I invite you to speculate on the next step in evolution

[AngelLestat]

The more complex an organism is, the less able it is to radically alter its physiology. The chance that a mammal would evolve a way to use nitrogen instead of oxygen are virtually zero.

Well, now ask rockets to use any other other elements instead oxigen to reach orbit. :S

[Sillychris]

Well, now ask rockets to use any other other elements instead oxigen to reach orbit. :S

First of all, I fell off my chair laughing when I read this. I like your wit.

I think you could do it with nuclear reactions, but using good old fashioned chemical reactions... yeah, not likely.

[Red Iron Crown]

Well, now ask rockets to use any other other elements instead oxigen to reach orbit. :S

Hydrazine.

[Camacha]

How can we discuss evolution without looking at mankind? I mean, even if you want to discuss other species, you can not deny the huge influence mankind will invariably have on pretty much every type of animal.

[Sillychris]

How can we discuss evolution without looking at mankind? I mean, even if you want to discuss other species, you can not deny the huge influence mankind will invariably have on pretty much every type of animal.

Evolution occurred for billions of years before mankind showed up, and our influence on its course has been incredibly brief.

In fact, humans did not even develop any new characteristics that would put us in a separate class. Sure, we're smart. Other mammals are smart, too. We're just more smart.*crossing fingers that people don't launch a discussion over the humancentric method of measuring intelligence*

So yeah, it's a difficult question. If it was an easy question, the possibilities wouldn't be very interesting to me and I would be able to reach obvious conclusions without posting it to a smart people forum.

I know you guys are smart. Just try to speculate before stating it's impossible.

[Scotius]

First of all, I fell off my chair laughing when I read this. I like your wit.

I think you could do it with nuclear reactions, but using good old fashioned chemical reactions... yeah, not likely.

Fluorine It's incredibly reactive. And lethally poisonous, so yeah - not very likely, but still...

[Camacha]

Evolution occurred for billions of years before mankind showed up, and our influence on its course has been incredibly brief.

Brief, but by now, widespread. We decimate natural habitats, alter the contents of oceans and atmosphere, hunt species to extinction and (inadvertently) promote others. Like it or not, a lot of adjustments animals (have to) make are because of human intervention.

At the same time it is exactly that what drives innovation. A lot of existing problems had been solved by nature - look at the convergent shark fin, dolphin fin and penguin wing. By posing new problems, the chances of new solutions grow.

[Faark]

Your statement "On the long run, another species would have evolved that also has intelligence as a key skill." is not necessarily true. The dinosaur example was meant to illustrate that, as they had a much, much longer run in which to develop them but never did.

Yes, but thats exactly the point. They couldn't adopt to an environmental change / event. Event though they were the leading species one the planet, they were still sitting ducks, just waiting to be obliterated by evolution. We, on the other had, will most likely have means to handle or at least survive such a situation. And there will always be such events, some of them even predictable like "end of the solar system" or "end of the universe".

Sure, a radiation hardened shell might also help you to survive some specific situations, but to really be successful a species has to evolve a toolset to handle any possible obstacle thrown at you by evolution. The only such multi purpose tools i am aware of are mutation (aka classical evolution. Dinosaurs definitively had that, but its a very slow process and small incremental changes might not be good to solve any problem) and intelligence (Dinosaurs definitively had not enough of that that).

Don't get me wrong, rapid mutation + selection does an awesome job. We might never get rid of viruses. But it seems like they work better on smaller species, and those will have a hard time soling bigger scale problems.

In fact, humans did not even develop any new characteristics that would put us in a separate class. Sure, we're smart. Other mammals are smart, too. We're just more smart.*crossing fingers that people don't launch a discussion over the humancentric method of measuring intelligence*

Yes, our smartness is in fact the only relevant characteristics that places us ahead of other common animals. Just like evolutionary mutation + selection separates animals from rocks. Yes, thats a simplification. But what makes you think the biological part of evolution is anything special?

But i get it... intelligence is just us humans (as far as we know) and "how will our future be" is commonly discussed else where. On the other hand asking "what will be the next/final branch of existence of non-mutating matter" would be kinda boring... it all ends in black holes (as far as we know, at least). But as for the step in between we do have a preliminary result. It is us, a species that is both able to manipulate stuff and think about problems in such a scale that we will pretty soon be able to change ourselves.

[Camacha]

Yes, but thats exactly the point. They couldn't adopt to an environmental change / event. Event though they were the leading species one the planet, they were still sitting ducks, just waiting to be obliterated by evolution. We, on the other had, will most likely have means to handle or at least survive such a situation. And there will always be such events, some of them even predictable like "end of the solar system" or "end of the universe".

First of all, it is dangerous to state we are superior to dinosaurs, given that they have been around a lot longer than we have. Luck is probably a bigger factor in all that than any quality. Intelligence is a neat feature, but it will hardly protect us when the rains turn acid, the skies grey and winter is... upon us.

Also, (a group of) dinosaurs made the best of their evolutionary mechanisms. Let's not forget they were sporting a lot of things we still see today in their descendents - feathers, bipedal motion, bone structure and more. They adapted and survived. You were not far off with your sitting duck, exept that it is quite literal instead of an analog.

[AngelLestat]

I think you could do it with nuclear reactions, but using good old fashioned chemical reactions... yeah, not likely.

Hydrazine.

Fluorine It's incredibly reactive. And lethally poisonous, so yeah - not very likely, but still...

Yeah, there is some ways like all you mention, lucky us, we dont have to use them... There would be many more deaths and tragedies.

But my comment was just to point the energetic benefits than any living being gain by using oxygen.

.*crossing fingers that people don't launch a discussion over the humancentric method of measuring intelligence*

Relax, you are in safe ground now

Well I will follow some topic rules, and I would said genetic memory.

The abilitiy to learn from the experience, record those experiences in adn code, then transmite that info to its offspring.

[Sillychris]

The abilitiy to learn from the experience, record those experiences in adn code, then transmite that info to its offspring.

Now that's an eye-opening idea! Like instinct, only far more rapid. I wonder how something like that could arise?

[Brotoro]

Well… Putting humans aside, the next big crisis life on Earth is certainly going to face in the inevitable warming of the Earth as the Sun gets more luminous. So we're going to need adaptions for high temperatures. Not the kind for hot, dry temperatures you find in the desert nowadays…because it should be quite humid as you heat up the oceans, too. Animals should prefer smaller body sizes, in general, since they shed heat faster. Flaps of skin that evolve into radiators. Even flapping flaps of skin to move air for cooling since evaporation won't be as effective in a humid world. Mammals may go hairless. Changes in biochemistry that let you run around at higher temperatures and eat all the sluggish animals that are taking siestas during the hottest part of the day. More animals taking the whale/dolphin route of evolving back into the sea where temperatures aren't as extreme. Plants will eventually have to rely more on the red end of the cooler solar spectrum for photosynthesis, so plants may change color. Plants may be white or shiny on top to reflect sunlight, and dark underneath to be better radiators. And their seeds will be sticky-burrs located on the undersides of the lower leaves because those are what the animals who hide out under the plants for shade are going to spread around more. Oh…but if the animals go hairless, the seeds may be sticky with sap, instead. Or the plants will grow their fruits down there so the animals hiding underneath can have a comfy lunch and then go spread the seeds along with fertilizer. Plus, dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Brotoro

[Rakaydos]

Cell phones are a human organ these days, right? You could function without one, but it would be like functioning without ears- you miss out on so much else.

[Sillychris]

Well… Putting humans aside, the next big crisis life on Earth is certainly going to face in the inevitable warming of the Earth as the Sun gets more luminous. So we're going to need adaptions for high temperatures.

This keeps me up at night, sometimes.

Flaps of skin that evolve into radiators. Even flapping flaps of skin to move air for cooling since evaporation won't be as effective in a humid world.

I've never heard this idea before, and it's a good one.

Plants will eventually have to rely more on the red end of the cooler solar spectrum for photosynthesis, so plants may change color.

Oh…but if the animals go hairless, the seeds may be sticky with sap, instead.

Plus, dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.

I really like these three points, as well. Bravo, sir!

[Kryten]

Evolution occurred for billions of years before mankind showed up, and our influence on its course has been incredibly brief.

Nobodies talking about human influence as in humans being generally super or whatever, people are talking about human influence as in the whole wiping out millions of species thing. Just look at what, say, australia was lie before and after humans showed up.

[Awaras]

Nobodies talking about human influence as in humans being generally super or whatever, people are talking about human influence as in the whole wiping out millions of species thing. Just look at what, say, australia was lie before and after humans showed up.

Yeah, but we are not the first thing to cause a mass extinction on Earth. Heck, we are not even the first living organism to cause a mass extinction.

And besides, every major 'leap' in evolution so far came after a huge extinction, so you could argue that we are just helping evolution along.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Awaras

[Sillychris]

Hmmm, good point with the mass extinctions.

[Scotius]

Right now we are evolving tusk-less elephants in Africa Pressure from poachers is so drastic, the size of elephant tusks noticeably decreased in just few generations. And tusks are vitally important to those animals - defence, food gathering, mating behaviour heavily depend on those modified teeth.

[Albert VDS]

Uh, thanks! Actually, the "sixth finger" is merely a catchy title for that particular Outer Limits episode. That characteristic was insignificant in relation to the primary development of the character: a much larger brain, and its attendant abilities, which included telekinesis and telepathy. If you watch the entire episode starting from part one, you will see the individual develop over the time of the episode, rather than being changed instantly.

Or the Sixth Finger could be reference to duodecimal, a system were you use 12 as a base for your numeral system.

After all we only use the decimal system because we have 5 fingers on each hand.

It makes much more sense because 12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4 and 6.

10 is only divisible by 2 and 5 without getting fractions.

So if you divide 10 into 3 equal parts you get 3 1/3.

If you divide 12 into 3 equal parts you get 4.

An article why we should use the duodecimal system.

[Red Iron Crown]

Or the Sixth Finger could be reference to duodecimal, a system were you use 12 as a base for your numeral system.

After all we only use the decimal system because we have 5 fingers on each hand.

It makes much more sense because 12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4 and 6.

10 is only divisible by 2 and 5 without getting fractions.

So if you divide 10 into 3 equal parts you get 3 1/3.

If you divide 12 into 3 equal parts you get 4.

An article why we should use the duodecimal system.

While that would be more elegant, it's never going to happen. We'd have to rework the metric system to retain its advantages, most currencies are decimal and would need to be reworked, and finger counting becomes more difficult.

[Albert VDS]

You are right that you would need make changes in the metric system and currency.

Counting wouldn't be difficult as you can use your thumb to count your phalanges.

Anyway, it was only a comment on why the episode could have been called the Sixth Finger and not to start a whole base 10 vs 12 discussion.

[shynung]

Flaps of skin that evolve into radiators. Even flapping flaps of skin to move air for cooling since evaporation won't be as effective in a humid world.

This particular trait has happened already; elephants' ears double as radiators.

In my opinion, intelligence is probably nothing more than a nice-to-have to an evolving organism. Other than the aforementioned dinosaurs, lifeforms such as bacteria managed to thrive without it for millions of years, all the way to the present day.

Other possibilities include the appearance of something I would call a superorganism; that is, an organism that is comprised of smaller organisms that act as a single individual. While multicellular organisms may already fit into this category, I'm more inclined to use it on animals such as ants or bees, that individually is not very powerful, but have considerable impact on its environment when formed into a hive.

Regarding the effects of human presence on the environment, I think there might be organisms that evolved to take advantage of it to thrive. What was ancient wolves and ocelots (small feline predators, basically miniature tigers) followed early humans around to eat their food scraps. When the humans took notice, they brought them around as pets, to help them hunt, guard their belongings, and so on. Eventually, these ancient predators evolved into dogs and cats as we know today.

Also, due to global warming from greenhouse effects, I'm guessing that darker-coloured organisms (including humans) would fare better in the future, pigments being the natural shield against (weak) solar radiation.

[lajoswinkler]

3) Regardless of your personal beliefs, we shall treat the current scientific model of natural selection as the mechanism of species diversity

This kind of meekness is one of the things that destroy USA. This is the "Science Labs" forum and after all, Squad doesn't allow pseudoscientific stuff here, so this thing was unnecessary. We don't apologize for talking about Newton's laws or electron orbitals, so why should we do it for natural selection?

On topic, are we discussing a particular species or genus or what?

[Starwaster]

We don't apologize for talking about Newton's laws or electron orbitals, so why should we do it for natural selection?

Because the same people that declared heliocentric views as heresy want to do the same thing for natural selection?

[Guest]

I think this is a different look on things. I relies on the human impact on the natural world, but doesn't specifically look at the human race.

We change and adapt the environment to human needs far quicker than before the industrial age, so for the past few hundred million years, progress within organisms is (what you could say) relatively slow. Because of our massive impact, animals/organisms are forced to adapt, not just mentally or physically in the short term (i.e new hunting grounds), but they'll eventually need to quickly adapt to environments.

This view raises a few questions, such as 'the dinosaurs didn't adapt', and well, frankly, that was instant. The human impact will be over decades/centuries - i believe this will allow time for subtle changes to organism physiology. I can't offer many examples as I'm really more of a mathematician, this is just my view.

I believe it's hard for us to imagine what will happen, we have observed a small amount of cases when there has been large change over a mediocre period of time during the planet's evolution, so it's been hard to study like we normally would (fossils etc.)