|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 1, 2023 11:17:23 GMT
Like Mags' post, this also makes sense. But only up to a point. Why would a single cell organism evolve into something that is easier to kill? The single cell organisms on the ocean's floor were much less vulnerable than the fish they evolved into. The gradual 'evolution' into fish seems like counter-evolution more than evolution, if the purpose of evolution is survival. Not all single cell organisms evolved into fish. Single cell organisms still exist. They both fill niches in the habitat and compete with others in their niche not each other. The fish evolved to fill new niches, the surviving single cell organism didn't. Both are successful and have survived. Yes, but would single-cell organisms have continued to survive in those environments if they had not evolved? If the answer is yes, then there must be some other reason than survival for evolution. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 1, 2023 11:21:17 GMT
This is very vague. I am likely killing single cell organisms as i breath in and out. However, i would not be at such a keen advantage vs a group of cells that's also a tiger. But single cell organisms weren't under threat from tigers at the dawn of evolution. There were no tigers or humans. Only single cell organisms. Your answer is from our perspective today. I'm talking about millions of years ago when evolution began. What was achieved by the first evolution? You are asking what evolutionary pressure selected for co-operation between cells? - but note that this contains the assumption that multiclan organisms 'won' and now occupy to the exclusion of single cell. Nothing like this has happened. Similarly, evolutionary pressures created a giraffe's long neck, but not all animals in that environment have long necks. As for evolutionary pressure - I can imagine there might have been environments or opportunities that could only be exploited by co-operation and specialisation. It may be that a single cell is unable to contain the complexity needed to exploit certain types of environment (opportunities) as well as multicellular (or perhaps at all) |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 1, 2023 11:24:48 GMT
Is it though? A bird can eat a slug more easily than a slug can eat a bird. Aren't birds more vulnerable than single cell organisms? Not really. A bird has a wider range of foods it can eat and can escape dangers more easily. The bird has more options. In a forest fire for example the bird has a higher chance of survival because it is more adaptable to new conditions ie it can fly away to an area which is not on fire. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 1, 2023 11:26:02 GMT
This is very vague. I am likely killing single cell organisms as i breath in and out. However, i would not be at such a keen advantage vs a group of cells that's also a tiger. But single cell organisms weren't under threat from tigers at the dawn of evolution. There were no tigers or humans. Only single cell organisms. Your answer is from our perspective today. I'm talking about millions of years ago when evolution began. What was achieved by the first evolution? An advantage over other single cell organisms. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 1, 2023 11:33:23 GMT
Y As for evolutionary pressure - I can imagine there might have been environments or opportunities that could only be exploited by co-operation and specialisation. It may be that a single cell is unable to contain the complexity needed to exploit certain types of environment (opportunities) as well as multicellular (or perhaps at all) Bingo!! Nietzsche criticised Darwin's theory. He said that the driving force behind evolution was not survival, but will to power (a desire to conquer that is inherent in all living things). You have now come down on Nietzsche's side in the argument. While Darwin said evolution occurs to aid survival, Nietzsche said it occurs to enable beings to conquer (evolution allowed fish to become mammals and thus conquer land, a new environment, even though it made them less survival capable). This throws some light on the question of the meaning of life. If we only exist to conquer (it was the driving force that created us through evolution), then life is given meaning by conquering. That was Nietzsche's view, anyhow.* Nietzsche would have advocated conquering the universe through the development of technology that would allow us to make it our habitat, in the way that evolution occurred to make other habitats available to single cell organisms, etc.) I was curious to see if Nietzsche's argument still holds water. From your contributions, it appears that it does. But, as I said, it's more than a hundred years old, and there may have been more recent insights into evolution neither of us is aware of. *Of course, Nietzsche's argument is vulnerable to the fact that an 'ought' can't be derived from an 'is' - just because we are 'conquering beings' doesn't mean we 'ought' to act as such. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 1, 2023 11:45:36 GMT
Y As for evolutionary pressure - I can imagine there might have been environments or opportunities that could only be exploited by co-operation and specialisation. It may be that a single cell is unable to contain the complexity needed to exploit certain types of environment (opportunities) as well as multicellular (or perhaps at all) Bingo!! Nietzsche criticised Darwin's theory. He said that the driving force behind evolution was not survival, but will to power (a desire to conquer that is inherent in all living things). You have now come down on Nietzsche's side in the argument. While Darwin said evolution occurs to aid survival, Nietzsche said it occurs to enable beings to conquer (evolution allowed fish to become mammals and thus conquer land, a new environment, even though it made them less survival capable). This throws some light on the question of the meaning of life. If we only exist to conquer (it was the driving force that created us through evolution), then life is given meaning by conquering. That was Nietzsche's view, anyhow.* Nietzsche would have advocated conquering the universe through the development of technology that would allow us to make it our habitat, in the way that evolution occurred to make other habitats available to single cell organisms, etc.) I was curious to see if Nietzsche's argument still holds water. From your contributions, it appears that it does. But, as I said, it's more than a hundred years old, and there may have been more recent insights into evolution neither of us is aware of. *Of course, Nietzsche's argument is vulnerable to the fact that an 'ought' can't be derived from an 'is' - just because we are 'conquering beings' doesn't mean we 'ought' to act as such. Philosophers evolved into scientists. Nietzsche should have stayed in his lane. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 1, 2023 11:46:09 GMT
Darling, are you sure about this?
Think of the opportunity and exploitation as being like water finding a level in a container. No water molecule knows the shape of the container or wills it filled until the water surface is flat. It's something that happens without intent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 1, 2023 12:44:44 GMT
Darling, are you sure about this? Think of the opportunity and exploitation as being like water finding a level in a container. No water molecule knows the shape of the container or wills it filled until the water surface is flat. It's something that happens without intent. But how? I suppose Nietzsche would say there is some sort of 'force' in all life, something he calls 'will to power'. His is the only rival theory to Darwin's I'm aware of (there may be countless others, for all I know). But of the two, his makes more sense. You have said yourself that it would appear that evolution is driven by a force to exploit new habitats (which is just another way of saying what Nietzsche said when he said the purpose of evolution was to 'conquer new domains') Going to the moon seems like the most natural thing for us to have done as human beings. Going beyond the moon, just as natural. This is entirely consistent with Nietzsche's view of evolution, when he said it's not about survival but exercising as much dominance over the environment as can be achieved. Don't get me wrong. I don't want Nietzsche to be right. As everyone knows, Nazism was guided by Nietzsche's philosophy. Nietzsche said that gaining power and mastery is the meaning of life. He said that evolved species such as human beings would never have moved on from single cell organisms if it were otherwise. The Nazis used this to justify their mastery of their neighbours and the subjection of others. A Nazi 'intellectual' would have said we are just doing what is natural, and those who criticise us would never have evolved from a single cell organism if it weren't for the will to power that drives our Nazi agenda. I still don't understand why single cell organisms evolved into something else in the first place. Is it your view that the first evolution was just a random event caused by something like exposure to radiation? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 1, 2023 16:31:49 GMT
Darling, are you sure about this? Think of the opportunity and exploitation as being like water finding a level in a container. No water molecule knows the shape of the container or wills it filled until the water surface is flat. It's something that happens without intent. You have said yourself that it would appear that evolution is driven by a force to exploit new habitats (which is just another way of saying what Nietzsche said when he said the purpose of evolution was to 'conquer new domains') There is no force directing the exploitation, exploration and novelty (according to the theory). The whole thing is a consequence of statistics. You set off countless quintilians of self replicating robots and cumulative copying errors over generations mean some start behaving in novel ways. Most of those copying errors will mean reduced or removed ability to reproduce, but some will (say) allow different resources to be employed in survival. It looks like conscious (human) exploration and adaption, but it is just the force of numbers, variance and the elimination of failure |
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on May 7, 2023 2:16:40 GMT
One astonishing fact is that the total mass of viruses on our planet far exceeds that of all other life forms. Is it the case that these viruses are one of the driving forces behind evolution?
|
|
|
|
Post by piglet on May 9, 2023 11:46:09 GMT
All very mechanistic, survival of the fittest is wrong. Survival is best achieved through co-operation. Survival of the fittest means all are fighting against each other, not for each other, that is not sustainable. Evolution,? its a school. we all have to pass through. What makes me shudder is what state the students are in at the start. Like, " dont eat each other".
That co-operation is simple yet advanced for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on May 10, 2023 16:46:23 GMT
At last an interesting thread!!
My first thought is the question "are single cell oranisms "life"...or if there were nothing but these on the planet, could you say there was life on earth. Single cell organisms do carry out basic functions which are needed to live.
Which begs the question put earlier, what is life? One answer is the ability to reproduce. So did life begin when the first single cell divided. Or earlier when the cell became self sufficient?
I have no reason to suggest it wasnt a pure random genetic fault event. Or it may have been a response to an environmental event such as a volcano or earthquake which changed the chemical or temperature composition of the water or resulting nutrition.
When a single cell "learns" to divide in these conditions, it it most likely the majority of them will have to adapt too. And once the genes in the cell, estimated to be between 265 and 350, acquire the ability to replicate, you get the first cell divisions.
I THINK that single cell organisms also contain RNA but am happy to be proven wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 10, 2023 17:39:57 GMT
How the basics got going is unknown and subject to a lot of speculation. I can visualize reproduction starting far earlier than complex forms like cells. There is a soup in which a particular chemical compound (a carbon chain) makes a copy of itself out of the surrounding soup - the copy then goes on to do the same
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 10, 2023 17:49:20 GMT
At last an interesting thread!! My first thought is the question "are single cell oranisms "life"...or if there were nothing but these on the planet, could you say there was life on earth. Single cell organisms do carry out basic functions which are needed to live. Which begs the question put earlier, what is life? One answer is the ability to reproduce. So did life begin when the first single cell divided. Or earlier when the cell became self sufficient? I have no reason to suggest it wasnt a pure random genetic fault event. Or it may have been a response to an environmental event such as a volcano or earthquake which changed the chemical or temperature composition of the water or resulting nutrition. When a single cell "learns" to divide in these conditions, it it most likely the majority of them will have to adapt too. And once the genes in the cell, estimated to be between 265 and 350, acquire the ability to replicate, you get the first cell divisions. I THINK that single cell organisms also contain RNA but am happy to be proven wrong. The seven characteristics what makes an organism living are: Environmental responses, cells, change and growth, reproduction, having complex chemistry, and homeostasis and energy processing Sometimes non-living things can portray some of the above characteristics, but a living being consists of all. www.inspiritvr.com/general-bio/introduction-to-biology/characteristics-of-life-study-guideThat's what I was taught in school anyway. |
|
