First alien signal may have been detected...!

[Lancer]

Survival is the goal of evolution, yes?

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Lancer
Survival is the goal of evolution, yes?

no, survival is often the result of evolution.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Lancer
Survival is the goal of evolution, yes?

Survival, yes; Intellegence, no.

[DRoseDARs]

And I'm not saying intelligence is a goal. Intelligence is a means, like reproduction, of furthering survival.

[Lancer]

"And I'm not saying intelligence is a goal. Intelligence is a means, like reproduction, of furthering survival."

I agree. The more intellegent, the more likely to be smart enough to survive to pass on one's genes, the more intellegent the next generation and so on, particularly as the stupid ones do dumb things and die.

I wonder if being pro abortion will eventually be bred out...hmm.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
We cant see any planets, so far. We can only find some fluctuating interference in the spectra of stars, and some jumps in their gravity. That's hardly "seeing". We need some big-ass telescopes ( giant interferometers) to actually see anything.

You knew what I meant "detect"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
One thing that annoys me about the Sagan worshippers is that they assume that evolution leads to intellegence. Sorry, but there is no goal in evolution.

One thing that annoys me about some of the Sagan bashers is that they spout meaningless things like this

There may not be a goal, but there sure as hell is a lot of convergence.

<- Sagan basher

[General Ludd]

I wouldn't say that there is any convergence in Evolution. It's just that the results are largely dependant on the surrounding environment, and earth is a relatively closed system.


If you where to compare evolution on earth to evolution on another planet, there would probably be very little convergence.


But, going by popular thought, humans are the only intelligent species on earth anyways - so there's no convergence there.

[Urban Ranger]

I wouldn't say it's convergence either, it's just the way evolution works - being an iterative process, each generation is a variation on the previous one.

Another reason is there are only so many successful strategies, and most species you see alive today are the results of successful stories. For example, there are only two broad categories of reproductive style: r-strategy and K-strategy. The former is "breed as many as you can and hope some will survive." The later is "careful tending of a few offspring."

[DRoseDARs]

Well, here's the thing: I'm pro-abortion only because the anti-abortion position generally means no abortions under ANY circumstances. Having a mutant baby with no mouth and 15 arms? God hates you and wants the child to suffer as your punishment. The mother has a good chance of dying due to the pregnacy? Too bad, shouldn't have gotten knocked-up in the first place trollop. You're a rape victim? Then you shouldn't have dressed like a slut.

Our intelligence gives us the means to recognize that aborting a pregnacy may be the best course of action if there's a serious problem with the fetus or if the woman's life is in danger, thereby allowing her to live another day ... perhaps to try again. The rape scenario is just a morality thing. I'd prefer a mother not abort a perfectly healthy child, but it may be emotionally better for both parties.

Further, our intelligence gives us alternate means of reproduction, invetro fertilization, surrogate mothers, and perhaps cloning, chief among them. Also, if there's a threat to the species as a whole, then our intelligence gives us the means of finding other options for survival. Asteroid with Earth's name on it? Cryogenic hibernation underground until the dust settles or colonizing Luna or Mars to continue.

I'm sorry, but yes: Survival and propagation ARE goals of evolution. There are always new challenges that threaten the extinction of a species, so the name of the game has always been and always will be to not die out.

[Az]

talking about 'goals' of evolution is flawed, IMHO. What's the goal of a hurricane? what's the goal of a Magma chamber? what's the goal of a pyroclastic erruption? What's the goal of plate tectonics?

It's a meaningless question. A nonsense. Because only a system that makes decisions can have goals. a dog, a cat, a human, all of them make have goals (some more complicated than others, obviously). Not all processes can have goals. Only entities.

[Lorizael]

What defines an entity?

[Az]

In hindsight 'Entity' may not be the most correct word, because it's definitions vary. I am having some trouble with wording my thoughts, so bare with me. I am rather certain that I am right in this one, I just have some serious problem with the wording.

[Jarouik]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I wouldn't say that there is any convergence in Evolution. It's just that the results are largely dependant on the surrounding environment, and earth is a relatively closed system.


If you where to compare evolution on earth to evolution on another planet, there would probably be very little convergence.

Certainly the life on Earth has generated random features in the environment, which in turn have affected the evolution of other species (like the existence of insects with color vision has lead to the development of colorful flowers). These details might be different on different planets.

Considering planets that could harbor carbon-based life, however, they are bound to have certain similarities in environment, such as temperature and surface features. And considering convergent evolution has lead to similar features in far-away species on Earth, a somewhat similar environment would result in somewhat similar structures, I would say.

Of course, chance has such a large effect that there is no way in knowing the exact details of such structures, i.e. whether the dominant oceanborne species would resemble vertebrates such as fish, invertebrates such as insects or octopuses, or something completely different last seen on Earth during the Cambrian explosion, if even then. What is probable is they would have some similarities in function to some of the species on Earth. Remember that evolution cannot do everything - it is strictly bounded by physics, the environment and the feasibility and likelihood of developing any change that assists reproduction more than inhibit it.

[Jarouik]

Originally posted by Azazel
It's a meaningless question. A nonsense. Because only a system that makes decisions can have goals. a dog, a cat, a human, all of them make have goals (some more complicated than others, obviously). Not all processes can have goals. Only entities.

Hmm, I wonder what constitutes a decision-making system? Considering "intelligence" is just a way of processing information and adapting and reacting to your environment, I could say that any entity or system that is sufficiently complex could appear to be "making decisions", so to speak.

Of course, we have no way of knowing how close the behaviour of such a system resembles our thought patterns, so I agree with you in that we shouldn't discuss "goals" when dealing with complex systems wildly different from ourselves. After all, "goals" and "decisions" are human concepts, so they probably do not apply to different systems with complex behaviour. Their behaviour might appear as having goals, but that is just our interpretation.