Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
primitive is probably the wrong word to use. I meant to say specialized to a specific environment.
If you are specialized to an environment and that environment changes. your species will go extinct. The usual outliers are organisms that are able to survive in any environment (bugs, bacteria some water vertebrates, mollusks etc)
Most organisms that have evolved over a short period of time become extinct. The fact that they have evolved simply shows that they needed to change in order to suit the environment thus their predecessors died out.
A good example would be all of our ancestors lol.
look at how many hominid variations we have had over the past 2 million years.
* Homo habilis†
* Homo rudolfensis†
* Homo ergaster†
* Homo georgicus†
* Homo erectus†
* Homo cepranensis†
* Homo antecessor†
* Homo heidelbergensis†
* Homo rhodesiensis†
* Homo neanderthalensis†
* Homo sapiens
o Homo sapiens idaltu†
* Homo floresiensis†
all extinct.
now you can argue semantics here clearly because simply we are seeing variation in the morphology as speciation (we determine that). But essentially that variation means that the ancestral morphology is useless and thus is discontinued (extinction).
Thus the argument (which is valid) states that the organisms that have changed the least over the dawn of organisms are those that are the most successful in surviving.
Why change when you don't need to? This is the definition of a successful species.
There are too many examples to list.
All of those species are primitive.
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
I would think a few tribes would survive and perhaps we could continue on as a primitive sort of society somewhat like the native americans have done for thousands of years. Who knows. I'm not a fortune teller history as shown however that the most primitive species are the ones that survive the longest.
Without knowing when humanity will die as species, you cannot say this and be correct. We could live for the next 100 million years via interstellar colonisation while cockroaches, mosquitoes and dragon flies perish on a dying Earth.
As Spam said,
quote:
Originally posted by Spam
The average westerner would probably die within a month of the destruction of electricity, but there would be a percentage of people that would adapt and survive, and pass those abilities on to their children, just like evolution is supposed to work.
When people get lost in the desert they survive by eating bats or licking the moss from rocks; there are many documented cases of this. People on desert islands build shelters and catch fish et cetera. Humanity can persist even after great disaster.
Spam
Those primitive human-like species went extinct for lacking the exact ability that makes us the more dominate species (Or, like you said, speciation just occurred, and those primitive 'species' were just earlier forms us). We have more intelligence, and as such, can THINK of ways to survive that our natural bodies alone would never be able to handle, and primitive species were unable to think of. We can then pass on that knowledge through the use of language, another one of the key components to our success as a species.
All you need is one scientist to survive, and a couple of people who are good with their hands, and you can jump-start the technological ladder by at least a few thousand years.
As for a super-bug biting us in the ass, even just 5% of the human population still represents 350 MILLION people. If only a small percentage of even just those 350 million people survive the bug, they then pass on that genetic ability to their children, and the species survives. And really, how often to super-bugs REALLY affect the human species? Adaptation is a wonderful ability that only an incredibly small number of species have mastered the way ours has.
Of course, eventually, we'd adapt so much that a human from the future may not be capable of procreating with our own "primitive" forms, and we wouldn't be humans anymore. But hey, isn't that how evolution works?
You forgot frogs in your list of species that haven't changed for millions of years as well. They've maintained their basic anatomical structure since the time of the dinosaurs, yet only now are we seeing a significant drop in their numbers, likely due to their inability to adapt to the current state of the environment. It could be argued that creatures like mosquitoes and cockroaches are successful due to adaptation being unnecessary for the species, since, like you said, they perform incredibly basic functions to necessitate their survival.
But would they be able to adapt if their world changed so significantly that they would have to THINK of a new way to survive? Think about it. The mosquito is just one skin-toughening genetic mutation away from extinction...
Capitalizt
We srsly need to get rid of religion.. It is the only thing holding humanity back now. Even if all the needless deaths from holy wars somehow stop and we don't destroy each other over primitive superstitutions, we are still doomed if a natural disaster hits. Scientific progress is the only thing that can save us from getting hit by a meteor or some other global catastrophe. Praying ain't gonna do it.
Nrg2Nfinit
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
All of those species are primitive.
Don't play semantics with me i corrected myself in my definition in the last post by primitive i meant hasn't really evoloved or has evolved ina limited sense.
All those species that i had listed have morphologically evolved and then become extinct. whos to say homo sapiens sapiens will not do the same?
quote:
Without knowing when humanity will die as species, you cannot say this and be correct. We could live for the next 100 million years via interstellar colonisation while cockroaches, mosquitoes and dragon flies perish on a dying Earth.
All that i am saying is that we are defying the rules of nature and as an organism that is subject towards a very specific environment (see our ancestors and the vast morphological divergences over the past 2 million years) We are doomed to extinction /evolution if we cannot rely on our own devices manufactured to sustain us through environmental change.
Evolution for homo sapiens sapiens is essentially extinction. I personally do not see our species evolving (although this may be argued by others its my personal view) due to our bypassing of natures effect on us.
quote:
As Spam said,
When people get lost in the desert they survive by eating bats or licking the moss from rocks; there are many documented cases of this. People on desert islands build shelters and catch fish et cetera. Humanity can persist even after great disaster.
haha yeah.. sure then they return to normal society DURING THEIR LIFESPAN. Evolution works on the smallest unit being the population. Not the individual. Have there been documented cases of people in a plane crash mating reproducing kids who have reproduced kids for several generations? Nope. Do you think those people that crashed in the andes in isolation would have been able to reproduce and start their own tribe without making contact with the south americans? No.
I am not undermining human capability here but seriously We can't even control our population sustain our environment, live without 5 million different types of food sources (alot of which we have become somewhat dependent on). Do you really think we can outlast the cocroach? They have been doing the same thing they've always been doing for the past several million years. We can't figure out what we're doing tomorrow. The more we specialize the greater our chance for extinction becomes.
This is also assumes that the direction for science doesn't move forward drastically.
Obviously if we turn into a police state using eugenics to develop perfect beings continuously eliminating any genetic defects we may sustain ourselves longer.
I'm just stating the laws of nature and what evolutionary history shows. Could we exist for the next million years? my opinion? not likely. If we can learn to control our species, eliminate defects and faulty offpsring im sure we would stand a better chance. But with things like downsyndrome cancer aids hermaphrodites gays. We probably won't get very far. Then again do you really want to live in such a controlled society?
Domesticated
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Don't play semantics with me i corrected myself in my definition in the last post by primitive i meant hasn't really evoloved or has evolved ina limited sense.
All those species that i had listed have morphologically evolved and then become extinct. whos to say homo sapiens sapiens will not do the same?
Okay, so you corrected yourself by saying: "primitive is probably the wrong word to use. I meant to say specialized to a specific environment." In this sense, human beings are the most impressive species. We live near the North Pole, Antarctica, and can even survive in outer space for short periods of time. Even without advanced technology our species have been able to persist in tough areas (Inuit et cetera). Cockroaches are not nearly as versatile in this sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
All that i am saying is that we are defying the rules of nature and as an organism that is subject towards a very specific environment (see our ancestors and the vast morphological divergences over the past 2 million years) We are doomed to extinction /evolution if we cannot rely on our own devices manufactured to sustain us through environmental change.
I don't think we are subject to a very specific environment. As I just outlined, human beings survive in a geographical area larger than the cockroach, and have been doing so for many centuries without 'manufactured devices'. Roaches can better survive nuclear radiation and will eat anything, but they do not have the intelligence we do. Also, what makes you think that at some point in the future we will be devoid of technological means? A catastrophe/mass force of nature perhaps? This is only one scenario that I proposed, but it may never happen, with humanity continuing to rely on advanced technology for survival. Our technology may also be the key to avoidance or aversion of natural disasters that stupider species cannot implement.
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Evolution for homo sapiens sapiens is essentially extinction. I personally do not see our species evolving (although this may be argued by others its my personal view) due to our bypassing of natures effect on us.
How are we 'bypassing' nature? And how are we no longer evolving? There are many documented changes of human evolution in just the past two centuries, the most obvious being our marked increase in height and the disappearance of ear lobes. Also, I thought you said that the most successful species were those who didn't change over time, like the Tyrannosaurus Rex? If you don't think we're evolving, then surely we should qualify for this too?
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
haha yeah.. sure then they return to normal society DURING THEIR LIFESPAN. Evolution works on the smallest unit being the population. Not the individual. Have there been documented cases of people in a plane crash mating reproducing kids who have reproduced kids for several generations? Nope. Do you think those people that crashed in the andes in isolation would have been able to reproduce and start their own tribe without making contact with the south americans? No.
This was a very simplistic example which I had expected you would understand through common sense, but obviously not. My point is that single humans have been able to survive on their own in desolate areas with no technology or other help. Were some kind of disaster to befall humanity, small groups (say hundreds or a few thousand) living in fertile areas would quickly adapt and learn to live without technology.
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
I am not undermining human capability here but seriously We can't even control our population sustain our environment, live without 5 million different types of food sources (alot of which we have become somewhat dependent on). Do you really think we can outlast the cocroach? They have been doing the same thing they've always been doing for the past several million years. We can't figure out what we're doing tomorrow. The more we specialize the greater our chance for extinction becomes.
Really? So the people in Africa who have subsisted on nothing but rice and water for their whole lives don't count? You're confusing human wants with human needs. Should it be required, a small proportion of the population could easily survive and recover society consisting on a non-manufactured and non-diverse food source.
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Obviously if we turn into a police state using eugenics to develop perfect beings continuously eliminating any genetic defects we may sustain ourselves longer.
I'm just stating the laws of nature and what evolutionary history shows. Could we exist for the next million years? my opinion? not likely. If we can learn to control our species, eliminate defects and faulty offpsring im sure we would stand a better chance. But with things like downsyndrome cancer aids hermaphrodites gays. We probably won't get very far. Then again do you really want to live in such a controlled society?
I don't know what the hell this has to do with the discussion. What do gay people and hermaphrodites have to do with humanity's chances of survival?
Domesticated
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
We srsly need to get rid of religion.. It is the only thing holding humanity back now. Even if all the needless deaths from holy wars somehow stop and we don't destroy each other over primitive superstitutions, we are still doomed if a natural disaster hits. Scientific progress is the only thing that can save us from getting hit by a meteor or some other global catastrophe. Praying ain't gonna do it.
Source?
I have actually read several articles which state that, despite increasing availability of education and a greater number of scientists, the rate of new inventions has slowed down significantly in the past 500 years. I would argue that this is because we now focus on refinement of existing inventions, and that the measurement of what actually qualifies as an invention has changed.
Domesticated
Anyway, the relative chances of human kind surviving into the future isn't really what was originally being debated. The merits of the Drake equation was what I was interested in disputing.
From wikipedia:
quote:
R* = the rate of star creation in our galaxy
Estimated by Drake as 10/year. Latest calculations from NASA and the European Space Agency indicate that the current rate of star formation in our galaxy is about 7 per year.[4]
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
Estimated by Drake as 0.5. It is now known from modern planet searches that at least 30% of sun-like stars have planets[5], and the true proportion may be much higher, since only planets considerably larger than Earth can be detected with current technology.[6] Infra-red surveys of dust discs around young stars imply that 20-60% of sun-like stars may form terrestrial planets.[7]
ne = the average number of planets (satellites may perhaps sometimes be just as good candidates) that can potentially support life per star that has planets
Estimated by Drake as 2. Marcy et al.[6] note that most of the observed planets have very eccentric orbits, or orbit very close to the sun where the temperature is too high for earth-like life. However, several planetary systems that look more solar-system-like are known, such as HD 70642, HD 154345, or Gliese 849. These may well have smaller, as yet unseen, earth-sized planets in their habitable zones. Also, the variety of solar systems that might have habitable zones is not just limited to solar-type stars and earth-sized planets - it is now believed that even tidally locked planets close to red dwarves might have habitable zones, and some of the large planets detected so far could potentially support life - in early 2008, two different research groups concluded that Gliese 581d may possibly be habitable.[8][9] Since about 200 planetary systems are known, this implies ne > 0.005. Lineweaver has also determined that about 10% of star systems in the Galaxy are hospitable to life, by having heavy elements, being far from supernovae and being stable themselves for sufficient time.[10]
NASA's Kepler mission was launched on March 6, 2009. Unlike previous searches, it is sensitive to planets as small as Earth, and with orbital periods as long as a year. If successful, Kepler should provide a much better estimate of the number of planets per star that are found in the habitable zone.
Even if planets are in the habitable zone, however, the number of planets with the right proportion of elements may be difficult to estimate.[11] Also, the Rare Earth hypothesis, which posits that conditions for intelligent life are quite rare, has advanced a set of arguments based on the Drake equation that the number of planets or satellites that could support life is small, and quite possibly limited to Earth alone; in this case, the estimate of ne would be infinitesimal.
fl = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life
Estimated by Drake as 1.
In 2002, Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis (at the University of New South Wales and the Australian Centre for Astrobiology) estimated fl as > 0.13 on planets that have existed for at least one billion years using a statistical argument based on the length of time life took to evolve on Earth.[12]
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
Estimated by Drake as 0.01 based on little or no evidence. This value remains particularly controversial. Pessimists point out that of tens of millions of species on Earth, only one has become intelligent[13] and infer a tiny value for fi. Optimists note the generally increasing complexity of life and conclude that the eventual appearance of intelligence might be inevitable, meaning fi=1. Skeptics point out that the large spread of values in this term and others make all estimates unreliable. (See criticism).
fc = the fraction of the above that are willing and able to communicate
Estimated by Drake as 0.01. There is considerable speculation why a civilization might exist but choose not to communicate, but there is no hard data.
L = the expected lifetime of such a civilization for the period that it can communicate across interstellar space
Estimated by Drake as 10,000 years.
Notice that nearly all the variables are simple guesses. Not even 'educated' guesses, just arbitrary numbers. The equation is bull and we have no way of proving or even estimating whether alien civilisations are likely to die out prior to achieving interstellar travelling capabilities.
we_R_DNA
Gauss
Simply mind-blowing. :eek:
DjWhooCares
quote:
The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has captured a new image of the galaxy NGC 1132 which is most likely to be a cosmic fossil ? the aftermath of an enormous multi-galactic pile-up, where the carnage of collision after collision has built up a brilliant but fuzzy giant elliptical galaxy far outshining typical galaxies.
floyd741
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
We srsly need to get rid of religion..
Amen to that! :stongue:
Sykonee
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
We srsly need to get rid of religion.. It is the only thing holding humanity back now. Even if all the needless deaths from holy wars somehow stop and we don't destroy each other over primitive superstitutions, we are still doomed if a natural disaster hits. Scientific progress is the only thing that can save us from getting hit by a meteor or some other global catastrophe. Praying ain't gonna do it.
So... the advances made by the Islam civilizations during the Dark Ages amount to nothing?
