Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:18 am
Re: Evolution Predictable Elsewhere in the Universe, Scientist Says
From: "T. Peter"
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:36 PM
Subject: Evolution Predictable Everywhere in the Universe, Scientist Says
> If the history of life on Earth could be rewound and replayed,
> many of the same innovations would reappear, although at
> different times and in slightly different forms.
> This is the conclusion of Geerat Vermeij, a paleontologist
> at the University of California, Davis.
<snip>
> "Some traits are so advantageous under so many circumstances,
> or arise so relatively easily by virtue of self-organization,
> that you're likely to see the same things again and again,"
> Vermeij told LiveScience.
Nope,
Article's mention of Gould (snipped) notwithstanding, they've not absorbed the message of several folk (Stewart & Cohen) but pre-eminently Gould, that, although basic processes are bound to be used (and re-used) - the result of a `play again from the beginning' (or play on a different planet)
is going to be vastly different.
As Gould et al show, each `decision' (like: `let's produce oxygen as a waste product') meant those bacteria able to tolerate oxygen literally erased (ate) all record of the other options alive at the time. (Although a few anerobic bacteria survive).
And, although certain tricks could be, and were advantageous at a certain time in our history - that needed all the the previous `decisions' to have been taken, and roughly in the "proper" order.
The further back you re-start the tape - the bigger final differences are going to be. `Initial conditions' are / were the knife-edge at any stage. That's what self-organization is all about - it's attracted to the edge of `chaos' conditions.
In fact you could say that `organization feeds off chaos' - which always means that tiny changes give hugely different outcomes.
(Ever read any of those`alternate histories'?)
cheers
Ray D
From: "Steve"
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Evolution Predictable Elsewhere in
the Universe, Scientist Says
Indeed.
It is striking, though, how often almost identical things evolve completely independently.
Like Cephalopod and Vertebrate eyes. Incidentally, also a good argument against Intelligent Design. Vertebrate retinas are 'back to front' (nerve cells in front of light sensitive layer) which is why we have a blind spot. Cephalopod eyes sensibly have the nerve layer behind the optical layer - so no blind spot.
Either there is no designer (and the order of the layers is an accident of embryonic development in the two very different phyla), or Squid are in fact the Chosen Species.
> Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:24 pm
> Dear Ray, Steve
<snip>
> Looking at the variety of earthly life, from a human being
> to an elephant, to a blue whale to a hermit crab, he argued,
> we have seen that while all these forms share genetic
> ancestry, they are still widely different in physiological
> configuration. How much greater, then, he wondered, must
> be the range of physical types among creatures
> which must surely exist in our galaxy alone?
<snip>
> If all this is and long has been true of our own Earth,
> I've always thought, it would only make sense to find
> it paralleled throughout the Cosmos, whenever one
> finds comparable ecological niches.
Hi T Peter,
That (in full) is a very interesting and very complete review of the genotype v. phenotype (body shape etc) situation on Earth att.
Think you would really like `Evolving the Alien' by Stewart & Cohen, as some of your conclusions are very close to theirs. They've put their own labels on the two different types of
characteristics - as follows:-
`Parochial' - the precise `number of fingers' say, is not going to be important or likely to be duplicated due to any evolutionary pressure, so that's a `parochial' item. Hair versus
feathers versus scales might similarly be arbitrary evolutionary choices.
`Universal' - whereas bilateral symmetry has a lot going for it and might be a `universal' characteristic of intelligent life - if organic / material beings, that is.
Going through a list of possible variations can get interesting if you discard all `parochials', especially - given ever-present `human-interest' in these matters - when you get to possible
behavior patterns - ultimately derived from food sources? and acquisition? - and social - and mating - systems and structures.
Even here on Earth there are some startling variations on what we tend to think is "normal" behavior [there's a small write-up at "female societies which produce males on demand" in Google].
Steven Jay Gould has already considered some of those phenotype probabilities - fr'instance he said most Earth animals have large active females, but only relatively tiny males, acting as mere providers of sperm. Now, is that likely to be a `universal' tendency or not? If it is - we're going to feel a little out-of-place in galactic society - yes?
And there could be other shocks in store - much of what we think of as normal or even necessary might be only `parochial'.
cheers
Ray D
Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:08 pm
Re: Re: Convergent evolution
Dear Ray,
Thanks so much for your summary of Stewart & Cohen's `Evolving the Alien' distinction of `Parochial' versus `Universal' characteristics. Your reference to to "possible behavior patterns (ultimately derived from food sources? and acquisition?) and social (and mating) systems and structures" reminds me of something I myself wrote a few years ago about many human cultural practices and social institutions being reflections of our food acquisition & ingestion and reproductive biology.
That we eat food which we place in our mouths with our hands and/or with tools manipulated by our hands (rather than, say, absorbing nutrients from the soil through roots or from the water we swim or wade in through pores in our skins) has given rise to such human institutions and practices as mealtimes, lunch or dinner dates, kitchens, restaurants, grocery stores, cookbooks, dieting as a health regimen, fasting as a method of religious or moral discipline, Holy Communion, and
cannibalism -- none of which would probably arise among "plant-men" or skin-pore environmental nutrient absorbers! Our particular mammalian method of bisexual (M & F) live-bearing (as opposed to egg-laying) reproduction with internal sperm/egg fertilization again is the biological basis and context of human institutions and practices as the family, marriage, dating, romantic love, adultery, rape, pornography, prostitution, pre- and extra-marital sexual restrictions, celibacy as a moral or religious discipline, etc. -- none of which could have probably arisen among a species who reproduced by budding, or like social insects with their queen bees or ants fertilized by drones (not workers!) on nuptial flights, or like frogs by all the females communally laying eggs which the males then communally fertilize!
Cheers,
T. Peter
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:57:56 +0100
Right T Peter,
you'd very ably illustrated what I was thinking of - that many life-forms will have very different attitudes, depending on their food sources, amongst other `necessary' differences.
Even Earthly animals show this: horses are basically friendly, humorous and philosophical folk, because they're vegetarian ('tho their history of being hunted by carnivores has left them easily
spooked).
And did I read, other day, that researchers are now claiming `intellectual activity' in plants or trees? Expect they're probably very contemplative types! Do we hear the voice of
Tolkien there.
So a higher life-form evolved from a soil-extracting feeder might be deeply horrified to meet a carnivore!
Which might be something we should be considering - since the higher life-forms would probably have the science know-how with which they can express their disapproval or reflex disgust -
fatally and maybe finally.
cheers
Ray D
Aug '06
Seems we have agreement from the late Carl Sagan -
"Were the Earth to be started over again with all its physical features identical, it is extremely unlikely that anything closely resembling a human being would ever again emerge. There is a powerful random character to the evolutionary process."
`Cosmos' - p. 309
Subject: Re: HPL and QM?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:10:04 +0100
Hi Lawrie,
This isn't side-tracking your investigation - think it's valid (and've been quoting - "`The Cosmic Winter' by Victor Clube & Bill Napier" and Solon's "report on returning to Athens" - (poss. root-Milesian) for several years on several pages).
Cyclical comet(s) strikes [below] and maybe more should be regarded as inevitabilities - if we used our intellects rather than running from our fears.
Yet think Fort was forced, by a surfeit of reports and a lack of dependable astronomy data, into a paradoxical conclusion. Many reports, e.g. Wolverhampton's falls of stones, were detailed, and re-occurring over a long period [at least ten years]. Whereas, as said repeatedly in `New Lands', the astronomical info available to the public att. was often shallow bombastic self-advertisement - and contradictory, as Fort also shows.
Fort well knew that the Earth's `theoretical' movements (rotational, orbital, plus the Sun's galactic orbit) would preclude `accidental' falls over the same area, if caused by occasional collisions or somesuch. So, lacking hard astronomical facts, he had to believe either that the Earth stands still or that there was a `source' hovering above Wolverhampton (and other
places) for the whole period - or both.
From our more privileged position think we should re-examine all `falls', to include the (sometimes) identical but much smaller-scale falls that have been labeled as poltergeist (and then mainly ignored). Again stones, liquids etc falling, but onto or inside one house, or in one room, or following one person about.
Here the laws of physics are more readily seen to be apparently defied. In addition the `cause' or `agent' would seem to be making decisions, implying `intelligence' of some sort. See `Unexplained Phenomena - A Rough Guide Special' 2000 ISBN 1-85828-589-5 for some interesting well-witnessed cases.
So, if we class all `falls' as one phenomenon, and if we assign a somewhat `intelligent' cause or agent, there's no real need for either a static Earth or a floating, invisible platform of any
kind.
As for that `cause' - co-incidentally recently examined our lack of coherent explanations (`models') for all reported phenomena.
In simple and general terms, for a wide audience -
www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2006/jun/m26-001.shtml
and then going for specifics, and an informed audience
www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2006/jun/m28-017.shtml
(ignore that `BTW' - I didn't put it just there)
But _did_ quote Einstein - "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures"
- which could (and maybe should) take us back to HPL's "terrifying vistas of reality" - and for a good reason.
cheers
Ray D
> From: "Lawrie"
> Evidently HPL was sufficiently widely read in ancient
> myth 'n history to have more than an inkling of a
> phenomenon that is now well understood:
> www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/abstract/clube.htm
> www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/abstract/mullen.htm
> So you are utterly on topic here Ray. This was one
> of Charles Fort's obsessions - the formerly chronic
> myopia of astronomers and the continuing ostrich
> mentality of humankind as a whole.
> There *is* a continent in the sky and it *is* due
> to fall on our heads.
> In fact we are staring down the barrel of the
> arrival in a few short centuries of many millions
> of tons of comet debris. It is not far away
> - it is in a 3-year orbit around the Sun and our
> orbits intersect every 2500 - 3000 years.
> www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/abstract/steel2.htm
> I'd like to know how members of this list deal with
> this issue. Who amongst us believe that:
> 1) this is nonsense, the skies are mostly empty and we
> are mostly safe
> OR:
> 2) this might be so but it is not worth worrying about
> OR:
> 3) the danger is real and it appears to explain
> stone circles, monolithic constructions and the fall
> of ancient civilizations
>> HPL and QM?
>> Posted by: "Ray D"
>> Seems that HPL was keeping up with developments
>> more than i'd thought.
>> Although his "Some day the piecing together
>> of dissociated knowledge will open up such
>> terrifying vistas of reality ... that we
>> shall either go mad from the revelation or
>> flee from the deadly light into the peace
>> and safety of a new dark age"
>> could be taken as science-based, it's
>> possible to read it otherwise.
>> BUt just recently found clearer ref in "He"
>> www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary/lovecraft/he.htm
>> "To - my ancestor," he softly continued,
>> "there appeared to reside some very remarkable
>> qualities in the will of mankind; qualities
>> having a little-suspected dominance not only
>> over the acts of one's self and of others,
>> but over every variety of force and substance
>> in Nature, ..."
>> which is surely QM based - plus the screaming,
>> of course.
>> cheers
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:51:12 -0000
Subject: Re: Sheldrake
From: "Lajos B"
< It leads to reasoning along the line: there was a time when
< there was no time...
Feel that is the crux of arguments so far -
The word "time" is used for too many concepts and applications to be readily meaningful, however `the passage of time' would seem to be intrinsic to the physical mechanism of our universe and is perhaps limited to our universe. Therefore our universe might only be a small part (and maybe only a temporary part) of whatever might be external.
We cannot hope to see or measure an external so any speculation would be wasted effort, but a rigorous application of probability statistics (an extension perhaps of Bell's Inequalities analysis as applied to Alain Aspects' `entanglement' experiments) might well prove the `limitation' or `enclosure' of our own universe, maybe even its `artificiality'.
Additionally, feel that [Rupert] Sheldrake's main thesis ref-01 is well-founded, in view of a mass of new (though presently disputed and sometimes ignored) findings in modern physics research - although he concentrates more on the emotional and `psychic' effects than on
a basic physical cause or `force'.
Ray
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 17:14:14 -0000
Subject: [SSE] Re: Sheldrake
Sheldrake's necessary field or force seems to carry a form of communication, more or less instantly, across arbitrary distance, between humans and animals and maybe between all living things, including plants.
Alain Aspect's quantum experiment, repeated many times by others, has been subjected to rigorous analysis (Bell's Inequalities - iron-hard `statistical probability') resulting in the conclusion that science must accept one of two alternatives to explain the results. These alternatives have been summarized as -
i) there's a field or force that permits communication, more or less instantly, across arbitrary distance, between certain particles; [non-locality]
OR
ii) there's no `cause and effect' in the Universe [non-causality]
The latter doesn't seem to apply in reality so we're left with two unknown forces doing the same thing. For the sake of parsimony (scientific working principle of Occam) we can surely accept that it is likeliest that these forces are one and the same.
The `quantum entanglement' of all Earth life could well derive from the fact - as Carl Sagan stated - we all have the same ultimate ancestor, so [Sagan] and an oak tree are made of the same `stuff'. ref-02
That leaves an open question - `Would the field operate between Us and non-Earth life?'
Ray
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:30:56 -0000
Interesting point. Think John D Barrow (or Penrose?) raised the question as to `why the _negative_ energy of a gravitational field around a body (a planet say) exactly matches / cancels out the _positive_ mass-energy of the body itself.
Well, if we accept a field enforcing mass and inertia on matter - which seems to be needed (yet this need is _not_ acknowledged by science just now) then it's obvious why the negative and positive energies match - they derive from the same source. Which also solves the perennial puzzle - why inertial mass is exactly equal to gravitational mass.
By Occam, it seems that force could be the same as needed by Sheldrake, and ERP/Bell.
But, like you say, whether mass-energy equates to information needs to be experimentally pinned down.
Ray
Subject: Re: HPL and QM?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:37:34 +0100
Further to Lawrie's Survey
Getting up-to date on those tree-ring & ice-core events - there's been a few additions (by Mike Baillie et al - see Table 1)
Acidity peaks over 4 microequivalents/Kg ice
210 BCE / 260
1120 BCE
1644 BCE
2345 BCE
3150 BCE
4400 BCE
Low growth events in Irish oaks
540 CE - (from Siberia through Europe and North and South America.)
207 BCE
1159 BCE
1628 BCE
2690 BCE
3195 BCE
4375 BCE
5060 BCE
So `something' seems to have been happening at irregular periods averaging to maybe every 6/700 - 1000 yrs.
Maybe a propos - a fairly chilling account of Egypt c. 4,200 years ago
www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/586511/posts
and of Europe c. 1500 years ago
freerepublic.com/focus/chat/714636/posts
cheers
Ray D
note (Nov. 2007) - Seems that the `science' people just aren't joining up the dots. Here's a Spanish `burning-catastrophe' also from 4,200 yrs ago
Which adds Spain to that Egyptian account (above), of effects, not only in Egypt, but from "Indonesia to the Mediterranean, Greenland to North America".
So today's (Nov. 2007) trendy scientists - in Spain - are probably wrong in thinking their local effects were due to "people ... setting fires to clear the forests".
A further search found a news item that might tie them all together - `Meteor clue to end of Middle East civilisations'.
And the date of the `strike'?
The article says - `more than 4,000 years ago' and then clarifies - `around 2300 BC', and further suggests it was probably part of a large - maybe earth-shaking - event: `craters recently found in Argentina date from around the same period - suggesting that the Earth may have been hit by a shower of large meteors at about the same time'.
note 2 (Nov. 2007) - Bit more delving finds - `New Evidence for Global Climate Disaster in 3rd Millennium BC ... Drought Felled Akkadian Empire'
Here's some key points from a longish page-
`The abandonment began about 2200 B.C., as determined by carbon-14 dating of cereal grains. Soil samples from that time showed abundant fine, windblown dust and few signs of earthworm activity or the once-abundant rainfall. All this suggested that the people of Tell Leilan, and, presumably, its environs, retreated in the face of a suddenly dry and windy environment, triggering the collapse of the Akkadian empire's northern provinces.'
and -
`Walter Dean of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver found three sharp peaks in the amount of dust that settled to the bottom of Elk Lake in Minnesota. Dust peaked at about 5800, 3800, and 2100 B.C., plus or minus 200 years, according to the counting of annual layers in the lake sediment. During the 2100 B.C. dust pulse, which lasted about a century, the lake received three times more dust each year than it did during the infamous Dust Bowl period in the U.S. in the 1930s.'
and even more -
`In another sign that the Mesopotamian drought was global, Lonnie G. Thompson of Ohio State University and his colleagues found a dust spike preserved in a Peruvian mountain glacier that marks "a major drought" in the Amazon Basin about 2200 B.C., give or take 200 years. It is by far the largest such event of the past 17,000 years.'
|
