Re: Speculation on Future Evolution

Dear Joe, Jim, Peter and Tom,
I'm rather new to this newsgroup but your discussion tempted me to
reply. Firstly I would like too state that I too view life's history as
a tree and most certainly not as a chain (I don't mean to offend but I
fail to understand how an evolutionist could view it otherwise). I will
take this even further and state that I view the history of
technological development as a tree as well. Different of course
because it's branches can influence each other to a much greater
extent, however there is no such thing as a compulsory path, chain or
timeline that has to be followed. Societies skip steps, go into
different directions and can still eventually come up with leading
technology. Nevertheless, I don't think this is at relevant for Tom's
original post. Whether an organism or device is a link in a chain or a
twig in a bush, how different can life be in the same universe?

In the tree of life several different branches have evolved the eye.
Allthough the insect eye, the fish eye and the mammalian eye are
different in many ways they largely provide an organism the same
information using the same source of light. Will alien life be as
similar as the fish eye is to the mammalian eye or would it be
radically different? Will evolution, at least at some points, develop
the same solution over and over again? Gould wrote that if the tree of
life would be replanted it wouldn't grow the same tree. I agree that it
would be highly improbable the Dutch would lose again from the Germans
in a new 1974 World Cup (and I hope we won't this year). Things would
not be that similar. But how different can life on other planets be?
Assuming the most basic of assumptions in the sense of movement,
producing energy, sensing the environment etc. it is diffucult to
envisage completly different 'solutions'. Sensors will be on the front,
information processing will be close to the sensors. How many
variations are there in ways to move on earth? Not that many. Could
there be different ways? Will the collecting of food and evasion of
predators not lead to the same basic emotions?

Those are not only interesting questions by itself but also lead to
insight in eartly evolution even if we will forever be alone in the
universe.

I look forward to your reply,
Bram Heerebout


JoeSP wrote:
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e76hoh$m0o$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e71e12$1arq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<TomHendricks474@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e6v5gi$6bb$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Define this 'great chain of being' concept.

Basically, it is the notion that evolution is line-like rather than
tree-like, with humans farthest along the line. But the other species
in line behind us are destined to evolve into something like us, as
we proceed to evolve (extending the line) into something better.
You can find more info about the concept by Googling.


I strongly disagree with the linear model for evolution, as do most
evolutionists, I believe. It implies a sort of hierarchy, which follows no
objective criteria that I could identify. Complexity in itself is not a
hierarchy, because often simplicity is a greater advantage. Check out the
numbers of simpler organisms vs. complex and tell me which ones have the
greater survival advantage. I suspect the cockroaches stand a better chance
than mammals of surviving a global holocaust, and some prokaryotes could
probably survive anything short of our planet falling into the sun.


.

Loading