Webb Telescope news

[TomB'sox]

Originally Posted by TBman

Yes, all the elements of design.

But with flaws. Big flaws. Things go wrong. Constantly. That's a problem.

How does an eye evolve?

Why would an eye evolve in the first place? Why do living things evolve towards more complexity? Why is it "better?"

All questions that lead to topics we can't discuss though (and really can't be answered, but we can make stuff up to make ourselves feel better.)

I do not mean to have any answers or begin to understand, I only know I do not understand either of the two main theories, I just come from the science end of it and just am amazed it could be random. Ever study the complexity of the kidney with loops of Henle and the mechanism behind Na and K absorption that takes place there? The amount of body metabolism that is regulated in your kidneys is amazing and they are controlled by feedback loops in the brain. I just can't wrap my head around this as random. I am not claiming anything here, just my wonderment of the whole thing.

Also, I never knew why one theory precludes the other, could they not be entwined with each other?

This seems like a discussion best had over pizzas and several adult beverages.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by jaywalker

Some pretty hefty assumptions there.

There's exactly ONE example of a species as complex as us, and it's all downhill from there. How many trillions of examples of bacteria and viruses and extremely simple organisms have evolved, gone extinct, etc. in the billions of years before us? Do you think they're going to go away?

You think other mammals aren't as complex?

Who said anything about other things going away? I'm not understanding your response or your reaction/tone to my post.

[TomB'sox]

I know I have contributed to this thread and hope I stayed within the rules as I am a mod after all LOL, but let's make sure we stay on the correct side of the rules and keep the discussion civil please or this interesting thread will have to be closed.

BTW, I will be the first to sign up for interstellar travel once Scottie figures out how to give us more power!

[Jamolay]

Originally Posted by TomB'sox

I know I have contributed to this thread and hope I stayed within the rules as I am a mod after all LOL, but let's make sure we stay on the correct side of the rules and keep the discussion civil please or this interesting thread will have to be closed.

BTW, I will be the first to sign up for interstellar travel once Scottie figures out how to give us more power!

Sorry captain, it all she’s got.

[jaywalker]

Originally Posted by TBman

You think other mammals aren't as complex?

Who said anything about other things going away? I'm not understanding your response or your reaction/tone to my post.

Maybe my phrasing wasn't the best. Surely there are other animals that are similarly complex biologically/physically speaking, but lack our mental complexity (that we know of). I'm just trying to call out examples of poor assumptions (usually due to asking the wrong question) which lead people to misleading conclusions.

I also don't mean to have a negative tone. Written language fails us in more ways than one I took your statement "why do things evolve towards complexity" to mean "why do *all* things evolve towards complexity", which is an obvious falsehood by my example.

Why is it "better" is an example of what I was trying to get at above; it's not the right question because "complexity" isn't "better". We don't have such a simple singular quantitative metric describe why a particular organism evolved the way it did.

An organism is "better" only insofar as it is good at thriving in it's own particular environmental niche. A human is no good at living in the depths of the ocean, and an whale is no good at constructing indoor plumbing to take away dangerous waste.... hopefully you see the point.

Maybe I do get a little huffy because these kinds of threads tend to yield those who decide an answer plucked from the ether is better than admitting they just don't know, and other folks who insist on lots of hand-waving to avoid the same.

-----------------------------

I'll leave the thread by responding to OP.

I think it is very, very, very likely there is other life out there.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by jaywalker

Maybe my phrasing wasn't the best. Surely there are other animals that are similarly complex biologically/physically speaking, but lack our mental complexity (that we know of). I'm just trying to call out examples of poor assumptions (usually due to asking the wrong question) which lead people to misleading conclusions.

I also don't mean to have a negative tone. Written language fails us in more ways than one I took your statement "why do things evolve towards complexity" to mean "why do *all* things evolve towards complexity", which is an obvious falsehood by my example.

Why is it "better" is an example of what I was trying to get at above; it's not the right question because "complexity" isn't "better". We don't have such a simple singular quantitative metric describe why a particular organism evolved the way it did.

An organism is "better" only insofar as it is good at thriving in it's own particular environmental niche. A human is no good at living in the depths of the ocean, and an whale is no good at constructing indoor plumbing to take away dangerous waste.... hopefully you see the point.

Maybe I do get a little huffy because these kinds of threads tend to yield those who decide an answer plucked from the ether is better than admitting they just don't know, and other folks who insist on lots of hand-waving to avoid the same.

-----------------------------

I'll leave the thread by responding to OP.

I think it is very, very, very likely there is other life out there.

I get it, thanks for the kind response. I don't have any answers, just questions that will never be answered. My earlier post reflects my lack of education in biology and related studies. (I had 1 year of general biology in HS and 1 year in college, and not my favorite course )

[Silurian]

When looking for reasons for why the Universe exists and has the properties that it does, I find the anthropic principle a reasonable explanation.

Without sentient observers the universe could fairly be described as a quantum soup.

[fitness1]

Originally Posted by Slothead56

I cannot fathom that “we’re it”?

I think it would be pretty arrogant of us to think that in the vastness of space that we know so little about that we are the only living creatures.

[srick]

Originally Posted by Silurian

When looking for reasons for why the Universe exists and has the properties that it does, I find the anthropic principle a reasonable explanation.

Without sentient observers the universe could fairly be described as a quantum soup.

I too have been reading up on this. It makes a lot of sense, BUT, I just can’t seem to fathom how we all agree to live within a similar construct, or that it is simply all a matter of what reality I have chosen to accept. Why can’t I choose a reality that has me living a healthy life in wealth and splendor, and living eternally? Or why can’t I choose a reality with teleportation? And in this reality, I’m still not sure what guitar strings sound better: round core or hex core. So I get the anthropic theory, but it doesn’t ring true.

And I do love science fiction for this reason in that it stretches the mind as to what is possible. I recently read Cixin Liu’s, “The Three Body Problem,” which espouses the ‘Dark Forest Theory.’ Inelegantly, what that theory implies, is that there are limited resources in the universe, most of which are already spoken for. When a civilization advances to the point where it tries to take its place at the trough and compete with the ‘big boys,’ it is snuffed out. Because of this threat, civilizations have learned to stay hidden and this is why we have not detected any other life. Hence the term, ‘dark forest.’

And when I think about the implications of that book and its sequels, I realize that maybe I’m better off worrying about round core vs. hex core strings.

Rick

PS - During editing, I have realized that I want to shift my reality to one with unlimited musical opportunities and guitars…. Lots more guitars

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by TomB'sox

Walking a fine line here, but I will try. As someone with two degrees in science as well as spending 8 additional years studying medicine and surgery, I find it just as "impossible" for evolution to come close to explaining the intricacies of the human or animal bodies. The biochemical reactions happening, the nervous system with various receptors and neurotransmitters or even something as simple as the conscience proprioception that exists to allow you to stand without falling over. The cycle of glucose and insulin, the feedback loops controlling all the hormones, let alone the hormones themselves? I mean, I could go on all night, thyroid function, T4, cortisol and the adrenal gland, calcium absorption or elimination based on your current blood levels of calcium, the biochemistry and nerve control of you eyes transmitting light and this light triggering chemical receptors in your brain to allow us to differentiate what we see... How many billions and billions of years it would take for each one of these genetic mutations to occur so that we were derived from a single cell organism that eventually was able to crawl from the sea? I find this more difficult to comprehend than other possibilities. The deeper you go and the more we learn in medicine makes it even more difficult for me to understand how it all happened with random mutations.

Random mutations plus selective pressure. Deleterious mutations are selected against all the time, and organisms with these mutations die and are selected against. The ones which are selected for are exceedingly rare.

It’s difficult for humans to comprehend the timescales involved. Eyes, for example, appeared and evolved over the course of 100 million years. No one can really comprehend 100 million years. There are examples of organisms moving from more complex eyes, to less, like the hagfish. It is hard to comprehend, but the genetic evidence is clear. Just because it’s hard to comprehend doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Whatever the answer, how we got to this state is hard to comprehend.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...on-of-the-eye/

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by TomB'sox

Walking a fine line here, but I will try. As someone with two degrees in science as well as spending 8 additional years studying medicine and surgery, I find it just as "impossible" for evolution to come close to explaining the intricacies of the human or animal bodies. The biochemical reactions happening, the nervous system with various receptors and neurotransmitters or even something as simple as the conscience proprioception that exists to allow you to stand without falling over. The cycle of glucose and insulin, the feedback loops controlling all the hormones, let alone the hormones themselves? I mean, I could go on all night, thyroid function, T4, cortisol and the adrenal gland, calcium absorption or elimination based on your current blood levels of calcium, the biochemistry and nerve control of you eyes transmitting light and this light triggering chemical receptors in your brain to allow us to differentiate what we see... How many billions and billions of years it would take for each one of these genetic mutations to occur so that we were derived from a single cell organism that eventually was able to crawl from the sea? I find this more difficult to comprehend than other possibilities. The deeper you go and the more we learn in medicine makes it even more difficult for me to understand how it all happened with random mutations.

No doubt your education in biology give you an elevated understanding
That said I find a couple of questions occurring to me in the above.

"I find it just as "impossible" ( to believe ) (Bold added for clarification) --- "for evolution to come close to explaining the intricacies of the human or animal bodies" . OK but is this not based on our (and your) current understanding of evolutionary process ... which is also evolving ?

"How many billions and billions of years it would take for each one of these genetic mutations to occur so that we were derived from a single cell organism that eventually was able to crawl from the sea? "
Couple thoughts
#1. Assuming it would take "billions and billions" of years" for mutations to occur, is just that, assumption and speculation. Granted likely based logically on the more recent study of how slow evolutionary progress is currently (yes ?) but is still assumption ..
#2 (bold ) is there some reason mutations cannot occur simultaneously or have had a faster cascade effect ?


And while I agree the sheer probability involved in random mutation is certainly reasonable to question . BUT I would also suggest as the saying goes
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Which obviously works both ways

[BoxCar_Joe]

I'm not a "tin foil hat" kind of guy (far from it) but I think is clear they have already found us.

The genuine UFO sightings are a wake up call.

Their technology is way better than ours.
They hang around military bases.
They have been here a long time.
They are actively trying to remain hidden.

We all resort to a "little green men" joke at this point in the conversation, but this is serious folks. Someone is in our airspace.

[DCCougar]

Originally Posted by Jamolay

And what is time?

Well, we know that we remember the past, but not the future, lol. More seriously, here's a pretty good answer to your question, but it takes a book -- by one of today's top physicists: From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time [2010] -- Sean Carroll

Originally Posted by Jamolay

We only age the universe at 14 billion years because that is what we can see with our amazing, but very limited tools. We really have no idea what is out there and what it is all about.

Actually, we live in an age of precision cosmology. And regarding the age of the Universe, this has been pinned down by seven entirely independent methods to get to that figure.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by DCCougar

Well, we know that we remember the past, but not the future, lol. More seriously, here's a pretty good answer to your question, but it takes a book -- by one of today's top physicists: From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time [2010] -- Sean Carroll


Actually, we live in an age of precision cosmology. And regarding the age of the Universe, this has been pinned down by seven entirely independent methods to get to that figure.

Except of course ironically some of the images from the Webb call the age and even the origin, into question ----juss sayin
I think the only conclusion that can be drawn is that---- what we do not know is exponentially more vast, than what we do

[jp2558]

When we figure out how to fully communicate with ants then we may have a chance of communicating with whatever ET we do encounter.