foodchain

I don’t imagine the task impossible or that no explanation or theory on such exists, its just I think the direction of this thread started to go in the form of a constant for any form of life or specie to make it in regards to evolution, and as far as I know that’s not exactly how natural selection works. Typically the reasons may be similar, such as being able to successfully eat and reproduce, but the means of such I seriously doubt to be twins or exact copies, say crabs to fish, to reptiles to birds. For instance, crocodiles. I would think the means of how that species managed to continue on through time is not the ways in which wasps have managed. It sounds simple to me but I think its one of those simple points that gets lost. I mean can you factor in previous biomes, various ancestors of birds, types that have gone extinct, like the dodo, what doe the fossil record say about density of organic material at any giving time, etc... I have personally never put a great deal of time into understanding why birds in specific managed to make it, so overall as to be specific I am not a great deal of help, I just did not want the question of this thread to go in some direction probably ill to the pursuit of any actually answers. I mean the same question could be asked of human cultures, why do some not make it and what causes change, I don’t know of some air of absolute understanding on that one exists currently either, but it does not prevent it from happening or humans from noticing or for that matter going to route of the dodo, today most likely at our own hands, but hey, its just biology.

Not that I doubt you, I just don’t understand how the shielding works. Does this mean no atoms where present?

So its not that the graviton is in conflict with GR, as much as its just the image of such on a quantum level? As I understand quanta currently, such does not denote solely particles, such as the electron for instance right? It also goes into discrete "packets" of energy such as the photon, but even that has the whole particle wave duality thing going on. My question then is such a relationship somewhat consequently to the reality of other particles, or quanta. I mean if light is not exactly a particle or a wave, could somewhat be said of gravity? I am trying to understand the graviton is all, and for it to have a infinite reach as I understand such mean that it escapes local geometry, or am I using that term wrong? I mean you have to get so close to a body, such as earth, before earths gravity attacks, on that note though, it would mean the local geometry or gravity, or what not is shaped perfectly to every possible point on the earth right? The other aspect then, would be the reaction to gravity and other forms of radiation, or electromagnetism I guess. Last question, I promise, at least for now. Going from what I understand, which is not a whole lot mind you, does this denote gravity, if as treated as a physical body here, has a velocity or speed, similar to the speed of light for instance?

How should I say this, its not that biology is vague its just natural selection. A specie, population of such, individuals in it, from the molecular to physiological level have a biology. This biology and there existence is tied to the ecology, or simply being able to survive in a giving environment. This environment is not the product of one aspect alone, such as being able to eat, which that in itself is most likely a composite of behaviors, etc... Now if you have an event which basically changes the environment of the earth in major, well this is going to resonate in life. The reasons birds made it is probably not just a few issues alone, I mean does coevolution ever cease to exist? and to be honest I don’t know why its actually separated from evolution save for the fact it might make it easier on a human observer. Obviously some life managed to adapt and survive, a lot of life did not though, and to be honest you would also have to look at it from that scale too. Again, its probably not just a simple reason as to the why. I mean a majority of life that has existed is now extinct. How could so much life simply not make it? Even today though we still have a massive amount of biodiversity though.

Well, I read the thread and I have questions. Ok, gravity, its a product of mass curving spacetime. So then, is the graviton a particle that actually "conducts" or "mediates" this effect? Simply put if the graviton as by the standard model is a particle which causes gravity, then its not spacetime curvature from mass causing gravity? Or is the graviton supposed to be gravity for the subatomic realm?

There is data on the subject and here is just a brief link on it. http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/impact/impact.html

Well some event happened that basically in a uniform fashion managed to "shock" quartz into a specific form all over the planet. As for bird survival, well, they would have been able to move more easily in a terrain where food might have become a bit scarce. That’s just one idea I have as to why they might have persisted, I don’t know any factual reasons.

I don’t understand why this particle is put forward as is, does it not run counter to relativity at some level?

I am not absolutely sure but I think that the core of mars is to weak to support any real atmosphere.

Hey, on a side note if light had mass it would become a pretty destructive force maybe?

TO date in this thread I don’t think I have ever stated natural selection is 100% random, to be honest I don’t even know why its a subject at hand, I am talking about "possible" selection mechanisms in a very hypothetical sense. Now obviously not every mutation makes it in life, and the ones that do make it, I mean specifically can such be mapped out as to the why part? I mean you can say natural selection, boom its a sealed deal. I don’t doubt the natural selection part, its just for every specie and I would think even down on the more fine scale of populations such as individuals, its not as a black and white as some math formation would have it, I mean if that were true, well I guess we would just know the future evolution possible of any species on any giving environment on the face of the planet and phylogeny should be so easy to solve taken into every possible aspect of it such as an organisms relationship to its environment. Not that you cant do math, more so in context of population, but for a giving mutation, what if a substitution reaction is involved in it, I mean for every parameter, it just seems a little bit to large for some nifty equation is all, or at least I have not noticed any that can be called anything more then generalities, not that such is bad its just the scope of it all, evolution that is I think is still not fully solved to say the least, or I don’t think many people would be becoming biology majors, or that research in the field would be as active. One of my favorite papers on evolution is evolution induced on microbes in a lab. Each time they would run the cycle with the same amount in regards to population, or at least as close as possible, and overtime with the same variables that induced change, and each time they ran it they got a different result, different results in all different kinds of ways even. Now if you want to keep telling me that I am wrong about everything, that’s fine, but I mean it really makes coming to this thread to post a reply pretty bland and pointless. I mean look at the title of the thread, and what its posted in. Its not as if I am trying to tell everyone this is the way it is, or at least that’s never the way I held it to be. I mean you are not saying anything to me that’s a revelation to be honest, I am trying to be hypothetical here, that’s my main drive for making the thread, to discuss little more then science fiction because it cant be called anything more then such currently. As a side point, its not a thread on reduction. Biophysics is an existing field like biochemistry, but the chemistry alone cant detail how an eagle flies, or what weather they like to fly in. Again its on hypothetical. I don’t see however how a physical system can exist outside of physical laws, so would that be to much reduction?

I am confused as to 100% random. When I think of it such basically implies anything at any giving point. If the universe were to be 100% random all you would have would be something humans would call total chaos. For instance when I flipped a coin, in 100% randomness I doubt to get a coin back if I get anything back at all, I know it sounds rather extreme but to be utterly random applies that to me. Evolution has parameters, physical ones. I think this is why we only share a small percentage different genetically with our closet living ancestors. Then one has to look at time, I mean the T plays a big role in this for one simple reason, it takes so darn long for evolution to occur. If everything really is just energy, that managed to break symmetry if it was at some point all just one thing, like a singularity, which much debate is put into, that also qualifies for us. So basically what you have then is energy evolving. From quarks to cosmopolitan cities managed by mostly hairless apes. Ways to study this would simply be the conservation of energy, I mean how easy does a system encapsulate more energy into a form and how? I tried to go from a conservation of energy standpoint because to me a makes the most sense to start an idea from, and then maybe a hypothesis at some point. In life, if an animal cant get enough energy, typically from food, well it dies. So then is life "over engineered" in this aspect, or typically right at the cusp? What is the visibility of change to an organism in regards to evolution? Mutation would have it as none really, but the mutations that make it of course are not wholly random, maybe mostly but not entirely, I mean a penguin would suggest at least not totally.

If you like to read anything in anthropology, I know I do, you might know about the cultural primitive. Supposedly it does not exist though on my own I look at infants as such really. Anyways it was basically put forward that the cultural primitive would express more our bare nature not so much diluted or altered by culture. Simply put no culture like that existed on earth as such people or really one guy found out. From the molecular, to organs, to whole organisms not much is truly known about a great deal of life. Not to say we don’t know a lot, but a person could spend a lifetime studying insects and still not know everything, and I think I can say this even in the context of a specie. When it comes to humans its the same thing. Now some people might say lets just reprogram our specie, and I would simply say I truly doubt we are in any position to do that overall. Simple day to day competition being what it is, just going out driving lets you see this, or watching television or what not, but the actual separation of what’s purely nature from any possible facets it could have in nurture is or nature vs. nurture is an age old question and debate. I think simply being able to answer that to a point in which you could explain it to a child would be a far better path to take then simply and ultimately blindly attempting to change our gene poop or genome would ever offer currently, and would probably have to be fully answered before any such endeavor could be done successfully. I truly doubt that a specific culture is the product of a specific gene or even a grouping of proteins for that matter alone. TO make it more simple think tanks of scientists from all kinds of different professions have rather difficult time using modern technology even mapping out how more "simple" form of life achieve and control motility.

Probably due to the reality of the subject matter. I imagine if people started making life from "nothing" you might get riots or something occurring out of fear and sorrow or what not. No just playing, one reason maybe simply because the people behind it don’t want to be noticed so much due to restrictions governments might attempt to place on them. I mean the basic building blocks of life where synthesized a long time ago, a guy won a Nobel prize for it then it seemed as if the research dropped off the face of the planet. Most of society already has a hard time buying evolution as it stands, I mean for a while in the states back in our history more so in the south the teaching of such was a criminal offense.

Well, the fact aside that no known environment could produce such, it could exist? I find this weird to think because eventually the atom would become more visible at some point would it not? Being that such does not occur to my knowing even in say a star of some type makes me think its impossible on any reality driven level of practicality, just overall if its totally impossible is what I am wondering. I mean going from the periodic table and simply when reading electron configurations you can see and they of course typically label what this element is most related to, or like. So when where is the limit or roof to it all. I think making massive elements would maybe allow for different degrees of research possibly.

I don’t if I should have posted this here of in a physics one so I will try here first. Going from the periodic table it seems as if you can have more and more in regards to a nucleus and the surrounding shells. Is there a limit to this? Could you have an atom or element with say 2000 protons, or 2500 electrons? It seems going back or getting smaller there is a limit with hydrogen maybe? I just don’t know the upper bounds of it anyone has tried to find out actually. I cant really find anything about this on the net.

There is no way Marx had some perfect objective understanding of the human being, as a result there is no way his system could have ever been a utopia. That being said it does not mean it couldn’t work, I think the same could be said of any organized human social group or setting. That basically humans can persist even in the midst of ignorance. I personally cant stand anything that deals with socialism or communism, and of course if anyone wants to experience such truly in real life all you have to do is join the military!

In a previous post at the end you ended with a more basic tenement of QM, which is down on a QM level things seem not to make sense. Well in my regards at last they make sense enough to persist, as in you don’t have a hydrogen atom seemingly forming anti particles in you and exploding. Though that would make a serious defense mechanism and I hope ants never figure that one out:eek: I should have not used QM in the title as much, as my lack of understanding overall probably produced that. More or less I guess anymore my thread is about the idea of natural selection being something that applies to more then just life, and that via evolution life can come to occupy these states which might be most fit for survival, such as being streamlined for swimming, and the reality that human engineering produced the same result. That such is just basic physics really that being universal laws and such don’t simply switch on and off over time life could come to occupy such states. Basically a quick analogy would to be looking at life sort of like a liquid attempting like a river to make it to the ocean. When the amount of liquid such as a river is attempting to do such in real life, such as river formations in the world, its not complete chance that dictates the path of the water, or such would carve through very dense material as easy as lighter material.

I knew it! JK, but wow, a brave new world.

Another aspect, simple but yet subtle would be the reaction of life to winter, or how about the dependence of life on the sun or the energy or food web. It does not directly play into my previous examples, but it yet applies a very basically physical connection to reality of course. I think I just hate how biology is separated from the physical sciences in America in many education settings, I never really understood that.

So the universe came about so flies could find nutrients and create brood in horse manure? No, just playing, but it all does smack a bit of religion to me. Its purely philosophical to me overall, as in I don’t know how you would actually be able to test it in any possible way scientifically, pretty much like intelligent design. All you can do with it is take anything sciences discovers, any facts that is, and then say its because of this. Also, its pretty well known that the universe was going about well before human life existed. To add on edit. Its pretty selfish also, but it could probably tie into why the earth was the center of a very small universe at one point, its selfish genes I tell you! LoL.

When an antiparticle of a particle collide from what I understand you get a high energy release. So what in the first place allowed for this energy to take on a stable form? For instance if the big bang supplied all the energy in the universe, and such took on form and so on, what allowed for the energy to be encapsulated into form, such as being a quark? Not speaking directly on any forces or such after the fact of formation, just more directly on how the energy was able to take a stable form in the first place.

If I see someone point a gun at me and fire it, is such still purely subjective?

Sorry to cut your post short, I just think adding it all would make my reply post probably use to much memory on a server somewhere. I realize what you are saying, and to be honest I have no real clue as to what I am talking about, that’s why its posted in this particular section here on SFN. I cant fully accept natural selection being 100% random. I think if it were completely random well then who knows what you would get. I know we don’t have a great deal of life outside of earth to compare this to, but we do have a good deal of life on earth to do this with. Natural selection to me basically implies survival of the fittest, where fitness matter is basically ecological. Now we have certain forms of life that persist, or continue to reproduce, survive and radiate. Through this and time we get change, but much of the form can be witnessed still. Such as a common housecat compared to say a lion or a tiger, or the idea of the liver, or blood even. So these structures make it, but why? I would suggest, that its because they can obtain the fitness required, which sounds simple but its they why its fit enough that’s not. Such as my fish example. It has a form that expresses the correct fitness for survival in its ecology. Its not though as if this is something that cannot come about physically, in fact it seems to be as in more relation to human engineering in regards to vessels in the sea one of the most effective and or best forms. In this why is it the best? Uses energy the most efficiently? Allows for higher rates of speed? But a fish only does so much in regards to behavior, compared to say a octopus. In short I cant see it being completely random, not as in choice was made, but that the physiochemical reality of whatever ecology never ceased to have various attributes to it, such as being a liquid in the oceans. The survival of the fittest or natural selection then would have to encompass such, and life to persist or to be the best it can could actually come to occupy such states, such as being aerodynamic.

Well, I have had dreams where I knew I was dreaming, and in which I was actually fully conscious in my dream, thinking about my homework assignment and if I had done in correctly, and also thinking about what I must look like laying there. I have only had a few of those though, and maybe its somewhat like a out of body experience possibly, its just that the conscious mind does not know its actually sleeping and or dreaming.