"If the World Started Over, Would Life Evolve the Same Way?" Topic
33 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the SF Media Message Board Back to the Utter Drivel Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral Science Fiction
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor is fresh back from GenCon, one of the largest gaming conventions in North America.
Current Poll
|
Tango01 | 03 Oct 2014 3:59 p.m. PST |
"In his fourth-floor lab at Harvard University, Michael Desai has created hundreds of identical worlds in order to watch evolution at work. Each of his meticulously controlled environments is home to a separate strain of baker's yeast. Every 12 hours, Desai's robot assistants pluck out the fastest-growing yeast in each world — selecting the fittest to live on — and discard the rest. Desai then monitors the strains as they evolve over the course of 500 generations. His experiment, which other scientists say is unprecedented in scale, seeks to gain insight into a question that has long bedeviled biologists: If we could start the world over again, would life evolve the same way? Original story reprinted with permission from Quanta Magazine, an editorially independent division of SimonsFoundation.org whose mission is to enhance public understanding of science by covering research developments and trends in mathematics and the physical and life sciences.Many biologists argue that it would not, that chance mutations early in the evolutionary journey of a species will profoundly influence its fate. "If you replay the tape of life, you might have one initial mutation that takes you in a totally different direction," Desai said, paraphrasing an idea first put forth by the biologist Stephen Jay Gould in the 1980s. Desai's yeast cells call this belief into question. According to results publishedin Science in June, all of Desai's yeast varieties arrived at roughly the same evolutionary endpoint (as measured by their ability to grow under specific lab conditions) regardless of which precise genetic path each strain took. It's as if 100 New York City taxis agreed to take separate highways in a race to the Pacific Ocean, and 50 hours later they all converged at the Santa Monica pier…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Maddaz111 | 03 Oct 2014 4:10 p.m. PST |
Ah, but survival of the fittest is not the model usually used, the best fitted under changing circumstances, or punctuated disturbed equilibrium, to cite the work by Stephen Jay Gould (wonderful life) And anyway, is 500 generations enough and do all of the earths have the exact same environments? |
wminsing | 03 Oct 2014 4:37 p.m. PST |
Right, this only answers the question of if we restarted history, *and* every single factor was exactly the same as 'our' history, what would life look like? But in such a hypothetical scenario we're assuming that every environmental factor also plays out identically; from every meteorite landing at the 'right' time/place to every raindrop landing exactly where it did 'originally'. But in a realistic version of this scenario (using the term very loosely) it's perhaps not very likely this is how things would play out. And to be fair, the article basically says this at the end (all of the environments are identical), and it IS a very interesting study. Thanks for the link! -Will |
anleiher | 03 Oct 2014 6:36 p.m. PST |
|
StoneMtnMinis | 03 Oct 2014 6:57 p.m. PST |
|
Rod I Robertson | 03 Oct 2014 8:44 p.m. PST |
Templars! Really! Go back to.cloning your sheep. As evolution depends on random chance to occur and no one to date has found scientifically acceptable empirical evidence of a constraining force or 'guiding hand' to moderate random chance, the answer is no. If you could press a cosmic reset button and roll things back 3.8 billion years and if you could wait around another 3.8 billion years to see what resulted from evolution and extinction, you would end up with very different results. This is because adaptation, evolution, speciation,and extinction all depend on chance to occur. Those randomly occurring events which shaped evolution 1.0 would not occur at the right time and in the right place to reproduce the same developmental process, so evolution 2.0 would be very different. While convergent evolution might make somethings appear the same superficially, they would be very different biologically and biochemically. Both internal events like most mutations and external events like the environment's effect on mutations (epigenetic factors) or natural disasters (which alter the environment) determined how evolution progressed. It's like a wargame played twice in succession. Even if all the decisions remain the same, the random factors such as dice rolls or card pulls will alter the outcome of the second game to produce different results. Scientists are not even sure if evolution is driven wholly by genetics, mutations and adaptation. Extinction may be a stronger driver than genetics in the long course of evolution. While there is general and overwhelming agreement in the scientific community that a process of evolution has occurred over the last 3.8 billion years, there are great divisions and spirited debate about the mechanisms which drive evolution and the rate(s) at which evolution occurs. An interesting side bar: Science defines a theory as an explanation of how something occurs based on the results of many experiments. As long as the theory is repeatedly re-validated by experiments which provide empirical data which support that theory, it remains intact. If the empirical data repeatedly contradict the theory then the theory must be amended or abandoned. The evidence in support of evolution is, for the most part, observations of living organisms, fossils, comparative anatomy and comparative genetic testing. Experimentation has been very limited due to the long-term nature of testing such a slow process. Some experiments have been conducted on microscopic organisms, nematodes (worms) and rapidly reproducing small fish, as examples, but these experiments have only supported theories of adaptation and heredity and not the bigger process of evolution. As no one has, as yet, been able to design an experiment which can produce reliable data which supports evolution, in the strictest sense of the word evolution cannot be called a 'theory'. If evolution is not a theory it is belief! Beliefs are based on faith. So scientists and folks of a more religious bent are, at least to date, in the same boat and are closer to each other than either group wishes to admit. Isn't life cool!?! Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Charlie 12 | 03 Oct 2014 8:46 p.m. PST |
'Deus Vult'? I thought we were discussing science, not mythology…. Rod put it best. The variables are so manifest that making any assessment is nigh impossible. And the further out the beginning of the process, the more varied. I'm also a bit skeptical of using only 500 generations. From an evolutionary scale, that's a drop in the bucket. To use the writer's analogy, that's like going from Times Square to the Linclon Tunnel (if that far). Interesting thought problem, though. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 03 Oct 2014 11:34 p.m. PST |
Convergent evolution is my answer. Certain niches exist and the 'best' lifeform to fit that niche will have to have certain characteristics. So the main/major niches will produce similar organisms on the macro scale. Examples? Dolphins and ichthyosaurs look generally similar despite being mammals and reptiles existing millions of years apart. |
MHoxie | 04 Oct 2014 2:58 a.m. PST |
Agree that it's convergent evolution: all the strains sprang from a single parent cell 500 generations ago: descent with modification. Rod Robertson: Theories make predictions that are testable and falsifiable. Beliefs don't follow this stricture -- "Sometimes the magic doesn't work," or "If God wills." There's no litmus test for magic, especially if it can do anything and is directed by a capricious will. |
Rod I Robertson | 04 Oct 2014 4:38 a.m. PST |
MHoxie: Hypotheses make predictions which are testable, not theories. Theories com after the initial round of experiments have provided enough data and analysis to form a general explanation about how a thing or process can be. I am not saying that evolution does not exist and we should replace our notion of it with magic. I am saying that, as of now, we do not have enough empirical data and analysis of data to comfortably call evolution a theory. We just don't know enough about what has been going on and is going on to meet the standard of a theory yet. At best it is a work in progress. Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Legion 4 | 04 Oct 2014 6:33 a.m. PST |
Evolution is believed generally to be based on enviro conditions and the need to survive in those conditions … Who, what, when, which way, etc., how this all happened is still being researched on all fronts and disciplines, etc. … Einstein once said something like it could not be an accident for life to evolve on the planet as it has. But again, God, Gods, aliens, aliens thought to be God(s), etc., etc., etc. … I think the research and study in all these disciplines and others still needs to be continued … and we in our lifetimes will probably never know for sure … |
Davoust | 04 Oct 2014 6:44 a.m. PST |
"Deus Vult'? I thought we were discussing science, not mythology…: Discussing theory….evolution is theory that has not been proved, it can't be proven. Well except with computer models…but how well does that work…not very. Evolution is as much mythology as theism. Both have their backers or fanatics. Aquinas's theory of the uncaused cause is just as probable as Darwin or Dawkin's belief that life began here after aliens seed planted us. And yes Dawkins admitted it to Ben Stein in a documentary I watched. Bottom line, we have theories of how it happened, not facts, and each theory is just as magical as the next. |
capncarp | 04 Oct 2014 7:55 a.m. PST |
Hey, somebody hit the flush button on the first Earth experiment. The next time they may just throw us in the Autoclave. |
etotheipi | 04 Oct 2014 12:00 p.m. PST |
Crap, I hope not. We should have stopped at dinosaurs. |
Weasel | 04 Oct 2014 2:57 p.m. PST |
Davoust – Why would you bring up how life was created on earth, in a discussion about evolution? The two have zero things to do with each other. Evolution is the process by which life changes and diversifies. It has NOTHING to do with how life was created. That is abiogenesis and is completely different. Stein was deliberately misleading his audience. Aliens could have put life on earth AND evolution would account for the subsequent diversification, no problem. Heck, if evolution doesn't exist explain dog breeding. ***** On the topic – It's unlikely that everything would go exactly the same way since the millions of factors could all end up differently. That being said, there's certain forms that end up better suited for survival and procreation, so they'd still end up happening. f.x. we would still have fish most likely, but we wouldn't have the exact same kinds of fish. |
MHoxie | 04 Oct 2014 3:21 p.m. PST |
Theories also make predictions: Newtonian gravity leading to the hunt for the planet Neptune, and general relativity predicting gravitational lensing, for example. Oh, and Newtonian theory's failure to accurately describe the orbital motion of the planet Mercury still illustrates that it's a good theory, as it made a prediction that was falsified. An intelligent "designer" could always diddle around with an experiment, an experimenter's brain, or the laws of physics (on a strictly local basis or otherwise) rendering all conclusions moot. If the theory of evolution by natural selection can make testable predictions of what would be observed in the fossil record, the genetic makeup of living things, and gene frequencies within populations, then it's a theory. link |
Last Hussar | 04 Oct 2014 3:32 p.m. PST |
Newtonian physics put men on the moon, even though it's in the 'wrong place' |
Rod I Robertson | 04 Oct 2014 3:55 p.m. PST |
MHoxie: O.K. I will grant you that theories make predictions but only insofar as they allow new hypotheses to be made and tested to support or refute the theory.It's a semantic distinction so I will concede the point to you. According to your link the third criteria for an idea to be recognized as a theory is:
It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories. Since evolution cannot be verified yet by experimental methods it is arguably not a theory. Digging up and examining fossils or examining animal morphology are not experiments. These acts do provide data but they are not controlled empirical tests with independent and dependent variables. You wrote: If the theory of evolution by natural selection can make testable predictions of what would be observed in the fossil record, the genetic makeup of living things, and gene frequencies within populations, then it's a theory. But that's the problem, evolution can't explain what we see today based on what came before and adaptation/natural selection is only one of the drivers of evolution. A paleontologist examining a Burgess Shale fossil of an early invertebrate cannot use evolution to explain how we have come to have dogs today. The fossil record is incomplete and there is not enough genetic junk-DNA which is not corrupted by accumulated mutations to trace a functional lineage back through time. Most importantly none of the fossils, comparative anatomies or genetic genomes explain how evolution got us to where we are today. Evolution is a description of what we see in nature and the fossil record but it is not yet a workable theory of how long-term development of organisms occurs. This is a great discussion even if it has little to do with miniature wargaming – except it gives figure manufacturers pause to think about how to design their latest dinosaur or mammoth (Shameless fig-leafing here). Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Weasel | 04 Oct 2014 8:03 p.m. PST |
Likely we will never have a perfect understanding of these matters. I mean, look at Astronomy. So much of it is reasoned conjecture based on what observable evidence we do have. We know that animals adapt to conditions around them, we know they can form new species (not able to breed) in relatively short time (biologically speaking) and we know there's been various recognizable transition forms before because we've found their fossils. Hence, so far, all the pieces point to natural selection. If someone comes by and gives a better theory that accounts for all the things we see AND fills in more pieces in a way we can demonstrate then huzzah, we've levelled up as a race. :) |
MHoxie | 05 Oct 2014 2:26 a.m. PST |
Since evolution cannot be verified yet by experimental methods it is arguably not a theory. Digging up and examining fossils or examining animal morphology are not experiments. These acts do provide data but they are not controlled empirical tests with independent and dependent variables. Would you count observations of species evolving into different species as a valid test: link But that's the problem, evolution can't explain what we see today based on what came before and adaptation/natural selection is only one of the drivers of evolution. A paleontologist examining a Burgess Shale fossil of an early invertebrate cannot use evolution to explain how we have come to have dogs today. The fossil record is incomplete and there is not enough genetic junk-DNA which is not corrupted by accumulated mutations to trace a functional lineage back through time. Most importantly none of the fossils, comparative anatomies or genetic genomes explain how evolution got us to where we are today. Evolution is a description of what we see in nature and the fossil record but it is not yet a workable theory of how long-term development of organisms occurs. link link And to link it all back to gaming: link |
Rod I Robertson | 05 Oct 2014 8:19 a.m. PST |
MHoxie: In answer to your very good question, I would call observations of speciation in a controlled experiment a very persuasive first step and depending on how clear the results of the experiments were, good evidence to support the process of evolution being more certainly called a 'theory'. However in the first document you linked to the author had to admit that the great majority of his examples were inferred observations of speciation and not actual observations. The happy and promising exception to this were the "Flush-Crash" experiments which may begin to provide the data to begin giving us insights into the mechanisms and drivers of evolution. But as the results of those experiments are as yet somewhat ambiguous and only partially support a 'theory" of evolution, in my mind, the jury is still out. It is a pity that the web-page has not been updated since 1995 because more recent results would have been conveniently found there. The first link also struggled to deal with the attempt by scientists to agree on the definition of what a species is. All the definitions don't match up and without a definition of what a species is, it is hard to nail down what to look for as speciation. The second and third links which you provided were well documented but fall into the camp of studies which limit the term evolution to a description of what we know about the development of life. The approach taken in these links and many other works on evolution does not and cannot address and explain how and why evolution happens. Thus the notion of evolution becomes an description of a single 3.8 billion year long trial rather than a proper experiment. The confusion and debate about the origins of birds is a good example. Did modern birds develop from proto-birds or reptile-birds? The author of the second link glosses over that debate which still plagues ornithology and paleontology. The development of proto-whales and modern whales around the Sea of Tethys where most of the evidence has been found (modern Pakistan and India) is a more settled case but despite the author's assurances to the contrary there are still big gaps in the fossil record for the development of whales. The case of therapsids and other proto-mammals is also unclear. We are not even sure how these animals reproduced. Were they egg layers or did the have live births? While the very limited fossil record does provide a somewhat clear path from these common ancestors to later reptiles and mammals, the mechanisms by which these changes occurred are unknown to us. The Permian Extinction (PE) in addition to killing off most life on Earth, makes analysis of the mechanisms of evolution difficult because it ended so much development. To argue that the PE caused an explosion of divergent evolution among the survivors which in turn led to the development of reptiles and mammals is problematic because the process had already begun before the PE. The fourth link was very amusing and begs the question of how to make miniatures which can evolve and change? Reverse-memory metals perhaps? In summary, in order to be called a theory a notion or idea must be based on the results of experiments, must be supported by experiments, must explain a process in a relatively complete way and better than previous theories and finally must be able to act as a spring-board to launch new hypotheses which predict and test new outcomes based on that theory. While I believe that evolution explains the natural history of the Earth pretty well, IMO it is not supported by enough empirical data to meet the level of theory yet. Furthermore, the lack of a coherent explanation of the mechanisms of evolution and the drivers which effect the process of evolution is another reason to be reluctant to raise it to the level of a theory for the time being. We are getting close to the point where science can promote evolution to a theory but IMHO we are not quite there yet. Make no mistake that I am promoting any other explanation for natural development for I am not. I am only saying that evolution is a work in progress and until we have have a better understanding of its workings we must be wary of the limits of our knowledge and the limitations of the idea of evolution to explain Life's development on Earth. Finally that was quite a bit of homework you gave me! Thanks, it reactivated RNA loops which have been dormant in my brain for years! Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Zephyr1 | 05 Oct 2014 2:39 p.m. PST |
They shouldn't be messing around with that science stuff. First they'll start with yeast:
Next thing you know, things will get out of control….
|
Rod I Robertson | 05 Oct 2014 4:29 p.m. PST |
Smores! My oh my! I'm gonna gets me somes Graham Crackers and Hersey's Chocolate and just go to town! At'll be somes good eat'in! Bring on dem flame throwers and let's get cook'in! |
OSchmidt | 06 Oct 2014 6:00 a.m. PST |
Dear List An interesting-- and unsolveable question. Speaking generally, there are indications that the blue ball we live on might have been wiped clean twice before and each time a new evolution with completely different biologies evolved. It's tantalizing, but be cannot know for sure. Here we get into the what-If-What-If madness. The easy answer is "no, it would have evolved differently." But what is behind the question is NOT if life would have evolved differently, the question is would "sentient" life have evolved, and more importantly, what would have been the nature of that sentience? One might speculate about the intelligent bees of Tau-Ceti 4, but what we really want to know is not their biology which is more or less "What you see is what you get" but what have they done with it. that is.. Can we recognize each other as sentient, and most important of all. Can we have anything to say to each other. If an alien species is "what you see is what you get" and views all others the same, that is as mere functional creatures of their biology, then there will be little dialogue except that of extermination. On the other hand if an alien species knows that it Is NOT just What you see is what you get, it will strive to seek another. Thus if we were to contact an alien species, or if we could contact a life form from our own planet a billion years hence, it is pointless to view their biology or their innards, and "the language of mathematics" and our science will speak again, WYSIWYG, because all that it is can be gained by inspection. If you really want to tell an alien race about us, play them a symphony, show them a Noh Play, let them see our art, our mythology, our religion, our performance, and us theirs. If the Intelligent bees of Tau Ceti 4 See "Midsummer Night's Dream" and think it is a moving, heart wrenching tragedy, it is no matter. They will be able to see in a metaphorical and intellectual manner issues that are not simply encapsulated entirely by biology or science or mathematics. On the other hand, if they can become obsessed with trying to allow us to see what the color of light is below the red or the violet, then that will be something as well. Sentience is not the ability to make space-ships or view biology, it is the self-awareness to understand "there are more things, Horatio, in this world than are dreamed of in your philosophy." |
Maddaz111 | 06 Oct 2014 6:49 a.m. PST |
Actually discussing fantasy and evolution explains cat women with just a pair of nipples, and reptile women in bikinis.. To move away from the miniatures for a little while, if someone did come up with absolute proof of evolution, it wouldn't prove to people who have faith, that God didn't exist. As someone who believes in evolution, and accepts lots of scientific theories and hypotheses, even though it is impossible to prove with certainty (example explain time). |
OSchmidt | 06 Oct 2014 7:35 a.m. PST |
Dear Maddaz Why does proof of evolution prove God does not exist? Evolution is merely the tool God may have used. Otto |
Patrick Sexton | 06 Oct 2014 8:12 a.m. PST |
I agree with Otto. Evolution does not eliminate God. Nor should it. As to how it works, I would advocate Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. |
Weasel | 06 Oct 2014 9:15 a.m. PST |
That's pretty much the Catholic church stance. I'm not a believer but it seems weird to me to insist that a divine, all-powerful creator would not have created a world that continually adapts and changes. |
Tango01 | 06 Oct 2014 9:53 a.m. PST |
Well, Catholic Churh said that "we were created in the image and likeness of God"… so, if we have here Cats or reptile Women with bobbies… (smile) Amicalement Armand |
OSchmidt | 06 Oct 2014 1:36 p.m. PST |
Dear Weasel The problem is that we really don't know. The dilemma though is that we WANT to know. Therefore we are continually believing and continually discovering, which means we are continually creating, which means that like God, we create- even the Angels can't create. Otto |
Rebelyell2006 | 06 Oct 2014 6:03 p.m. PST |
Why does proof of evolution prove God does not exist? It doesn't, but it does disprove much of the Christian creation mythology. It does not disprove the existence of their God, but it also does not prove that he exists. I have to agree with wminsing. There's no telling what could happen over the course of a few billion years, and perhaps the right meteor strike could knock the earth out of orbit, killing whatever life may be present. Or resulting in a completely different direction for life on the planet. |
GeneralRetreat | 09 Oct 2014 4:38 a.m. PST |
Surely we should be referring to gods and not just God |
|