let's wait and see, shall we?

 

[Justin_Anstey]

So the Earth wants us to go out and civilize the universe?

...

 

[Bertie_Akbar]

Surely the purpose is to get your hands on as much money and power as possible..?

 

[Justin_Anstey]

And do what with it?

 

[Dingo667]

I maintain that nature should be regarded as our enemy. If it is not with us, it is against us. Absolute control of it "without waste or damage" is an aspiration that may well be impossible.

Did you mean that sarcastically?
Nature is our enemy?
Who are "we"? I mean we are made from cells, I can't help thinking that cells are pretty natural. We have senses thanks to nature, all in all I recon it is save to say that without nature we would not exist.
However if you mean what you said, then your mum is your number one enemy and has to be ruled and used without much waste...

Please tell me I got it all wrong and you just quoted some nutter, then I will apologise but if that is your real opinion you are beyond help.

 

[Justin_Anstey]

Of course Life is a product of nature, but then so is degradation, suffering and death. My mother is as subject to these forces as you or I. Benefactors and victims of the same inanimate system.

No woman actively creates life, pregnancy is something that happens to you.

Life is the child of nature that'll grow up to do the things it could not. The office cleaner's kid who becomes a surgeon.

Even if I were one of those weirdoes who could believe that it is somehow sentient, I object to being created and destroyed without being consulted.

All the matter around was produced by the sun, but is that a reason to worship the thing? One day it's going to get too hot and bright for life to survive on this rock.

Are we made from stardust or nuclear waste spewed out by a big ball of burning gas?

 

[Dingo667]

Even if I were one of those weirdoes who could believe that it is somehow sentient, I object to being created and destroyed without being consulted.

Unfortunately I recon that that is just "tough". You can become bionic if you like and I wouldn't care much as I believe if you can do it and you want to, you might as well try. Reasoning that our ability is also natural. However I just didn't get the notion of nature being an "enemy", that is just ludicrous. You don't have to worship nature to at least respect it as it is it that gives us the universe, animals and strangely enough even you.
I think you are unhappy in some ways and are trying to iron out bad things by wanting to be above nature. Which is a very lonely place because it isn't anywhere nearby.

 

[Doctor_Occupant]

All the matter around was produced by the sun, but is that a reason to worship the thing? One day it's going to get too hot and bright for life to survive on this rock.

Excellent reasons to worship the sun both.

How do you know it's not listening right now?

No woman actively creates life, pregnancy is something that happens to you.

Oh boy.
Uh, men and women together actively create life.
You see, when a mummy and a daddy love each other very much they sometimes go slightly insane and decide to complicate their lives still further by having a baby.

You can talk to your own parents about how that happens. Birds and bees, old chap, birds and bees.

Even if I were one of those weirdoes who could believe that it is somehow sentient, I object to being created and destroyed without being consulted.

It? What, life is somehow sentient? Are you talking about nature? Gaia? Aaaannnnd how, exactly, would you be consulted prior to being created?

So, this was a genuinely interesting thread but now, I fear, you seem to have gone off into somewhere slightly angsty.

 

[Justin_Anstey]

It? What, life is somehow sentient? Are you talking about nature? Gaia? Aaaannnnd how, exactly, would you be consulted prior to being created?

I couldn't. Like I typed, 'IF' I could believe nature/the universe were sentient, I object to those things. Perhaps I should have put: "'I 'would' object..."

...However I just didn't get the notion of nature being an "enemy", that is just ludicrous. You don't have to worship nature to at least respect it as it is it that gives us the universe, animals and strangely enough even you...

Nature certainly isn't our friend. We really should have lots of respect for such a mighty foe, even though it can have no respect for us, being inanimate. And it cannot give us anything, Life takes what it needs. Nature will kill us all, if inadvertently.

Sure, Life occurred because of natural processes. A seemingly inevitable consequence of random combinations of matter, but it continues to survive against natural forces. Life was an unplanned and unwantable pregnancy.

The time may well come when Old Mother Nature herself will expire. Life must aim to survive beyond the natural end of nature.

Oh boy.
Uh, men and women together actively create life...

I had no idea we could remotely control our sperm. Being able to have some influence over the circumstances that surround the creation of life isn't the same thing as causing it to happen.

If I were to go up to a pregnant woman (as opposed to a man) and ask her exactly which bit of her baby she was working on developing at that moment, I'm sure she'll look at me a bit funny.

...I think you are unhappy in some ways and are trying to iron out bad things by wanting to be above nature. Which is a very lonely place because it isn't anywhere nearby.

Most definitely, I am unhappy about all the suffering and death caused by natural forces (perhaps including human nature) and our limitations to do much about it. Of course, becoming above nature isn't anywhere nearby, but we should aspire to go there and stop being nature's victims. I'm not sure why it should necessarily be a lonely place though.

I have to say that, on a personal level, ... My life now has meaning and purpose.

 

[Dingo667]

You make me sad. Natures "suffering" is just nature doing its thing. However as soon as the humans get their hands into something the suffering becomes deliberate suffering, which is the only kind that doesn't contribute to natures equilibrium but often only for some sick humans pleasure.
See I don't consider lions who kill a zebra evil or think that it is some kind of horrific slaughter. It is the way of life and nature. It all works out in nature to keep life going and helps evolution.
However cutting off sharks fins and throwing the animal alive back into the water or tying dogs onto a beam, twisting them until they die of a heart attack [after being sick and shitting themselves with fear] and many many other antics are vile and only found made by humans.

Say what you will but the human seems already above/past/beyond/away from nature and hence you should be happy. My opinion is however that we are disgusting creatures that should not meddle with nature for the simple reason that nature works but gets fucked up when the humans get their hands on it. If you really want to help get real and eat your humble pie in front of nature, instead of wanting to be something you are further away from than the cat on my sofa!

 

[misterwibble]

Justin, you're anthropomorphising.

Nature, or the universe, is not our friend. Neither is it our foe. It is totally indifferent to your, mine, every animal and plant's and indeed the planet earth's existence.

Any purpose in life comes from how we choose to interact with other humans and living creatures.

 

[Mister_Awesome]

Justin, you're anthropomorphising.

Nature, or the universe, is not our friend. Neither is it our foe. It is totally indifferent to your, mine, every animal and plant's and indeed the planet earth's existence.

Any purpose in life comes from how we choose to interact with other humans and living creatures.

I'd add to this, always keep in mind that we're a part of nature. We don't exist ouside of it, no matter how far we divorce ourselves via technology.