HuttonEtAl, on 15 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:
You are thinking about this way too much.
LOL, that is exactly what
I do. But I fail to see a problem with it? How does this affect my argument adversely?
HuttonEtAl, on 15 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:
It is quite simple and I think my point is more logical.
I beg your pardon but, what point? That is just "should be"? No offence but I see no more than that in your rebuttal? What logic have you presented that states an anthropomorphic design could be superseded by a better design?
HuttonEtAl, on 15 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:
You are using the evolution of humans on this planet as an example.
Indeed, a pool of one arising from microbial life, just like the planets we are looking for life on. It is all we have that we
can take to the bank. If we are looking at planets like earth for intelligent life, why would life be different? Do you feel a different evolutionary process would happen? If so, why? All life, plants and animals come from a single spark. Would that be different elsewhere?
HuttonEtAl, on 15 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:
The Industrial Revolution was started by humans, not in spite of them. A 4 limbed creature has certainly appeared to be the most successful, but that only depends on how you define ‘success.’ I personally find the Bdelloid rotifers to be the most successful creatures. They have not sexually reproduced in 50-100 million years. They have not had to because they work. They have no reason to evolve. They are essentially “perfect.”
I believe an Industrial Revolution is simply an aspect of evolution. And a necessary step on the way to achieving an intelligent society. Whilst this one was started by humans, how would one achieve the ability to travel amongst the stars without such? Bdelloidea are not interstellar travellers, or even intelligent. What do they have to do with convergeant evolution if they have achieved evolutionary equilibrium? Do you feel they are some sort of argument against convergent evolution? Not sure I am following you here 100%, hopefully you can clarify.
And I bet rags to riches that if the planets conditions changed, they would evolve again. There is no pinnacle of evolution. The Giraffe is also at a perfect harmony with it's environment and has no need to evolve further, in fact I believe Dawkins said it has nowhere left to go. But if the environment was to change, so would the Giraffe.
Bdelloidea are not intelligent. Never have been. They are rudimentary microbes. We are talking intelligent life are we not? I expect such microbes to be far more common in the Universe than intelligent life, being a very basic form of life. When discussing success with regards to intelligence, these guys do not have a dog in this race.
LOL, to me no sex for 80 million years is not intelligent at all
HuttonEtAl, on 15 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:
Besides that fact, it is important to understand that 4 limbs, and any feature, came about by a random mutation that provided a sexual advantage. We must take in to consideration that that particular random mutation occurred and that it offered an advantage in their environment at that particular time. To compare that to the Industrial Revolution on earth is highly irrelevant. It is just as plausible that a creature with 2, 6, 8, or 10 limbs could fare just as well, if not better. Someone in the industrial revolution would certainly have been more productive with 4 arms rather than 2.
Why would a creature retain 4, 6 or 8 arms when they are simply not necessary? We lost the tail, we used to be a five limbed creature, but it was not necessary. This body plan is well shaped, and developed to accomplish industrial and technological feats.
It is not irrelevant to include the Industrial Revolution being an important step to intelligence, or at least I cannot see why you think so, other than a plain outright objection, Could I ask you to extrapolate any points supporting this claim?
Why would a 4 armed person be more efficient in an industrial revolution? Additional energy and resources would be required for the extra body mass that can just as easily be achieved with two limbs and leverage. Utilisation of your surrounding environment. Those that can utilise with the greatest efficiency win. As the Neanderthal found out.
HuttonEtAl, on 15 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:
The fact of the matter is that this is based on random mutation and the environment they came from. To think the same random mutations would happen on another planet, that has the same conditions, at the right time, which would mirror earth, is highly unlikely…
Why?
Link - Earth Like Planet Found Next Door
Link - Earth Like Planet Can Sustain Life
Link - 100 Earth Like Planets Found Within 30 Light Years!
Speciation and Convergeant Evolution is more what I am talking about in any case. But I do not see how random mutation make a difference here? Successful mutations are successful mutations. Why would what works for one group
not work for another? i.e. if it works here, why is it impossible that it would work on another earth like planet?
HuttonEtAl, on 15 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:
There is no reason to believe other intelligent life would look anything like us.
I have given several reasons and a paper. I would appreciate it if you could adress why those points are incorrect, and perhaps tell me why convergent evolution would be restricted to a planet as opposed to a Galaxy, or the Universe for that matter? From what I can see there is every reason to think life would be very familiar. And no reasons why alternate body shapes would be more successful. Why would an 8 limbed creature evolve into intelligence over a two armed one? What would be the advantage of 8 arms? I understand 3 if one was in Total Recall but beyond that, reasons seem to not exist. More limbs, more energy is required, and more body plan. In many cases, less is more. The Anthropomorphic design holds the best features from all plans. What would work better, and why?
Examples of Convergent Evolution.
Edited by psyche101, 15 November 2012 - 06:01 AM.
1
