Re: Re: Fermi's Paradox
Stathis: glad you agree with my wording. Several evolutionists (both Darwin-based and post-Darwinians) disagreed =- some fetish 'natural selection' in fitness maps, some swore to ADAPTATION, a sort of self organizing for a purpose. Besides I think I exceed the conventional 'evolution' in the extent of (as a history pf the process) from the 'occurrence' of a universe till its dissipation (into - as my narrative says) into the invariant plenitude of infinite symmetry where it came from. I am really glad that I could finally word my position into a simple formulation that sounds acceptable to you. (Of course 'offspring' stands for reaction-product and the entire image is not restricted to live features - whatever these may be). John - Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:36 AM Subject: RE: Re: Fermi's Paradox John Mikes writes: > "My" mutation story is based on interactive responses to the ceaseless > changes of "the rest of the world" producing variations in offsprings. > Some more compatible than others. > The variations with more 'fitness'(?) will proliferate more abundantly so > they are the "successful" ones. Scientists consider most variations still > as "the same" species and in their intermittent snapshots realize > "changes" as mutation - towards a better adapted fitness for survival. The > reverse way to how it happened. But it looks like that. No creature > realizes a 'better way to survive' and has a wing or fin let grow out for > that purpose. > The variants of the species "select" themselves for a better proliferation > in the ever changing circumstances of the environment. The '[unsuccessful > do not even show up (e.g. the calf with 5 feet: it was eaten by the wolf > before copulating age). That's the theory of evolution. Are you agreeing or disagreeing? Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/386 - Release Date: 7/12/2006 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Re: Fermi's Paradox
John Mikes writes: > "My" mutation story is based on interactive responses to the ceaseless > changes of "the rest of the world" producing variations in offsprings. Some > more compatible than others. > The variations with more 'fitness'(?) will proliferate more abundantly so > they are the "successful" ones. Scientists consider most variations still as > "the same" species and in their intermittent snapshots realize "changes" as > mutation - towards a better adapted fitness for survival. The reverse way to > how it happened. But it looks like that. No creature realizes a 'better way > to survive' and has a wing or fin let grow out for that purpose. > The variants of the species "select" themselves for a better proliferation in > the ever changing circumstances of the environment. The '[unsuccessful do not > even show up (e.g. the calf with 5 feet: it was eaten by the wolf before > copulating age). That's the theory of evolution. Are you agreeing or disagreeing? Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Re: Fermi's Paradox
Brent Meeker writes: > >I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in> > nature is by definition in accordance with evolution, but those species that destroy themselves> > will die out, while those species that don't destroy themselves will thrive. Therefore, there> > will be selection for the species that don't destroy themselves, and eventually those species> > will come to predominate. > > First, that doesn't mean the eventually dominant species will be intelligent - by weight bacteria > are the predominant species on Earth. Second, it assumes a kind of static equilibrium. It may be > that there are cycles in which similar species become predominant, kill themselves off, and then > re-evolve. Or it may be that there is a kind of chaotic succession of different species becoming > predominant. In retrospect "predominate" was not a good word word to use. Evolution doesn't care about power or superiority, and it is a mistake to assume that intelligent life is somehow the pinnacle of evolution. That would be like a giraffe assuming that evolution ultimately intends to give rise to creatures with very long necks, and that God's neck is infinitely long. Intelligence, like a long neck, is just another ploy to get your genes passed on. Assuming a static equilibrium is also wrong, as you suggest. We like to think that once we develop civilization it will never die out, but again evolution doesn't care about what we think, and we might be wiped out by a nuclear war or a supernova tomorrow. But if it is physically possible for life to spread through the galaxy, then given enough time, it will do so. The fact that it hasn't yet happened that we can tell means there hasn't been enough time, or that it's very difficult to do, which amount to the same thing. I very much doubt that it's physically impossible. > >When you think about it, the theory of evolution is essentially a> > tautology: those species which succeed, succeed.> > I don't think that's a fair characterization. Darwin said that the species with the highest rate > differential reproduction will succeed - and that's separately analyzable attribute. The species with the highest rate of reproduction occupying the one biological space will succeed at the expense of the other species if their co-existence is incompatible. If their co-existence is compatible multiple species can co-exist in dynamic equilibrium, and multiple species can co-exist independently of their reproduction rates in separate biological spaces. The mechanisms of evolutionary success are infinitely variable, but I still think the basic idea is astoundingly simple: the phrase "reproduction with random variation in a randomly variable environment" *necessitates* evolution, even without knowing any details of the biological processes involved. Stathis PapaioannouBe one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Re: Fermi's Paradox
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Destroying your species runs counter to evolution. Stathis, 'evolution' does not follow good manners and may not be chisled in stone, I for one identified it (in my narrative) as the entire history of the unioverse from its appearance till its demise (let me skip now the detailed definitions). Destroying one's own species may be beneficial to others in the biosphere... > I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in > nature is by definition in accordance with > evolution, but those species that destroy themselves > will die out, while those species that don't destroy > themselves will thrive. Did the dinosaurs destroy 'themselves'? No way! they were destroyed by the temporary exclusion of sunlight after the planetesimal-impact's dustclouding. (At least according to a widely publicised story). They were well equipped for the circumstances on the planet that changed abruptly. No self-destruct, just extinction. Nobody is exempt from changes in the wholeness. >Therefore, there will be > selection for the species that don't destroy > themselves, and eventually those species will come > to predominate. When you think about it, the theory > of evolution is essentially a tautology: those > species which succeed, succeed. I like to think that there is more to that. > > Stathis Papaioannou John M > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Re: Fermi's Paradox
Destroying your species runs counter to evolution. I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in nature is by definition in accordance with evolution, but those species that destroy themselves will die out, while those species that don't destroy themselves will thrive. Therefore, there will be selection for the species that don't destroy themselves, and eventually those species will come to predominate. When you think about it, the theory of evolution is essentially a tautology: those species which succeed, succeed. Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: everything-list@googlegroups.comSubject: Re: Fermi's ParadoxDate: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:38:37 -0700 Hi Brent, You say, "They (the Spanish) subjugated the Aztecs and Inca for king and gold. European disease may have killed a lot of them, but killing them off was not a purpose of the conquistadors - though they were certainly revolted by the bloody sacrificial rites of the Aztecs."I am revolted too. And I am also revolted by the bloody treachery of Cortes. One web site said, "Cholula, with a population of 100,000, was the second city of the Aztec empire. It had thrived for more than a millennium. In 1519, Cortés chose Cholula to demonstrate his Christian credentials. He massacred several thousand unarmed members of the Aztec nobility in the central plaza and then burned down much of the city." If you Google "Spanish atrocities Inca Aztec" (without the quotes) you'll find many references. The Spanish Conquest not only subjugated the Aztecs and Inca but destroyed them - along with the cultures of the Caribbean islands. Anyway, all this is beside the point I wanted to make, which is that True Believers, whether Muslim, Christian, or heathen, cause harm, destruction or misfortune, and are therefore evil. My principal question is this: Is this evil inevitable in intelligent life? I suspect it is. And when life gets intelligent enough, and evolved enough, it figures out how to make A-bombs and other WMDs. Then it may exterminate itself or, as you suggested, use up the raw materials accessible to it - and this explains Fermi's Paradox. Norman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
