Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Surprise in the Mail

  1. #1 Surprise in the Mail 
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    Go to mailbox and find a magazine called the Journal of Anti-Aging Discovery. A collection of stories, fads & ads related to keeping one alive longer. Miracle plants, diets, drugs and supplements that are going to keep me alive longer. So they claim. Why me? Found the following interesting and seems there’s some truth in it…..There is one story about a Greek island in the Aegean where people apparently live longer than anywhere else. It’s called Ikaria, alternate spelling Icaria.

    https://neo.life/2021/11/ikaria-the-...20the%20globe.

    Put magazine in its proper place, the trash.

    I’d imagine there are some actual real life studies and advancements made in the anti-ageing arena. Thousand years from now, will people be living longer?


    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,119
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Go to mailbox and find a magazine called the Journal of Anti-Aging Discovery. A collection of stories, fads & ads related to keeping one alive longer. Miracle plants, diets, drugs and supplements that are going to keep me alive longer. So they claim. Why me? Found the following interesting and seems there’s some truth in it…..There is one story about a Greek island in the Aegean where people apparently live longer than anywhere else. It’s called Ikaria, alternate spelling Icaria.

    https://neo.life/2021/11/ikaria-the-...20the%20globe.

    Put magazine in its proper place, the trash.

    I’d imagine there are some actual real life studies and advancements made in the anti-ageing arena. Thousand years from now, will people be living longer?
    If they are living longer it probably won't seem that way to them.If they are living healthier they will appreciate that (until the memory of previous ailments disappears)

    Insofar as longevity is reflective of good health then it is a boon(we know ,I feel that longevity accompanied by ill health is not to be welcomed)

    But yes ,no doubt that in thousands of years from now we will probably be living much longer.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    A claim to lengthen telomeres
    https://defytime.com/product/telomer...0aAuECEALw_wcB

    Supplement only $800.

    Would lengthening telomeres increase life span and if so are they working on it?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Would lengthening telomeres increase life span and if so are they working on it?
    It is likely much more is involved than this, but it is almost certainly essential. Even if you could lengthen the telomeres, you are still looking at all the mutations which occur during regeneration of cells during one's life, and that is unlikely to be altered by telomere lengthening.

    Those mutations pile up and are not reversed. Eventually they will result in failure of organs and neuromuscular activity, etc. Without a means of correcting all those mutations, one is left with treatments for all those mutation-induced failures. It seems that this tech will take some time to mature.

    Below is an article for lengthening telomeres, and it is vastly more complex than taking a pill. Not so sure about that supplement approach. It has "too good to be true" all over it......


    "Telomere extension turns back aging clock in cultured human cells, study finds"

    https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-ne...red-cells.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,120
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Would lengthening telomeres increase life span and if so are they working on it?
    The Telomere Effect by Elizabeth Blackburn is a book I've come across in recent times.
    It proposes the practice of qigong as the best method to keep your telomeres healthy.
    But there is a problem.
    Taking the pills and doing qigong will only work for so long.
    What rules life and the universe is what has become known as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
    It means that in any system there will always be net energy loss.
    A property of the 2nd Law is entropy, which in relation to the human body doesn't favour us over the likes of many sea creatures.
    As we get older we get colder. Our bodies become more disordered and more prone to disease.
    One thing above all other - we can't outrun the 2nd Law with pills, qigong, yoga, meditation.

    However, I do notice that people who are scrawny are far more likely to live longer.
    That was also an observation made by Isaac Asimov.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    As we get older we get colder. Our bodies become more disordered and more prone to disease.
    This is particularly true of the brain. While most organs can regenerate to some extent, and telomeres may help to keep that going, in order to maintain one's identity the brain cannot regenerate itself. Those brain cells and their interconnections contain all the memories and experiences that make us who we are. Replacing them would replace the individual.

    And that 2nd law has a major impact on those cells, and their organization into an organ which is the only one that gives us self-awareness. The human brain is an extraordinary amalgamation of cellular and chemical interactions in which telomeres play a minimal role. This organization begins to decay before most other organs begin to cause problems. That would be one of the biggest challenges facing extended life-spans. Entropic brain decay seems like a good area for freaks in biophysics to look into.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    Speaking of ageing. Found this most interesting article on deep subsurface life. Honestly I had no idea just how old a living thing can be or how fast it ages.

    https://deepcarbon.net/life-deep-ear...-tonnes-carbon

    Excerpt:
    Deep microbes are often very different from their surface cousins, with life cycles on near-geologic timescales,
    Can you imagine a multi-cellular animal with that kind of longevity? Maybe they’re out there. The secret to long life…Go Deep
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    823
    That is a pretty amazing story. Lots of bugs to be sure, and very deep. But as long as they can find sufficient nutrients and avoid hot spots, they are doing just fine. Hope they stay where they are.

    But we should probably worry about ants. There are estimated to be at least 100 trillion ants on the planet*. And there are at least a billion of those around my house. Constantly battling them.

    Let's hope all those ants don't become more numerous, and larger, or we are in bigger trouble than we thought!


    "Are all the ants as heavy as all the humans?"

    * https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29281253
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    Donít know about ant longevity but subsurface lifeÖ
    https://aeon.co/essays/deep-beneath-...-and-wonderful

    Excerpt:
    Subsurface microorganisms are estimated to be extraordinarily long-lived. In our studies, they show a turnover time as slow as 1,000 years, meaning that they divide only once every few thousand years. To put it in perspective, the common gut bacterium E.coli divides once every 20 minutes. One of the long-standing questions is, how do the deep microbes achieve such a slow-motion lifestyle?.
    Should they take a look at this for future interstellar travel? Life in slow motion. Surface creatures are moving at speed of light compared to their subterranean counterparts
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,120
    Q: What do these guys have in common (apart from living underwater)?
    Koi Carp, Red Sea Urchin, Bowhead Whale - live up to 250 years.
    Greenland Shark, Ocean Quahog - up to 500 years.

    A: They grow slowly, they move slowly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Q: What do these guys have in common (apart from living underwater)?
    Koi Carp, Red Sea Urchin, Bowhead Whale - live up to 250 years.
    Greenland Shark, Ocean Quahog - up to 500 years.

    A: They grow slowly, they move slowly.
    Knew about Greenland Shark but those creatures I assume breed every year so evolution must move at a quicker pace than for deep subterranean organisms. So I wonder how, if a cell takes thousands of years to divide, does evolution work? Do the subsurface creatures keep pace or have less environmental/predator pressure to change when situated deep in the earth?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    So I wonder how, if a cell takes thousands of years to divide, does evolution work? Do the subsurface creatures keep pace or have less environmental/predator pressure to change when situated deep in the earth?
    For these bugs, evolution must be moving at a pretty slow rate since in most cases it requires cell division, which provides the mutation(s) which drive evolution. And it would seem that the pressure to change would be limited, as are changes in their environment, which does not change significantly in most places, except over long periods.

    Ants can live for a few weeks, or up to 20 years. When properly fed, the queens can lay 800 eggs a day. The only thing preventing them from taking over the world is food supply, and pesticides. With so many things dying from mass extinction (ant food), it seems possible that ants could someday dominate the biosphere, with a little help from all those human activities. Those subterranean bugs likely would not even know the difference. So there actually appears to be two biospheres - upper and lower.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Helix View Post

    So there actually appears to be two biospheres - upper and lower.
    Would appear so but if lower evolves at a snailís pace and the other not, you would think the upper would be far more advanced. Question is, who was here first? If one did follow the other then Iím betting that the lower biosphere had at least one organism that adapted to the upper at some point.

    You know I always think of panspermia as life arriving from a cold rock. What of collisions between larger bodies, those with warmer cores? Might have been more prevalent in universeís beginning and not so much now, idk. I also think that slow moving or suspended animation is associated with cold but seems warm delivers also, again idk.

    Microbes et al that are subsurface may still be making their way to surface these days but Iíd have to think the more advanced upper biosphere organisms would make short work of them. And what about lifeís origins on EarthÖ. Why couldnít life have originated in the subsurface? If it did then the potential for other life in the universe must surely be greater than we first thought IMHO.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Would appear so but if lower evolves at a snail’s pace and the other not, you would think the upper would be far more advanced. Question is, who was here first? If one did follow the other then I’m betting that the lower biosphere had at least one organism that adapted to the upper at some point.
    It seems a certainty that life could not have started at the surface, since there was little to no oxygen to filter out the intense UV radiation, which tears many organic molecules apart, especially DNA and RNA. Life almost certainly began in a shaded zone, free from ionizing radiation. This suggests that life arose somewhere near the surface and the deep regions where it is found today.

    Most experts believe life arose around thermal vents, sitting atop oceanic floors. This would have provided protection from UV, supplied a continuous, stable temperature (critical for abiogenesis), and nutrients such as hydrogen sulfide, required to drive various reactions essential to early life forms. This does not mean life arose at high temperatures. Most likely it did not as the first life forms would have been rather delicate, and anything living in such extreme conditions (extremophiles) likely evolved into such conditions rather than forming there.

    But once you have kick-started life, it can then invade many other spaces. Occupation of the surface would likely have to wait until photosynthesis began, providing the critical shield from UV.


    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    You know I always think of panspermia as life arriving from a cold rock. What of collisions between larger bodies, those with warmer cores? Might have been more prevalent in universe’s beginning and not so much now, idk. I also think that slow moving or suspended animation is associated with cold but seems warm delivers also, again idk.
    Never have accepted panspermia as it seems too extreme for the survival of life. Using Earth as an example, an asteroid hits, ejecting a lot of rocks into space, carrying with it some life forms in order for this to work. But the force of the impact would have caused intense shear and heating, something life would not likely survive. And then there is heating from escaping Earth's atmosphere as the "carrier rock" must be propelled into space at escape velocity - speeds in excess of 25,000 mph (40,270 km/h). Actually it would have to start off moving faster than this because atmospheric drag would slow the rock down, but the problem is severe. Heating from the impact and ejection would be extreme, likely melting smaller rocks, and super-heating all potential carriers well above the ability of life to survive.

    Then there is the long duration exposed to space and radiation. Background radiation in the carrier rock alone could kill off any life if it is drifting for significant periods. At any rate, the rock has to come down on another world, also with an atmosphere, so any life has to suffer the heat of entry, and more heat and shear force on impact, all over again. To top that off, the life form in the rock would have to land in just the right spot within a specific temperature range, and of course with all the right chemistry (stereochemistry as well) for it to feed on, and just the right amount of water and the correct atmosphere in order for this to work. Taken all together, panspermia seems like one of those things most should call impossible.


    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Microbes et al that are subsurface may still be making their way to surface these days but I’d have to think the more advanced upper biosphere organisms would make short work of them. And what about life’s origins on Earth…. Why couldn’t life have originated in the subsurface? If it did then the potential for other life in the universe must surely be greater than we first thought IMHO.
    What gets to eat what is a two-way street. At least it is all the same chemistry. There could be some intermingling, particularly with microbes. So it seems that all life on earth had a subsurface origin. Some stayed there, and even went deeper. Some of those which rose to the surface developed photosynthesis, and started to oxygenate the atmosphere, probably around 2 billion years ago*. Once sufficient oxygen built up, life could venture into shallow waters and onto dry land. That is when things started shaping up for what gave rise to the one creature who questions it all.


    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    I see where Perseverance has found organic molecules on Mars. Although this isn’t a huge surprise, one might wonder if this discovery represents life that may have originated within the planet’s subsurface. Despite experts saying Mars is presently tectonically inactive could there have been a time when it wasn’t and evidence of subsurface organisms actually made it to the surface?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,609
    Organic molecules do not need life or imply it..They are pretty much everywhere you look!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I see where Perseverance has found organic molecules on Mars. Although this isn’t a huge surprise, one might wonder if this discovery represents life that may have originated within the planet’s subsurface. Despite experts saying Mars is presently tectonically inactive could there have been a time when it wasn’t and evidence of subsurface organisms actually made it to the surface?
    Can't seem to find out what kind of organics they are as there are many types. The simplest are hydrocarbons, which are very common as organics go. The latest NASA link on this only says "a class of organic molecules that are spatially correlated with those of sulfate minerals"*. Apparently the sample was from sedimentary rock, which would be a great place to look for organic compounds with a biological signature, if at all. They need to do a sample return to get the finer details on this stuff.

    As for plate tectonics, would wiki Mars on that as they probably have a good over-view of its history.


    "NASA’s Perseverance Rover Investigates Geologically Rich Mars Terrain"

    * https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...h-mars-terrain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    Hypothetical situation..... Let's say there is a species with a life expectancy similar to ours out there that is evolving towards non procreative sex. Let's also say science concludes that at least 10% of its individuals currently do not produce offspring for one reason or another. In time as the species evolves, that percentage becomes 50%. Would you say the species is still evolving successfully at that point or could the percentage climb even higher? Would there be a point as it evolves where the species finds a balance, reverses the trend or is doomed for extinction should it continue this evolutionary path? Does evolutionary suicide exist?

    Is there a limit to how far a species can evolve and not produce enough offspring or under no circumstances will evolution ever attempt to approach or cross that line? Could there be species today that reached that boundary in the past. A species reduced to so few reproductive individuals that somehow turned things around. (not talking about Noah et al)
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; September 29th, 2022 at 01:01 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Hypothetical situation..... Let's say there is a species with a life expectancy similar to ours out there that is evolving towards non procreative sex. Let's also say science concludes that at least 10% of its individuals currently do not produce offspring for one reason or another. In time as the species evolves, that percentage becomes 50%. Would you say the species is still evolving successfully at that point or could the percentage climb even higher? Would there be a point as it evolves where the species finds a balance, reverses the trend or is doomed for extinction should it continue this evolutionary path? Does evolutionary suicide exist?

    Is there a limit to how far a species can evolve and not produce enough offspring or under no circumstances will evolution ever attempt to approach or cross that line? Could there be species today that reached that boundary in the past. A species reduced to so few reproductive individuals that somehow turned things around. (not talking about Noah et al)
    Most of these aspects would be dependent on environmental issues. Decreasing reproduction could be a result of an evolutionary advance if the adults have a higher rate of survival within existing and potentially changing environments, regardless of life expectancy.

    It seems unlikely there are "doomed for extinction" evolutionary traits since it runs counter to the basics of evolution - survival of the superior form. Again, it is largely based on environmental issues. We know of many extinctions, from asteroids to over-hunting. There could be many causes we are not aware of resulting in extinction. Certainly the number of an existing, breeding species plays a major role in its survival and continuing evolution. However, it is possible that some species evolve in ways as you suggest that are very successful, but ultimately lead to extinction as a result of some environmental factor(s) from which it cannot survive, for whatever reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Helix View Post

    Most of these aspects would be dependent on environmental issues. Decreasing reproduction could be a result of an evolutionary advance if the adults have a higher rate of survival within existing and potentially changing environments, regardless of life expectancy.

    It seems unlikely there are "doomed for extinction" evolutionary traits since it runs counter to the basics of evolution - survival of the superior form. Again, it is largely based on environmental issues. We know of many extinctions, from asteroids to over-hunting. There could be many causes we are not aware of resulting in extinction. Certainly the number of an existing, breeding species plays a major role in its survival and continuing evolution. However, it is possible that some species evolve in ways as you suggest that are very successful, but ultimately lead to extinction as a result of some environmental factor(s) from which it cannot survive, for whatever reason.
    This is 15 years old but it made me think about evolving to go extinct.

    https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gDNr...-to-extinction

    Excerpt:
    The bystander effect is that, when someone is in trouble, solitary individuals are more likely to intervene than groups. A college student apparently having an epileptic seizure was helped 85% of the time by a single bystander, and 31% of the time by five bystanders. I speculate that even if the kinship relation in a hunter-gatherer tribe was strong enough to create a selection pressure for helping individuals not directly related, when several potential helpers were present, a genetic arms race might occur to be the last one to step forward. Everyone delays, hoping that someone else will do it. Humanity is facing multiple species-level extinction threats right now, and I gotta tell ya, there ain't a lot of people steppin' forward. If we lose this fight because virtually no one showed up on the battlefield, then—like a probably-large number of species which we don't see around today—we will have evolved to extinction.Cancerous cells do pretty well in the body, prospering and amassing more resources, far outcompeting their more obedient counterparts. For a while.
    Multicellular organisms can only exist because they've evolved powerful internal mechanisms to outlaw evolution. If the cells start evolving, they rapidly evolve to extinction: the organism dies.
    So praise not evolution for the solicitous concern it shows for the individual; nearly all of your ancestors are dead. Praise not evolution for the solicitous concern it shows for a species; no one has ever found a complex adaptation which can only be interpreted as operating to preserve a species, and the mathematics would seem to indicate that this is virtually impossible. Indeed, it's perfectly possible for a species to evolve to extinction. Humanity may be finishing up the process right now. You can't even praise evolution for the solicitous concern it shows for genes; the battle between two alternative alleles at the same location is a zero-sum game for frequency.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Multicellular organisms can only exist because they've evolved powerful internal mechanisms to outlaw evolution. If the cells start evolving, they rapidly evolve to extinction: the organism dies.
    Most of the quotes in the last post reads as an oversimplification of evolution since it deals with issues which raise questionable aspects on the future of any species relating to various behaviors. The above quote carried over is a classic example of this.

    Multicellular organisms exist because of evolution, not because they have evolved means to outlaw it. It otherwise suggests that evolution's primary drive is to limit changes in organisms.

    If this were the case, we would not see the countless species which have evolved since the advent of multicellular life forms. Their complexity is only increasing, which contradicts the notion that organisms die when cells start to evolve. One needs to look at the whole organism and not just its individual cells to appreciate how cellular changes might impart evolutionary advantages.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Helix View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Multicellular organisms can only exist because they've evolved powerful internal mechanisms to outlaw evolution. If the cells start evolving, they rapidly evolve to extinction: the organism dies.
    Most of the quotes in the last post reads as an oversimplification of evolution since it deals with issues which raise questionable aspects on the future of any species relating to various behaviors. The above quote carried over is a classic example of this.

    Multicellular organisms exist because of evolution, not because they have evolved means to outlaw it. It otherwise suggests that evolution's primary drive is to limit changes in organisms.

    If this were the case, we would not see the countless species which have evolved since the advent of multicellular life forms. Their complexity is only increasing, which contradicts the notion that organisms die when cells start to evolve. One needs to look at the whole organism and not just its individual cells to appreciate how cellular changes might impart evolutionary advantages.
    I didn’t say it, I just pasted.

    Anyways, change subject a bit. Watched video where people rescue a beached Orca. By helping the whale return to the ocean do we in some way hurt their species evolution, even if slightly, by putting a miscalculating whale or one not strong enough back into circulation, where it could pass on its genes? Not singling out orcas but any animal we rescue.

    Is it important in these days for animals to adapt to our presence? Migratory birds hit buildings and those not killed are rescued in some cities and put back in their population which, contains birds that didn’t crash. Shouldn’t the ones that didn’t smack into the edifice be breeding instead of those that did?

    Sorry animal lovers, no offence intended.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I didn’t say it, I just pasted.

    Anyways, change subject a bit. Watched video where people rescue a beached Orca. By helping the whale return to the ocean do we in some way hurt their species evolution, even if slightly, by putting a miscalculating whale or one not strong enough back into circulation, where it could pass on its genes? Not singling out orcas but any animal we rescue.

    Is it important in these days for animals to adapt to our presence? Migratory birds hit buildings and those not killed are rescued in some cities and put back in their population which, contains birds that didn’t crash. Shouldn’t the ones that didn’t smack into the edifice be breeding instead of those that did?
    Of course you didn't say it, and did not mean to suggest you believed it - only gave a response to the quote.

    On the issue of saving stranded animals, etc., it is difficult to know what impact this has on the species. Since much of today's problems with vanishing plants and animals is due to humans, it seems appropriate to try to save as many as possible. So we are not necessarily helping it pass on bad genes, just trying to prevent extinction.

    Same is true for captive breeding. The California condor is a classic example. They captured as many as possible of the few that were left, and now they are releasing them back into the wild. Seems like a long shot, but it is the only hope to prevent humans from wiping these things out. It wasn't their genes that went bad, it was too many humans messing around that caused their population to collapse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    Unicellular to multicellular evolution, how did it happen. Amazing what scientists can do in a lab even if they didn’t anticipate it. Found this interesting

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/singl...ears-20210922/
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Unicellular to multicellular evolution, how did it happen. Amazing what scientists can do in a lab even if they didn’t anticipate it.
    Mitosis was bound to leave two cells stuck together for some reason. At some point, that proved to be beneficial and two-celled organisms formed. That is the basis for all that would follow. And it probably happened more than once, giving rise to a number of variables in the direction of future complex organisms as they develop from that simplest advantage - two cells stuck together. One can imagine various lines forming from this alone, depending on what advantage was gained. Many variables.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    Thinking again about those microbes living 3 km below surface. Since they reproduce so unbelievably slow (over 1000 yrs to divide) then they must also evolve very, very slowly. Yet surface cells are reproducing at light speed when compared. One would think subsurface microbes must be a substantial distance behind their counterparts in an evolutionary race if there is such a thing. Not only that I would think they wouldn’t have a chance against surface microbes.

    I assume that layer by layer as the surface is approached that microbes reproduce faster and faster. I wonder if microbes in lower strata get consumed by those above them since a deeper microbe can’t evolve as fast. They’re always going to be on the menu. Then again they may be heading even lower, idk.

    I think finding surface life on planets we visit may be asking too much. Perhaps better to drill far into the depths of a planet. What about the chances our common ancestral cell originating deep below? In the early years of Earth were there oceans? Was most water contained below surface?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Thinking again about those microbes living 3 km below surface. Since they reproduce so unbelievably slow (over 1000 yrs to divide) then they must also evolve very, very slowly. Yet surface cells are reproducing at light speed when compared. One would think subsurface microbes must be a substantial distance behind their counterparts in an evolutionary race if there is such a thing. Not only that I would think they wouldn’t have a chance against surface microbes.
    Most life forms in these various zones of habitation probably would not interact with each other very much due to significantly different environments. If they did, it would seem that more advanced species from the surface would have wiped the others out and taken over by now. But that is not what we see. Just like in the oceans - you have many life forms which do not interact, and this is largely due to the varying depths at which they live, with their varying environments.

    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I think finding surface life on planets we visit may be asking too much. Perhaps better to drill far into the depths of a planet. What about the chances our common ancestral cell originating deep below? In the early years of Earth were there oceans? Was most water contained below surface?
    It is quite probable that the earliest life forms arose in surface water deep enough to avoid high UV radiation from the Sun, which would result in too many mutations for life to survive. Deeper waters filter out such radiation. It seems most water would have been restricted to the surface based on its physical properties compared to the solids which make up most of the planet. Getting hotter the deeper you go, it would seem most water would eventually be forced to the surface, with deep oceans forming early in the planet's evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Coronavirus and U.S. Mail
    By JordanonTech in forum Biology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 27th, 2020, 07:27 PM
  2. MiG-21 - still unpleasant surprise at Cope India exercise
    By misha in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 25th, 2012, 03:30 PM
  3. No Surprise, Nature Wants To Kill Us.
    By The Finger Prince in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2012, 05:16 AM
  4. pm mail error
    By John Galt in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 30th, 2010, 10:46 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •