The problem with the Drake Equation?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Another question would be "is intelligence necessarily a 'height' of evolution?"

It could be that intelligence is not necessarily something that makes a species more successful. There are other species on Earth (cockroaches or sharks, for example) that are far more successful as a species than humans.

It may be true that an individual cockroach may not have the evolutionary where-with-all to survive better than a human (I mean, a human shoe can end the survival of an individual cockroach), but as a species cockroaches have been around far longer than humans and are more likely to survive into the future longer than the human evolutionary tree.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Another question would be "is intelligence necessarily a 'height' of evolution?"

Yeah, that's a legitimate question. The way evolution works, every creature living today is at the height of evolution of its particular species. Intelligence of the kind we humans like to think we understand (we don't) has never been an indicator of survival ability.

And then there's artificial intelligence. In the near future, our machines will be evolving like crazy, getting smarter and smarter by the moment. Rather than use humanity as a gauge for what we might expect from an advanced ET civilization, we might be better off looking for signs of artificial superintelligences out there -- or around here. Unfortunately, we're not quite sure that those signs might look like because while our machines might get a whole lot smarter than us in ways we don't understand, we're pretty much just stuck trying to wrap our sad little organic monkey brains around it. We can't go beyond our limited imaginations.

"We can't go beyond our limited imaginations."

Why??

originally posted by: Kashai
"We can't go beyond our limited imaginations."
Why??

We can assume that there are things we don't know. But we don't know what those things are.

a reply to: Blue Shift


Are you suggesting it is impossible to understand these "things"??

If so why exactly do you feel this way?

originally posted by: Kashai
Are you suggesting it is impossible to understand these "things"??

What things?

a reply to: Blue Shift

Things we do not know.

originally posted by: Kashai
Things we do not know.

Like what?

a reply to: Blue Shift

'the way evolution works, every creature living today is at the height of evolution of its particular species."

Why are you assuming that we have today reached a point where we can no longer evolve

What specific data do you have that supports such a position??

a reply to: Kashai

Why are you assuming that we have today reached a point where we can no longer evolve

The statement is factually correct. It does not infer that evolution has stopped.

originally posted by: Kashai
'the way evolution works, every creature living today is at the height of evolution of its particular species."
Why are you assuming that we have today reached a point where we can no longer evolve

Eh. Grammar. We can still evolve. But it's wrong to think that a worm or a shark or an ape is somehow "less evolved" than we are. We all evolved to this point. Whether any species continues to evolve depends on what happens to its environment.

a reply to: Blue Shift


Actually to suggest evolution is solely dependant upon changes. in the environment actually makes very little sense.

It is generally accepted that the chief role of the environment is to act as sieve, favouring suitable genetic combinations and rejecting the less suitable ones. In view of these roles of the environment, which are actually two aspects of the same process, WADDINGTON 1957 alludes it to dual effect of environmental pressure and has also emphasized the fact that it is not the environment alone that plays the role of selection, the individuals particularly animals, also have a choice to select their environment. In the case of non-motile plants, which have to depend upon extrinsic agencies for their dispersal (through seeds etc.), the concept of the choice of the environment by the individual cannot be applied in the same sense. Further it is also established that the environmental natural selection not only results in the elimination of certain combinations, but the environment also induces certain adaptive changes (physiologic or morphologic) to enable the individual to survive in a particular type of set up. Presently, it seems that enough data has accumulated to make it possible to attribute yet another role to environment i. e. its role in the production of variability by affecting the mutational frequencies or by acting on various components of recombination system and gene flow.

©Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Söhne Ges.m.b.H., Horn, Austria, download unter www.biologiezentrum.at
251

3. Mutation It is generally accepted that the basic source of variability, that is so essential for evolution, is mutation. Mutation can be considered at three different levels (1) gene (2) chromosome (3) chromosome set or genome.
3.1. Mutagenic agents Under normal conditions genes mutate at a certain frequency, which is known as the spontaneous mutation rate. The mutation rate is generally increased when the organism is exposed to x-rays, ultraviolet light, mustard gas and some ionizing radiations (GRANT 1963). Treatment with certain chemicals, fertilization with "stale" pollen, mutilation, and the use of long dormant seeds, also increases the mutation rate (TLTRRILL 1940). NICHOLAS 1941 and D'AMATO 1963 have also shown that decrease in germinability with increasing age of seeds is accompanied by progressive increase in chromosome abberations and mutation frequency. Heat definitely increases mutation rate; some types of mutations increase towards extreme low temperatures also (SRB & OWEN 1952).STEFFENSON 1953, 1955 has shown that in Tradescantia, spontaneous breakages increase when medium is deficient in Calcium and Magnesium. Translocation in flowering plants can be produced by means of puterscin, a product of natural decay from oil seeds. ABRAHAM 1965 has shown that decaying organic substances, like compost, cow dung and oil cakes can cause chromosomal and genie changes. Similar changes are also induced by substances like ammonium sulphate, ammonium nitrate, ammonium phosphate and potassium chloride. It is extremely significant that these substances are normally used in agricultural practices and are components of the natural environment.

3.2. Genotypic control of mutation Mutations may be gene controlled (BEADLE 1922, IVES 1950, MCCLINTOCK 1950, 1953). "The genotypic control of mutability would account for some of the characteristic differences that have been found in the spontaneous mutation rates of some of the organisms" (GRANT 1963). MCCLINTOCK 1956 demonstrated the presence of mutation and gene action controlling elements, situated on the chromosome in maize and suggested that "controlling elements are normal components of chromosome complement and that they are responsible for controlling, differentially, the time and type of activity of individual genes". It has been argued that the higher organisms do not normally encounter mustard gas and other mutagenic chemicals in their natural external environment, and the radiation to which they are exposed naturally, is not enough to explain the frequency of mutation. GRANT 1963 has suggested that these organisms "do perhaps come in contact with chemical mutagens of their own making in the internal milieu of the cell".

©Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Söhne Ges.m.b.H., Horn, Austria, download unter www.biologiezentrum

www.zobodat.at...

It basically presents that counsios beinig can alter the process of evolution.

a reply to: Kashai

Seriously it would help with respect to this discussion if you all bothered to look into issues that prove your arguments are actually, meaningless, given current comprehension.

originally posted by: Kashai
Actually to suggest evolution is solely dependant upon changes. in the environment actually makes very little sense.

If you're going to keep adding qualifiers to my simple statements, then I guess I'm done responding. Good job.

a reply to: Blue Shift

In relation to your responses, a qualifier would be that you actually had any real idea as to what you are talking about.

With all due respect, it seems apparent that you do not.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

There is a certain amount of "Keep it simple, stupid" involved in evolution.

I mean, look at bacteria and viruses. Some of the simplest lifeforms known to man, small, and compared with everything larger than they are, very uncomplicated things. And yet, some of the most hardy and survivable critters out there are bacteria and viruses!

I suppose that in a sense, you could describe the difference between intelligent life and all other forms of life, as being that intelligent life can enjoy and consider its existence, whereas other forms of life cannot. Viruses do not have the machinery to enjoy or detest or consider their position in life at all. Human beings not only have that capacity, but believe themselves to be the most capable of it of all Earths creatures.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Now we are getting into complexity theory and could go off on a tangent about Windows bloat.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Starfish is an example but alternatively is a quantitative difference between say the olfactory capacity of an ant compared to a dog.

Animal behaviorists have started to have a larger variety of options to influence unwanted pet behaviors by using synthetic pheromones. Pheromones are chemical substances produced by an animal to serve as a stimulus for behavioral responses in others of the same species. Pheromones are secreted by glands (including anal sacs) and are found in saliva, feces, and urine. Their purpose is to induce specific reactions (behavioral and emotional), including sexual behaviors, aggression, fear-related behaviors, and avoidance reactions.

www.peteducation.com...


Further reading.

answers.yahoo.com...

Evolution happens naturally. There are many instances where we can observe it today. This article on Koko, the gorilla is very interesting because it shows that, even without an epiglottis, other primates may develop the ability to speak. Everything in the universe evolves and changes. I don't know why people find this so unusual - change is necessary for survival.

Apes may be closer to speaking than many scientists think
August 13, 2015 By Chris Barncard

news.wisc.edu...

Koko the gorilla is best known for a lifelong study to teach her a silent form of communication, American Sign Language. But some of the simple sounds she has learned may change the perception that humans are the only primates with the capacity for speech.