Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Evolution / June 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

News: Is there anybody out there?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Robert Karl Stonjek - 17 Apr 2008 06:14 GMT
Is there anybody out there?

Is there anybody out there? Probably not, according to a scientist from
the University of East Anglia.

A mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the
odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the
time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining
life span of the Earth.

Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and it
has already been suggested that this process might be governed by a
small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.

Prof Watson, from the School of Environmental Sciences, takes this idea
further by looking at the probability of each of these critical steps
occurring in relation to the life span of the Earth, giving an improved
mathematical model for the evolution of intelligent life.

According to Prof Watson a limit to evolution is the habitability of
Earth, and any other Earth-like planets, which will end as the sun
brightens. Solar models predict that the brightness of the sun is
increasing, while temperature models suggest that because of this the
future life span of Earth will be 'only' about another billion years, a
short time compared to the four billion years since life first appeared
on the planet.

"The Earth's biosphere is now in its old age and this has implications
for our understanding of the likelihood of complex life and intelligence
arising on any given planet," said Prof Watson.

"At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life. If
we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we
had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we'd
suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was
quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late
in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather
unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very
rare indeed."

Prof Watson suggests the number of evolutionary steps needed to create
intelligent life, in the case of humans, is four. These probably include
the emergence of single-celled bacteria, complex cells, specialized
cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an
established language.

"Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very
unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is
one step further, so it is much less common still," said Prof Watson.

His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper
limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less,
so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low - less than 0.01 per
cent over four billion years.

Each step is independent of the other and can only take place after the
previous steps in the sequence have occurred. They tend to be evenly
spaced through Earth's history and this is consistent with some of the
major transitions identified in the evolution of life on Earth.

Source: University of East Anglia
http://www.physorg.com/news127574989.html

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
Alan Meyer - 18 Apr 2008 18:24 GMT
On Apr 17, 1:18 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <rston...@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
> ...
> His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an
> upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10
> per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging
> is low - less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.
> ...

I find it hard to believe that we have enough information to
know:

 - What steps are truly required to produce intelligent life.

 - What caused each step to occur on earth.

 - What the probability of any step occurring is - either on
   earth or in a different environment.

 - What is a habitable planet for other possible biochemistries.

 - How many habitable planets there are.

However, I'm all in favor of these kinds of speculations.  They
induce people to try to think quantitatively about subjects that
most of us assume, without trying, can't be quantified.  They
can't give us accurate answers, but they can focus our thinking
on understanding what the issues are.

   Alan
JohnGW - 20 Apr 2008 07:08 GMT
> On Apr 17, 1:18 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <rston...@bigpond.net.au>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>     Alan

  Or if there are other viable biochemistries, a la the Hal Clement
fiction.
Rather doubt there is, but, as you say, stretches the mind.
   Regards
    John  GW
JohnGW - 18 Apr 2008 18:24 GMT
On Apr 16, 10:18 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <rston...@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
> Is there anybody out there?
>
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> Posted by
> Robert Karl Stonjek

While this isn't biological evolution, perhaps we have to add in the
probability of finding habitable planets, which I think is very low.
The earth is at the low end of size, for one thing, and a moon is
perhaps necessary to stabilize the obliquity, for another.  Moreover,
a magnetic field is necessary in order to deflect the solar wind -
Venus has an atmosphere that demonstrates the effect of the solar wind
impacting the atmosphere.   Moreover, though the idea is speculative,
it may be that a moon is necessary to create a magnetic field in most
planets.  This is based on a simple electric engineering principle,
and supported by the example of Venus, again, and by the fact 98% of
the angular momentum of the solar system is in the planets, with Venus
being, of course, low.  Mercury is a counter example here, but its
field might be due to proximity to the sun.  In any case, IMHO,
habitable planets will be found to be rare.
     Regards
      John GW
dkomo - 21 Apr 2008 18:50 GMT
> Is there anybody out there?
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining
> life span of the Earth.

An argument could be made that Earth throughout its history has not been
a very life friendly place.  From bombardment by asteroids to sporadic
spasms of hyper-volcanic activity spewing huge amounts of methane and
other greeenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  Solar luminosity
increasing by 30%.  Snowball earth.  The Permian, KT and many other mass
extinctions.  Periodic ice ages.  Drifting continents.

Throughout deep time it's been one thing or another -- Mother Earth
giving its living inhabitants a very rough time.  No wonder it's taken
billions of years to evolve intelligent life, and a rather unremarkable
example of such in humans.

This sad story does not necessarily have to be repeated in other solar
systems.  On halcyon planets it's possible that life goes from
abiogenesis to beings much more intelligent than us in a few hundred
million years.

   --dkomo@cris.com
Tom Hendricks - 22 Apr 2008 19:07 GMT
> > Is there anybody out there?
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
>     --dk...@cris.com

But I would contend that an unfriendly place  would stimulate more
selection pressure which would speed up evolution. Here is my model:

The greater the selection pressure (directional or diversifying
selection)
the greater the speed of evolution in the area of the selection
pressure
AND
The lower the selection pressure (stabilizing selection)
the lower the speed of evolution in the area of the selection
pressure.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/U/UV_origin_of_life.html

Comment?
dkomo - 24 Apr 2008 19:00 GMT
>>>Is there anybody out there?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> the lower the speed of evolution in the area of the selection
> pressure.

Except that if the environmental change is too great, most species go
extinct and there's little left for selection pressure to act on.

Besides, there are other drivers of evolution like competition among
species and speciation.  A stable planet wide environment doesn't imply
a homogeneous environment.  Due to the tilt of the earth's axis there
would still be great climatic variation going from the equator to the
poles.  Migration by planets and animals to different locations could
lead to speciation which results in a great variety of adaptations and
different forms of life.

   --dkomo@cris.com
JohnGW - 24 Apr 2008 19:00 GMT
> > Is there anybody out there?
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
>     --dk...@cris.com

  In the news somewhere else today - Wednesday.  I'd forgotten, but
have heard the planetary orbits are unstable in the long run.  The
news item (Science Daily?) gave 40 million years  as the remaining
life of the solar system, before the orbits become destabilized.
However, believe that over such long times, the math is chaotic (see
Devaney, Introduction to Chaotic dynamics) and perhaps it isn't
exactly known.   Very difficult field - over my head.
     Regards
       John GW
Anthony Campbell - 22 Apr 2008 19:07 GMT
> Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
>> Is there anybody out there?
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> abiogenesis to beings much more intelligent than us in a few hundred
> million years.

I've often thought that this whole debate is based on the hidden
assumption that it's somehow the "purpose" of the universe to produce
intelligent life. Is this perhaps the last refuge of anthropocentrism,
the ultimate hubristic delusion? As J.B.S. Haldane remarked, if we look
at the reality of the situation it suggests that the main aim of
evolution is to produce beetles. It hardly seems that the goal is the
production of intelligence. The dinosaurs had 150 million years  to do
so but didn't take the opportunity.

Do insects, bats and birds think that the purpose of evolution is to
produce creatures capable of flight?

Anthony

Signature

Anthony Campbell - ac@acampbell.org.uk
Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews,
on-line books and sceptical articles)

dkomo - 24 Apr 2008 19:00 GMT
>>Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> production of intelligence. The dinosaurs had 150 million years  to do
> so but didn't take the opportunity.

I think the debate is based on the obvious fact that life on earth went
through a series of many progressions across enormous time spans before
it arrived at creatures with high intelligence.  If it had happened that
intelligence had developed right after the appearance of multicelluar
life, and that then, much later, jellyfish and snails came along, your
anthropocentric complaint might have a better basis.

> Do insects, bats and birds think that the purpose of evolution is to
> produce creatures capable of flight?

We're focused on intelligence because it is an obvious marker in the
search for life in other parts of the universe.  It is much harder to
search for biochemical markers on planets in solar systems light years
from our own.

   --dkomo@cris.com
Anthony Campbell - 25 Apr 2008 18:48 GMT
> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> life, and that then, much later, jellyfish and snails came along, your
> anthropocentric complaint might have a better basis.

It's precisely the "obvious fact  of progression" that I wanted to
query. Your argument is circular. In talking about "arriving at
creatures with high intelligence" you implicitly define "progress" as
the production of intelligent beings and then use the fact that we exist
as evidence for progression. Not everyone agrees that there has been
progress in evolution. I tend to agree with the late Stephen J. Gould
that if the tape of evolution were rerun it might lead to a different
endpoint. If the KT impact had not occurred, would the world still be
populated by dinosaurs?

>> Do insects, bats and birds think that the purpose of evolution is to
>> produce creatures capable of flight?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> search for biochemical markers on planets in solar systems light years
> from our own.

This is true, at least at present, but it's irrelevant. Just because
intelligence is easier to detect does not tell us anything about the
direction, if any, of evolution.

Anthony
Signature

Anthony Campbell - ac@acampbell.org.uk
Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews,
on-line books and sceptical articles)

feedbackdroid - 28 Apr 2008 18:19 GMT
> > Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
> endpoint. If the KT impact had not occurred, would the world still be
> populated by dinosaurs?

I'm glad you brought this up. Tim Tyler, who inhabited this forum a
couple of years ago, is now over on comp.ai.philosophy pushing,
amongst other things, the "inevitiability of human life" and
intelligence, and using Simon Conway Morris as his "authority" ... to
wit: "Anyhow, Conway-Morris is the cannonical antidote to those who
think chance rules in evolution: ", etc...

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/c70c6f2a9df28bbf
[starting about msg #32]

He's also pushing the idea that evolution is deterministic, based
upon ...
============
New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080118134531.htm

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From
Multi-species Study

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm
=============

What's the opinion of this stuff, including Conway Morris, in the
science/evolution community? Sounds pretty much left field.
Guy A Hoelzer - 29 Apr 2008 17:28 GMT
[SNIP]

> Tim Tyler, who inhabited this forum a
> couple of years ago, is now over on comp.ai.philosophy pushing,
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> What's the opinion of this stuff, including Conway Morris, in the
> science/evolution community? Sounds pretty much left field.

I find Tim to be a smart and level-headed fellow.  I wouldn't easily dismiss
him as being in "left field".  Some if Morris' work strikes me as on the
bleeding edge of scientific thinking, which is where you often find a mix of
bad and brilliant ideas.  It will take some time for the scientific
community to sort them out.  Regarding the recent article in science daily,
I personally think the authors (and Tim) made a mistake by describing their
findings as "deterministic".   I think there is a very important observation
in their work that we can appreciate better without the baggage of
implications the word "deterministic" brings with it.  This study does
illustrate, in my opinion, important physical constraints on developmental
and evolutionary outcomes that have been discussed for many years by
complexity theorists.  Brian Goodwin, for example, has been emphasizing this
point for many years.

Guy
dkomo - 28 Apr 2008 18:19 GMT
>>Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> the production of intelligent beings and then use the fact that we exist
> as evidence for progression.

Where do you get this stuff?  I was talking about progressions in *time*
and factual observations about the evolution of life.  For example: the
1st fishes appeared in the Ordovician, the 1st land plants in the
Silurian, the 1st insects in the early Devonian, the 1st reptiles in the
Carboniferous, the 1st apes during the Oligocene, the 1st hominids
during the Miocene, the 1st modern humans in the early Pleistocene, and
so on and so on and so on.  These are the "many progressions" I referred
to.  These are *facts*.  I wrote absolutely nothing and implied
absolutely nothing about "progress".

Now, it is also a fact that human level intelligence appeared at the end
of this progression.  Noting this is not an instance of anthropocentrism
nor does it necessarily imply anything about evolutionary progress.

I frankly think you brought a red herring into the discussion by raising
the issue of progress.  Andrew Watson in his mathematical modeling makes
use of the historical fact that human intelligence developed late in the
life span of the earth, and that the earth has already used up most of
its allotted life span.  In my original reply, I suggested that on other
planets evolution could proceed much faster, and that you can't conclude
that because it took 4 billion years before intelligent creatures
appeared on earth, it would also take 4 billion years somewhere else.

> Not everyone agrees that there has been
> progress in evolution.

This is still a matter of some considerable controversy in evolutionary
biology.

> I tend to agree with the late Stephen J. Gould
> that if the tape of evolution were rerun it might lead to a different
> endpoint. If the KT impact had not occurred, would the world still be
> populated by dinosaurs?

Again, this is a different issue from evolution taking 4 billion years
to evolve intelligent creatures.  Even Gould equated consciousness and
intelligence with complexity.  His idea of the evolution of complexity
was a random walk away from a barrier of minimum complexity below which
life couldn't exist at all.  But this random walk hypothesis is
nonetheless consistent with the fact that intelligence finally appeared
at the end of a long string of progressions -- many random steps if you
will.  Pour a little cream into the middle of a hot cup of coffee, and
it will take some time for that cream to diffuse to the sides and bottom
of the cup.  The cream molecules are random walking their way away from
the center out toward the periphery.

   --dkomo@cris.com
feedbackdroid - 30 Apr 2008 18:47 GMT
On Apr 29, 10:35 am, Guy A Hoelzer <hoel...@unr.edu> wrote:
> in article fv51cm$u9...@darwin.ediacara.org, feedbackdroid at
> feedbackdr...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/28/08 10:26 AM:
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> I find Tim to be a smart and level-headed fellow.  I wouldn't easily dismiss
> him as being in "left field".  

Actually, I was referring to Conway Morris and the papers cited here.
We'll dismiss TT's comment about "cannonical antidote to those who
think chance rules in evolution". Canonical-ized, already - wow.

>  Some if Morris' work strikes me as on the
> bleeding edge of scientific thinking, which is where you often find a mix of
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> complexity theorists.  Brian Goodwin, for example, has been emphasizing this
> point for many years.

Several of the AI forums I monitor have recurring arguments about many
shaded meanings of determinism. I think TT's usage was fairly obvious.

> Guy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Campbell - 29 Apr 2008 17:28 GMT
> Where do you get this stuff?  I was talking about progressions in *time*
> and factual observations about the evolution of life.  For example: the
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> that because it took 4 billion years before intelligent creatures
> appeared on earth, it would also take 4 billion years somewhere else.

And it could also never happen at all. If by "progression" you merely
mean "one damn thing after another" (as someone, I forget who, defined
history), then I have no quarrel, but then the idea seems to become
trivial. Of course intelligent life did appear, but so what? As we have
only one example of it we are unable to say anything abut its
probability. But perhaps we are at cross-purposes here.

[snip]

Anthony

Signature

Anthony Campbell - ac@acampbell.org.uk
Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews,
on-line books and sceptical articles)

J.A.Legris - 30 Apr 2008 18:47 GMT
> > Where do you get this stuff?  I was talking about progressions in *time*
> > and factual observations about the evolution of life.  For example: the
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> only one example of it we are unable to say anything abut its
> probability. But perhaps we are at cross-purposes here.

Shifting the goal posts, I'm willing to attribute intelligence to
organisms much older than just humans. Arthropods come to mind - they
have been so successful in so many environments for so long that they
represent multiple examples of (more or less) independent  evolution
of intelligence, right here an planet earth.

--
Joe
dkomo - 01 May 2008 17:24 GMT
>>>Where do you get this stuff?  I was talking about progressions in *time*
>>>and factual observations about the evolution of life.  For example: the
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> represent multiple examples of (more or less) independent  evolution
> of intelligence, right here an planet earth.

This is a good point.  I like to take a general view of intelligence
across the entire animal kingdom.  In this view even bacteria have some
small quantum of intelligence.  In fact, a few months ago we had a
thread on talk.origins discussing the intelligence of microbial colonies.

So it is no longer a question of whether intelligence evolved once in
the human species and could it evolve again under different conditions.
 On earth, intelligence evolved in *millions* of separate species.
It's almost as ubiquitous as life itself.  Replay the tape of life again
and again, and intelligence, in one form or another, will evolve every
single damn time!  Now the question becomes how *far* can intelligence
evolve. Given sufficient time, even under the random walk hypothesis it
can evolve to a significant degree, as for example in the human species.

   --dkomo@cris.com
feedbackdroid - 02 May 2008 17:42 GMT
On May 1, 10:30 am, dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> J.A.Legris wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 12:35 pm, Anthony Campbell <a...@acampbell.org.uk> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> evolve. Given sufficient time, even under the random walk hypothesis it
> can evolve to a significant degree, as for example in the human species.

To me, the issues of both intelligence and consciousness require that
one looks at them in terms of a graded spectrum, rather than simply a
yes/no threshold. Arguing for the latter is hopeless, since no one
knows where to draw the line. Arthropods, for example, have both
intelligence and consciousness, but much less so than in mammals, etc.
In all cases, the "amount" of these qualities is based upon size and
complexity of the nervous system.

It's possible that replaying the tape will produce life and/or higher
forms of intelligence again, given that certain random events did or
did not occur [such as the asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs and
allowing mammalian life a better chance for evolving, etc] but that's
still a very different issue from whether replaying the tape will
reproduce human life as we know it, and especially do so
"inevitably".
Anthony Campbell - 29 Apr 2008 17:28 GMT
> I'm glad you brought this up. Tim Tyler, who inhabited this forum a
> couple of years ago, is now over on comp.ai.philosophy pushing,
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> What's the opinion of this stuff, including Conway Morris, in the
> science/evolution community? Sounds pretty much left field.

I reviewed Conway Morris's book "Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a
Lonely Universe" a couple of years ago (review is on my site). He is of
course a highly respected biologist and a committed Darwinian, but he
nevertheless seems to wish to apply a theological gloss to evolution. It
would be wrong to call this a hidden agenda, because he is quite open
about it. His final chapter is called "Towards a theology of evolution?"
and contains a frank recommendation to acknowledge the validity of the
Book of Genesis. "The assumption that the world has some meaning which
is linked to our own calling as the only morally responsible beings in
the world, is an important example of the supernatural aspect of
experience which Christian interpretations of the universe explore and
develop."

Signature

Anthony Campbell - ac@acampbell.org.uk
Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews,
on-line books and sceptical articles)

feedbackdroid - 30 Apr 2008 18:47 GMT
> > I'm glad you brought this up. Tim Tyler, who inhabited this forum a
> > couple of years ago, is now over on comp.ai.philosophy pushing,
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> course a highly respected biologist and a committed Darwinian, but he
> nevertheless seems to wish to apply a theological gloss to evolution.

So, what's a layman to make of a statement like this? Committed
Darwinist AND "theologian" ????

Also, is there any general consensus at all in the Darwinist and NON-
theologian community about the inevitability of human life? Is this a
set of people with more than just Conway Morris in it?

>   It
> would be wrong to call this a hidden agenda, because he is quite open
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Douglas Clark - 30 Apr 2008 18:47 GMT
>> I'm glad you brought this up. Tim Tyler, who inhabited this forum a
>> couple of years ago, is now over on comp.ai.philosophy pushing,
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> experience which Christian interpretations of the universe explore and
> develop."

I lost interest in Conway Morris when I realised that basically he was a
Christian fundamentalist.
feedbackdroid - 02 May 2008 17:42 GMT
On May 1, 10:30 am, Tim Tyler <t...@tt1.org> wrote:
> I, Tim Tyler wrote:
> > IMO, in the absence of visible aliens, a scientific analysis of
> > this thesis mostly depends on anthropic arguments about the
> > probability of stages of the great filter:
>
> >http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html

"... a scientific analysis of this thesis mostly depends on anthropic
arguments".

Anthropic arguments are a form of science, now? I think you might have
meant "any" rather than "a scientific".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
===========
The anthropic principle has led to more than a little confusion and
controversy, partly because several distinct ideas carry this label.
All versions of the principle have been accused of providing
simplistic explanations which undermine the search for a deeper
physical understanding of the universe. The invocation of either
multiple universes or an intelligent designer are highly
controversial, and both ideas have received criticism for being
untestable and therefore outside the purview of contemporary science.
..........
Many 'anthropic principles' are simply confused. Some, especially
those drawing inspiration from Brandon Carter's seminal papers, are
sound, but... they are too weak to do any real scientific work.
============

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Anthropic_principle
============
The final anthropic principle (FAP): This form states that
intelligences must evolve within a universe and that once evolved will
not die out.

The FAP has also been dubbed "the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic
Principle (CRAP)" by author and skeptic Martin Gardner.

The AP is an unproven speculation that reveals mankind's egocentrism.
============

> Incidentally, Bostrom's popular version of this
> idea has just been republished in technologyreview
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Why Life On Mars May Foretell Our Doomhttp://science.slashdot.org/science/08/04/30/2031242.shtml

In any case, this is a splinter off the content of the original
thread. Or were you implying the answer to my question is that the set
including Conway Morris also includes Nick Bostrom ?????
arne97 - 03 May 2008 18:35 GMT
Intelligence in humans is an anomaly.

In other creatures, intelligence rises until it meets the needs of the
organism. There is no reason to exceed that point.

Otherwise we would see cockroaches teaching quantum physics.

Humans had an unusual evolution. We accumulated brain mass as mammals,
because the mammalian brain is clumsy and inefficient.

In Eve, this mass of grey matter was configured into an elegant
efficient brain, with grossly excessive intellect.

It only happened once; with us.
Tim Tyler - 20 Jun 2008 23:53 GMT
feedbackdroid wrote:
> On May 1, 10:30 am, Tim Tyler <t...@tt1.org> wrote:
>> I, Tim Tyler wrote:

>>> IMO, in the absence of visible aliens, a scientific analysis of
>>> this thesis mostly depends on anthropic arguments about the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Anthropic arguments are a form of science, now? [...]

Of course.
--
__________
|im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim@tt1lock.org  Remove lock to
reply.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.