I wonder if that can be seen as double spliffs... For 2x the effect. 
Essentially, that's the definition of evolution, isn't it? If that is the definition, then doesn't increasing organism complexity obviously convey some advantage in replication?
Last edited:
No worries, the believers won't bother to view anything like this. This is another version of the "blinking" out of focus triangle. I never realized that some amateur astronomer identified the star pattern in the background and the several other triangles that were actually out of focus bright stars. This guy covered this from every angle.
Am I wrong in assuming this video is from more highly trained navy observers?
Last edited:
Not at all. Bacteria have a number of advantages multicellular life lacks.
They can theoretically live forever due to how their genetic material is arranged and they can exchange advantageous traits with other bacteria which are not necessarily closely related to them like immunity to toxins and things like that.
So, then, doesn't the main question still remain? Why did more complex life evolve in the first place, and a long varied progression of it at that, spanning, viruses to human beings? The fact that some very basic forms of life not only survive, but thrive to this day, seems to only beg the question more. If the most simple forms of life still well succeed, why did so many more complex life forms ever develop? What about them being more complex assisted their replication? Greater complexity would, rather, seem to impede replication, wouldn't it?
I find this question more compelling : why are we the only species that need artificial means like clothing to survive and what possible revolutionary mechanics would cause humans to lose their survival gear like full body hair ?
Viruses are not complex at all, they are as simple as it gets.
Sometimes cooperation gives an advantage but it is horrendously difficult to get there in the first place which is why for 85% of the time life existed on our planet it was restricted to single cell beings. There is no reason to assume that other life on other planets jumps that hurdle at all. There is a lot that can happen to a planet in over 3 billion years which might put a stop to that happening.
Again there is no aim to evolution, only because life exists does not mean by any stretch that multicellular life is inevitable.
Sometimes cooperation gives an advantage but it is horrendously difficult to get there in the first place which is why for 85% of the time life existed on our planet it was restricted to single cell beings. There is no reason to assume that other life on other planets jumps that hurdle at all. There is a lot that can happen to a planet in over 3 billion years which might put a stop to that happening.
Again there is no aim to evolution, only because life exists does not mean by any stretch that multicellular life is inevitable.
Our oldest hunting method which relies on being bipedal and the ability to sweat?
Who knows, it's very unpredictable, Stay calm.🙂You find it coincidental, others may find it differently. So what's next?
Not at all.
To compare 4 levels of intelligence:
* Wifey and I in the last 30 yeas produced only 2 offspring which so far produced only 1 Granddaughter.
A single Mafia Hitman with a humble revolver can get my house rid of Faheys in 10 minutes, for good.
* a couple rats can get 60 offspring in 3 months, and even if you kill 58 of them, a remaining couple, even if siblings, will restart the "rat Factory".
Add to that they have a lot of built in basic intelligence, are fast learners and very well adapted to environment.
* a Moth, boasting of a few neurons only, will typically drop 60000 eggs all over the place during its short few days life, try to stop them (I can´t).
* ZERO intelligence bacteria, fungi and viruses are unstoppable unless full environment becomes unlivable (say above 65C, vacuum conditions, PH well into sulfuric acid or sodium hydroxide levels, being soaked in lye which puts out chlorine, etc.)
So there´s your answer, Intelligence is nice to have, thanks, but not the defining factor.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
we evolved to prosper in a specific environment, so when we moved out of Africa we had to use tools/clothing to increase our odds of survival. Body hair has it’s downsides too, including over heating when we extended our activities from forest to savanna (we learned to walk upright, present less area to sunlight and our cranial blood circulation improved to cool our brains), plus, especially in providing a home for biting parasites which is why other apes have to groom each other communally.
Last edited:
At this point, what may be inevitable is to cross into the zone that's prohibited by the forum rule, the "r" word.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
nothing to do with the r word. Evolution fills every niche with life by trial and error, by it’s own definition it is always exploring. Complexity arrises naturally as a consequence. We are hitting a complexity limit perhaps, and we will invent hybrid wetware + hardware organisms to take the next leap.
Last edited:
Maybe because we are not originated from earth? It's just a hypothesis. 7 Reasons Why Humans May Not Have Come From Earth - YouTube
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
evolution is a branch of science, for those loonies who deny it I have no conversation to engage in, but surely we don’t want to restrict our topics because a particular ‘r’ has an opinion on the matter. We are not debating the reality of evolution here, just how it can explain things.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Which was part of my point.
Nor, to assume that it didn't. There are, what, a trillion star systems in our galaxy alone? Then, we come to find not only that there are Earth like planets, but several which we've identified, so far. Including, one just a few light years away. Yet, somehow, we should, rather, assume that life can not be similarly distributed? Why?
Perhaps not, yet, here we all are, just the same, huh?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.