|
pothead_bob
Resident Pothead


Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: Hematite]
#8688017 - 07/27/08 11:36 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
they adapt as a consequence of evolution
If they are adapting, instead of not adapting and growing less able to cope with their environment, then evolution is directed. You don't see species getting less suited to their environemt. It just doesn't happen. You are admitting that through the process of evolution, species adapt to their environment. So evolution results in more adaptation and not less... it's directed.
Quote:
Much of evolution is just a random walk that occasionally encounters something useful
See, I think it's more than occasionally that something useful is developed. The complexity of our bodies and the interdependence of the different kingdoms of life should be a testement to that. Just look at how much life there is and how varied it is. The fungal kingdom uses the animal kingdom's waste and provides nutes for the plant kingdom, which then provides oxygen for the animal kingdom. The different species evolved to use the abundant energy sources. A species wouldn't evovle to use the less abundant energy sources.
I've never thought a lot about the actual mechanics of evolution, but after talking with you guys on this thread, I see that it's the process of certain traits being retained that popped up randomly. But here's the thing, whether the process of evolution somehow deemed these traits acceptable or the environment forced these traits to be carried on makes no difference because in either case only the useful traits were retained by the species. Evolution is progressive.
Quote:
From the point of view of evolving flight, the entire evolutionary history of limbs up to the point where they became functional wings was a random walk
Okay, you do have a good point here. There is no plan to achieve a specific goal. I'd say that makes sense to me. But the basic goal is survival on every level of existence of life and this goal is accomplished by evolution.
In my eyes, though, this is the bottom line. If nothing about the environment changed... food source remains the same, climate remains the same, population remains the same... then evolution wouldn't occur because there would be no reason to. Evolution occurs as a result of certain mutations working better in the new environment. So the organisms that exhibit those traits thrive more, their genes are passed on more and the species eventually adopts that genotype. The bad traits are essentially shit-canned. This is natural selection. If the environment were the same then no changes in genes would ever be adopted because they wouldn't be necessary for the environment.
If there was no goal of evolution, if evolution wasn't progressive, if it was just totally random, then it would be possible for totally unecessary appendages or organs to develop that would serve no purpose in the environment. It would be harmful to the species.
Species don't just evolve their way out of existence, though. The dinosaurs didn't go extinct because they took a wrong path in evolution... they went extinct because of a catostophic event that caused a trememndous enviornmental change. But, while this tremendous environmental changed killed them off, it also caused the life that was left to change and adapt. It directed the course of life on this planet.
My understanding of this process is itself still evolving, but I think DieCommie summed it up really well with his posts. Mutations are random and evolution of traits are directed.
I think I'm rambling at this point, but let me try and sum something up with a question.
Did the ant-eater develop a trunk to eat ants because his other food source had dissapeared? Or did the ant-eater start eating ants because his trunk just randomly developed?
I think that's where our differences of opinion lie.
-------------------- No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge which is itself based upon the mathematical sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519) Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: pothead_bob]
#8688418 - 07/27/08 01:50 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pothead_bob said:
Quote:
they adapt as a consequence of evolution
If they are adapting, instead of not adapting and growing less able to cope with their environment, then evolution is directed. You don't see species getting less suited to their environemt. It just doesn't happen. You are admitting that through the process of evolution, species adapt to their environment. So evolution results in more adaptation and not less... it's directed.
Yes it does, happens all the time.
Whether your talking about new species or new phenotypes, most mutations are undesirable. Most shit dies, that's how evolution works.
Quote:
In my eyes, though, this is the bottom line. If nothing about the environment changed... food source remains the same, climate remains the same, population remains the same... then evolution wouldn't occur because there would be no reason to.
Yes it would. There is always an advantage to be more fit. Some traits don't even have survival advantages, meerly reproductive benifits.
Things like plumes on birds, and all sorts of ornamental shit.
Brightly colored males, et cet.
If anything, many of these are a disadvantage to survival, but they help ensure reproduction.
Quote:
Species don't just evolve their way out of existence, though.
You keep refering to species for some reason. Some fish doesn't get together with other fish and decide to grow legs or lungs, they just do it. Then there are two phenotypes at some point. If the new phenotype out competes the old, the old will die. In this way evolution does work to the disadvantage of most organisms.
Quote:
Did the ant-eater develop a trunk to eat ants because his other food source had dissapeared? Or did the ant-eater start eating ants because his trunk just randomly developed?
He didn't do anything because of something.
People talk about something happening because of some event, but what they really mean is that the random trait was advantageous so it stuck around.
Quote:
I think DieCommie summed it up really well with his posts. Mutations are random and evolution of traits are directed.
I don't know what he means by directed.
Shit that lives lives. Shit that doesn't, dies. That's it.
Since traits are a product of mutations, I can't imagine how you'd say they aren't random.
Don't forget that most traits that develop have no survival advantage.
Yes shit that is around is around cuz the organism can live with it, but that is just a function of the fact that stuff dies.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: johnm214]
#8688450 - 07/27/08 01:58 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
People talk about something happening because of some event,
Right
Quote:
but what they really mean is that the random trait was advantageous so it stuck around.
Whats the difference? The creature was better able to procreate because of events in its environment.
'Something happening because of some event' is how a random trait becomes advantageous.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: DieCommie]
#8688484 - 07/27/08 02:09 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
'Something happening because of some event' is how a random trait becomes advantageous.
It seems to suggest conscious direction.
It seems like people presume the same mutations that comprise the trait wouldn't occur without the environmental niche forming- they would. They may not have a chance to culminate in the final expression of the trait, or an intermediate expression of the trait, but that doesn't mean that the individual mutations don't occur without the environmental change- they just aren't advantageous without the change and thus don't stick around to be combined with other mutations to express the trait more fully.
That's all I'm saying, and I know you agree with all this, so just clarifying what I mean.
I just hear people talking about this stuff like the mutations wouldn't have occured without the environmental advantage, which is false. You just wouldn't get the complex traits cuz the intermediate mutations would result in a disadvantage and the phenotype would die out.
It just seems like sometimes people presume that mutations are generally a good thing, when they are not, or that they occur in response to the environment, which they don't.
I agree with you that the complex traits only devolpe in environments that allow it, just clarifying that the intermediate mutations all occur anyways no matter what the environment, and that stuff dies if its not well-suited.
|
pothead_bob
Resident Pothead


Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: johnm214]
#8688909 - 07/27/08 03:58 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I just hear people talking about this stuff like the mutations wouldn't have occured without the environmental advantage, which is false. You just wouldn't get the complex traits cuz the intermediate mutations would result in a disadvantage and the phenotype would die out.
Which means.... evolution is directed. Only advantageous traits stick around. Undesirable ones do not.
Quote:
You keep refering to species for some reason. Some fish doesn't get together with other fish and decide to grow legs or lungs, they just do it. Then there are two phenotypes at some point. If the new phenotype out competes the old, the old will die. In this way evolution does work to the disadvantage of most organisms.
A species is a biological classification of a taxonomic rank (taken directly from Wikipedia). It's an entire population of individual organisms that are able to breed with one another and produce fertile offspring. It's the production of fertile offspring part that is responsible for the mutations. One species will evolve into another one, or two, or however many species through millions or even billions of small mutations if those mutations cause traits to dissapear from the population or stick around. So how is it not right to talk about species when talking about evolution?
How is it a disadvantage for a poor phenotype to dissapear from a species? That group of similar creatures got rid of the excess baggage - the traits that were detrimental to their existence. How is that not good?
Quote:
Some traits don't even have survival advantages, meerly reproductive benifits.
How is a reproductive benefit not a survival advantage? It may not help the individual organism survive, but it helps the species survive. It ensures, or at least increases the chances, that the creatures in that species will mate. It also increases the chances of the individual organism posessing those reproductive benefits to breed and pass on its genetics, which would include, those reproductive benefits. Eventually, the entire species posses those benefits and the entire species is better off.
Quote:
He didn't do anything because of something
I'm not talking about the ant-eater as an individual organism, I'm talking about all ant-eaters and whatever species they evolved from. I know he, the individual, didn't do anything. Maybe I should've said, why did the species of pre-ant-eaters evolve to have a trunk, thus becoming ant-eaters?
Quote:
Shit that lives lives. Shit that doesn't, dies. That's it.
That's precisley what directed means. But I think you're looking on a very small scale. I think you're saying something like this. A bird, for example, develops a trait (its DNA experiences a slight mutation when this individual bird is created from its parents) that makes it heavier. Because of this it can't fly as well and it dies. Yes, that's bad, but it's also not evolution. It's just a single mutation. Evolution doesn't occur until a trait that is present as a heritable difference becomes more rare or common in an entire population. And when that occurs, it will be a good thing because the trait wouldn't have become more common unless it was beneficial. Likewise, if a trait dissapears in a population, it's also a good thing because it was harmful to the species if it is dissapearing.
-------------------- No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge which is itself based upon the mathematical sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519) Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.
|
Aopocetx
Writer



Registered: 03/20/06
Posts: 2,421
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: pothead_bob]
#8694874 - 07/28/08 09:57 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pothead_bob said:
Quote:
He didn't do anything because of something
I'm not talking about the ant-eater as an individual organism, I'm talking about all ant-eaters and whatever species they evolved from. I know he, the individual, didn't do anything. Maybe I should've said, why did the species of pre-ant-eaters evolve to have a trunk, thus becoming ant-eaters?
There is no answer to WHY, it was random.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: Aopocetx]
#8694927 - 07/28/08 10:05 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There is no answer to WHY, it was random.
Of course there is a why!! The anteater evolved a trunk because of the ants! The ants are the 'why'. Its not random. Imagine the chances that an anteater randomly evolved a trunk and there just happened to be ants in the vicinity... of course that is ridiculous.
This thread explains it toward the end...
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/8652452#Post8652452
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: DieCommie]
#8694995 - 07/28/08 10:21 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Things that seem random, like a dice throw, are only so because of our lack of knowledge about the initial conditions. True randomness however only occurs on small scales (quantum mechanical stuff). Things that occur on a macroscopic scale are based off of cause and effect (so far as we can tell), and all the microscopic randomness gets smoothed over.
|
pothead_bob
Resident Pothead


Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: DieCommie]
#8696245 - 07/29/08 07:33 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, precisley right. It was either the presence of the ants or the abscence of other food sources that caused mutations conducive to eating ants to stick around. If it wasn't beneficial to eat ants, either for lack of ants or abundance of a more nutritious food source, then traits that help the creature eat ants would dissapear from the species.
So, do you still prescribe to the idea that mutations are random or are you suggesting that they may have a reason for occuring?
-------------------- No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge which is itself based upon the mathematical sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519) Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.
Edited by pothead_bob (07/29/08 08:10 AM)
|
delta9
Active Ingredient


Registered: 10/28/04
Posts: 5,390
Loc: California
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: DieCommie]
#8696372 - 07/29/08 08:25 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
It's all random. What lives lives, what doesn't doesn't.
Well arnt the pressures are very specific? Slow gazelle die, fast gazelle live. What gazelle lives or dies is not random. Whether a particular gazelle is born fast or slow is random. But the selection process is not random; it is determined; determined from the pressures of the particular environment.
Precisely. Evolution is definitely directed. In computer science when applying an evolutionary algorithm there is always a fitness function which determines which members of the gene pool are going to get to procreate. Random mutation happens generally after the two zygotes are filtered and joined. The purpose of random mutations is to overcome local maximums/minimums. Evolution is one big optimization problem, abstractly.
-------------------- delta9
|
pothead_bob
Resident Pothead


Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: delta9]
#8696399 - 07/29/08 08:35 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Random mutation happens generally after the two zygotes are filtered and joined. The purpose of random mutations is to overcome local maximums/minimums. Evolution is one big optimization problem, abstractly.
Are you saying that there are mutations that are not random, but instead caused by something in the environment? What I mean is, is there a reason for some mutations? Is the creature or species activley changing to adapt to the environment instead of just adopting random mutations that are superior to others?
-------------------- No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge which is itself based upon the mathematical sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519) Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.
|
delta9
Active Ingredient


Registered: 10/28/04
Posts: 5,390
Loc: California
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: pothead_bob]
#8696556 - 07/29/08 09:19 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pothead_bob said:
Quote:
Random mutation happens generally after the two zygotes are filtered and joined. The purpose of random mutations is to overcome local maximums/minimums. Evolution is one big optimization problem, abstractly.
Are you saying that there are mutations that are not random, but instead caused by something in the environment? What I mean is, is there a reason for some mutations? Is the creature or species activley changing to adapt to the environment instead of just adopting random mutations that are superior to others?
Random mutation happens generally after the two zygotes are filtered and joined -- in evolutionary [computer] algorithms. In nature we have observed mutations occurring at any stage of development due to all kinds of factors (they are more truly random, basically). As far as a single creature and its offspring are concerned a random mutation is just a random mutation; however, as far as the species is concerned it allows it to cover more evolutionary ground, so to speak. A contrived example might be useful here:
Quote:
Completely contrived example states: The population of seltruts living on the Island of Niwrad are unable to travel to other islands because they cannot fly or swim. For generations and generations they breed, becoming great foragers and conservers of scarce food resources on the island. Random mutations are introduced and after a few generations some of the seltruts living nearest the water have offspring that can swim a short distance and hold their breaths under water. This lowers competition on land and allows these mutants to flourish with increased feeding opportunities without competition. Further along, some randomly are born with gills. These can breathe underwater and swim much further, even to other islands...
That's an over simplified and rushed example, but I think it reiterates the point I was trying to make. Without random mutations, they would have stayed forever on the land, stuck in a local maximum of capabilities. With random mutations they have made it off the island, into the water, and eventually to other islands. The space of possible organisms is more quickly searched this way than a linear progression without randomization.
-------------------- delta9
|
Hematite
Newbee



Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 156
Loc: Wisconsin
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: pothead_bob]
#8699553 - 07/29/08 09:17 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I tried to post this earlier but it never showed up.
OK, I see where you're coming from and basically agree. If by "directed" you mean that some traits arise because they are adaptive, that's fine. I have no argument with adaptation. However, I do think that it's important not to overstate the role adaptation has played in evolution, or to underestimate the importance of randomness. I use the word 'important' advisedly. It's actually not at all important that anyone other than evolutionary biologists have a clear understanding of biological evolution, but there is a world view underlying the progressivist/adaptationist misunderstanding of biological evolution that also appears, with practical and bad consequences, in politics and economics. The idea that the world we have and the powers as they currently exist represent a triumph of the most fit should not claim any kind of vindication in biology.
Adaptation does give a direction to evolution, but it does not follow that this direction is something that stretches across evolutionary history, over which organisms have been evolving ever more sophisticated and perfect forms. It's true that present day organisms are more complicated than organisms of 3 billion years ago, but that is a result of diversification, not of directional evolution. Starting out from the simplest organism evolution must produce more complex forms if it is to produce anything, because there is no other direction for it to go. These more complex forms are not necessarily better than their ancestors; more likely they occupy different niches and never come into direct competition with their ancestors, which continue to thrive.
Not only are earth's simplest life forms, the prokaryotes, still with us, but by most reasonable measures (abundance, diversity, biomass, energy production and consumption) they still are the dominant life forms on earth. Eukaryotes (plants, animals, fungi-- organisms with nucleated cells) did not push the prokaryotes out of the way, but set up shop in places where prokaryotes didn't offer any competition. Bacteria can eat granite, something no wildebeest or cockroach ever has or likely ever will be able to do.
The opening of new ecological niches, brought about either by environmental change or a lucky mutation, creates the possibility for adaptation. But the fossil record appears to show that once a niche is opened it quickly is filled, after which there is little evidence that either the diversity or the "adaptiveness" of life in the old niche increases over time, even though particular adaptations and individual 'species' come and go. Mesozoic carnivores probably were just as good as present day carnivores, Mesozoic flyers were just as good as present day flyers, Mesozoic parasites were just as good as modern parasites, and so on.
What evidence there is suggests that which organisms have dominated different parts of the earth at various times over the past 300 million years is almost entirely due to luck, in particular the luck of surviving mass extinctions. For example, synapsids (the group that includes mammals) were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates until mass extinctions in the Triassic gave the reptiles an opening. The first reptiles to become dominant were crocodilians, which suffered their own mass extinction and were replaced by dinosaurs. Then, of course, an astronomical accident wiped out most of the dinosaurs, and the synapsids, in the form of mammals, came back to power. The synapsids did not die out because they were not as well adapted as the reptiles, nor did they return to dominance because they were better adapted. Mammals of the sort that took over from the dinosaurs had been around for 100 million years before the dinosaurs' bad luck gave mammals an opening.
There are many other examples of the outcome of competition being better explained by chance than by adaptation. It used to be thought that placental mammals were adaptively superior to marsupials, and that marsupials survived only on island continents that placental mammals never invaded, like Australia and South America (before the Isthmus of Panama formed). It turns out, however, that placental mammals actually made it to Australia first. Marsupials either arrived later from somewhere else, or evolved later in Australia, and drove the placentals to extinction. The same thing happened in South America. In North America and Eurasia the opposite happened: the placentals won. In modern history there are examples of organisms thriving in environments where they previously had gone extinct, such as horses and primates in North America and placental mammals in Australia. The chances are that pterosaurs would do just fine in the modern skies and ichthyosaurs in the modern ocean, if they had been lucky enough to survive.
There also is a difference between a feature that is adaptive and one that is an adaptation. Features that appeared a long time ago and originally served one function may turn out to be useful for something else later. Features like this are adaptive for, but did not arise as an adaptation to, their current function. Human anatomy is full of examples: opposable thumbs, color vision, an enlarged cerebrum, and binocular vision all are features that evolved long before humans. Each is useful to humans in a way that it was not originally useful, but none of them are adaptations to the human way of life. In some cases adaptation simply is a matter of making the best of a potentially bad mutation: a strange new feature appears that just happens not to be fatal. An example of this might be the asymmetrical bodies of flatfishes (halibuts, founders, soles, etc.).
One of the reasons the role of adaptation in evolution is exaggerated beyond what is supported by evidence is that the difficulty of living and reproducing on earth itself is exaggerated. While there are some dangerous and marginal environments where survival is a challenge, there are many more where life actually is pretty easy and where maladaptations and serious design flaws have persisted for millions or hundreds of millions of years. For example: ovaries that open into the body cavity rather than directly into the fallopian tubes or uterus. which expose vertebrate females (including humans) to lethal ectopic pregnancies and abdominal infections; the close positioning of the excretory and reproductive orifices in vertebrates, which also creates an unnecessary risk of infection, and in males requires a system for suppressing urination while the urethra is being used to transport sperm; the positioning of a capillary bed in front of the retina where it interferes with vision, rather than behind it; the use of the same hole (the mouth) for breathing and eating, which creates the constant risk of choking. My favorite maladaptation is in hawksbill sea turtles, who live on a diet composed mostly of sponges. Sponges are full of spicules, that are like tiny slivers of glass. How has the hawksbill adapted to its diet? It hasn't. It's stomach lining looks exactly like our stomach would look after eating sponges: inflamed, full of embedded spicules and no doubt painful.
If evolution aimed to optimize anatomy, these and other defects could be corrected, as they sometimes are corrected in humans-- by surgeons. The fact is, however, that evolution does not optimize, but give us good enough. There simply isn't enough selective pressure to fix obvious problems because life really isn't so tough. Even with these problems we do just fine.
Finally, even without adaptation there would be evolution. Evolution will occur whenever the genetic makeup of a population differs from that of its parent population. This is a well studied phenomenon in evolutionary biology; there are many ways that it can happen, and many examples of it happening. Any subsample of a larger population will have an average genetic makeup that differs from the average of the larger population. The smaller the subsample, the larger the difference. A trait or gene that is rare in the larger population may by chance turn out to be unusually common in the subsample, and vice versa. An example of this is the prevalence of the gene for Tay-Sachs among French Canadians, a gene that is much rarer in the European ancestors of the French Canadians. In fact, this kind of fragmentation of large populations appears to be necessary for most evolution, adaptive or not.
Sorry for the long winded response.
Cheers.
Edited by Hematite (07/30/08 09:22 AM)
|
Hematite
Newbee



Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 156
Loc: Wisconsin
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: pothead_bob]
#8702051 - 07/30/08 12:34 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pothead_bob said:
A species is a biological classification of a taxonomic rank (taken directly from Wikipedia). It's an entire population of individual organisms that are able to breed with one another and produce fertile offspring. It's the production of fertile offspring part that is responsible for the mutations. One species will evolve into another one, or two, or however many species through millions or even billions of small mutations if those mutations cause traits to dissapear from the population or stick around. So how is it not right to talk about species when talking about evolution?
How is it a disadvantage for a poor phenotype to dissapear from a species? That group of similar creatures got rid of the excess baggage - the traits that were detrimental to their existence. How is that not good?
This is only one of many definitions of 'species.' More specifically, it is the presumptively named 'biological species concept' proposed by Ernst Mayr. However, there are a great many other competing definitions of 'species,' e.g. the mutual recognition species concept, the phylogenetic species concept, etc. The fact is that 'species' has no settled meaning in biology.
There's no disadvantage to a poor phenotype disappear, so long as it is not connected to an advantageous phenotype (as happens, for example, with sickle cell disease and malaria resistance). But many poor phenotypes do persist because they don't cause enough damage to affect reproductive success.
Quote:
pothead_bob said:
Quote:
Some traits don't even have survival advantages, meerly reproductive benifits.
How is a reproductive benefit not a survival advantage? It may not help the individual organism survive, but it helps the species survive. It ensures, or at least increases the chances, that the creatures in that species will mate. It also increases the chances of the individual organism posessing those reproductive benefits to breed and pass on its genetics, which would include, those reproductive benefits. Eventually, the entire species posses those benefits and the entire species is better off.
You're right. Selection almost never works by killing an organism, but by limiting its reproductive success. If this were not true selection probably would have made life impossible, a problem known as 'Haldane's Dilemma.'
Edited by Hematite (07/30/08 12:49 PM)
|
pothead_bob
Resident Pothead


Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: Hematite]
#8716564 - 08/02/08 02:40 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
There may be many different definitions of species, but I was using it in the context that I defined it. That's why I defined it.
Good post, though. I think I buy your logic for the most part.
+5 4 you
-------------------- No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge which is itself based upon the mathematical sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519) Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.
|
umbrellamaker
Intergalactic Sociopath

Registered: 05/03/05
Posts: 573
Loc: Houston TX
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life *DELETED* [Re: pothead_bob]
#8720568 - 08/03/08 05:28 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by umbrellamakerReason for deletion: I wanted to destroy something beautiful
Edited by umbrellamaker (08/04/08 05:12 PM)
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens



Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: umbrellamaker]
#8723340 - 08/04/08 09:36 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I just read OPs post but isn't time dilation relative? for example when someone/something is going near a black hole and passes the event horizon, to the viewer it may take an infinite amount of time for them to be done but for the actual thing passing through it's finite.
--------------------
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Gravitational Time Dilation and Galactic Life [Re: learningtofly]
#8723859 - 08/04/08 11:55 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Right. The OP is applying that concept to evolution. To us, the viewer, a species evolving near the black hole in the galactic center would have less time to evolve. However, by applying the formula it is shown that the effect is negligible unless you are quite close to the black hole.
|
|