That Evolution thing

[Leppy]

Just a quick note about evolution. Far too often I see folks making statements that if some form of life began "out there" and had a million year head start on us that that would of course mean that they would have technology far beyond our own.

That really is not a given at all. Evolution does not imply that a type of organism starts out at point "A" and continually becomes more advanced as that type of organism progresses through time until one day they are visiting earth in space ships. It also does not mean that said organisms would be any more "enlightened" then we are.

Evolution is simply the genetics of organisms adapting as the conditions around them change. "Higher intelligence" (and with it technology) could well come and go with the whims of evolution if it develops at all. If you are in a particularly crowded and violent environment with scarce resources it may turn out that being a hulking jerk with a wild temper and a limited intellect may allow you to be more successful that your milder, more intelligent and "enlightened" neighbors. Evolution is all about suitability for now. There are plenty of organisms here on earth that have been subject to evolution for far longer that us humans that have not developed significant capability for abstract thought (let alone technology) and they continue to do quite well.

Additionally, as pointed out by the movie "Idiocracy" it is also possible that developments in technology may allow for a general reduction of intellect and physical capabilities required for a population to continue to survive (at least for a period of time).

Now I certainly don't mean to imply the very intelligent life hasn't developed out there, I'm just saying that the forces of evolution and time do not mean a continual progression toward a higher form of life.

Those billion year old alien races out there may well have spent a lot of that time developing technology and then blowing themselves back to their equivalent of the stone age. There also could well be the idiot savant aliens out there that just happen to have a knack for bending space and time, but otherwise suck to be around and parties.

Just sayin'. ;-)

 

[conor]

Nice post man. Perhaps when we should think of other intelligences as different rather than higher or lower than our own.

 

[TClaeys]

Thats right. There isn't some intentional predisposed evolution whereby we end up in space as technological beings. It just so-happened this way. It took a number of improbable circumstances to even allow mammals to evolve into different forms. All things the same in the distant past, the dinosaurs would still rule the world. And so on with other top of the pyramid creatures that ruled their time periods. The time periods for animals are marked by distinct changes in the environement that allowed different evolutionary animals to evolve.

But still it could be the other way around. An intelligent creature that does want to explore space and manipulate technology could rise much faster than we did. Hell, if it weren't for certain conditions, we could have been thousands of years further down the technological road.

But I think your point is valid. There is this notion that somehow evolution is supposed to result in intelligence and development of technology. That is just a side note to our evolution. Evolution is not about the development of intelligence. It is about the fittest genes being passed along at a certain point in time, intelligent or not.

 

[111uminate]

Additionally, as pointed out by the movie "Idiocracy" it is also possible that developments in technology may allow for a general reduction of intellect and physical capabilities required for a population to continue to survive (at least for a period of time).

If you're on board with the concept of a technological singularity, I think on some level that is inevitable. I don't mean the "robocalypse", but the threshold where the creation of technology and machines no longer requires human input. Machines will create other machines and develop new technologies on their own, far more efficient than a human could. With the human element removed in that way, we wouldn't be much more than just a passenger on the vehicle of forward advancement of technology. It's possible that in place of schools and courses teaching how to build this technology, there would be teachings on how to use it, and prepare for it's rapid advancement, since we would no longer be building it. What would become of our intellect, and intelligence then? Mind you that all of that is a stretch of the imagination, but it's one possibility that would effect our overall intelligence.

Those billion year old alien races out there may well have spent a lot of that time developing technology and then blowing themselves back to their equivalent of the stone age.

A definite possibility, and a real question in my opinion. That concept is also part of the infamous Drake Equation, coupled with the other necessary questions regarding other intelligent life in the cosmos, such as habitable planets, etc. That one by far though has always seemed the most interesting to me, but it is also a large anthropomorphism. Just because we're always so hasty to have our fingers on the trigger doesn't necessarily mean other races will, but it's still a valid question. From our limited perception, the Universe truly is infinite. Though we can measure it to a degree with various tools, we still cannot properly comprehend what it is we're measuring, such as the distances and sizes involved. Having said that, I try to look at the possibilities involving it, including other life, with a "All is permitted" kind of attitude. Purely as a speculative thought exercise, of course. I don't believe in everything even I come up with, haha.

 

[Schuyler]

My God. An intelligent thread with thoughful posts. After Unterdink I was thinking that was impossible. Thanks.

 

[111uminate]

My God. An intelligent thread with thoughful posts. After Unterdink I was thinking that was impossible. Thanks.

Haha. That is a true honor coming from the legendary Schuyler! Most welcome sir.

 

[threed]

If you peer back in time and ask yourself what was truly driving technological development (and science), an often ignored force was charlatanism. You wanted to simulate a miracle and found a gimmick for reproducing the appearance of it. It convinced others in your tribe and gave you an edge over the chief.

If a Singularity were reached where we gained a certain innate capacity for the "miraculous" (if you will), the need for further technological development may be suspended.

 

[Trajanus]

Evolution is simply the genetics of organisms adapting as the conditions around them change

True. But increasing complexity, and in cases increased intelligence, obviously have survival value or they wouldn't have appeared, and proliferated to the extent they have here. And it is often assumed that life wouldn't be possible without conditions quite similar to those of Earth, which presumably would be conducive to a similar evolutionary process. Some years ago, a book, The Garden of Ediacara, noted the many examples of convergent evolution i.e. unrelated organism evolved strikingly similar morphologies. Evolution may be more predictable than is sometimes thought. Maybe humanoid reports shouldn't surprise us.

If you are in a particularly crowded and violent environment with scarce resources it may turn out that being a hulking jerk with a wild temper and a limited intellect may allow you to be more successful that your milder, more intelligent and "enlightened" neighbors.

Hominid evolution suggests otherwise. Look who prevailed in the contest between Homo erectus and Australopithecus robustus. Even under primitive conditions, brains counted for much.

Evolution is all about suitability for now. There are plenty of organisms here on earth that have been subject to evolution for far longer that us humans that have not developed significant capability for abstract thought (let alone technology) and they continue to do quite well.

Sure but all you need is just one lineage, out of millions, leading to higher intelligence.

Those billion year old alien races out there may well have spent a lot of that time developing technology and then blowing themselves back to their equivalent of the stone age.

Sagan considered that a potentially common problem but I suspect otherwise, inasmuch as the threat of annihilation=effective deterrence=no major war. And all this seems moot given a widespread phenomenon which appears advanced ET and technological.

 

[Leppy]

Good input everyone!

True. But increasing complexity, and in cases increased intelligence, obviously have survival value or they wouldn't have appeared, and proliferated to the extent they have here. And it is often assumed that life wouldn't be possible without conditions quite similar to those of Earth, which presumably would be conducive to a similar evolutionary process. Some years ago, a book, The Garden of Ediacara, noted the many examples of convergent evolution i.e. unrelated organism evolved strikingly similar morphologies. Evolution may be more predictable than is sometimes thought. Maybe humanoid reports shouldn't surprise us.

It is true that increasing intelligence and complexity have some substantial survival value, but the oldest (and thus arguably most successful) species on our planet have not survived as a result of intelligence or complexity. Many folks believe that cyanobacteria are the oldest known species on the earth (somewhere around 3.5 billion years old) and they are certainly neither intellegent or complex. In the long run it may well turn out that intelligence may do more to get an organism into trouble. As an example, just ask yourself why it is that you wouldn't take a drink out of the nearest stream. With the help of our intelligence we have made quite a mess of things (although I still hold hope that we will undo much of the mess we have made). I think of it as a similar to the way that rabbits (if left unchecked by natural predator) will over-populate until their local ecosystem can no longer sustain them, and then there will come disease and a huge die-off. Then it repeats.

Perhaps the fact that, as you point out, some of the most useful survival traits are present in multiple species should make us wonder why intelligence and the capability for abstract thought doesn't seem to be very widespread.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that there is most likely intelligent life out there, I just don't accept a a given that it is an obvious result of evolution.

Hominid evolution suggests otherwise. Look who prevailed in the contest between Homo erectus and Australopithecus robustus. Even under primitive conditions, brains counted for much.

Very true, however we are a fairly young species, and we are the only ones going this route. We really haven't managed to survive long enough to call it a win.

Sure but all you need is just one lineage, out of millions, leading to higher intelligence.

Very true.

Sagan considered that a potentially common problem but I suspect otherwise, inasmuch as the threat of annihilation=effective deterrence=no major war. And all this seems moot given a widespread phenomenon which appears advanced ET and technological.

I guess I'm not so sure that your equation really works as well as I would like to hope it does. It really hasn't been well tested (it's only 64 years since the first test of a nuclear weapon, nothing in evolutionary scale). But there are many more ways for us to get ourselves into trouble. Our environment is crashing down around us. Our systems of agriculture are not sustainable. Our air, food and water have more and more carcinogens. And it really only takes one well placed asteroid.

BTW- I didn't mean to imply that I don't think there is intelligent life other than us, I think that there likely is. It was just the Anthropologist in me that wanted to remind folks not to misuse the concept of evolution!

Thanks to everyone for the great input!

 

[Leppy]

And a scary related note:
Gaia's evil twin: Is life its own worst enemy? - life - 17 June 2009 - New Scientist

 

[Kevin Daly]

Excellent post Leppy.

I share your frustration with simplistic assumptions.

It's good to get this stuff out there for people to discuss and think about.

 

[trl985]

Looks like this thread has been quiet for a while, but I wanted to throw in my two cents just the same because this is an interesting one. Like some are saying, evolution has no goal in mind, but given what we know about it, I think it is fair to say other races have a head start. The fact that somebody might be coming here proves that evolution could produce other intelligences, and if they seem to be more advanced I don't understand why one can't say that they must have started evolving before or have evolved faster than us.

 

[Trajanus]

The fact that somebody might be coming here proves that evolution could produce other intelligences, and if they seem to be more advanced I don't understand why one can't say that they must have started evolving before or have evolved faster than us.

I don't know about "faster" but "before" is perfectly consistent with scientific knowledge of the Universe. Once when I asked the astronomy experts when nucleosynthesis provided enough biogenic elements for the origin of life somewhere, at least two said very early--well within the first billion years. Which suggests alien life might've had up to a 10-13 billion year head start.

 

[Trajanus]

Evolution does not imply that a type of organism starts out at point "A" and continually becomes more advanced as that type of organism progresses through time

Of course not. There are many examples of evolutionary stasis. Nevertheless evolutionary history as a whole has steadily given rise to more sophisticated and brainier organisms. Not even the mass extinctions stopped this. In fact they helped it. Mammals have relatively much bigger brains than the dinosaurs.

If you are in a particularly crowded and violent environment with scarce resources it may turn out that being a hulking jerk with a wild temper and a limited intellect may allow you to be more successful

Not necessarily. Our species successfully competed with brawnier neanderthal man for available resources.

Those billion year old alien races out there may well have spent a lot of that time developing technology and then blowing themselves back to their equivalent of the stone age.

Generally war has been a potent stimulus to invention. As for nuclear arms they=effective deterrence which equals no war.

 

[cephlon1]

I recently watched a old Richard Dawkins documentary from 1987 callled the Blind Watchmaker which was great in explaining the trial and error of evolution that has time on its side. What was really good at explaining the process was his use of a software program that showed the genetic process in action and the huge variations that can occur in nature - it worth watching.

Also that equation mentioned earlier in the thread is very similar to the Drake equation that Carl Sagan goes through in some detiail in his Comos book that is used to determine the probability of extraterrestrial civilizations: SETI: The Drake Equation

With the amount of exoplanet astronomers are finding now coupled with the depature of the Goldilocks principle about where life can and can't exist, it looks like life outside the solar system is more likely. Lets hope that the self annihilation risk part of the Drake equation is just a teething problem that advanced civilizations go through.