»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Apes
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Apes |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Amazing World, Creatures of Wonder! We are apes. And from that point, we begin to understand what we are. evolution evolution |
||
| © Copyright 2011 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Your link doesn't work, Brad, or rather it leads to no where useful. Are we supposed to wait for it to evolve?  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
It's possible that we could do both. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Oops. It should work now. And then I put the wrong one in there. I think my brain needs to do some more 'volven'. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Leave it to Brad to monkey around  |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Why concentrate on a dead branch of the evolutionary tree Brad? In terms of major evolutionary changes humans and primates are about as likely to 'evolve' as crocodiles, wouldn't it be more interesting to try to work out what's likely to replace us as the dominant species now that our evolving days are over? . |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, I think if we can make it through the next couple of centuries or so, our next step will be self-directed evolution: 1. multiple species (the key point is sentience or the awareness of awareness), not DNA. 2. robots and computers --------------- But if we don't make it, I'd put my money on rodents in the short run. For the long run I've been influenced by the Future is Wild series so I'll go with cephalopods. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
In this water? I think they'd have to do some pretty fast adaptation to keep up with the pollution we're dropping on 'em. I'll go with the roach or palmetto bug/beetle. They are already one up on us--they can fly. I've got enough to do trying to slow down my self-directed de-volution.  |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Rodents or cephalopods? They're dead branches too Brad, what about insects or plants or a descendent of the ultra successful bacteria (not part of the animal kingdom but that hasn't held them back so far)? All of them have the prerequisite - the ability to hybridize inter-specially. . |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yeah, but if you go with bacteria, they already overrun the planet. Insects and arthropods as well. Hey, I just heard this, haven't checked it yet, but is it true that scorpions are particularly resistant to radiation? At any rate, I chose rodents because they are great adapters and have the capacity for intelligence (don't see that happening in insects or bacteria). I chose octopuses because they look really cool swinging through trees -- and have long term possibilities for human-like intelligence. I agree that humans are not a particularly robust species (due to the bottleneck that hit us about 60,000 years ago) -- a modern example is the decimation of American Indian civilization after the introduction of smallpox, measles etc. -- and that's why I think we'll have to do it ourselves. But let's not get too depressed here: you won't be missed |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You are right, Karen. Don't ever sell roaches short. The only living things found within ten miles of ground zero in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were cockroaches....go figure!  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I wish I had time to play, today. It seems I was also right about the plumbing wall in our home as well though. sighs, shrugs, and groans... I'm gonna go mop somethin'.  I'll be following with interest, though. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are good examples of Nature's resilience. Chernobyl, too. But what I really wanted to get to was the idea that seeing ourselves as apes puts our achievements in a more optimistic light. Oh well. On the bright side, we have now eradicated another scourge: 1. Small pox 2. Rinderpest(a disease similar to measles that infects cattle) |
||
Mysteria 
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
And thank goodness I won't live long enough to be around rodents! |
||
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597 |
Uncas, your generalizations leave me wondering what you mean. Why concentrate on a dead branch of the evolutionary tree Brad? In terms of major evolutionary changes humans and primates are about as likely to 'evolve' as crocodiles, wouldn't it be more interesting to try to work out what's likely to replace us as the dominant species now that our evolving days are over? Curious. What makes an evolutionary branch dead? What is a major evolutionary change? Why are our evolving days over? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Krawdad, quote: Apart from the obvious - when a species is out competed by a competitor - two things: The achievement of an almost ideal state for any given niche. Examples of these would be crocodiles, sharks and cephalopods. Evolution is driven by the natural selection of one body type over the other based on the ability of the new shape or type to outcompete the incumbent type. At some point though an ideal is reached - the shark isn't called 'the perfect killing machine' for nothing and it's hard to improve on perfection. At that point natural selection tends to stall, or to be more precise the incumbent tends to outcompete any possible challenger. What you end up with is a body type with minor evolutionary changes, more teeth, increase or reduction in size etc. etc. but the basic form stays the same. The second reason is that, in my opinion, hybridisation is more important to speciation (a major evolutionary change) than most people would think. Dawkins argues that evolution is a continuing steady process; Gould argued that the fossil record doesn't reflect that and that a state of punctuated equilibrium better fits the evidence. I think that they're both right but that they've missed an important evolutionary trick. Minor evolutionary change, called microevolution, occurs continuously, sharks over time get bigger or smaller, evolve sharper teeth or even less teeth dependent on the requirements of the environment. This constant change can, over a very long period, lead to major changes, or macroevolution, that's where the cumulative changes are so great that the animal you end up with looks nothing like its antecedents - it is in fact a new species. Gould noticed however that the fossil record indicates that at several points in the geologic record speciation seems to be accelerated - the Cambrian explosion being one major example, he thought that the mechanism was an increase in the rate of natural selection with micro evolution speeding up leading to macro evolution and speciation. I believe the viability of hybridisation between species is the driving factor during those punctuated events in the normal equilibrium. A species unable to hybridise under those circumstances is, to all intents and purposes, a dead branch. . [This message has been edited by Uncas (07-03-2011 07:59 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Damn it, Uncas. I was on your side until the last two paragraphs. What do you mean by hybridization? Yes, we(humans) can do that. No, except at the bacterial and archael level, I don't see it happening. We are the first species to fight back. Am I wrong? I don't deny the war. I argue that we are making a significant attack. Bacteria will adjust to us, not the other way around. Have a good one! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Krawdad, Well done. I'll let you guys go. Next time, let's go. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: That's not surprising, up to that point I was just regurgitating the generally accepted theory of evolution by natural selection in which hybridisation doesn't play a big role. I think that's a mistake, in my version of evolution hybridisation is critical. quote: I mean a mating of two distinct animals to create a third, and equally distinct, animal type. Think Donkey - Horse - Mule. And before anyone plays the sterility card - don't - sterility in mules is the norm due to the resulting odd number of chromosomes in the offspring, but it's not unknown for exceptions to occur. The fact that it is the norm is very very important too though. Hybridisation can only occur between two animals that are relatively close on the evolutionary tree, the further apart they are the less likely it is for hybridisation to occur. Horse's and Donkeys are close enough to hybridise, so are camels and llamas and, theoretically humans and higher primates. In the first two cases the offspring, if able to reproduce, could compete with their parents and, depending on environmental force, could actually gain dominance. That's highly unlikely with a human/primate hybrid - even if the ethical obstacle to actually produce a hybrid was overcome it's unlikely that the offspring could usurp humans. Our evolutionary branch is dead in that respect. But that isn't true for some species. I believe that there are special cases, like the Cambrian explosion, where Hybridization was/is the driving factor of evolution - cases where random genetic mutation simply can't explain Gould's punctuations of accelerated evolution. In those cases the ability to hybridise is the difference between success and extinction. Bacteria? Interesting that you see the interaction of bacteria and humans as a war Brad given that the number of beneficial bacteria far outweigh the nasty varieties. In fact, humans have such an important symbiotic relationship with bacteria that without them we'd actually struggle to survive. Here's an interesting fact to bore your friends and neighbours with though - the human body contains ten times more bacterial cells than human cells and their ability to evolve is phenomenal - if we are at war with bacteria my money's on them. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Who doubts it? Probably not this man/monkey. http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1692448486035 |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
"They have the numbers; we, the heights" --Thucydides, spoken by the Spartan commander at Thermopylae. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Was that just before Leonidas and the Spartans were annihilated Brad? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
You might like Good Germs, Bad Germs: Health and Survival in a Bacterial World. It is an enlightening book about the human experience with bacteria and learning to understand and get along with them better. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, it's hard to argue with a 4.2-billion-year head start, isn't it? Still I'm not convinced that fatalism in any form is justified yet. The odds are against us, sure, but give us a couple more centuries and see what happens. By the way, that we are symbiotic with bacteria (and viruses) is a good point. I don't see why we can't continue to add to and improve on that symbiosis. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I like this proposal, Ess: quote: The frightening death toll? I'm always a little surprised by the constant fear-mongering here. Are we not in a better position today than we were a hundred years ago? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I'm curious why you would begin such a discussion with anti "creation" videos. Not sure why such a spin was necessary, given that your main idea seems to be that we are evolutionary primates therefore (be optimistic, etc ...) The evolutionary aspect certainly doesn't collide with creationism in it's most basic form ... that God (through whatever mechanism through time) created all things, and made humanity distinct (imago Dei) despite commonality with other animals. Theistic evolutionists believe this no less than Young-Earth creationists, or Old Earth creationists who do not accept the Theory of Common Ancestry. Likewise, atheistic evolutionists, seem to acknowledge the distinction too, the basis of the plea for optimism, or a lauding of evolutionary possibilities. I would say the "creationist" position (at its most basic) is that we are not merely primates, not that we don't share a common biology with apes. Even if one doesn't accept common ancestry, there is the comparable belief that God made us to be more than animals ... but never less than. I myself doubt that the vast array of species evolved from a common simple primitive organism ... But I certainly do not trifle at being called a primate, which is simply a homological category determined by an arbitrary set of characteristics. But we should also keep in mind that there are besetting problems with homology, in establishing lineage. Still, I'm delighted in your optimism, and enthusiasm. Stephen |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Discovery continues to update views on the origins of life. Mono Lake The building blocks of life have been altered. Textbooks are following. The apes are speechless.  I do wish they'd quit sneaking a new hairy beau into the evolutionary family tree. Or they could at least give him a proper name that I can pronounce! Sir Harry Walker the First, or something.I think humans marginalize possibility by being incredible. Seems the separation factor (in itself) promotes more mystery in the form of lesser-evolved answers--How can we be so separate that we are not so separate? The findings in arsenic are compelling and most separating. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
rwood, And disputed. Stephen, Yeah, I do have a kind of guarded optimism and many atheists are also humanists. Our optimism comes from a high regard for reason and science combined with, I think, a strong aesthetic sense of the world around us. I've mentioned this before. Naturalism is not the bone-dry view that everything can be reduced to particles in fields of force. We accept and appreciate the world, we don't accept the necessity of a supernatural cause for it. Still, I wonder if you are as baffled by that as I am by your denial of common descent. Arbitrary homologous structures? Don't forget it's a twin nested hierarchy: morphological and genetic homology. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
