Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

[Doctor Evo]

Well, we are talking about a sextillion stars, with literally countless planets. We know Earth exists, we know Earth-like planets exist. Ergo, it's basically guaranteed that every animal that evolved independently on Earth can evolve elsewhere. Barring Earth and humanity really being some individual's specific plan (i.e. creationism).

Again: this ignores the stochastic processes of evolution. Please refer to this previous point:

"There's also the issue of ecological niches being based, at least in part, on existing diversity. That is to say, the evolutionary history of co-existing organisms may play a huge role in future evolutionary development. Your argument must also assume, then, a progression of evolutionary development identical to earth's across multiple (and potentially all) lineages on this hypothetical planet, which seems rather unlikely."

We've been at this for billions of years, and the only species on the planet that has been able to go into space, is us. The only species that even comes close. And since there is nothing that stops creatures like us from evolving elsewhere...

You've yet to demonstrate that this is the case.

...and the fact that virtually all other creatures are poorly designed to build any sort of high-end technology, I'd say it's rather likely that we'll find other humanoids out there. And when I say humanoid, I don't mean ape. Bipeds, who can use their hands to manipulate things.

Doesn't mean we won't find a weird highly evolved cephalopod that managed to do the same thing, but I suspect we'll see more humanoids.

1) It wouldn't be a cephalopod. It would be cephalopod-like.

2) Based on WHAT?

 

[Doctor Evo]

I freely admit that. Get me a second one, and we'll talk.

I'm not ruling out star-faring cephalopods... or what have you, I'm simply saying that humanoids are as far as we know, the most likely organism to achieve space-flight. And there's no reason to believe they won't evolve elsewhere.

You're relying on the convergence of a staggering number of events and situations. I'm not sure that even the sample of stars and planets you've proposed is actually enough to overcome this probabilistic barrier.

For that matter, you can't be, either.

Again:

"The only honest position to take, given this problem, is that we cannot make a proper assessment with respect to likelihood/probability."

 

[Thundercrack85]

Close encounters of the third kind?

No, seriously. I just don't see why you take such an issue with the notion of humanoids being common. What exactly do you expect will evolve on other Earth-like planets that can master space travel?

I'll take my odds with sextillions of stars (and that's just the observable universe).

 

[Doctor Evo]

Close encounters of the third kind?

No, seriously. I just don't see why you take such an issue with the notion of humanoids being common. What exactly do you expect will evolve on other Earth-like planets that can master space travel?

I'll take my odds with sextillions of stars (and that's just the observable universe).

Actually, I don't take issue with the notion that humanoids could be common. I take issue with your claim that this scenario is likely. There's actually a huge difference.

Beyond that, I take issue with the fact that you keep making these claims and refuse to back them with anything other than some vague notion of convergent evolution and the argument that "the numbers say so."

 

[Shemtov]

You do understand that speciation - the process as well as the end result - has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild, correct?

If you would stop trying to convert me, you'd releize tht I'm simply saying that My view is common enough that not having it mentioned on the poll, really skews the results.
But, to answer your question, when i used the word "speciation " I did not mean, as would usually be assumed, the formation of a new Scientific species, but the Idea that if something evolved from something else, it must be the same species.

 

[Doctor Evo]

If you would stop trying to convert me, you'd releize tht I'm simply saying that My view is common enough that not having it mentioned on the poll, really skews the results.

I'm not trying to convert you. You expressed a belief that is demonstrably false. I pointed it out.

But, to answer your question, when i used the word "speciation " I did not mean, as would usually be assumed, the formation of a new Scientific species, but the Idea that if something evolved from something else, it must be the same species.

How do you define "species?" I'm curious.

 

[childeroland]

I don't think that's speciation, which is the formation of a new species.

The idea that if something evolved from something else it must be the same species isn't supported by any evidence.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Actually, I don't take issue with the notion that humanoids could be common. I take issue with your claim that this scenario is likely. There's actually a huge difference.

Beyond that, I take issue with the fact that you keep making these claims and refuse to back them with anything other than some vague notion of convergent evolution and the argument that "the numbers say so."

Well, convergent evolution isn't the best term. But a quadruped isn't going to build a rocket ship. It's more like a process of elimination. I just want to know what you think is going to step out of a UFO.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I have a few problems with creationism...

For example, what do you make of all those fossils / frozen remains of animals very similar to modern animals, yet distinctively different.

Like the extinct hominids.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Well, convergent evolution isn't the best term. But a quadruped isn't going to build a rocket ship. It's more like a process of elimination. I just want to know what you think is going to step out of a UFO.

I don't know, nor do I know enough to be able to make any claim. That's my entire point, and my issue with your position.

You keep bringing this concept of a "rocket ship" into the discussion when we haven't even resolved whether we'd even see humanoids evolve elsewhere to begin with.

 

[NateHevens]

I just want to clarify something...

Doctor Evo, when Thundercrack85, you know he means being that are bipedal and use their upper hands for grasping/holding/carrying/working?

Thundercrack85, the whole problem with your post is "likely". The only reason we humans are the only ones on our planet that can get to space is because we got here first.

What if apes had never evolved on this planet at all?

Would this planet have never seen intelligence like ours, or would it come from somewhere else, like the octopus, or perhaps some kind of reptile?

That's why what you're talking about is anthropocentric; we're not here because we have to be; we're here because, to coin a phrase, we "won the race".

And no, our winning the race was not inevitable. It just is.

Shemtov... speciation is evolution. If you don't believe in speciation, then you don't believe in evolution... which flies in the face of... like... All The Evidence.

Doctor Evo... bipedalism seems like a pretty nifty and useful adaption. I'd be surprised if it wasn't, at the very least, a not-so-rare adaption around the universe. We human beings can't be the only beings in the entire universe that discovered the wonders of what our two upper limbs can do when they aren't burdened with supporting our weight for walking...

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm actually not convinced that if we didn't evolve that someone else would pick up the slack. But, I see your point.

There probably are a ton of planets out there, full of alien "fauna", but without any technologically advanced civilizations.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Doctor Evo, when Thundercrack85, you know he means being that are bipedal and use their upper hands for grasping/holding/carrying/working?

I'm well aware.

Doctor Evo... bipedalism seems like a pretty nifty and useful adaption. I'd be surprised if it wasn't, at the very least, a not-so-rare adaption around the universe. We human beings can't be the only beings in the entire universe that discovered the wonders of what our two upper limbs can do when they aren't burdened with supporting our weight for walking...

Just because an adaptation could be useful doesn't mean it will necessarily occur. Secondly, all of this terminology is very biased toward tetrapod body plans.

Finally, when you make an assertion such as, "we can't be the only beings in the entire universe that discovered [etc.]," you need to do better than appealing to incredulity.

If you insist upon this obsession with the vertebrate body plan, however, who's to say that the organism doesn't have six limbs? Four for walking and two for manipulation? This seems equally as likely, and I see NO reason to assume that this would be less likely.

 

[NateHevens]

I'm well aware.


Just because an adaptation could be useful doesn't mean it will necessarily occur. Secondly, all of this terminology is very biased toward tetrapod body plans.

Good point.

Finally, when you make an assertion such as, "we can't be the only beings in the entire universe that discovered [etc.]," you need to do better than appealing to incredulity.

Isn't incredulity the best argument we have for the existence of other life in the universe right now?

The reason I accept the idea that there is other intelligent life besides us in the universe (although no, I don't believe we've ever been visited) is because the universe is simply too large and there are too many galaxies, stars, and planets for us to be alone. Based on numbers alone, the rarest form of life should still exist in numbers larger than... a hundred thousand, at least, within the universe.

And yes, I pulled that number out of my behind... but I think I'm being extremely conservative with it.

I simply can't accept that with the amount of planets there very well could be in our universe, that our planet is the only one with intelligent life, or, FSM-forbid, life in general. Our being alone in the universe is just not plausible, IMO, based on the numbers alone.

Do I have any other argument for ET?

Since I don't think we've ever actually been visited, no. No I don't. But I don't think there's any other kind of argument for the existence of ET beyond a number's argument, either. It's the best argument in favor of the existence of ET that we have right now, IMO.

The universe is just too damn big for us to be alone.

If you insist upon this obsession with the vertebrate body plan, however, who's to say that the organism doesn't have six limbs? Four for walking and two for manipulation? This seems equally as likely, and I see NO reason to assume that this would be less likely.

Actually, maybe it does have four limbs for walking and two for manipulation. Or maybe ten limbs for walking and six for manipulation.

By "bipedalism", I don't mean it in the specifically-hominid sense. I simply mean beings that move in an upright fashion, leaving one or more limbs available for doing things other than walking/supporting weight. So it could be an octopus-like creature that moves on eight limbs and has two or more for manipulation.

Or something else entirely.

Perhaps "upright" is a better word than "bipedal" in this case.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, don't all bipeds evolve out of quadrupeds if you go far back enough? E.g. birds evolved from reptiles.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Well, don't all bipeds evolve out of quadrupeds if you go far back enough? E.g. birds evolved from reptiles.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Isn't incredulity the best argument we have for the existence of other life in the universe right now?

Yes, but there's a difference between speculating and making assertions.

The reason I accept the idea that there is other intelligent life besides us in the universe (although no, I don't believe we've ever been visited) is because the universe is simply too large and there are too many galaxies, stars, and planets for us to be alone. Based on numbers alone, the rarest form of life should still exist in numbers larger than... a hundred thousand, at least, within the universe.

And yes, I pulled that number out of my behind... but I think I'm being extremely conservative with it.

I simply can't accept that with the amount of planets there very well could be in our universe, that our planet is the only one with intelligent life, or, FSM-forbid, life in general. Our being alone in the universe is just not plausible, IMO, based on the numbers alone.

Do I have any other argument for ET?

Since I don't think we've ever actually been visited, no. No I don't. But I don't think there's any other kind of argument for the existence of ET beyond a number's argument, either. It's the best argument in favor of the existence of ET that we have right now, IMO.

The universe is just too damn big for us to be alone.

I don't really have a problem with this, though. I have a problem with the notion that said intelligent beings would, more likely than not, be humanoid.

Actually, maybe it does have four limbs for walking and two for manipulation. Or maybe ten limbs for walking and six for manipulation.

By "bipedalism", I don't mean it in the specifically-hominid sense. I simply mean beings that move in an upright fashion, leaving one or more limbs available for doing things other than walking/supporting weight. So it could be an octopus-like creature that moves on eight limbs and has two or more for manipulation.

Or something else entirely.

Perhaps "upright" is a better word than "bipedal" in this case.

Based on what you're saying here, "bipedal" would not be an appropriate term.

Small aside: octopuses can already simultaneously use some arms for locomotion and others for manipulation.

 

[NateHevens]

Yes, but there's a difference between speculating and making assertions.

I agree.

I don't really have a problem with this, though. I have a problem with the notion that said intelligent beings would, more likely than not, be humanoid.

Fair enough.

Based on what you're saying here, "bipedal" would not be an appropriate term.

Small aside: octopuses can already simultaneously use some arms for locomotion and others for manipulation.

I know about the octopi.

What would be an appropriate term? Upright? I mean, all I'm arguing is that they'd very likely have a mechanism for grasping and manipulation. What that mechanism would be, or how many each being has, is open to question.

 

[Doctor Evo]

What would be an appropriate term? Upright?

Not necessarily. I wouldn't consider octopuses to be "upright," for example.

I mean, all I'm arguing is that they'd very likely have a mechanism for grasping and manipulation. What that mechanism would be, or how many each being has, is open to question.

And that's fair. I have no issue with that.

 

[NateHevens]

I'm actually not convinced that if we didn't evolve that someone else would pick up the slack. But, I see your point.

There probably are a ton of planets out there, full of alien "fauna", but without any technologically advanced civilizations.

See, I disagree entirely. If apes had never evolved, why couldn't intelligence like ours have evolved out of reptiles, or perhaps out of the sea? Why does intelligence like ours have to be exclusive to apes?

 

[Thundercrack85]

See, I disagree entirely. If apes had never evolved, why couldn't intelligence like ours have evolved out of reptiles, or perhaps out of the sea? Why does intelligence like ours have to be exclusive to apes?

I'm not saying it's exclusive. But we've all been at this for quite some time.

I also think people aren't giving our "form" much credit. The reason we can do the things we can is because of our bipedalism. And our brains obviously, but they're closely related (and so is their evolution, if I'm not mistaken).

Whales may be intelligent, but what can they do? At least in terms of getting off this rock.

There's that dude who kept talking about "reptilian humanoids". That sounds cool, but it's never happened.

Again, maybe some other species would come to the fore, but I don't see any evidence for it. No more than say people here don't see evidence for humanoids being common outside the Solar System. Nothing else comes close.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I'm not saying it's exclusive. But we've all been at this for quite some time.

I also think people aren't giving our "form" much credit. The reason we can do the things we can is because of our bipedalism. And our brains obviously, but they're closely related (and so is their evolution, if I'm not mistaken).

Whales may be intelligent, but what can they do? At least in terms of getting off this rock.

There's that dude who kept talking about "reptilian humanoids". That sounds cool, but it's never happened.

Again, maybe some other species would come to the fore, but I don't see any evidence for it. No more than say people here don't see evidence for humanoids being common outside the Solar System. Nothing else comes close.

You keep falling back on the same logical fallacies over and over again.

 

[zanos]

I'm going to pray for the 36 people who don't believe in evolution.

 

[NateHevens]

I'm not saying it's exclusive. But we've all been at this for quite some time.

I also think people aren't giving our "form" much credit. The reason we can do the things we can is because of our bipedalism. And our brains obviously, but they're closely related (and so is their evolution, if I'm not mistaken).

Whales may be intelligent, but what can they do? At least in terms of getting off this rock.

There's that dude who kept talking about "reptilian humanoids". That sounds cool, but it's never happened.

Again, maybe some other species would come to the fore, but I don't see any evidence for it. No more than say people here don't see evidence for humanoids being common outside the Solar System. Nothing else comes close.

You keep focusing on Bipedalism. What gives us the edge is not the fact that we walk upright, but the fact that we can manipulate things.

Octopi can also manipulate things. Ideally, so could upright-walking dinosaurs. In the absence of mammals, why couldn't one of them have become the dominant intelligent species?

Besides the existence of Homo sapiens, what's to stop octopi from having this very same conversation?

The only reason we haven't see reptilian humanoids or intelligent-like-us octopi is because we apes got here first. Our existence means we can't see it on our own planet.

But in a tropical environment, reptiles flourish. Imagine a planet far enough away from it's sun to have water, but closely to be largely tropical year-round with little change. Why can't that planet have intelligent, technologically-capable reptiles?

Or imagine a planet where all of the land is flooded by a miles-deep ocean. Why can't that planet have intelligent, technologically capable octopi?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm not arguing that. I even mentioned a cephalopod alien (or cephalopod-like, if you want to be accurate). I also mentioned manipulation, in the other thread, so, I'm well aware of that.

But here's my question to you, since you're the resident evolutionary biologist, why did we "come first"? Why has no one come before us?

Just a fluke? Got lucky? Something unique about apes?