Am I The Only One Who Doesn't Like "Avatar"?
- Thread starter droowl
- Start date
Do you concede that every fingerprint is unique? Do you concede that every living organism, twins aside, has unique DNA? The manner in which these little protiens combine with each other is unique for each one of us.
As long as there is life on Earth, this will continue to be true. I don't understand how you don't see that as infinite.
The Drake equation argues that life exists elsewhere. It says absolutely nothing about what that life would look like.
Main Entry: hu·man·oid
Pronunciation: \ˈhyü-mə-ˌnȯid, ˈyü-\
Function: adjective
Date: 1918
: having human form or characteristics
Do you have any idea how many species have existed on this planet? And out of that incalculably high number, how many of them have been humanoid? Only for the last 4 million years have humanoid species even existed. No, that's not even slightly broad. It's rather specific.
Well, as of now, we're yet to run out of unique mutations, and it's been working this way for a pretty long time. I think it's logical to assume it will continue to work this way.
I do know what a Straw Man argument is. Please show me where I've done this.
How about we use THE definition?
Oh, right. And which one of us is arguing ad hom?
Do you have a degree? I'm guessing the answer to that question is yes. What would you do if you got involved in a debate with people who did not share your education? What if they started saying stuff that was in complete disagreement with some of the most basic fundamentals of your field of study? Are you honestly trying to tell me that you wouldn't, at any point, be like, "Hey, guys, you've really misunderstood this concept. Please let me explain it to you; I know it very well."
Well, my field of study doesn't deal with any potential extraterrestrial life-forms. But it does deal extensively with evolution, and I've noticed that there are some huge misunderstandings out there. How am I supposed to not point them out?
I'm asking an honest question. What is your education in?
Euphemistically speaking, yes DNA's sole purpose is to contain data. Unless you ask the individual DNA. From it's perspective, it's sole purpose is to replicate. My comment is intended to get you to stop thinking about evolution on this grand level. Evolution works at the level of an individual gene.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic. But I also have offered a "considered response". You guys are saying that the only way I can prove that the Na'vi can't exist is if we travel to all the different planets, and figure out all their biospheres. I'm trying to convey to you the idea that valid generalizations can, indeed, be made, based solely on what we've learned here. We can all agree that ice-cream-pooping-pizza-people is a ridiculous concept. Well, how did we reach the conclusion that there aren't going to be any ice-cream-pooping-pizza-people? Did we have to scour the entire universe? No, we made generalizations based on Earth-based observations.
I don't know what "self-evolve" means. From a genetic standpoint, there is absolutely nothing special about primates.
No high-five?
So there are infinite numbers of creatures living on the planet, then? "Unique" and "infinite" are two entirely different things. Something is unique until it is replicated, but if there are infinite possibilities, there's no chance of it happening. Just because what we've encountered thus far is unique doesn't mean the possibilities are infinite.
Sapience is a (thus far uniquely) human characteristic. Therefore, if there is sapient life, it could be considered humanoid.
QED.
So science has catalogued every genetic mutation since abiogenesis, eh?
Because I'll turn it against you, as above. Context is everything.
I'm not trying to discredit you by calling you a douche, it's more of a personal critique for your personal benefit.
Funny, xenobiology isn't your education.
Oh. Well, this discussion is about evolution on other planets, which is inherently speculative. You're the only one asserting certainty, which to me is kind of silly. You don't think it's the slightest bit possible that evolution happens differently, depending on the planet, which would render our current knowledge about evolution worthless in the context of xenobiology?
I actually agree that truly "human-like" species more than likely don't exist, I just find your confidence in something obviously unknowable amusing. There's just so much room for doubt, and yet here you are, asserting knowledge of something you couldn't possibly know. You humans, always so self-sure.
None. I'm an auto-didact. Never had much use for any organized schooling beyond elementary school teaching me basic grammar and social skills. I am, however, pretty much a polymath. Just young, poor, and in awful circumstances, which is why I don't have groupies yet.
Er, wait. So you're suggesting outside conditions have no bearing on evolution? Or are you simply saying the machinations of evolution only occur at the genetic level?
Technically, this is right. Knowledge is kind of a layman's error, in reality, we only approach 'knowledge' (an objective understanding of reality) asymptotically using our perceptive and deductive abilities.
Right. So you're admitting you're not certain about humanoid life on other planets, only that it's not probable? That's all I'm trying to do, really. Instill a little bit of doubt for everything in everyone.
We're close to the point where we'll be able to alter our own genetics to control our evolution. That's a pretty cool trait to have, evolutionarily speaking. Natural selection becomes irrelevant, etc. Haven't looked into transhumanism?
Meh.
Not at all. I've got no problem with your opinions and think you lay out your case well. I've just... well I've made my point...
Haha I hate that channel.
I wasn't offended by it and I think it is fun. I shouldn't call anyone's opinions 'rubbish' though cos that's "ungentlemanly"
It's good that you're passionate about your beliefs...
That was fun now lets make a film...
Last edited:
I have absolutely no idea how to answer that question. But here's the question that really weirds me out -- what existed before the Big Bang? Furthermore, what existed before that (whatever it was) existed? And before that? I find it impossible, with or without the presence of a God, to comprehend how existence could just begin. I find it equally impossible to comprehend how there might not have been a beginning, and it just always was. Neither answer makes any sense. Clearly, there's something going on that is just WAY outside of our level of comprehension.
I make my claims because you're asking for a whole lot of coincidences. I will agree that if complex life exists elsewhere, some sort of sensory organ(s) might be commonplace. But there's no reason to believe that the way we sense our environment is the only way for that to work.
The eye didn't just pop into existence. It is the result of a vast number of mutations, selected by a vastly diverse array of environmental pressures, unique to their particular geography and place in time. Those specific conditions simply can't be replicated. You guys keep talking about how this planet might be similar to that planet. That's not enough. That's not even scratching the surface of how similar the situations would have to be in order for life to evolve on another planet similarly to how it has here. It's like you're asking the EXACT history of our planet's biosphere to play out again, in exactly the same way and order.
Think about plant life. How different is that from us? They don't eat. They don't poop. They typically have no form of locomotion. They don't have lungs. No eyes. Nothing at all that is even slightly similar to us. And you know what? They've been around a whole lot longer than us. So, why do you associate Earth-bound animal characteristics with what must be a successful model that the universe will somehow guide evolution towards?
I love humanity. I love people. This is a truly fascinating existence we've fashioned ourselves into. But from the perspective of genetics, there's nothing special about us at all. Our blueprint for genetic success is surely not THE only way that it must be done.
You're my brotha. For me, there is simply nothing more fascinating than Homo sapiens, and the evolution of that species is obviously a pretty big part of that equation. For me and a lot of other people, this science is just plain fun.
Plus, there is that little thing called "modern medicine". I think we can all agree that any improvement in the field of medicine is an improvement to our quality of life.
Oh, ok. I see what you're saying. Just because something has been constant for a really long time (unique genetic mutations), that doesn't mean it will always stay that way. That being the case, we should all start preparing for the day that gravity stops working.
Actually, "sapience" is a silly and outdated term, no longer used by anyone in science, and for damned good reason. The very definition of "sapience" involves a whole lot of subjectivity.
Booya.
(Doesn't "booya" sound so much better than "QED"?)
Dude, the fact that you even offered this up as an argument makes it very difficult for me to not start waving my flag -- the one that pisses you guys off.
Have we catalogued every single fingerprint, for every single person on the face of the Earth? Of course not, but in the MANY instances of fingerprinting that have taken place, we're yet to find any two that are identical. I think it's pretty safe to say that every individual has a unique fingerprint. Same thing goes for DNA.
Oh, snap! Context is indeed meaningful. But sometimes it's important to just understand the actual definition of a word you are using.
Oh, thanks. It doesn't feel like you're flaming me at all.
Xenobiology. Haha. Let's go form a "science" around something that we have absolutely no evidence for the existence of.
I wonder why NO university offers a degree in "xenobiology"? Hmm... Maybe that's because it's not anything even remotely resembling science.
Oh, so you actually agree with my main point? Let's keep this discussion on-topic. This entire debate revolves around my assertion that the existence of the Na'vi is just preposterously unrealistic.
Yes, I'm the only one asserting certainty. I'm also the only one with... oh, wait, I'm not allowed to mention that little detail. But that's beside the point. Let's get one thing clear --
Dude, how do you think we know anything at all about our universe? How do we know how many planets are in our solar system? How do we know the chemical composition of those planets? How do we know that those little blips of light we see in the distance are actually entire galaxies? How do we know that a particular star might have planets revolving around it?
How do we know a single Goddamned thing about any fucking thing at all in our stupid universe?
Everything you guys keep shoving in my face was learned by making observations right here on our lovely planet Earth. So, why is it okay for astronomy to make generalizations about places we've never been to, but when I insist that evolution is a process that would be the same there as here, you think I'm just speculating?
Ohhhhhhhhh. Well, that puts things into context. Those books you read, to self-educate yourself -- who do you think wrote them? The revolutionary minds that shaped modern thinking -- who do you think shaped their minds? "Organized schooling" definitely has it's merits.
I said nothing of the sort. I'm trying to get you guys to consider the individual gene, and start thinking about evolution from a much smaller perspective.
What?!
EXTREMELY improbable.
Hey, you can't prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist, right? I mean, maybe he's real. You don't know. You haven't been to the North Pole.
When I was a kid, I would put my lost teeth underneath my pillow, and then I'd wake up and it was replaced with money. How do you know it wasn't actually the Tooth Fairy. You can't prove the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy.
So, will you admit that it's at least a little bit possible that Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy exist?
Well, that's not a trait. You are, again, horribly misusing a word that you think you understand. And natural selection will never be irrelevant, so long as DNA-based life exists.
"Transhumanism". HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Natural selection has been working for a pretty long time. As complex as the human genome is, it is fucking silly to imagine that we could do any better on our own.
Amen, brotha.
I just went off on another rant, and I think that's the last I care to do. Wombat, I'm guessing you'll want to respond, and that's cool. I'm guessing Michea1 might also want to respond, and of course that's cool. But this is exhausting. Sincerely, if you want to make your closing arguments, I just made mine.
I love you guys. Except for Good Will Wombat.
Closing argument:
The Alienz exist and they're gonna land in 2012 and then your degree'll be invalid and you won't be allowed on the spaceships cos you slagged them off in this thread.
The Alienz exist and they're gonna land in 2012 and then your degree'll be invalid and you won't be allowed on the spaceships cos you slagged them off in this thread.
Last edited:
Don't be a dweeb. You're being an absolute close-minded dweeb!
There's nothing special about us? Dude, are you fucking serious? Firstly, the human mind is THE most complex thing in the known Universe.
And on top of that, WE ARE SENTIENT!!!! Not only is our brain unique to this planet, but our SENTIENCE is what sets is SO far ahead of everything.
We understand. We question. We are here on this board talking about it . That is SO SO SO VERY SPECIAL. I can't believe you wouldn't think about sentience.
lol. Do you know how special that is? So special, we can't even begin to understand why we are sentient, and what makes a creature sentient.
And don't even try to tell me other creatures on Earth are sentient. I'll laugh at you.
And sentience *is* related to the topic...it's because of mutations and evolution that our brain *clicked* and we became sentient...either that, or a devine creator helped us out (ID)...which I actually kinda believe in. I believe in creationism AND evolution...my God uses evolution and the laws of the Universe...of course he does...he made them.
Last edited:
But Michael is the human mind as complex as the undeniable love all humans have for the song "Love Boat"????
oh, our brain arnt more special than any other. It's just designed to think and count problems cuz that's proven a good feature for survival during the human evolution. Altho you might consider it special cuz there is nothing like it. Well, that makes Chamaeleo just as special as humans cuz it has tongue like no other creature
Last edited:
Hey!
You can't call me a close-minded dweeb in a closing argument. It's not fair on two accounts.
Firstly, by using language like that, you're practically begging me to re-enter the debate. How am I supposed to ignore that?
Secondly, and more importantly, how is my behavior any different than yours? You've made some really good, thought-out points. I haven't been swayed by any of them, and stand firm in my original position, so you call me closed-minded. However, I have also made some really good, thought-out points. Like me, you remain unswayed by any of them, standing firm in your original position. How come when you do it, you're being fair-minded, but when I do it, I'm being closed-minded?
I will conceed to being a dweeb. But not closed-minded. Besides, I did make one concession. I admit there is at least a possibility that somewhere in this vast universe there might be ice-cream-pooping-pizza-people.
And Nuclear Hamster is right. Plenty of living organisms have traits that are unique to them. When I say that there's nothing special about primates, I'm talking about the ability of our genes to survive and be passed on to the next generation. We have been on this planet for but a tiny blip on the radar, and we have no idea how much longer we'll be here. Anything can happen.
Again, the human mind is fascinating. Human Culture is fascinating. We are a truly incredible species. But by comparison, we aren't the end-all answer to genetic success (passing on genes to the next generation). Your genes don't care that you can think, and create art, and employ modern medicine, or any of that other really cool stuff. Your genes only care about surving to the next generation.
Ants. Sharks. Mosquitoes. Alligators. Now THOSE are some particularly successful species. Us? We can't even say our genes are as successful as the T-Rex, and those bastards are extinct. Do you assume we're going to be around forever?
EDIT -- Oh, and I forgot to mention that though I don't share your religious perspective, I do believe the "God created evolution" viewpoint is perfectly legit. Little-known fact: The Catholic church has taken that exact stance. This is coming from the Vatican on down. And that church ain't exactly known for being progressive.
EDIT AGAIN -- I just realized it might have sounded like I was calling your viewpoint stupid, because the non-progressive Catholic church believes it. What I meant, by pointing out the fact that they're not too progressive, is that if they can take that stance, then there must be something pretty valid about this "evolution" thingy.
Last edited:
Opposable thumbs? Bipedal? I can keep doing it. The whole point is that "humanoid" is actually a pretty big concept without a discrete definition. "having human characteristics" is a lot of things, no? So really, when discussing whether or not there is "humanoid" life, it all depends on how close something has to be to "human" for someone to consider it "humanoid".
Think about how long humanity has been here, and think about how long humanity could exist on this planet. There has to be a finite (if abstractly large) limit of possibilities for fingerprints (unless of course we evolve beyond them before that limit is approached), so therefore, after a significantly large number of iterations, it's possible that two people (who possibly live eons apart) have the same fingerprints.
Sorry, I was just mocking you. Figured you'd pick up on that.
Oh, sure. They are, mostly USB hair.
Because... you are? Astronomers have these things called telescopes that allow them to observe the very distant parts of the universe.
Actually, I go out of my way to read people who were already driven to do something, and school was just a tool they used to get there (unless, of course, there was no school at the time the book was written). So themselves, really.
But evolution doesn't happen in a vacuum.
Oh, sorry, I forgot to say "because of our limited perception and deductive skills".
How little are we talking about?
So evolution didn't equip us with that? It's not a genetic trait, but it's a distinguishing characteristic. Sorry.
That's because you're under the impression that humans are fundamentally limited.
Are you sure I'm the one who's been difficult to deal with?
So, in my latest comment to M1chae1, I mentioned that we can't even say that we've been as successful as the T-Rex. After making that comment, on my way to work I thought, wait a minute -- we need to have a human vs. dinosaur showdown, to see which one has the genetic traits better suited for survival.
I thought I was done with this debate, but this human vs. dinosaur showdown will hopefully explain my point from a better perspective.
Human vs. Dinosaur: The Time-Travel Showdown!
Okay, I just fired up the flux capacitor. We're going to take two groups of humans back in time -- all the way back to the time of the dinosaurs. Group 1: our earliest known human ancestors, the Ardipithicus kaddaba. Group 2: anatomically modern Homo sapiens.
Both groups find survival quite difficult. You see, in the age of the dinosaurs, it's all about being bigger, faster, and stronger. Some dinosaurs have evolved rock hard plates on their bodies, some dinosaurs are ridiculously fast, while others are just freaking ginormous. It's no wonder that the only mammals living during this time were very small, rodent-like creatures, able to jimmy themselves into the smallest of holes, staying far away from those nasty dinosaurs.
The Ardipithicus, for lack of better words, was basically a chimpanzee that walked upright. Yeah, they're pretty smart, but they can barely even use tools, and they've never had to live with predators like these dinosaurs. They have absolutely no defense mechanism that can keep them safe, nor do they possess the acumen to outwit their predators. They are gone in less than a week, and spend that entire time on the run, never even able to try and forage for food.
Homo sapiens, however, are pretty freaking smart. There's not really any environment we haven't found a way to live in. Nevertheless, we've never had to evade predators as viscious as the dinosaurs. In our time-travelling settlement, we fare a lot better than the Ardipithicus. Many of us die early. But a great deal of us find shelter. We quickly build a humble abode, using the natural protection of a cave, building a massive rudimentary wall at the opening. We are relatively safe.
Unfortunately, we obviously can't stay in our cave. We need water. We need food. We simply must leave our confines from time-to-time, and every single foraging journey has been perilous, to say the least. We consider ourselves blessed when we are able to return to the cave, food and water in hand, without having lost any of our brethren.
We construct stone weapons, spears, bow-and-arrows. When we travel in tight groups, these weapons help us ward off the smaller predators. But man, there's just no stopping that mo-fo T-Rex, and God forbid we ever come into contact with a pack of velociraptors. Slowly, but surely, our numbers dwindle, and though we put up a good fight, Homo sapiens are unable to survive in the time of the dinosaur.
So, the dinosaurs must have a better blue-print for survival, right? Well, the game we played wasn't fair. The dinos had home-field advantage. Our experiment isn't complete until we bring a group of dinosaurs into our modern world.
Since they are the most badass, we bring two groups of dinosaurs to the present -- velociraptors and T-Rex (I am, of course, basing my assessment of their badass-ness on the super-awesome "Jurassic Park").
Oh, boy, do things go haywire. These two groups of dinosaurs wreak some serious havoc. A few small villages are completely wiped out. Widespread panic erupts as T-Rex's chomp their way through Manhattan. Military intervention is immediate. 50% of the T-Rex population is eradicated in 24 hours. 90% in 48 hours. The entire population is gone in one week. Those T-Rex might be incredibly ferocious, but they are no match for the Apache helicopter, and they're too dang big to effectively hide from us.
The velociraptors fare considerably better. Some of them venture into populated areas, but they learn pretty quickly that this is a bad idea. It's not long before every velociraptor has learned to fear humans, and stay away from our cities. They move to the rainforests, where there is food and water, and they can stay relatively hidden from humans.
Problem is, as lush as our rainforests are, they can't sustain the voracious apetites of creatures as large as the velociraptor. Bears and cougars have already taken to the habit of venturing into urban areas, because the food resources in their dwindling habitats are become more and more scarce. The bears and cougars make terrific food for the raptors, but they run out of them pretty quickly. The raptors start going after smaller game, but that doesn't last long. Within weeks, the raptors are forced to venture back into human territory. Naturally, the raptors go after our livestock, with much success. With their livelihoods at stake, farmers take extreme measures, forming hunting parties. Many human lives are lost, both during these hunting parties and when farmers are on their own property, defending it against a marauding raptor. After a handful of human deaths, a state of emergency is declared. The military again intervenes. It takes considerably longer than with the T-Rex, but the raptor is eventually eradicated. Heck, we already took out the Sabertooth, thousands of years ago, and we did that with nothing more than stone tools. In the end, the raptor proves no match for our modern weapons.
So, in the end, we have a tie. The point of this story is to illustrate the fact that there isn't some guiding law of nature, pushing us towards evolving any specific traits. Dinosaurs were best-equipped to survive in their time. Humans are best-equipped to survive in our time.
Dinosaurs were on this planet for a really long time, much longer than we have so far been (though, in my honest prediction, we will probably stick around a very, very long time).
For that matter, though, think about the demise of the dinosaur. Imagine if Earth hadn't been struck by that really large asteroid(s)? When it(they) hit, the sun was blocked out by thick dust in the air. A great deal of vegetation died, setting off a chain-reaction of death and extinction. Who survived? The tiny guys, who were able to find the tiny amounts of food they needed. And who were some of those tiny guys? A few small rodent-like mammals. Cue the rise of the mammal.
With those giant lizard predators gone, the mammals can come out of the shadows. And, they can evolve into larger mammalian species. Like say, the family of primates. Yadda yadda, and here we are. But again, what if that mass-extinction never took place? If our sun had never been clouded out, I think it's very safe to say that the dinosaurs would still be here, and we would not.
The thing that you need to understand about the term "environmental pressures" is that it isn't just in reference to the type of planet. Most importantly, it's in reference to all of the plant and animal life surrounding a species. We evolve with each other. Sometimes, two species will evolve in harmony with each other. Other times, two species will evolve in competition with each other, evolving specific traits that serve only the purpose of besting the other species. It is in this way that we evolve to survive in a very specific environment. Traits that work great here, in these very specific conditions, probably won't work out so well in a different environment.
So, when you're asking humanoid traits to evolve on a different planet, you're essentially asking for the entire history of life on Earth to replay itself. Because these traits didn't evolve on their own. They evolved in response to a great deal of peculiar environmental pressures. AND, they evolved within a limited set of genetic variation in the gene pool (the measurement of how many unique genes exist, amongst a group of the same species).
You are asking for a whole lot of coincidences. Yes, I get it, there are lots of planets in the universe. What I'm trying to relay to you is that the numbers I'm using make your numbers look infinitesimally small, by comparison.
And as far as the awesomeness of humanity is concerned -- consider the fact that we wouldn't even be here if it weren't for a very large asteroid collision.
There. I think that works pretty well as an actual closing-argument, for me. And so long as you don't call me poopy-face, or whatever, I once again defer any final response to you. But this time I mean it.
Cheers.
I thought I was done with this debate, but this human vs. dinosaur showdown will hopefully explain my point from a better perspective.
Human vs. Dinosaur: The Time-Travel Showdown!
Okay, I just fired up the flux capacitor. We're going to take two groups of humans back in time -- all the way back to the time of the dinosaurs. Group 1: our earliest known human ancestors, the Ardipithicus kaddaba. Group 2: anatomically modern Homo sapiens.
Both groups find survival quite difficult. You see, in the age of the dinosaurs, it's all about being bigger, faster, and stronger. Some dinosaurs have evolved rock hard plates on their bodies, some dinosaurs are ridiculously fast, while others are just freaking ginormous. It's no wonder that the only mammals living during this time were very small, rodent-like creatures, able to jimmy themselves into the smallest of holes, staying far away from those nasty dinosaurs.
The Ardipithicus, for lack of better words, was basically a chimpanzee that walked upright. Yeah, they're pretty smart, but they can barely even use tools, and they've never had to live with predators like these dinosaurs. They have absolutely no defense mechanism that can keep them safe, nor do they possess the acumen to outwit their predators. They are gone in less than a week, and spend that entire time on the run, never even able to try and forage for food.
Homo sapiens, however, are pretty freaking smart. There's not really any environment we haven't found a way to live in. Nevertheless, we've never had to evade predators as viscious as the dinosaurs. In our time-travelling settlement, we fare a lot better than the Ardipithicus. Many of us die early. But a great deal of us find shelter. We quickly build a humble abode, using the natural protection of a cave, building a massive rudimentary wall at the opening. We are relatively safe.
Unfortunately, we obviously can't stay in our cave. We need water. We need food. We simply must leave our confines from time-to-time, and every single foraging journey has been perilous, to say the least. We consider ourselves blessed when we are able to return to the cave, food and water in hand, without having lost any of our brethren.
We construct stone weapons, spears, bow-and-arrows. When we travel in tight groups, these weapons help us ward off the smaller predators. But man, there's just no stopping that mo-fo T-Rex, and God forbid we ever come into contact with a pack of velociraptors. Slowly, but surely, our numbers dwindle, and though we put up a good fight, Homo sapiens are unable to survive in the time of the dinosaur.
So, the dinosaurs must have a better blue-print for survival, right? Well, the game we played wasn't fair. The dinos had home-field advantage. Our experiment isn't complete until we bring a group of dinosaurs into our modern world.
Since they are the most badass, we bring two groups of dinosaurs to the present -- velociraptors and T-Rex (I am, of course, basing my assessment of their badass-ness on the super-awesome "Jurassic Park").
Oh, boy, do things go haywire. These two groups of dinosaurs wreak some serious havoc. A few small villages are completely wiped out. Widespread panic erupts as T-Rex's chomp their way through Manhattan. Military intervention is immediate. 50% of the T-Rex population is eradicated in 24 hours. 90% in 48 hours. The entire population is gone in one week. Those T-Rex might be incredibly ferocious, but they are no match for the Apache helicopter, and they're too dang big to effectively hide from us.
The velociraptors fare considerably better. Some of them venture into populated areas, but they learn pretty quickly that this is a bad idea. It's not long before every velociraptor has learned to fear humans, and stay away from our cities. They move to the rainforests, where there is food and water, and they can stay relatively hidden from humans.
Problem is, as lush as our rainforests are, they can't sustain the voracious apetites of creatures as large as the velociraptor. Bears and cougars have already taken to the habit of venturing into urban areas, because the food resources in their dwindling habitats are become more and more scarce. The bears and cougars make terrific food for the raptors, but they run out of them pretty quickly. The raptors start going after smaller game, but that doesn't last long. Within weeks, the raptors are forced to venture back into human territory. Naturally, the raptors go after our livestock, with much success. With their livelihoods at stake, farmers take extreme measures, forming hunting parties. Many human lives are lost, both during these hunting parties and when farmers are on their own property, defending it against a marauding raptor. After a handful of human deaths, a state of emergency is declared. The military again intervenes. It takes considerably longer than with the T-Rex, but the raptor is eventually eradicated. Heck, we already took out the Sabertooth, thousands of years ago, and we did that with nothing more than stone tools. In the end, the raptor proves no match for our modern weapons.
So, in the end, we have a tie. The point of this story is to illustrate the fact that there isn't some guiding law of nature, pushing us towards evolving any specific traits. Dinosaurs were best-equipped to survive in their time. Humans are best-equipped to survive in our time.
Dinosaurs were on this planet for a really long time, much longer than we have so far been (though, in my honest prediction, we will probably stick around a very, very long time).
For that matter, though, think about the demise of the dinosaur. Imagine if Earth hadn't been struck by that really large asteroid(s)? When it(they) hit, the sun was blocked out by thick dust in the air. A great deal of vegetation died, setting off a chain-reaction of death and extinction. Who survived? The tiny guys, who were able to find the tiny amounts of food they needed. And who were some of those tiny guys? A few small rodent-like mammals. Cue the rise of the mammal.
With those giant lizard predators gone, the mammals can come out of the shadows. And, they can evolve into larger mammalian species. Like say, the family of primates. Yadda yadda, and here we are. But again, what if that mass-extinction never took place? If our sun had never been clouded out, I think it's very safe to say that the dinosaurs would still be here, and we would not.
The thing that you need to understand about the term "environmental pressures" is that it isn't just in reference to the type of planet. Most importantly, it's in reference to all of the plant and animal life surrounding a species. We evolve with each other. Sometimes, two species will evolve in harmony with each other. Other times, two species will evolve in competition with each other, evolving specific traits that serve only the purpose of besting the other species. It is in this way that we evolve to survive in a very specific environment. Traits that work great here, in these very specific conditions, probably won't work out so well in a different environment.
So, when you're asking humanoid traits to evolve on a different planet, you're essentially asking for the entire history of life on Earth to replay itself. Because these traits didn't evolve on their own. They evolved in response to a great deal of peculiar environmental pressures. AND, they evolved within a limited set of genetic variation in the gene pool (the measurement of how many unique genes exist, amongst a group of the same species).
You are asking for a whole lot of coincidences. Yes, I get it, there are lots of planets in the universe. What I'm trying to relay to you is that the numbers I'm using make your numbers look infinitesimally small, by comparison.
And as far as the awesomeness of humanity is concerned -- consider the fact that we wouldn't even be here if it weren't for a very large asteroid collision.
There. I think that works pretty well as an actual closing-argument, for me. And so long as you don't call me poopy-face, or whatever, I once again defer any final response to you. But this time I mean it.
Cheers.
History.
By Cracker Funk:
Well, not clearly:
Richy wrote:
By Cracker Funk:
Fine. But that does not establish the argument that "infinite randomness" rules out absolutely the possibility that organisms on alien planets may incorporate the same sort of adaptations and therefore forms as primates and other animals on our own planet. If you have forest-like conditions similar to those found on earth, then why shouldn't mutations that lead to characteristics like stereoscopic vision be selected for? Stereoscopic vision would allow the Na'vi and, perhaps more importantly the Na'vi's progenitors, to navigate the forests of Pandora. Would aliens like the Na'vi really be so darn human-like? No, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be, either. But that does not rule out in absolute terms that humanoid or humanoid-like organisms could evolve elsewhere in the universe.
By Cracker Funk:
I'm sure no one wants to minimize your academic accomplishments.
By Cracker Funk:
We have to disagree on that. Here's why. Humans are the mo' efing bomb, that's why. Oh yes, they are. Humans, no matter how many a'holes there are among our numbers, and regardless of what our human-hating enviro-nazis members might say, are this planet's, and probably this universe's, golden egg, if not goose. I buy into that Carl Sagan stuff about humans being the universe contemplating itself. Why? Well, I buy into it because I think it's actually pretty likely that this is the only example of life in this universe (yeah, unlike Carl Sagan, I know). I buy into it because I think that you, Cracker Funk, are partly right about the mutation lottery thing, and because NuclearHamster is surely right about all those probably very rare conditions that allowed life to emerge on Earth. Crocodiles do not come close to being as amazing as homo sapiens. This is why. Even if crocodiles, or their family, happen to live 'til the end of this planet, they will be eliminated. They will be exterminated. Extinction is definately their fate... barring some deus ex machina intervention. Humans, on the other hand, are the first and only species, so far as we know, to have the potential, at least, to step off of this planet and even into another solar system ...or perhaps just into space stations of its own making. The life of this solar system will come to an end when this star, our sun, dies, and die it will. Crocodiles will end, unless, ironically in the context of this debate, humans bring them along with them. Bacteria will, of course, be along for the ride, in any case... unless our species really does put its intelligence into artificial bodies or makes itself somehow digital, in which case it might actually be able to sterelize itself of microorganisms. The life of this solar system is definately finite. I don't have to tell you that this solar system's life span is a drop in the bucket in the life span of the universe. Therefore, the future of crocodiles is definately finite. Humans, on the other hand, might actually cheat that fate. Imagine that. Imagine that if this is the only example of life in the universe. How much more important and successful would that make homo sapiens than crocodiles if it actually pulled that off? Don't worry, I'm sure our species will be long gone due to its own stupidity or, more probably, due to natural disasters or cataclysimic climate changes beyond its control or otherwise before it achieves such a success. But, for crocodiles, it's not even in the cards, nor for dinosaurs or bacteria.. unless they happen to evolve into something like... well, like us.
I hereby declare that this brilliant argument does make Cracker Funk's Human versus Dinosaur challenge defeated, moot, and null and void. Thank you!
=P
By M1chae1:
Well put!
By Cracker Funk:
Yeah, but if we do prove to be an extra-solar-spanning species, then our genes damn well would care, wouldn't they, if they could actually care about anything!
By Cracker Funk:
I think it's safe to say that what wombat meant was phenotype versus gene.
By Cracker Funk:
That is certainly debatable. It's more like a personal manifesto than any statement of objective fact.
By Cracker Funk:
Okay, that's fine. Genes don't "give" a rat's ass about anything but themselves. But that hardly means that all other measurements are meaningless to everyone else in the 'verse. I've addressed the "nothing special fallacy" above.
By Cracker Funk:
It may be that those "specific" conditions are precisely required for life anywhere. Infinite randomness doesn't absolutely exclude that.
By M1chae1:
Oh my God, dude... I love NOVA, too! Long live NOVA!
By Cracker Funk:
Cool. Actually, all of PBS is a different beast.
Last edited:
Finally, somebody answers that question. This post I'm about to write is not so much having to do with the overrall discussion, but more a half-apology-half-explanation of my behaviors that some of you have so seriously derided.
richy, imagine if we were in the midst of a discussion about an historical movie. Somewhere along the line, I mentioned the fact that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. You chimed in, no, actually he did not invent the light bulb. I answered back, yes he did, I learned about it in elementary school. I think you might be a little bit tempted to say, "Dude, I have a BA in History. No, Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb."
To me, that's what happened. Many of you have shown to have some pretty big misconceptions about how evolution works. I came in and said, no, that's not how it works. You stated that you understand evolution just fine. At that point, I found it impossible not step in and say, "Dude, I have a BA in Anthropology. And no, you don't quite understand the process of evolution."
I think we can all agree that a BA is not the world's greatest accomplishment, though it is definitely a great accomplishment. Nor does a BA make you the end-all authority on whatever it is you studied. Of course not. But richy, wouldn't it be fair to say that you know WAY MORE about history than most other people who do not share your education in that subject?
When this discussion got on the subject of evolution, I tried my best to explain some of your misperceptions to you. I felt like my explanations were just dismissed, tossed aside, as if you feel secure that you understand the process of evolution just as strongly as I do. I was a little insulted. It felt as if you were completely discrediting my education, something that I put a lot of time and energy into learning.
My reaction could have been better. It might have been a bad idea for me to yell at you guys with the ALL-CAPS GIANT FONT!
So, I apologize for being a bit brash. I don't apologize for believing that my education gives me a great deal more knowledge on the subject of evolution than any of you, and I hope you'll understand that my brash behavior was an emotional response to what I felt was a bit of disrespect. One of you even tried to explain to me the process of natural selection. That's kind of a slap in the face.
richy, as I've stated before, you've shown to have the strongest understanding of evolution amongst everybody else who has taken part in this discussion (no disrespect towards anyone else). Heck, the fact that you understand the difference between a phenotype and a gene puts you head-and-shoulders above most people. Still, even you have shown a little misunderstanding on this subject.
If (and that's a big if) humans are able to escape our slowly-decaying solar system, as you've suggested we might, yeah, that would be pretty damned cool, and it would definitely amount to an overtime victory in the human-dinosaur showdown.
However, that really doesn't have anything to do with evolution. What you are arguing is something that I think I actually agree with. What you are arguing is that our human Culture may prove to be a game-changer.
Evolution works because it is all about change. Comparitively speaking, it is rather slow change (for large organisms, anyway). Culture works because it is all about change. And cultures change ridiculously fast. Culture is what allows humans to survive pretty much anywhere. Human Culture might sort-of be making us somewhat (but definitely not completely) evolution-proof. Undoubtedly, the physical and biological environment that we live in will change, drastically, from time-to-time. The process of evolution would normally deal with that change by allowing a species to morph into something else, better suited for that environment. Our human Culture, however, allows us to change our behavior so rapidly that we can deal with those environmental changes ourselves, not needing any evolution, so to say.
Why does this have nothing to do with the conversation of how evolution works? 4 million years ago, when the first humans were barely walking upright, it's not like some master force of nature knew that this bipedalism would eventually somehow lead to complex human Culture. As incredible as our current state of living is, there's no doubt that it came about purely as a result of chance -- random mutations that had no end goal in sight.
Oh, and droowl, I'm pretty sure I would buy that book.
Last edited: