Reptilian Theory

[Appolinaria]

How is the structure of our brains not a result of natural selection?

 

It is. But being able to read this book isn't an instinct, as making a hive is. So I don't see how they can be compared.

[Moontanman]

Long before there were reptiles or arthropods or complex life of any sort there were bacteria and archaea. Long after complex life of any sort is gone there will be bacteria and archaea....

[Appolinaria]

But photosynthetic bacteria were responsible for responsible for one of the biggest changes in the history of the Earth, namely adding loads of O2 instead of CO2 to our atmosphere. Without this we wouldn't even exist. Bacteria, and other organisms, also tend to be responsible for large 'dead zones' in the ocean by making them hypoxic, given we can help out a lot, but so can many other organisms. Also, to photosynthetic organisms, this transfer from CO2 to O2 was pollution that could easily have wiped out life if aerobic respiration didn't come into play.

 

Once, again, I am not saying we could ever live without bacteria. We couldn't ever live without a lot of things. Does that mean I feel I am not superior, more intelligent, and more complex than an oxygen molecule? Uh, no.

[mississippichem]

It is. But being able to read this book isn't an instinct, as making a hive is. So I don't see how they can be compared.

 

I don't either. That's why I find it a bit silly to maintain that any organism in the universe is "superior" to any other. I find the OP to be a misplaced question and a bit pointless but the discussion has evolved (no pun intended) into something worth discussing IMO.

 

EDIT: grammar stupidity removed

Edited May 28, 2012 by mississippichem

[John Cuthber]

Being intelligent isn't always the best strategy.

Ask a sea squirt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunicate#Life_cycle

 

Also, as a species we are hardly better able to "master" bacteria than most animals.

For a start, antibiotics are a very recent development.

They are also too expensive for many, if not most, of the people who need them.

OK, we have a better understanding of antibiotics, but if we are all that clever how come we keep prescribing them for viral conditions: this behaviour does nothing but promote resistance?

We were not the first to use them anyway: the fungus that produces penicillin using it a long time before we caught on.

 

Practically the whole of your ability to throw off infections is due to your immune system and that's no better (probably worse) than that of your pet dog or whatever.

If all the antibiotics stopped working tomorrow the human race would carry on. If the immune system stopped working I doubt we would last a day.

 

The bacteria are now laughing slightly more loudly.

[Appolinaria]

But there is no denying that for some reason our neural blobs allow us to bypass years of evolution in order to equip ourselves for survival. It is no longer our biological processes that solely keep us alive. There is a whole new ballpark added when a species is able to harness outside sources to take place of biological shortcomings.

 

 

 

 

If the brain keeps evolving I only see our abilities in doing so becoming more effective. To assume that bacteria will have the last laugh is premature, especially when the capabilities of an organism with a more complex brain than ourselves are obviously unknown.

 

[John Cuthber]

There is a whole new ballpark added when a species is able to harness outside sources to take place of biological shortcomings.

 

 

The ants are slightly flattered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant-fungus_mutualism

Seriously, there really are not may things that make us unique, apart from our obsessive belief that we are, in fact, unique.

There are lots of things that we do to a greater extent than other animals, but few things where we are the only ones to do it.

[Ringer]

Once, again, I am not saying we could ever live without bacteria. We couldn't ever live without a lot of things. Does that mean I feel I am not superior, more intelligent, and more complex than an oxygen molecule? Uh, no.

 

But it doesn't mean we are either. There are a great many things we cannot do that other organisms do regularly. For them they are superior because they do those things better. You can't say you are superior by a single arbitrary measure such as intelligence.

[granpa]

arthropods probably dominate most planets.

 

neurons are very inefficient at processing data so insect brains cannot develop human intelligence.

 

however on other planets neurons are probably much more efficient at processing data.

 

even here on earth there are probably ciliates, that in the billion years since multicellular organisms evolved, have evolved much more efficient data processing capabilities.

 

But even though they are more intelligent they cant compete with multicellular organisms.

just like mammals couldnt compete with dinosaurs.

[Moontanman]

arthropods probably dominate most planets.

 

I would say more likely bacteria dominate most planets.

 

neurons are very inefficient at processing data so insect brains cannot develop human intelligence.

 

Could you support this please?

 

however on other planets neurons are probably much more efficient at processing data.

 

Why?

 

even here on earth there are probably ciliates, that in the billion years since multicellular organisms evolved, have evolved much more efficient data processing capabilities.

 

Some evidence of this?

 

But even though they are more intelligent they cant compete with multicellular organisms.

just like mammals couldnt compete with dinosaurs.

 

Actually mammals did compete with dinosaurs and they dominated small body plans between arthropods and dinosaurs.

[Ophiolite]

It is. But being able to read this book isn't an instinct, as making a hive is. So I don't see how they can be compared.

Exactly. So why do you insist that one of them is superior to the other? If you cannot compare them then it is not valid to make that comment.

[Appolinaria]

Exactly. So why do you insist that one of them is superior to the other? If you cannot compare them then it is not valid to make that comment.

 

I've attempted to explain my reasoning in a previous post. ^

 

"But there is no denying that for some reason our neural blobs allow us to bypass years of evolution in order to equip ourselves for survival. It is no longer our biological processes that solely keep us alive. There is a whole new ballpark added when a species is able to harness outside sources to take place of biological shortcomings.

 

If the brain keeps evolving I only see our abilities in doing so becoming more effective. To assume that bacteria will have the last laugh is premature, especially when the capabilities of an organism with a more complex brain than ourselves are obviously unknown."

[Appolinaria]

Edit- I was thinking about this today.. Since animals are mobile, perhaps the brain has evolved because it's beneficial to one of our survival methods- flight. If an asteroid were headed towards Earth, bacteria would have to adapt to the new environment in order to survive, whereas we could use our brains to move. Can the differences between how plants and animals react to an environmental change be compared to how intelligent life versus say, bacteria, would react? Is consciousness in life forms just a structure, like eyes or a mouth, but one that lets them have greater mobility across the universe?

[Ringer]

I've attempted to explain my reasoning in a previous post. ^

 

"But there is no denying that for some reason our neural blobs allow us to bypass years of evolution in order to equip ourselves for survival. It is no longer our biological processes that solely keep us alive. There is a whole new ballpark added when a species is able to harness outside sources to take place of biological shortcomings.

 

But we are not even close to the only animal that uses outside resources to enhance survival in this way. Some use instinct, some work together using pheromones, and some use brains. They all work, saying one is better than the other doesn't really make sense because all of them increase survival. Some organisms survive just as well, if not better, without using this ability as well, so again to assume it is superior doesn't really make sense.

 

If the brain keeps evolving I only see our abilities in doing so becoming more effective. To assume that bacteria will have the last laugh is premature, especially when the capabilities of an organism with a more complex brain than ourselves are obviously unknown."

 

Whose to say it will keep evolving the same way though? Bacteria can evolve faster, survive under more extreme conditions, tend to be less specialized, etc. Not to mention without bacteria we wouldn't survive, so bacteria will at least survive as long as we do.

 

Edit- I was thinking about this today.. Since animals are mobile, perhaps the brain has evolved because it's beneficial to one of our survival methods- flight. If an asteroid were headed towards Earth, bacteria would have to adapt to the new environment in order to survive, whereas we could use our brains to move. Can the differences between how plants and animals react to an environmental change be compared to how intelligent life versus say, bacteria, would react? Is consciousness in life forms just a structure, like eyes or a mouth, but one that lets them have greater mobility across the universe?

 

Again, bacteria will move with us. Bacteria have been everywhere we have, and many places we probably haven't been. They have our mobility without having to evolve it because they have caused us to be reliant on them. Unless we make technology that takes the place of bacteria, which would be extremely unnecessary, they will be with us wherever we go because we rely on them. The difference is they don't rely on us. Most can survive without us easily enough, but the same can't be said for our survival.

[Appolinaria]

 

But we are not even close to the only animal that uses outside resources to enhance survival in this way. Some use instinct, some work together using pheromones, and some use brains. They all work, saying one is better than the other doesn't really make sense because all of them increase survival. Some organisms survive just as well, if not better, without using this ability as well, so again to assume it is superior doesn't really make sense.

 

 

But that takes an incredibly long time of organisms with weak genes dying and subsequent changes to their species characteristics, no? I can learn what took hundreds of years to discover in a few years. The brain is unique. Technology allows us to keep people alive, and genes propagating, where they would otherwise perish in nature.

 

Whose to say it will keep evolving the same way though? Bacteria can evolve faster, survive under more extreme conditions, tend to be less specialized, etc. Not to mention without bacteria we wouldn't survive, so bacteria will at least survive as long as we do.

 

 

 

Again, bacteria will move with us. Bacteria have been everywhere we have, and many places we probably haven't been. They have our mobility without having to evolve it because they have caused us to be reliant on them. Unless we make technology that takes the place of bacteria, which would be extremely unnecessary, they will be with us wherever we go because we rely on them. The difference is they don't rely on us. Most can survive without us easily enough, but the same can't be said for our survival.

 

You're right.

 

I've reconsidered and it is really silly to think humans are superior to bacteria :/ Oh well, you live, you learn.

 

I think my desire to rationalize nature and evolution is by believing there is some kind of ultimate goal... That no matter where life begins and in differing circumstances it will follow the same relative pattern. This is a flaw with my thinking. No doubt was the brain a wonderful thing to be introduced along the timeline of life, but I now see how humans are not superior to bacteria. Nor did I intend to cause offense by neglecting to realize the deep complexities of nature that require much study to even begin to understand.