How could complex life arise on alien worlds in a manner other than Darwinian natural selection?

File: 156 KB, 960x540, alien world.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 03:23:49 2015 No.7672224 [Reply] [Original]

How could complex life arise on alien worlds in a manner other than Darwinian natural selection?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 03:24:58 2015 No.7672226 >>7672224 God

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 03:26:30 2015 No.7672229

theoretically /x/ tier bullshit where a 'higher power' intelligently designs things and puts it on a world
But extraterrestrials are not deities.
Some nigga from another planet still just some nigga senpai.
So in reality, no way at all probably really, natural selection is how complex life arises.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 03:32:35 2015 No.7672236 >>7672229 Those designers still would have had to originally evolve on their own home world through some kind of gradual explicable means anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 03:34:31 2015 No.7672237 >>7672224 random luck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 03:38:21 2015 No.7672239 >>7672237 Don't be idiotic. The origin of life may be a random event, but evolution is the antithesis of randomness.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 03:45:01 2015 No.7672243 >>7672239 But he's not saying evolution is he.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 04:04:40 2015 No.7672257 >>7672224 >Darwinian popscifag detected

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 04:13:08 2015 No.7672270 >>7672257 Your ilk is the cancer of this board

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 05:00:35 2015 No.7672305

I saw this up here earlier but I didn't bother replying to it, I guess I will now though.

Darwinian evolution is highly dependent on the ability of DNA and RNA to undergo mutations. It may be possible for life to develop through methods other than DNA/RNA. In a system where those random mutations don't occur, Darwinian evolution wouldn't occur.

Another case would be that DNA/RNA is still the composition of life on some foreign planet, but there's not competition for resources or a large variety of life. Maybe there's only one resource, like sunlight, and maybe it's on a planet with a very fickle star that only radiates very little sunlight, and only one type of multicellular life ever even develops, some plant or some other sort of life we don't have on earth that doesn't have to compete with anything else for the survival of its species, since it's the only species.

Even if there were animal-type life, the development of sexual reproduction is kind of a fluke altogether in our earth-life timeline, but is one of the largest players in darwinian evolution. Some form of life that doesn't have to attract mates, compete for resources, or defend itself from defenses that its resources development (this is where most nutrients, spice, flavors come from, which were initially developed to protect the vegetation), probably wouldn't undergo darwinian evolution.

There may be some threshhold at which random evolution builds the complexity needed for darwinian evolution, but i don't fuckin know

this is all assuming life has already arisen though, and your question was how could life arise without darwinian natural selection, which confuses me since it only really comes into play after life has already arisen

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 05:05:40 2015 No.7672312 >>7672226 >tfw there is a God but he created the universe for aliens and doesn't care about humanity at all, we just happened by accident

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 05:06:58 2015 No.7672314 >>7672312 What if the universe created god, and not the other way around???

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 05:41:50 2015 No.7672345 >>7672305 is DNA/RNA likely to form naturally, or is it just one encoding mechanism that happened to arise and be stuck with, and you could imagine many others in theory?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 05:46:58 2015 No.7672350 >>7672305 >question was how could life arise without darwinian natural selection You omitted the word complex. I'm sure microbial life and bacteria are common on planets, but multi-cellular organisms maybe not so much.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 06:07:18 2015 No.7672366 >>7672270 Retard detected.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 06:17:52 2015 No.7672380 >>7672366 You wasted calories to post this. Feel bad. The energy you used would have been wasted in the lines either way though. So you're off the hook on that one, for now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 06:20:29 2015 No.7672383 >>7672345 the miller-uray experiments describe a plausible way in which these structure are formed. so yes it can form naturally

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 06:30:20 2015 No.7672403

>>7672305
for evolution to occur 3 criteria must be met. not in a particular order

1. there must be variation (ie genetic variation and perhaps something we haven't thought of)

2.variation must be correlated with fitness (as in reproductive success) (ie some variations are better than others)

3. there must be a heritable component (ie DNA for us)

it is probably impossible for "life" to exist without Darwinian evolution.

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 06:32:40 2015 No.7672406

>>7672383
er. Well, we know DNA/RNA can form naturally, cause they did. The experiments suggest that those specific molecules are likely to you're saying though, right?
That they're the most likely to form, and other molecules to encode things aren't as likely to form as them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 06:33:19 2015 No.7672408 >>7672305 There is no "random evolution". Chemical reactions are deterministic.

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 06:49:08 2015 No.7672435

>>7672406
yes in the habitable belt of solar systems on terrestrial planets it is likely that DNA will form as the element required are abundant (nitrogen, carbon etc) and reactions in the miller uray experiments can be inferred from photos taken and the use of spectrometry.
also it is possible for "life" to form on planets outside the habitable belt and we aren't able to distinguish it because we only know of our type of life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 06:59:42 2015 No.7672455 >>7672408 Radioactive decay might be deterministic, but let's see you prove it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 07:01:16 2015 No.7672460 >>7672408 there is random evolution it's called random genetic drift.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 07:09:50 2015 No.7672472 >>7672408 >being this autistic

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 20:59:22 2015 No.7673710 >>7672305 What a load of crap

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 21:02:42 2015 No.7673713 >>7672257 Kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 21:19:32 2015 No.7673733 >>7672305 It doesn't matter whether they have DNA or RNA or whatever. As long as life can experiment change in some way, then it will also experiment evolution.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 21:59:40 2015 No.7673805 >>7672224 artificial life that's replaced its creators?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 22:00:42 2015 No.7673809 >>7672224 that astronaut is going to get raped

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 22:08:43 2015 No.7673824 >>7673805 see >>7672236

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 22:40:56 2015 No.7673879 >>7672403 >1. there must be variation (ie genetic variation and perhaps something we haven't thought of) see >>7672305

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 23:14:35 2015 No.7673935 File: 2.98 MB, 220x242, 1349201472574.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7672224 Genetic engineering by a preceding race.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 21 23:19:55 2015 No.7673945 >>7673935 And how did the preceding race evolve you retard Literally the third reply of this thread negates your fag logic

Anonymous Sat Nov 21 23:55:15 2015 No.7674014

>>7673733
Yeah, I agree-- I doubt that DNA/RNA is the only means of mutability, but for the sake of the explanation you responded to, I was just focusing on cases where life arises through non DNA/RNA compositions as potential non-mutability.

Sure the other way may be possible too, it just wasn't too relevant I guess.

>>7672403
I think part 2 isn't always true. It's kind of a constrained evolution then. It's a parameter of the environment. Here on earth, yeah, evolution tends towards fitness and reproductive success, but that's because of -how- our particular case of life depends on its resources and co-evolve with the ecosystem.

But there are plenty of evolved traits that aren't correlated to fitness, like calico patterns in cats. Plenty of traits arose that weren't beneficial or harmful, but were just carried around by the successful anyway.

Remove the component of success and environmental competition and #2 won't apply to general evolution, just darwinian.

imagine some marshy planet where only hydra-like creatures exist, but get all their resources from the atmosphere or from sunlight or something, and there's no shortage of resources or ways of one organism interfering with another organism's retrieval of resources.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 00:04:44 2015 No.7674037

>>7672305
>but there's not competition for resources or a large variety of life

I would say that is impossible. Even in a photosynthesis only environment, the star only gives off a certain amount of energy at certain wavelengths and there is a fixed amount of space, given though time all environments hit carrying capacity at which point competition is inevitable.

>the development of sexual reproduction is kind of a fluke altogether
Given that mutations occur, sexual reproduction is only more varied process then asexual reproduction. The mixing of genes allows for two separate mutations to come together. In asexual reproduction both mutations may happen, but then cannot be shared between separate individuals.

>There may be some threshhold at which random evolution builds the complexity needed for darwinian evolution

Random evolution works until some sort of carrying capacity is met (space, or available energy) at which point competition is inevitable as long as mutation can happen.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 00:05:48 2015 No.7674039 >>7672224 If we try hard enough we can meme it into existence in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 00:09:47 2015 No.7674052 >>7674037 So I guess the question comes to whether complex life can arise before that carrying capacity is met/without meeting that carrying capacity?

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 05:37:45 2015 No.7674426

>>7674014

3 evolution criteria anon here
if their were no variations there would be no evolution as no individual would win and/or lose to other individuals. you cannot have evolution without variation.

all "evolved traits" must have been correlated to fitness otherwise they would not have arisen within a population in the first place.(here is a hypothetical situation) we don't instantly commit suicide at birth as it would lead to a fitness of 0 (selected against), and so non suicidal traits are selected for and so have a fitness of greater than 0 but not past 1. also have you heard of the Darwinian dolt as that may help you understand.

if you remove competition and success it is not evolution of any kind at all if that makes sense?

in a hypothetical world with infinite resources evolution would not occur "there's no shortage of resources" (i kinda don't know where your going with this statement)

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 06:02:09 2015 No.7674456 >>7672239 Evolution is not the antithesis of randomness.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 06:09:18 2015 No.7674466

>>7672224

There's a book called "What would a Martian look like" that tackles this question OP, it has a lot of interesting ideas about evolutionary universals (such as eyes, that evolved separately many times) and evolutionary parochials (such as having a nose above the mouth, which evolved only once) as well as ideas about alternatives to DNA for storing information, considering such oddities as magnetic vortices inside stars as potential "life".

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 06:12:14 2015 No.7674470

>>7672435
I think this raises a big problem with potential alien life. Our definition of life only applies to the type of life on this planet, and even then it's not a particularly strict definition. What if we find something esoteric like a crystalline mineral that grows, reproduces, absorbs other minerals, competes for space, but has no cells or tissues. Then "life" becomes a moot point, maybe we'd have to call it something else.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 06:13:16 2015 No.7674471

>>7674426
I'm a little intoxicated at the moment so I'll re-read and respond properly to this post tomorrow, but the thing I notice that's worth mentioning now is, "There would be no evolution as no individual would win and/or lose to other individuals."

Are you assuming that evolution has a directional attribute of some sort? That it involves the subjects becoming more complex or better-adapted to their environment?

That's a feature of natural selection, but evolution doesn't share that attribute. Evolution is just the change in a species or system over time, even if it isn't for its own good.

Or at least that's how I understand it. I'll point out that I'm looking to further discussion with proposals of ideas, not shut down discussion by proclaiming superior knowledge, which is kind of a common theme around here.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 06:19:58 2015 No.7674480

>>7674426
>in a hypothetical world with infinite resources evolution would not occur "there's no shortage of resources"
Is that correct? In a world with infinite space and resources you'd have no negative selective pressures but there'd still be positive ones i.e. a trait to procure nutrients more efficiently which means more excess resources to produce more offspring. The less efficient organism wouldn't be competed against or die out, but would have fewer offspring than the more efficient ones, and in that way the more efficient ones would become more and more common. It would pay to have the higher efficiency trait (especially since there's no limiting factor on the amount of resources you can procure or the amount of offspring to produce).

That's some kind of evolution, maybe not strictly darwinian.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 06:29:10 2015 No.7674490

>>7674480
What about a situation where, say:

Organisms function off sunlight, and output carbohydrates of some sort, which in turn provides resources for the other organisms? Some sort of case where the more organisms there are, the more resources there are for other organisms?

Couldn't it be possible for an ecosystem to arise where the more organisms are present, the more they sustain the others, rather than competing?

I feel like our earth-life is potentially a special case where life primarily depended on consuming other life for its resources, rather than other life's byproducts.

An analog might be how oxygen breathers and CO2 breathers interact for air resources. Maybe it's not necessary that life on other planets would need nourishment in the form of food like we do on earth?

I don't think that's an unreasonable possibility.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 06:31:13 2015 No.7674495 >>7674480 It would an evolution of population numbers but not of the species itself. Unless we're giving this creature some arbitrary death timer on a world with infinite room and infinite resources

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 06:31:30 2015 No.7674496

>>7674466
>it has a lot of interesting ideas about evolutionary universals (such as eyes, that evolved separately many times)
They've certainly evolved many times, but there are also many branches of life which don't have them. Plants for example are light-sensitive across most of their bodies and have nothing approaching an eye.

So I'd say a more universal factor would be the ability to detect informationally useful bands of the EM spectrum.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 07:04:22 2015 No.7674545

>>7674490
This happens on Earth, there are many organism which don't directly compete with each other and only benefit from increased numbers of others, benign parasites for example.

But in a hypothetical world with no competition, there's no reason a gene for competition couldn't arise. In this situation, a gene for competition would greatly increase fitness since no other organism would have a defence against it. Given time, it's unlikely no competitive genes would never arise.

It'd be like a game theory scenario where everyone always decided to go for the co-operation option, but as soon as someone works out they can take advantage of the others with a competitive option they'll recieve a big boost in success.

So in that way I think competition is pretty universal.

>>7674495
In a world where every ancestor and lineage is still alive, species wouldn't really apply. Positive selection would apply at the level of the offspring, those with the gene for increased efficiency would increase in abundance and so the frequency of the efficiency gene would increase, which is definitely evolution.

It's not darwinian because there's no resource competition or death, but it would be some kind of evolution.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 07:05:35 2015 No.7674549 >>7674545 >Given time, it's unlikely no competitive genes would never arise. I worder that very awkwardly. *Given time, a competitive gene is likely to arise at some point due to chance

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 07:07:07 2015 No.7674552

>>7674471

i also believe evolution is not directional but more of a "chance of fate". by this i mean organism didn't survive with the purpose to survive but instead just happened not to die. so ones that were better at not happening to die were "selected for" (i understand that this is a bit confusing to read but i feel all these double negatives and what not are important)

i believe evolution is change over time. its that in my understanding evolution towards something non beneficial is counter intuitive and so beneficial evolution would be favored.

i like these discussion. though i find it difficult to convey my thoughts in a clear way that cant be misinterpreted as mistakes are easy to make

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 07:15:48 2015 No.7674565

>>7674480
3 ec anon

you cannot have positive selection pressures without negative ones as observers would have nothing to compare these "positive traits". for example if you only observed good things, how would you know they are good things if you have no bad things to compare to. or perhaps bob ross's explanation on dark and light colors will help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugJfjmxOR2I

with your scenarios the negative selection pressure would be the lack of being able to produce more offspring.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 07:19:58 2015 No.7674570

>>7674565
Well, that's more about the wording. All that matters is that one trait would be more successful than another and would change the frequency of genes in the gene pool, which is a basic definition of evolution.

The lack of being able to produce more offspring would be neutral because it's not increasing fitness, but isn't decreasing it in this scenario because there's no chance of extinction.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 07:29:23 2015 No.7674587

>>7674545
>Positive selection would apply at the level of the offspring, those with the gene for increased efficiency would increase in abundance and so the frequency of the efficiency gene would increase, which is definitely evolution.

in a world of infinite resources it would not matter if offspring had better genes because infinity kind of negates everything. If that makes sense?

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 07:39:34 2015 No.7674599

>>7674570
in a world with infinite resources and time it would not matter if any positive traits arose as both parties would continue to consume and reproduce infinity as well. (i think this whole infinite resource situation negates everything like how infinity pretty much negates everything in math. it was a poor scenario to choose considering this.)

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 07:44:44 2015 No.7674601

>>7673945
>>7673824
>>7672236
I don't know if you three are the same person or not but either way all 3 of these posts are retarded.
The OP asked if there was another way life could arise on another planet.
That means another life form putting and controlling life on another planet counts. Doesn't matter where the creator originated its that the life they create is something different.

Not that hard of a concept.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 08:00:21 2015 No.7674614

>>7674587
>>7674599
We were only talking infinite resources right? Of course an infinite amount of time with no death would make everything have infinite population and evolution wouldn't really matter. But with ordinary finite time and finite offspring, genes could still be selected for and gene frequencies would change, which is evolution.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 08:25:02 2015 No.7674634 >>7672229 hmm I wonder what kind of being might one day be capable of intelligently designing something and putting it on a world

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 08:29:27 2015 No.7674638 File: 23 KB, 330x404, jeebus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7672226

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 08:42:43 2015 No.7674657
File: 39 KB, 500x496, gramps.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7672229
I agree, that this is how life arises. Yet certain things could be different. It is most likely that the many different types of life forms that are on this planet would arises on other planets. All types of bugs and reptiles and so on. Then, depending on the conditions, only certain types of life would flourish. Example; a world with a great supply of oxygen would probably be an ideal place for giant bugs to evolve.

There is also the chance that any abundant liquid and corresponding base could react in this way, forming life. Example, liquid methane and a different type of solid to form something like a protein. This would make a very different chemical make up, and would keep their standard temperature much lower, but they will still go through a symmetrical cell division and would probably look a lot like something we can relate too, in my opinion.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 08:46:35 2015 No.7674661
File: 54 KB, 600x600, edge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7674634
We already have that capability. We can alter all DNA right now. We don't know what all of it does yet, but we are the beings that have that capability. Of course we did not create DNA from scratch. Yet, any other creature that could manipulate it would be stupid to not first try and copy and manipulate their own, in my opinion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 09:04:08 2015 No.7674676 >>7674601 This. The OP didn't ask for the universal origin of life.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 09:04:54 2015 No.7674681 >>7672312 that would be awesome anon. Beings created against all odds.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 11:19:36 2015 No.7674872

>>7672224
Perhaps the alien life does not age and is essentially immortal until something kills it.

The species could get away with an extremely low birth rate this way if it has no predators and doesn't have frequent Wars. Perhaps it also doesn't have any drive to reproduce either. It just lives for an extremely long time making small adaptations as the environment changes or technology improves.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 11:59:58 2015 No.7674931 >>7674872 There are actually bacteria living beneath the sea floor with a similar lifestyle. The environment is very nutrient-poor so they metabolize incredibly slowly and only reproduce every few centuries, I think.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 14:19:51 2015 No.7675185 >>7674676 Dumbfuck

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 14:21:34 2015 No.7675188 >>7674601 >literally grasping at straws lol retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 14:25:01 2015 No.7675194 >>7675185 Wow, what a compelling rebuttal. You've changed my outlook on life, anon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 14:27:13 2015 No.7675198 Lamarckian Natural Selection.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 14:28:25 2015 No.7675201 >>7675188 >OP asks how life could arise without evolution >Give theoretical answer to theoretical question >Shitposter misses point, cruises for more excuses to shitpost, rather than contribute to the conversation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 19:32:08 2015 No.7675631 >>7674614 i was under the assumption that time and space were "resources" as organism compete for them in reality. if we are under the assumption that time and/or space aren't, then yes i agree that traits both negative and positive will arise.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 19:36:41 2015 No.7675636 >>7672305 >Some form of life that doesn't have to attract mates, compete for resources, or defend itself from defenses that its resources development so, neets?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 19:39:37 2015 No.7675639 I'm so sick of "Theoretical evolution" threads.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 19:47:03 2015 No.7675649

>>7675198
i guess this is possible considering the hologenome theory and how it has both aspects of Lamarckian and Darwinian aspects. however i believe lamarckism is flawed. the common example used is giraffes and its "want" to grow a long neck. i believe to "want" is something of creatures with consciousness. in the first stages of life when they were but mere molecules how did they "want" and so evolve? it makes partial sense in creatures with consciousness. by saying this it is probably impossible for lamarckian evolution to occur in the primordials of life.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 20:30:25 2015 No.7675706 >>7675639 fuck off then

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 21:17:06 2015 No.7675791 File: 13 KB, 232x185, whoa what.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7672312 >mfw

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 22:07:02 2015 No.7675851 >>7675636 holy fuck did I really type that >Or protect itself from the defenses that its resources develop* As in response to predation, like plants developing corrosive or toxic secretions. Whatever i originally typed makes no fucking sense

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 22:19:06 2015 No.7675871 >>7673935 Only good response to a rhetorical question. Darwinian selection rules all unaltered biospheres.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 22 22:28:48 2015 No.7675889 File: 19 KB, 250x214, 1420417114615.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7675871 >I only have one observable example of life on one single planet >It must be true for all planets

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 22:50:29 2015 No.7675913

>>7672305
I am assuming you mean "Natural Selection" when you mean Darwinian Evolution. Evolution and selection are different things. Evolution is the results of a mechanism. A mechanism being Natural Selection. Evolution for the most part is the change in allele frequencies (at its most base form) and is then influenced by a number of factors. This could be natural selection, genetic drift, mutations, etc. Mutations are just a single mechanism also.

Species is sort of a weird thing to get into because there are so many variable definitions of a species, identifiers that vary based on the life form itself, and when looked at in the long term is very hard to distinguish.

Sexual reproduction wasn't really a fluke as it has a developed lineage throughout a number of different organism types and is able to go from sexual to asexual in short time periods of natural selection acts hard enough on certain organisms. The main thing here is sexual reproduction favors adaptation to variables while non-sexual reproduction favors exploiting non-variable/favorable conditions. You can see this on a break down of genetic diversity and adaptation to disturbances based on a non-sexual vs sexual organism. The sexual organism will have faster adaptation periods with lower luls due to disturbance while nonsexual organisms will have slower adaptation but much more exploitation resulting in greater efficiency.

By the definition of evolution you can have an organism that doesn't undergo it by simply being non-temporal, unable to transmit information in a heritable form, not have genes/alleles (be it dna or some other form) as their data storage configurations, and/or have the capability to modify itself consciously.

As for a threshold for random evolution (not sure what you mean) needed for darwinian evolution (natural selection?) to occur there isn't really. As long as there is mutation on some scale that offers an increase in fitness natural selection will act on it somehow.

Anonymous Sun Nov 22 22:54:00 2015 No.7675919

>>7672224
If you want to be incredibly technical there is one edge case I can think of. Without some kind of proof that abiogenesis alone can *only* result in very simple life, there is an alternative possibility. It's just batshit improbable unless you're looking at a number of planets that can only be conveniently expressed with something like Knuth's up-arrow notation.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 02:10:50 2015 No.7676087

>>7675649
I dont think it would require any thinking want. Just a system where organisms are very very able to change their features as they live, but have these changes be heritable to any offspring they have. Life that operates more on genetics than hard genetics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 02:15:19 2015 No.7676092 >>7675889 No we don't, we have trillions of observable examples. You might as well argue that somewhere in the universe, gravity naturally condenses large objects into cubes because all we have is the evidence from one single solar system.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 02:17:58 2015 No.7676096 >>7672224 looking at the diversity already possible on earth the real question is why would you want it to?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 02:26:39 2015 No.7676107 File: 70 KB, 252x240, 1421451551320.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7676092 >we have trillions of observable examples of life on planets

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 02:36:49 2015 No.7676118 >>7676087 >Just a system where organisms are very very able to change their features as they live if they just change then the ones with better changes would be selected for and so your example would just be a case of darwanism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 02:42:50 2015 No.7676125 >>7673710 Ah, I see your point. You make a good argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 02:47:30 2015 No.7676132 >>7672224 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt3SFJcCjTs Obligatory

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 03:00:35 2015 No.7676152 >>7676107 I guess what he's trying to say is that there are millions of lifeforms on earth. That is more available data than what people realize.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 03:10:03 2015 No.7676160 >>7676152 Irrelevant. All living things are related if you go back far enough. What we need is to study a form of life that has evolved independently from Earth.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 03:43:41 2015 No.7676202

Selective pressures inversely proportional to population growth, although it's still Darwinian however causes devolution of a population over time to be more sustainable for long term survival, examples: viruses not deadly enough to wipe out the entire of its host species, herbivores not efficient enough to breed and wipe out its food source, humans sustainable enough to limit its own population and treat its environment sustainably... Oh wait, well you see what I mean, still Darwinian but hypothesis that the perfect life form is imperfect

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 03:46:45 2015 No.7676207 >>7676092 You've missed the plot. All earth life is essentially the same. Only one kind of life we can observe and its all carbon based.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 03:51:49 2015 No.7676217 >>7676160 What exactly are you calling irrelevant? The only thing we don't have data on is the beginning of life. That is what's truly irrelevant tho the topic we are discussing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 03:56:53 2015 No.7676221 >>7676217 someone failed high school biology

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:06:01 2015 No.7676233

Id just like to point out something that I think is a tease as a nihilistic atheist- In order for life to start where there previously was none, assuming that this new life has some definite life SPAN, It must not simply BE ALIVE ALL OF THE SUDDEN.... but ALSO (miraculously) just you know..... BE ABLE TO REPRODUCE!! Otherwise the life soon becomes non life again and knowbody ever knew it happened. Like how astronomical are the odds right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:16:06 2015 No.7676238 File: 12 KB, 203x200, 1443796383102.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7676233 >as a nihilistic atheist

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:43:59 2015 No.7676259 >>7676238 Why are you like this

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:45:03 2015 No.7676263 >>7676233 It took over three billion years to go from organic compounds and microbial life to cells with nucleus Nearly a third the age of the universe It was everything but all of the sudden.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:45:12 2015 No.7676264 >>7676160 there are a vast number of types of bacteria with no common DNA as in they are not related one bit pls into biology

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 05:06:05 2015 No.7676274 >>7676264 >no common DNA thats because they diverged evolutionarily if you went back far enough you would find the common ancestor

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 05:06:09 2015 No.7676276 >>7676259 Calling yourself a nihilistic atheist is like the gayest most pretentious title you could give yourself. I bet you really do wear a fedora IRL.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 05:08:06 2015 No.7676278 File: 47 KB, 636x848, 1427331622091.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7676264 >implying there was a second genesis

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 05:34:27 2015 No.7676313

lol actually its a short cut. See I usually don't have time to say " Hi guise um like, I don't really think theres a god n stuff. n um like oh yeah and I don't really like.. umm care about anything really." .... id rather use 2 words. Cause words exsist. sweet troll br0

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 05:48:27 2015 No.7676331

Also to the guy who said something on topic, You make a good point. The core point that I'm making is not however that the process was instantaneous, but rather that no link in the entire chain was temporary. We made it far enough to degenerate to the point where reading this shit constitutes our lives as opposed to becoming extinct as an amino acid. Which incidentally would have been vastly less pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 05:58:41 2015 No.7676345 >>7674456 Yes, my dear, it is. Only mutation is random. Selection, and thus evolution is non-random. Please think harder before you post

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 07:00:31 2015 No.7676412 >>7676132 I genuinely believe people like this are mentally ill and should be locked up.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 07:25:51 2015 No.7676437

>>7672312
If there is a god, and we were created as an accidental byproduct, than he must not be omniscient, only extremely intelligent to harness the ability to implement the physical laws on matter.

Most likely we are just an experiment or observation for trans-dimensional beings, just fucking around in a lab or computer simulation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 09:05:59 2015 No.7676537 >>7676092 We have many examples of round planets that we can see in other solar systems. We do not have a single real life example of life anywhere but our own planet. Are you trying to say that evolution depends on having a round planet?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 09:17:00 2015 No.7676546

>>7676313
False. If you truly cared about nothing, you wouldn't be shitposting about it. Being nihilistic or atheist has nothing to do with the thread, or even with your response to it, so take your pretentious faggotry back to class and pay attention to your teachers, so that maybe you won't remain retarded forever.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 09:25:17 2015 No.7676555 >>7676264 But thats wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 09:59:31 2015 No.7676600 >>7672224 Terrestrial seeding. We take the seeds of life and put it on a habitable planet. We let time take over.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:08:53 2015 No.7676611 >>7672224 Darwinian natural selection does not create variations or lifeforms - it only culls and selects them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:19:14 2015 No.7676620 >>7676263 Actually that's wrong, there's evidence of life in the Hadean period. It's just that most our geological records don't go that far back.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:21:18 2015 No.7676624 There could be some astronomically impossible chemical combination that would cause a fully complex lifeform to suddenly appear somewhere in the galaxy. Posted in wrong thread initially. Blox.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:21:30 2015 No.7676625
File: 627 KB, 1500x1491, latest-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What if on the planetary level we were actually the underdogs? Imagine going out to try and colonize space, confident that we're the top dogs in our local area(because we think we're the only ones). As we traverse further we then encounter an alliance of ayyliums that can do everything we do but at a technological level that we could only hope to achieve in several millennia. Then we'd find out that the ayylmaos actually knew of our existence but cast us aside early on because we were "The Forgotten Ones" and that the creator of all things considered us as experiments that horribly succeeded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:24:06 2015 No.7676627 >>7676625 So what if?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:37:59 2015 No.7676643 File: 20 KB, 600x309, fedora8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It couldn't. Evolution is only a theory. Go tip your fedora elsewhere you fucking loser.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:41:52 2015 No.7676649

>>7676643
>life couldn't arise without evolution
>evolution is only a theory
I suggest you read the OP again and then your post.
You're kind of confirming stereotypes about dumb creationists by not reading closely enough or thinking about your post, be more careful in the future

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:43:32 2015 No.7676651 >>7672226 You must be lost, /sci/ deals with reality.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:07:46 2015 No.7676957

Why do we think I used the word nihilistic and not nihilist? To express tendencies. Not totalities. True that absolute nihilism is impossible. As for shit posting whatever that is. This is my second day on the site. I don't usually forum bruh. I was in a weird mood.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:06:29 2015 No.7677058 >>7672224 some kind of lamarkian evolution

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:18:25 2015 No.7677088 >>7676651 see >>7676437

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:29:59 2015 No.7677104 >>7677088 Don't bother he's just edgy for edgy's sake He'll grow up eventually

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:33:30 2015 No.7677113 >>7676957 Newfig

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:39:51 2015 No.7677127 >>7676957 >I'm new and don't know what I'm doing, so let's focus on semantics instead of the bat-shit-crazy, unsupported nonsense I decided to post in a forum about science.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:41:51 2015 No.7677374
File: 254 KB, 1024x768, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

How about through randomness cells emerged.
The sun is very strong and mutate the "dna". Random mutations occur.
But if an animal eats another animal it absorbs the other "dna" and assimilate their body characteristics.
Dont know how possible this is, but can we clasifz it as not darwinism evolution?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:44:00 2015 No.7677378 >>7677374 >But if an animal eats another animal it absorbs the other "dna" and assimilate their body characteristics. Bacteria do this. But a bit more selectively.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 19:35:18 2015 No.7677568 >>7676620 Our geological records do go that far back its just we don't have many hadean rocks to observe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 19:37:02 2015 No.7677572 >>7677058 >>7675198

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 19:43:23 2015 No.7677577 >>7677378 Oh right, didnt thought about that. I had in my mind that its like an amalgame from both animals, not just a sequenz. But i guess it woul only work like our bacteries can do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 23:26:14 2015 No.7677909 >>7677374 Dude just look up the endosymbiotic theory

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 02:37:45 2015 No.7678119 >>7676276 My thought exactly when I read that poat

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math