A Vigorous Exposition of Evolution and its Appositeness for Xenosociobiology

[Carl Sagan]

Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primoridal form, into which life was first breathed...There is grandeur in this view of life...that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple the beginning endless froms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. Charles Darwin.

 

Apply for mere scientific beguilement, this conception to Exobiology.

 

Interested in personal qualm or agreement behind acquired residuums.

[Sisyphus]

Carl! I'm a huge fan of yours. Loved Cosmos, Contact, etc. How'd you rise from the dead, though?

[Nevermore]

Duh. He's CARL SAGAN. Stupid Sisyphus...

[Carl Sagan]

Carl! I'm a huge fan of yours. Loved Cosmos, Contact, etc. How'd you rise from the dead, though?

 

Death--the last sleep? No, it is the final awakening.

Walter Scott

 

Therefore,

 

If man were immortal he could be perfectly sure of seeing the day when everything in which he had trusted should betray his trust, and, in short, of coming eventually to hopeless misery. He would break down, at last, as every good fortune, as every dynasty, as every civilization does. In place of this we have death.

Charles Sanders Peirce

 

To rise from the dead? Have we not all at some point?

[Sayonara]

If you are going to post as "Carl Sagan", please do him the honour of posting threads that both have a point and encourage accessible discussion.

[Carl Sagan]

If you are going to post as "Carl Sagan", please do him the honour of posting threads that both have a point and encourage accessible discussion.

 

You are to be excused for your inability. You are not at fault. However, surely you comprehend that you donot comprehend my composition?

Would it not be better to ask me to elaborate? I am sure logic would suggest the same apporach.

 

Oddly enough, I can not seem to shake the feeling you are one of those people that prove, no matter where you go, you will run into someone negative.

[Sayonara]

I don't feel compelled to play games with you.

[Carl Sagan]

I don't feel compelled to play games with you.

 

Can you please stick to the topic of my thread.

 

I am confident that you can do this. It only requires that you practice self-control. A psychological-evolutionary practice that yields marvelous results.

[Sayonara]

If discussion is your goal, then again I strongly advise that you rephrase the original post so that members will actually know what the topic of your thread is.

 

On a more general note, I also strongly advise against antagonising administrators. In fact, I strongly advise against antagonising any member of staff.

[Carl Sagan]

If discussion is your goal, then again I strongly advise that you rephrase the original post so that members will actually know what the topic of your thread is.

 

On a more general note, I also strongly advise against antagonising administrators. In fact, I strongly advise against antagonising any member of staff.

 

I think you for your constructive criticism.

I am most pleased that you agreed with me on a most logical approach.

 

Simplistically, I am asking, is it reasonable to suggest that through evloution, the governing dynamics of life on Earth may vary on other celestial bodies?

[YT2095]

What "Topic"?

I see nothing "TopicAL" in there.

 

do you know what "Topic" means by definition?

I`m sure you can find this, it requires only that you use a google search with a reasonable internet connection, I`m sure it will reveal Marvelous Results (and fairly quickly too).

[Sayonara]

I think you for your constructive criticism.

I am most pleased that you agreed with me on a most logical approach.

I don't feel that my first and third posts made significantly different requests. Although to be fair I could have said "a visible point", rather than just "a point".

 

Simplistically, I am asking, is it reasonable to suggest that through evloution, the governing dynamics of life on Earth may vary on other celestial bodies?

It depends what you mean by "governing dynamics"?

 

If you mean evolution, then since evolutionary processes per se can be held independent of the actual mechanisms by which they occur, we should accept that the mathematical basis of evolution - at the very least - CAN have a universal presence. This assumes of course that all living systems will work around a principle that we would call "the path of least resistance", and have some form of energetic economics, as Terran life does.

 

However if you refer to the ecological processes and population events that "manage" populations and help to drive the evolutionary adaptations themselves, then it gets a bit more complex.

 

There is another thread running parallel to this one which might (eventually) be worth keeping an eye on:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26208

[Carl Sagan]

What "Topic"?

I see nothing "TopicAL" in there.

 

do you know what "Topic" means by definition?

I`m sure you can find this, it requires only that you use a google search with a reasonable internet connection, I`m sure it will reveal Marvelous Results (and fairly quickly too).

 

The topic is simple. Evolutionary interactions with the cosmos.

 

If you read my second paragraph with competence this would have confronted your conscious.

 

In other words, it is a question.

[Carl Sagan]

What "Topic"?

I see nothing "TopicAL" in there.

 

do you know what "Topic" means by definition?

I`m sure you can find this, it requires only that you use a google search with a reasonable internet connection, I`m sure it will reveal Marvelous Results (and fairly quickly too).

 

I have little time to waste on research that I have personally conducted.

 

I am currently working on my Dissertation for Xenosociobiology and my Thesis for Microbial Ecology at the Center for Microbial Ecology at Michigan State University.

 

I am only interested on my contemporarie's conceptions.

[Carl Sagan]

I don't feel that my first and third posts made significantly different requests. Although to be fair I could have said "a visible point", rather than just "a point".

 

 

It depends what you mean by "governing dynamics"?

 

If you mean evolution, then since evolutionary processes per se can be held independent of the actual mechanisms by which they occur, we should accept that the mathematical basis of evolution - at the very least - CAN have a universal presence. This assumes of course that all living systems will work around a principle that we would call "the path of least resistance", and have some form of energetic economics, as Terran life does.

 

However if you refer to the ecological processes and population events that "manage" populations and help to drive the evolutionary adaptations themselves, then it gets a bit more complex.

 

There is another thread running parallel to this one which might (eventually) be worth keeping an eye on:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26208

 

Thank you, for some odd reason, (most likely because they lack your knowledge) the others avoided the question.

[foodchain]

Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primoridal form, into which life was first breathed...There is grandeur in this view of life...that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple the beginning endless froms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. Charles Darwin.

 

Apply for mere scientific beguilement, this conception to Exobiology.

 

Interested in personal qualm or agreement behind acquired residuums.

 

 

Regardless if you are Carl Sagen or not I will add my two cents in on the subject as I receive it.

 

From what I understand of life on earth, its descendent from a common ancestor, yet the various forms life takes on happen to be vastly different in many regards. Looking at an insect level, or the various dimensions of evolution as I like to look at it, insect life is different, thus its insect. The organism at the molecular to population or ecological level still has to survive though, so looking at life from a fitness to simply survive or persist point of view, I would think that at least that variable would have to be present in life on another planet in some form. So would a different gravity and chemical composition play a huge role? Going from evolution on earth I would have to say so, because such is physical or the reality of life even while the physical and life sciences tend to be segregated. If per say on the surface of Venus, life would have to reach some equilibrium to survive in not only the temperature, but the pressure, and chemical reality of the surface reality on Venus and all its differentiation per say, like maybe its a hundred degrees warmer in some places and inversed in others. I guess the time or lifespan of the life form could also come into play, or maybe some self replicating system of enough complexity to be considered life that exists for maybe five or ten minutes and then reproduces and is off, I think such a gradient though would require vastly low levels of complexity due to replication or transcription processes, but I think such is evident on earth as in more complexity to the organism in an evolutionary sense the slower evolution overall might become due to scope of the organism, say bacteria compared to elephant.

 

Basically the environment as I understand it would have to at some point in the various interactions of matter and energy or physiochemical reality would have to be able to produce possibly some normal oscillation, pattern, or equilibrium of some type that a level of complexity typically present in life on earth for example could sustain itself in. This of course would involve conservation laws, diet, does it move or not and how is motility achieved.

 

I personally rule life out from existing on a star for instance, I don’t think any real complexity could come to exist and sustain in such extremes really compared to say again life on earth, though going from the idea I don’t know how far down when drilling on the earth that microbes for instance persist or happen to be present, and that life on earth has adapted to various extremes ranging from toxic waste to volcanic sea vents to cave systems.

 

There is also a multitude of amino acids and various other chemical realities to look at, but such again tie into the overall physical environment, as I don’t know how many amino acids used by life on earth would be able to sustain on say mars, I guess a form of life could develop some metabolism to safeguard such, or even find a way to use titanium if present as some form of skin, though that’s kind of far fetched but evolution seems to be able to make things work over vary large spans of time, but most massive extinctions on earth seem to be present in abrupt shifts in the environment such as climate.

[Carl Sagan]

Regardless if you are Carl Sagen or not I will add my two cents in on the subject as I receive it.

 

From what I understand of life on earth, its descendent from a common ancestor, yet the various forms life takes on happen to be vastly different in many regards. Looking at an insect level, or the various dimensions of evolution as I like to look at it, insect life is different, thus its insect. The organism at the molecular to population or ecological level still has to survive though, so looking at life from a fitness to simply survive or persist point of view, I would think that at least that variable would have to be present in life on another planet in some form. So would a different gravity and chemical composition play a huge role? Going from evolution on earth I would have to say so, because such is physical or the reality of life even while the physical and life sciences tend to be segregated. If per say on the surface of Venus, life would have to reach some equilibrium to survive in not only the temperature, but the pressure, and chemical reality of the surface reality on Venus and all its differentiation per say, like maybe its a hundred degrees warmer in some places and inversed in others. I guess the time or lifespan of the life form could also come into play, or maybe some self replicating system of enough complexity to be considered life that exists for maybe five or ten minutes and then reproduces and is off, I think such a gradient though would require vastly low levels of complexity due to replication or transcription processes, but I think such is evident on earth as in more complexity to the organism in an evolutionary sense the slower evolution overall might become due to scope of the organism, say bacteria compared to elephant.

 

Basically the environment as I understand it would have to at some point in the various interactions of matter and energy or physiochemical reality would have to be able to produce possibly some normal oscillation, pattern, or equilibrium of some type that a level of complexity typically present in life on earth for example could sustain itself in. This of course would involve conservation laws, diet, does it move or not and how is motility achieved.

 

I personally rule life out from existing on a star for instance, I don’t think any real complexity could come to exist and sustain in such extremes really compared to say again life on earth, though going from the idea I don’t know how far down when drilling on the earth that microbes for instance persist or happen to be present, and that life on earth has adapted to various extremes ranging from toxic waste to volcanic sea vents to cave systems.

 

There is also a multitude of amino acids and various other chemical realities to look at, but such again tie into the overall physical environment, as I don’t know how many amino acids used by life on earth would be able to sustain on say mars, I guess a form of life could develop some metabolism to safeguard such, or even find a way to use titanium if present as some form of skin, though that’s kind of far fetched but evolution seems to be able to make things work over vary large spans of time, but most massive extinctions on earth seem to be present in abrupt shifts in the environment such as climate.

 

Thank You

 

Your insight is well respected. I will use this information to the absolute best of my ability.

[lucaspa]

Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primoridal form, into which life was first breathed...There is grandeur in this view of life...that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple the beginning endless froms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. Charles Darwin.

 

Apply for mere scientific beguilement, this conception to Exobiology.

 

Interested in personal qualm or agreement behind acquired residuums.

 

The exact quote is:

 

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

 

All this shows is that evolution is separate from abiogenesis. Just like gravity assumes the existence of spacetime (since gravity is a warping of spacetime), so evolution assumes the existence of life.

 

Simplistically, I am asking, is it reasonable to suggest that through evloution, the governing dynamics of life on Earth may vary on other celestial bodies?

 

Define "governing dynamics".

 

Chemistry is the same thruout the universe. So the chemical reactions that led to life on earth would, of course, operate in any similar circumstances. And since the range of conditions under which those reactions will happen is very broad, there are going to be a lot of "similar circumstances".

 

Define "through evolution".

 

Natural selection is universal. Wherever you find the circumstances of 1) variation among individuals, 2) more individuals than the environment can support (struggle for existence), and 3) inheritance, then you will find natural selection.

 

So yes, natural selection is going to be designing organisms. Because many design problems have a limited number of design solutions, there will be similarity of designs. For instance, the reason sharks, ichthyosaurs, and dolphins all have the same basic shape is because there is only one basic design for a predator in water. The physics of water and fluid dynamics mean there are a limited number of shapes that will move fast thru water with a minimum of resistance.

 

The reason you have differences in detail is because there are differences in the variations available for natural selection to work from. Thus, dolphins have a modified running motion used for swimming because their ancestors did run.

 

The reason you have homologies is because, when a trait is under 2 or more positive selection pressures, that trait becomes unchangeable. So on another planet you might find quadrupeds (because that is an efficient number of limbs for movement) but the internal arrangement of the bones will be different. There may not be a radius and ulna, but simply a single bone for the lower part of the limb.

[MolotovCocktail]

Hey, if it isn't our friend SOCRATES

link: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25459

[Carl Sagan]

Hey, if it isn't our friend SOCRATES

link: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25459

 

Interesting, with what evidence do you base your theory?

[lucaspa]

I would say the following evidence supports MolotovCocktail's hypothesis:

 

1. Same subject.

2. Same writing style.

3. Ceases posting after Lucaspa posts on chemistry and natural selection.

 

Do you, Carl Sagan, have any evidence falsifying the hypothesis?

[MolotovCocktail]

Also, "Carl Sagan", you and your sock puppets (Yes, I am that confident) never seem to contribute to or discuss any other subject on this forum.

[foodchain]

Interesting, with what evidence do you base your theory?

 

Of course being I study this subject more then others for some bizarre psychological reason I have more to add. I don’t know the exact time or concentrations of certain chemistries geologically speaking on earth, and I think knowing such would be paramount overall. Now just give me a second, I have not tried to see the validity of such, but I sometimes by accident in thought associate gibbs free energy with geological differentiation, I think during the "primordial soup" we have a lot of missing issues that attack directly the topic here, environments that do not exist today moreover.

 

For instance, why is the non metals sections so used? Does this define a base chemistry needed for life regardless of environment, a chemistry required by natural selection in regards to a particular environment, or does the chemistry of life have to equate to the more primordial chemistry of early life, such as the protocell. For instance, carbon and oxygen, you cant just react any element with those. So these questions are giants in my opinion really. I think a big part of it is overcoming the perceptual boundary really from the physical to what is "life" really. The proton gradient in cells is also another point, in which does it only react to a certain sect of say ions for instance, a chemical recognition or such, I think this could even tie into why symmetry is so present in life and even used in mate selection. Supposedly asexual reproduction is less efficient the sexual reproduction, so it all has physical points to study.

 

Now looking at the aspect of metabolism, pathways of such, homeostasis and equilibrium you can draw all kinds of hypothesis, but I fear from the general rate of evolution, more so on a microbiological scale that erosion of any bridges to the truly primitive probably do not exist anymore, so I don’t know how far back current life can truly get you. I am trying to get some good books on prokaryotes currently, because I am interested in symbiotic relationships, the appearance of an immune system and why DNA/RNA happen to exist, but RNA in prokaryotes with a genetic shift to eukaryotes at some point. Maybe as safeguard. I would also like to think detoxification processes and the general set of amino acids in diet are meaningful in this regard to some extent, its all kind of blurry to me as of yet simply from the learning curve. Though I think if you take the three questions I posed earlier that all of this ties into those, and of course none of those currently being able to be answered. Life on mars would be of great benefit to understanding such, as it would give more insight into the chemistry required to sustain life.

 

I would like to see as pollution changes the environment more and more, how this registers in metabolic pathways and notice any changes of rates in regards to evolution. Though I don’t know if the rate of environmental change will be to strenuous for most any life form with any real genetic load or higher degree of complexity really.

[MolotovCocktail]

Interesting, with what evidence do you base your theory?

This was actually a response to my belief that he was another sock puppet of Socrates.

 

For instance' date=' why is the non metals sections so used?

[/quote']

 

I think the reason for non-metals, especially carbon, is because they are not quite as reactive as the metals and they can make compounds with both metals and other non-metals because of the number of valence electrons, and can make stable covalent bonds (metals tend to make ionic bonds and therefore cannot make really long polymers)

 

For example, take carbon. Carbon has 4 valence electrons which means that it can make a link with 4 different kinds of elements, which means that it can create complex compounds. It can also form double and triple bonds so that it can create stable compounds as well, which is essential for life to exist. In addition, carbon can make covalent bonds with other carbon molecules to form long chains and complex polymers, which is important for the formation of proteins and DNA. Also, carbon compound tend to be very stable, which is important for life to exist and it is why we think extrasolar life will probably be carbon based (Silicon polymers tend to dissolve in water if memory serves correctly).

[foodchain]

This was actually a response to my belief that he was another sock puppet of Socrates.

 

 

 

I think the reason for non-metals, especially carbon, is because they are not quite as reactive as the metals and they can make compounds with both metals and other non-metals because of the number of valence electrons, and can make stable covalent bonds (metals tend to make ionic bonds and therefore cannot make really long polymers)

 

For example, take carbon. Carbon has 4 valence electrons which means that it can make a link with 4 different kinds of elements, which means that it can create complex compounds. It can also form double and triple bonds so that it can create stable compounds as well, which is essential for life to exist. In addition, carbon can make covalent bonds with other carbon molecules to form long chains and complex polymers, which is important for the formation of proteins and DNA. Also, carbon compound tend to be very stable, which is important for life to exist and it is why we think extrasolar life will probably be carbon based (Silicon polymers tend to dissolve in water if memory serves correctly).

 

So that is sort of an explanation for carbon, but you cant say its absolute in regards to my three questions for one, we have not synthesized life yet, nor discovered life on a alien planet. We have found life in hostile environments, sea vents, toxic waste, but they do not have by in large a variation from the use of carbon for instance. The problem as I see it again comes in three questions I have derived so far, I am sure there are plenty more I don’t grasp yet.

 

1) Is the chemistry of life on earth the only possible chemistry for life?

2) Is the chemistry of life on earth the only possible chemistry for life in regards to the earths environment?

3)Is the chemistry of life on earth nothing more then the only possible evolutionary progression from the more primordial life, such as the "protocell".

 

For instance with you explaining the various reactions mechanisms that exist in current understanding for carbon, as I would guess relates to its atomic structure in regards to environment?, would mean that evolution in regards to the chemistry of life would naturally have to follow it, but that does not say much past that. I mean silicon might not be a favorable chemistry on earth, but that does not hold true for every possible environment in the universe I imagine. I mean all kinds of complex compounds exist in chemistry that do not use carbon.

 

I fear evolution has not offered up life on earth with an alien chemistry, though you can see various adaptations and of course a broader range of chemicals being employed by life.

 

To me there is no real evidence yet that can get close to answering any of the questions I have posed save for someone to be confident in a hypothesis. I am not trying to argue a point just as I am trying to argue that nothing really exists to state an absolute or a law about the natural world in regards to life and abiogenesis. Not to mean that such is not the case, just that no definitive answer exists yet.