Aliens, Exist or Dont

[Green Baron]

  On 3/27/2017 at 10:29 AM, Urses said:

 

This said there found some anaerob bakterias with 200°C+ too.

I have to search the Source if somebody is interested, but need some legwork.

Expand  

Please ! Highly interested :-)

 

[Urses]

  On 3/27/2017 at 10:57 AM, Green Baron said:

Please ! Highly interested :-)

 

Expand  

Here you go. I don't find anything on english but we a have a Trail now (Psst im officaly at Work XD)

https://books.google.de/books?id=_MfhBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT217&lpg=PT217&dq=leben+in+unterwasservulkanen&source=bl&ots=ICRrByOepg&sig=zNgbPZ7jSVPHQ0eDN6XGOSmBPd8&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW1eiF0fbSAhXBCiwKHTAhCMIQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=leben in unterwasservulkanen&f=false

Edited March 27, 2017 by Urses

[KerikBalm]

  On 3/27/2017 at 9:36 AM, kerbiloid said:

DNA/RNA sophistics. 
Of course, I meant (D/R)NA as a whole thing. DNA doesn't work without RNA, and has appeared from it.

Expand  

If you meant it, then say it. Say nucleic acid. Most people don't know what RNA is or that it can be hereditary material.

 

  Quote

Titan has life?

Expand  

Who knows, but if it does, it certainly won't have nucleic acids as its hereditary material.

  Quote

Grandpa. Pa's pa.

Expand  

Maybe you should avoid such strange and non-technical language in a technical subject.

  Quote

Let's have a look.

Expand  

I'm not sure what your point is here? that other life will have DNA/RNA as its hereditary material? If that is your point, its flawed.

You very quickly get from benzene to a more complex set of bases... ignoring that purines/pyrimidines are just a part of the larger nucleic acid unit... Who says they'll be attached to deoxyriboses with a phosphate linkage?

"Just a benzene with two Ns instead of two (CH). A very primitive and common thing." And if there was just one N? and if there were none (as in the benzene example)? And if the sugar isn't deoxy ribose? if its not a sugar backbone at all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno_nucleic_acid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_nucleic_acid

Yes, CHON is common in the universe... that doesn't mean all life will use DNA, or your "expanded" definition of it to include RNA.

 

 

  Quote

Uracil with CH2 group attached to one of Os. 
Just a methylated uracil, nothing more. That's what I meant as "an ill uracil" sounds poetic btw.

Expand  

Maybe you should try to be accurate rather than poetic... I don't think anyone could decipher that an "ill Uracil" means a Uracil with a CH2 attached.

 

  Quote

So, as you can see, if avoid magically sounding names, all this stuff is made of most cheap and common pieces of organic (and nitrogenic) junk

Expand  

Maybe you should try to be accurate rather than poetic... what is this "magically" BS? 

 

  Quote

Of course, there are other variants to pollute the diazine molecula with ammonia and methylic wastes, and sure a DNA/RNA can survive if add/replace some of them instead of AGCTU.
(Though they had all chances on the Earth, as AGCTU had, but not survived IRL, giving us a hint not to bet much money on the alternatives).

Expand  

This may be true, but we can't be certain. DNA and RNA may form as a result of convergent evolution on other worlds. Its been suggested that DNA/RNA's strong absorption in the 254nm UV range is not a coincidence and coincides with a "UV window" in earth's atmosphere if it lacked Ozone (as it did before the GOE) - that this strong absorbance was actually beneficial/selected for when life was starting. If this was a relevant factor in the evolution of life Other planets with different stars that have different emissions spectra, different atmospheric compositions, etc... then a different molecule may result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_window

 

  Quote

Earth bioreactor operates for ~4 bln years. Most of this time it procrastinated with unicellulars and other junk. 
Something practically significant appeared just about 300 mln years ago, while something enough dense and compact to deal with it personally - just several tens millions ago. 
98% of the Earth life existance this "life" was clots of slime in dirty pool. And that's in ideal for organic life evolution conditions.

Expand  

I think you are vastly underestimating the amount of innovation that was taking place in those ~3.5 billion years before the "cambrian explosion" which is what I think you are referring too. To dismiss it as "junk" implies to me that you don't understand the subject very well.

I'm not quite certain what you are referring to 300 million years ago though.... that's the start of the Permian period. The land was forrested, fish had crawled out of the sea and grown legs. Vascular plants were on land 100 million years earlier in the Silurian, and tetrapods were walking around land ~60 million years earlier as well.

Even assuming you were referring the the cambrian explosion some 540 million years ago... that overlooks the Ediacaran biota, with fossils like sprigginia and charnodiscus proving that multicellular life had been around for quite some time before the Cambrian. If Kimberella is a stem mollusc as it appears to be, then not only had animals already split into porifera, bilateria, cnideria, etc, but bilateria had split into proterostomes and deuterostomes.

 

  Quote

There should be many planets with algae, bacteria and mildew. 
First hundred of them the super-civ would enthusiastically listing them, matching every junkazoid with its (...)NA code. And trying to reproduce and optimize.Did you ever play Spore or No Man's Sky? That's exactly how should the super-civ bilogists feel studying 101st planet.
After 200th "living" planet they should evade from dull and useless field trips at any cost, quckly synthesizing random creatures in their lab vats as anyway nobody cares and see a difference.

Expand  

Nope, haven't played those, though I've seen videos of NMS, and citing them does not advance your argument one bit. Everytime a unique biochemistry is encountered, I'm sure it would generate a lot of interest. They would have to be pretty advanced to generate new biochemistries "from the ground up", and then design new enzymes for those new biochemistries. Why would they create new creatures anyway? what is their motivation. If they are merely collecting and using resources: theres plenty of material on bodies that do not host life, and given that design and computation has physical constraints that cannot be magically waived - they'd be pretty stupid to not study the results of a multibillion year large scale natural bioreactor before consuming the products.

  Quote

Simultaneously, no doubt, they will do their best with the Earth creatures (including human bodies) re-engineering, making such perfect super-beasts that they would just need no more wildlings to study something new.

And you can watch Prometeus movie to see what they be. Alien Engineers don't need inferior beings DNA, they make themselves what they want.

Expand  

 Prometheus was terrible, and should not be the basis for any argument.

[kerbiloid]

 

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

Who knows, but if it does, it certainly won't have nucleic acids as its hereditary material.

Expand  

And if the Moon does, we should now consider with rocky golems.
Occam, scientific method, so on...

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

I'm not sure what your point is here?

Expand  

My point here is when you have a limited set of possible primitives, you have limited number of combinations, with even lesser number of lesser ones.
In fact, IRL we have 4₊₁ really used blocks for any case. We can presume that not only they could (and afaik they can artificially insert several tens of nucleic compound into already existing *NA), but by some reasons only they have been selected by the evoultion and unlikely you can just put a random small molecula instead of them.

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

You very quickly get from benzene to a more complex set of bases

Expand  

Complex? They are just benzene (well, diazine) ring with the most primitive and common (NH2, CH3, O) short tails. Petrol is many times more complex than this.
Unikely you can replace two more C with N and wait that it works. More probable, that price/efficiency ratio is optimal for something very close to these AGCTU compounds.

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

that doesn't mean all life will use DNA, or your "expanded" definition of it to include RNA.

Expand  

Ok, to confess, I'll name them *NA, like *NIX systems.

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

Maybe you should try to be accurate rather than poetic...

Expand  

Ok, thymine is a healthy but methylized uracil.

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

what is this "magically" BS

Expand  

Chemical compound names should be considered as a special kind of high poetry. They sound really charming.

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

DNA and RNA may form as a result of convergent evolution on other worlds.

Expand  

DNA and RNA themselves are just sequences of 4₊₁ primitive blocks of the same genesis. 4 polluted versions of 1,3-diazine.
Unlikely this is just a coincidence. But even if, the science usually studies facts, not arbitrary assumptions. Fact is that nothing more could into *NA here on Earth.
Also unlikely aliens use carbonic acid instead of petrol, though theoretically we can invent such conditions.

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

Other planets with different stars that have different emissions spectra,

Expand  

No problem, maybe they will have CH2 or O instead of NH2 in one of these moleculas. Unlikely hi-tech civ would be astonished.

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

I think you are vastly underestimating the amount of innovation that was taking place in those ~3.5 billion years

Expand  

I'm quite sure that a hi-tech civ would have no problem with synthesizing several thousands of prokaryotes, farce them with each other, call this eukaryotes and breed very different kinds in desired ways.
That's what the Nature mostly was doing first 3 bln years.

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

300 million years ago

Expand  

Something more complex than a fish and an insect, able to live on ground and learn, build solid things rather than just nests of air bubbles.
As this had happened, the evolution has accelerated for several orders of magnitude.

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

Everytime a unique biochemistry is encountered, I'm sure it would generate a lot of interest.

Expand  

While it's "unique".
You don't need to collect results from all casinos in the world to build your own roulette and begin playing.
There are numerous variants of poker, but you don't need to know all of them to play yourself.

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

They would have to be pretty advanced to generate new biochemistries "from the ground up", and then design new enzymes for those new biochemistries.

Expand  

A typical argument of creationists. "Do you believe that throwing up stones you can build a house?"
They already have all mentioned by you and will have much more studying the first several living planets. The more they know - the less they study new, the more they study from their own experiments, not from random attempts of evolution.

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

Why would they create new creatures anyway? what is their motivation.

Expand  

Why would they study existing ones? What is their motivation?
Scientific method assumes that any experiment must be reproducible. The only way to ensure we understand the Nature - to reproduce it's creatures using the developed theory.
Otherwise the countless butterflies died under needles for nothing.

  On 3/27/2017 at 2:21 PM, KerikBalm said:

If they are merely collecting and using resources: theres plenty of material on bodies that do not host life, and given that design and computation has physical constraints that cannot be magically waived - they'd be pretty stupid to not study the results of a multibillion year large scale natural bioreactor before consuming the products.

Expand  

Keyword: daisyworld.
Life is a stabilizing agent, a high-order chemical utility. It's a negative loopback supressing any deviations from average.
Before the plants have appeared, water and wind were scratching mountains, making them canyons,
The northern bogs consume the atmospheric carbon and bury it under ground, while plants renew the oxygen. All these things keeps conditions on the planet surface stable.
(Btw this was nicely implemented in Spore game.)
If you want a nice, stable planet rather than one more Mordor, you must set its biosphere, i.e. organize the matter exchange loop of higher orders,

So, if you are a hi-tech civ, have a livable planet, have a plenty of specialized lifeforms you'd created millenia before, you won't bother with studying several more families of bacteria.
You sterilize the place (to avoid unpredictable contamination) and place the biosphere of your own.

(Sad, but I think 'm sure that humans will have to do this right on the Earth a century later).

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

  On 3/27/2017 at 9:36 AM, kerbiloid said:

 

Earth bioreactor operates for ~4 bln years. Most of this time it procrastinated with unicellulars and other junk. 
Something practically significant appeared just about 300 mln years ago, while something enough dense and compact to deal with it personally - just several tens millions ago. 
98% of the Earth life existance this "life" was clots of slime in dirty pool. And that's in ideal for organic life evolution conditions.

 

Expand  

No offense, ok ?

First, unicellulars changed ocean and atmospheric chemisms. Be humble :-)

#300millionyearsago: i'll have to guess ... amniotic egg (reptiles) ? an Ice Age ? A supercontinent ? a huge desert ? an earthwide ocean ? Bikini weather ? Cancel that, uninteresting at that time :-))

#severaltensofmillionyearsago ... the list is long ... give us a hint .. the first letter maybe ?

 

[kerbiloid]

  On 3/27/2017 at 4:42 PM, Green Baron said:

#severaltensofmillionyearsago ... the list is long ... give us a hint .. the first letter maybe ?

Expand  

Higher nervous activity. Macroorganisms. Big and clever.

  On 3/27/2017 at 4:42 PM, Green Baron said:

First, unicellulars changed ocean and atmospheric chemisms.

Expand  

Not to doubt in heroism of unicellulars, but themselves they stay very, very primitive.

Edited March 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

  On 3/27/2017 at 4:45 PM, kerbiloid said:

Higher nervous activity. Macroorganisms. Big and clever.

Not to doubt in heroism of unicellulars, but themselves they stay very, very primitive.

Expand  

I keep it funny :-)

Being "primitive" can have its advantages. They are very, very fit.

Ah, so the amniotic egg was that thing #300millionyearsago. Ok, it works until today.

Yeah, that brain thing is actually something tricky to explain evolutionwise, it needs a lot of energy and few really use its potential. Mayhaps it'll be sorted out as overkill in the future ...

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

  On 3/27/2017 at 4:59 PM, Green Baron said:

Being "primitive" can have its advantages.

Expand  

Absolutely agreed. But the more primitive are the lifeforms - the more easy to study and reproduce them with desired modifications. The closer they look.
That's not about profit of the beings themselves. _{Nobody cares about them}

  On 3/27/2017 at 4:59 PM, Green Baron said:

Yeah, that brain thing is actually something tricky to explain evolutionwise, it needs a lot of energy and few really use its potential. Mayhaps it'll be sorted out as overkill in the future ...

Expand  

It allows an object to become a subject and later rule the evolution on its own. Like humans do with plants and animals.

Edited March 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[TheKorbinjer]

 You see, how could we be the only ones. Life on planet earth is so diverse, we have fish who breathe water, animals that breathe air, and bacteria that doesn't require anything to breathe at all..  It seems absolutely impossible that we could be the only ones in this universe. If we can have millions of different species, all unique to each other, then there CAN be life on other worlds. Somewhere out there, though.. We just have to find it, which I hope we do in my life time.

[Urses]

I have a sense about one of the big factors is never mentioned untill now? 

The big Chaos "i mix all in and do a bit of all concepts go the way they never planned" Mutations. Like i understand it in a highly radioactive Environment is a great chance to get life by accident?

[kerbiloid]

  On 3/27/2017 at 5:39 PM, TheKorbinger said:

we have fish who breathe water, animals that breathe air

Expand  

They both breathe oxygen solved in water. Just the former suck water from outside, which had solved the oxygen from the air. The latter suck the oxygen from the air and solve it in their wet lungs.

  On 3/27/2017 at 5:39 PM, TheKorbinger said:

and bacteria that doesn't require anything to breathe at all

Expand  

They breathe, but without pleasure.

  On 3/27/2017 at 5:39 PM, TheKorbinger said:

We just have to find it

Expand  

Before it has found us.

  On 3/27/2017 at 5:49 PM, Urses said:

in a highly radioactive Environment is a great chance to get life by accident?

Expand  

Yes. And lose it at once.
(In fact, no. Mutations get into order later, after the chemical hypercycles had gotten established in a lipid envelope)

Edited March 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[Urses]

  On 3/27/2017 at 5:50 PM, kerbiloid said:

Yes. And lose it at once.
(In fact, no. Mutations get into order later, after the chemical hypercycles had gotten established in a lipid envelope)

Expand  

Problem if the origin is maybe lipid but the result substitutes carbon with silicium you get a highly resistant lifeform for such a enviroment. 

It is often postulated that a Silizium based lifeform has many advantages on a carbonbased. They will be only a "bit" slower....

E: And yes Mutations are a bit higher but i miss the term for the process of influence of radiation on organic basic molecules. 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Urses

[kerbiloid]

Mutagen begin playing a role only when you already have a stable self-reproducing chemical hypercycle. For example, DNA/RNA-based. Radiation changes its conditions a little, but just a little - to allow it continue, not breaking apart all its chemism.

  On 3/27/2017 at 6:01 PM, Urses said:

a Silizium based lifeform has many advantages on a carbonbased

Expand  

Of course. To 3.14ss with sand is great.
(Literally. SiO2 is solid, while CO2 gaseous)

Edited March 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

  On 3/27/2017 at 5:04 PM, kerbiloid said:

It allows an object to become a subject and later rule the evolution on its own. Like humans do with plants and animals.

Expand  

O.o., and i was just starting to like your argumentation ...

We don't rule the evolution (yet), we use it's mechanisms to control the environment or breed to our satisfaction and especially to do away with organisms, either actively in killing for profit or fun and passively in destroying formerly occupied niches. But if our brain shrinks again we have to step back into the foodchain. The fact that we are influencing natural selection with medicine (i'd call that artificial selection but am sure a purist will stand up and correct me soon (tm)) and so on could even accelerate the process, who knows. I.am.not.a.creationist.

  On 3/27/2017 at 5:39 PM, TheKorbinger said:

 You see, how could we be the only ones.

Expand  

Simple, if we assume that such a thing over 4 billion years only occured once (it was and is an incredibly complex and interdependent system that has evolved on earth !) then we have to assume that we are the only ones. Not for long, species come and go. Probabilities don't help us.

  On 3/27/2017 at 5:49 PM, Urses said:

I have a sense about one of the big factors is never mentioned untill now? 

The big Chaos "i mix all in and do a bit of all concepts go the way they never planned" Mutations. Like i understand it in a highly radioactive Environment is a great chance to get life by accident?

Expand  

No. You need an organism that is able to "mutate", to change the code over generations in order for "mutations" to happen. Evolution is a continuous process. Certain "jumps" may be an artifact of our observation methods and the large timespans. But nobody said: "Here is a lung, get out of the soup and walk on land !" :-)

btw.: the link didn't work. If not @work any more, could you try to find that 200+°C organism ?

  On 3/27/2017 at 5:50 PM, kerbiloid said:

 

They breathe, but without pleasure.

Expand  

? eruS

  Quote

Before it has found us.

Expand  

Oh, come on ! They are all out there waiting to steal our women ? :-)

 

Man i have too much time today :-)

Edited March 27, 2017 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

  On 3/27/2017 at 6:06 PM, Green Baron said:

They are all out there waiting to steal our wifes ? :-)

Expand  

Of course. Every wife is about 20 kg of highly organized proteins and lipids.

  On 3/27/2017 at 6:06 PM, Green Baron said:

? eruS

Expand  

Without lungs? One can try,

  On 3/27/2017 at 6:06 PM, Green Baron said:

We don't rule the evolution (yet)

Expand  

Partially, we do. Almost none of domesticated plants and animals you can meet in wild nature. Even cats and dogs. What's it if not an artificial redirection of the evolution.

Also bacteria resistive to antibiotics. Aren't they our evolutionary pets?

Edited March 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[Urses]

  On 3/27/2017 at 6:06 PM, Green Baron said:

Oh, come on ! They are all out there waiting to steal our wifes ? :-)

Expand  

Are they Italian somehow (no offense but to Feed a common prejudice)

And no i Think it's mostly the problem eben mentioned by Hawkings:

"If they come they must be on much higher step in Science and we will go the way of all natives, we will be extingeshd!"

*Not the original Zitat but my intrpretion of how i understand it.

[kerbiloid]

Not to offense somebody, but most of natives were culturally assimilated, rather than extinguished.

[Green Baron]

  On 3/27/2017 at 6:12 PM, kerbiloid said:

Partially, we do. Almost none of domesticated plants and animals you can meet in wild nature. Even cats and dogs. What's it if not an artificial redirection of the evolution.

Also bacteria resistive to antibiotics. Aren't they our evolutionary pets?

Expand  

But still we are ruled by evolution. Our understanding of the evolutionary mechanisms permits us to use them to artificially select features we see as appropriate. If we could edit the genome and produce species from the drawing board and freeze our own genome so that natural evolution stops for us then we can talk again.

I kindly ask to revisit my dispute on this with a co-kerbonaut over in the fermi-thread.

 

[kerbiloid]

  On 3/27/2017 at 6:27 PM, Green Baron said:

But still we are ruled by evolution.

Expand  

Of course we are. Anything is, even galaxies.

[KerikBalm]

  On 3/27/2017 at 4:35 PM, kerbiloid said:

And if the Moon does, we should now consider with rocky golems.
Occam, scientific method, so on...

Expand  

Titan has a whole lot more possibilities than the Moon. The point here is that we have only data from 1 abiogenesis event. That can't really inform us about what other abiogenesis events are like. We can turn to physics and chemistry, which so far is a "maybe" as to the possibility of life on Titan. 

  Quote

My point here is when you have a limited set of possible primitives, you have limited number of combinations, with even lesser number of lesser ones.

Expand  

Which is why it may in fact be that DNA and RNA are common in life... but it cannot be assumed that all life will have it.

  Quote

I'm quite sure that a hi-tech civ would have no problem with synthesizing several thousands of prokaryotes, farce them with each other, call this eukaryotes and breed very different kinds in desired ways.
That's what the Nature mostly was doing first 3 bln years.

Expand  

Well, take our near future... we cannot design enzymes like Rubisco, ATP synthase, etc. We won't be able to for the near future. Even as we get into very detailed simulation about how such complex proteins will act, it will still be too complex for a long long time. Make someone start over with a different molecules, and it will be another huge challenge.

You seem to treat these advanced aliens as gods: but there are physical limits to computing power. One cannot know everything and predict everything with absolute certainty. To simulate the entire universe requires a computer with as many parts as all the particles in the universe. That is why the results of a billion year planet wide bioreactor will be of continued interest.

  Quote

Something more complex than a fish and an insect, able to live on ground and learn, build solid things rather than just nests of air bubbles.

Expand  

That didn't happen 300 million years ago... and fish are pretty darn complex. Many fish have genomes much larger than our own, more complex metabolisms than our own... at the cellular/molecular level, humans are pretty far from the top of complexity. Its a unique combination of fine motor skills and a large brain with a certain structure. From a biological perspective, we aren't any more complex than the Coelacanth.

  Quote

A typical argument of creationists. "Do you believe that throwing up stones you can build a house?"

Expand  

Oh please, you are arguing for Intelligent design of these things, whereas I'm arguing in favor of an iterative evolutionary strategy. Even today in many aspects of engineering, we've given up on design in favor of an iterative "evolutionary" algorithm.

Take your strawmen elsewhere.

[kerbiloid]

  On 3/27/2017 at 7:11 PM, KerikBalm said:

Titan has a whole lot more possibilities than the Moon.

Expand  

On ten-billionth against one ten-trillions?
Still the Titan is not a fact, it's an arbitrary guess.

  On 3/27/2017 at 7:11 PM, KerikBalm said:

Which is why it may in fact be that DNA and RNA are common in life... but it cannot be assumed that all life will have it.

Expand  

And until we find or somebody will construct, this is a guess. Carbon chemistry is very specific tree and almost all mentioned compound are near the very root.

  On 3/27/2017 at 7:11 PM, KerikBalm said:

we cannot design enzymes like Rubisco, ATP synthase, etc. We won't be able to for the near future. Even as we get into very detailed simulation about how such complex proteins will act, it will still be too complex for a long long time.

Expand  

Twenty years ago a human genome sequencing was a multi-year international task, while cellphones were a near future sci-fi.

  On 3/27/2017 at 7:11 PM, KerikBalm said:

You seem to treat these advanced aliens as gods: but there are physical limits to computing power.

Expand  

Until the computer power becomes the main and sole aim of your civilization which allows skeleton keys for any doors.

  On 3/27/2017 at 7:11 PM, KerikBalm said:

One cannot know everything and predict everything with absolute certainty.

Expand  

Isn't requred. Statistics methods are enough good. You don't need to calculate petrol moleculas to understand how your engine works. Excessive accuracy is an evil,

  On 3/27/2017 at 7:11 PM, KerikBalm said:

and fish are pretty darn complex

Expand  

Evolutionary they are contemporaries of insects. Intellectually not far away, too.

  On 3/27/2017 at 7:11 PM, KerikBalm said:

Many fish have genomes much larger than our own

Expand  

Mushrooms have. And several tens genders. Big heap of junk is still junk.

  On 3/27/2017 at 7:11 PM, KerikBalm said:

From a biological perspective, we aren't any more complex than the Coelacanth

Expand  

From a biological perspective we have several more brain sections which allows us to change our environment rather than bodies.
That's why coelacanth has exotic name, while there are 7 bln humans.

[Green Baron]

  On 3/27/2017 at 7:11 PM, KerikBalm said:

That didn't happen 300 million years ago... and fish are pretty darn complex. Many fish have genomes much larger than our own, more complex metabolisms than our own... at the cellular/molecular level, humans are pretty far from the top of complexity. Its a unique combination of fine motor skills and a large brain with a certain structure. From a biological perspective, we aren't any more complex than the Coelacanth.

Expand  

I understood "build" as make an egg with a hard shell and build a nest for it. That's what happened (a little more than) 300my ago (besides other things :-)).

The rest absolutely dacc (French colloquial "agrred").

  On 3/27/2017 at 7:35 PM, kerbiloid said:

Evolutionary they are contemporaries of insects. Intellectually not far away, too.

Expand  

yrroS

but that's nonsense and not even an argument. Evolution has no top or highest achievements, it fills niches. In that "we" are not better than bacteria or a flower. Take off your clothes and go out in a winter night. You're dead (3 times). Take our technology from us and of the 7billion a few will survive (not necessarily those with the biggest brains or those with the best behaviour). We are good at tool making and -use and that allows us to walk on dead bodies since a few thousand years (!), i doubt that this is a top-development and will survive in the long run.

Though i don't know the future ... :-)

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Green Baron

[Urses]

  On 3/27/2017 at 6:06 PM, Green Baron said:

btw.: the link didn't work. If not @work any more, could you try to find that 200+°C organism ?

Expand  

Hmm the next one for the thema i found here in english

http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/170

I'm in in the Moment, but the Source must be somewhere around. Like i mentioned it was a doku for smth 10years may be? In Germany.

The tags: 

-Black Smokers

-Evolution

-Anaerob bacteria 

At mean time it was a doku about sharks who live in Kavachi Vulkan too. As sideinfo.

Follow the Trail

Funny Kabooms 

Urses

[0111narwhalz]

  On 3/27/2017 at 8:17 PM, Green Baron said:

yrroS

Expand  

I'm curious: What does it mean when you write something reversed like this?

[Urses]

  On 3/28/2017 at 12:13 AM, 0111narwhalz said:

I'm curious: What does it mean when you write something reversed like this?

Expand  

Maybe "Sorry, but no Sorry"?

Is he Canadian?

Thanks at all realy interesting Conversation. 

TNT

Funny Kabooms 

Urses

Edited March 28, 2017 by Urses