This whole post came out like a speculative rant, but I'm interested if anyone has suggested a plan like this:
Multi-generational ships and cryo-freezing are way out of our technical reach right now, but robotics and 'ex-utero' birth both look like they will be sufficiently advanced before the end of the century. This definitely sounds science-fictiony, but the general plan would be to: 1. load up a compact ship with robots, building materials, and cloning facilities, 2. send the ship on a centuries-long flight to a system thought to have an Earth-like planet, 3. upon arriving, begin constructing basic life-support systems, gathering resources, and building a settlement, and 4. clone human beings using materials carried on the ship, which are then raised and educated by 'caretaker' robots in the new settlements (this would be the hardest part, I think). After that, transition into fairly 'normal' human colonization.
Some of the technology seems way too advanced right now, but this is what I believe to be the nearest option (technologically and time-wise) if we really want to get humans out of the solar system. Are there any glaring flaws that anyone sees?
On May 02 2012 02:04 NadaSound wrote: Yes, of course there is more than one way to skin a cat. This is not what I am getting at. I am just stating that there is evidence that evolution might not be a random process of mutations but that there is an underlying order to the mutations that follow certain parameters and possibly show patterns, all outside of the context of ancestry.
Please give me a link to the evidence. The only case of "directed mutation" is when interactions between two proteins are destroyed by a point mutation, and this is reverted by a corresponding mutation on the interacting partner. I can think of no other example of an "external guiding hand" directing evolution.
If you're talking about macroevolution, evolution is guided by relative fitness. If you're talking about molecular evolution, mutations are NOT guided at all. Only cytidine deaminases and transposons are capable of deliberately modifying DNA sequences. Evolution is based on having a pool of individuals bearing different mutations that are already present.
I think you're getting confused between homology and analogy.
Edit:
On May 02 2012 02:59 dpurple wrote: I dont believe there is life on other planets. Give me proof first.
We don't know. We haven't proven that life on other planets exists, or that life on other planets are impossible. I thought this thread was discussing whether that's possible, but keeps getting derailed.
On May 02 2012 02:04 NadaSound wrote: Yes, of course there is more than one way to skin a cat. This is not what I am getting at. I am just stating that there is evidence that evolution might not be a random process of mutations but that there is an underlying order to the mutations that follow certain parameters and possibly show patterns, all outside of the context of ancestry.
Please give me a link to the evidence. The only case of "directed mutation" is when interactions between two proteins are destroyed by a point mutation, and this is reverted by a corresponding mutation on the interacting partner. I can think of no other example of an "external guiding hand" directing evolution.
If you're talking about macroevolution, evolution is guided by relative fitness. If you're talking about molecular evolution, mutations are NOT guided at all. Only cytidine deaminases and transposons are capable of deliberately modifying DNA sequences. Evolution is based on having a pool of individuals bearing different mutations that are already present.
I think you're getting confused between homology and analogy.
The information you are looking for is in the videos that I linked to. Watch them they are quite fascinating. Sorry but it has been a couple of months so I can not remember if they touch on this subject in the first or third episode. If you do take the time to watch them I would love to hear your take on it as I am not as well versed in the subject of biology and evolution as you are. I'm an astrophysics guy.
Also, I would say it might have more to do with the behavior of convergent evolution.
On May 02 2012 02:04 NadaSound wrote: Yes, of course there is more than one way to skin a cat. This is not what I am getting at. I am just stating that there is evidence that evolution might not be a random process of mutations but that there is an underlying order to the mutations that follow certain parameters and possibly show patterns, all outside of the context of ancestry.
Please give me a link to the evidence. The only case of "directed mutation" is when interactions between two proteins are destroyed by a point mutation, and this is reverted by a corresponding mutation on the interacting partner. I can think of no other example of an "external guiding hand" directing evolution.
If you're talking about macroevolution, evolution is guided by relative fitness. If you're talking about molecular evolution, mutations are NOT guided at all. Only cytidine deaminases and transposons are capable of deliberately modifying DNA sequences. Evolution is based on having a pool of individuals bearing different mutations that are already present.
I think you're getting confused between homology and analogy.
The information you are looking for is in the videos that I linked to. Watch them they are quite fascinating. Sorry but it has been a couple of months so I can not remember if they touch on this subject in the first or third episode. If you do take the time to watch them I would love to hear your take on it as I am not as well versed in the subject of biology and evolution as you are. I'm an astrophysics guy.
I scanned through the two episodes you've mentioned and I don't see anything that suggests that evolution is directed by a "guiding hand". There's a part about the board game where certain patterns keep appearing, which hint that evolution has several overarching principles. This can be summarized as "relative fitness". Read the wikipedia link I posted previously. That's the closest you get to "directing evolution". The mutations that are present occur entirely at random, and some of them "happen" to enable the individual to be able to survive and reproduce better than others. We cannot even predict what is the "best solution" to a given evolutionary problem; the same answer can be obtained from multiple ways (see rabbit and cow example) and are both sufficient for the organism to survive and reproduce.
I hate it when people without any knowledge about a subject come in and make broad statements that are simply wrong. As I've mentioned before, this is the internet and people are stupid enough to believe everything that is said. So please don't make such statements without good knowledge about the subject. It opens up a can of worms.
On May 02 2012 02:04 NadaSound wrote: Yes, of course there is more than one way to skin a cat. This is not what I am getting at. I am just stating that there is evidence that evolution might not be a random process of mutations but that there is an underlying order to the mutations that follow certain parameters and possibly show patterns, all outside of the context of ancestry.
Please give me a link to the evidence. The only case of "directed mutation" is when interactions between two proteins are destroyed by a point mutation, and this is reverted by a corresponding mutation on the interacting partner. I can think of no other example of an "external guiding hand" directing evolution.
If you're talking about macroevolution, evolution is guided by relative fitness. If you're talking about molecular evolution, mutations are NOT guided at all. Only cytidine deaminases and transposons are capable of deliberately modifying DNA sequences. Evolution is based on having a pool of individuals bearing different mutations that are already present.
I think you're getting confused between homology and analogy.
The information you are looking for is in the videos that I linked to. Watch them they are quite fascinating. Sorry but it has been a couple of months so I can not remember if they touch on this subject in the first or third episode. If you do take the time to watch them I would love to hear your take on it as I am not as well versed in the subject of biology and evolution as you are. I'm an astrophysics guy.
I scanned through the two episodes you've mentioned and I don't see anything that suggests that evolution is directed by a "guiding hand". There's a part about the board game where certain patterns keep appearing, which hint that evolution has several overarching principles. This can be summarized as "relative fitness". Read the wikipedia link I posted previously. That's the closest you get to "directing evolution". The mutations that are present occur entirely at random, and some of them "happen" to enable the individual to be able to survive and reproduce better than others. We cannot even predict what is the "best solution" to a given evolutionary problem; the same answer can be obtained from multiple ways (see rabbit and cow example) and are both sufficient for the organism to survive and reproduce.
I hate it when people without any knowledge about a subject come in and make broad statements that are simply wrong. As I've mentioned before, this is the internet and people are stupid enough to believe everything that is said. So please don't make such statements without good knowledge about the subject. It opens up a can of worms.
Im sorry you feel that way! I'm sorry I chose to major in astrophysics and not biology! I'm sorry for thinking about something fascinating and trying to discuss my interpretation of it. Please fogive me, Kind Sir!
Why do you have to turn a good discusion into a flamming wall of hate? Get off your high horse, please. If I am wrong about something lets dissucuss it. I'm open to learning and communicating. I just don't understand why you have to resort to talking shit.
On May 02 2012 02:04 NadaSound wrote: Yes, of course there is more than one way to skin a cat. This is not what I am getting at. I am just stating that there is evidence that evolution might not be a random process of mutations but that there is an underlying order to the mutations that follow certain parameters and possibly show patterns, all outside of the context of ancestry.
Please give me a link to the evidence. The only case of "directed mutation" is when interactions between two proteins are destroyed by a point mutation, and this is reverted by a corresponding mutation on the interacting partner. I can think of no other example of an "external guiding hand" directing evolution.
If you're talking about macroevolution, evolution is guided by relative fitness. If you're talking about molecular evolution, mutations are NOT guided at all. Only cytidine deaminases and transposons are capable of deliberately modifying DNA sequences. Evolution is based on having a pool of individuals bearing different mutations that are already present.
I think you're getting confused between homology and analogy.
The information you are looking for is in the videos that I linked to. Watch them they are quite fascinating. Sorry but it has been a couple of months so I can not remember if they touch on this subject in the first or third episode. If you do take the time to watch them I would love to hear your take on it as I am not as well versed in the subject of biology and evolution as you are. I'm an astrophysics guy.
I scanned through the two episodes you've mentioned and I don't see anything that suggests that evolution is directed by a "guiding hand". There's a part about the board game where certain patterns keep appearing, which hint that evolution has several overarching principles. This can be summarized as "relative fitness". Read the wikipedia link I posted previously. That's the closest you get to "directing evolution". The mutations that are present occur entirely at random, and some of them "happen" to enable the individual to be able to survive and reproduce better than others. We cannot even predict what is the "best solution" to a given evolutionary problem; the same answer can be obtained from multiple ways (see rabbit and cow example) and are both sufficient for the organism to survive and reproduce.
I hate it when people without any knowledge about a subject come in and make broad statements that are simply wrong. As I've mentioned before, this is the internet and people are stupid enough to believe everything that is said. So please don't make such statements without good knowledge about the subject. It opens up a can of worms.
Im sorry you feel that way! I'm sorry I chose to major in astrophysics and not biology! I'm sorry for thinking about something fascinating and trying to discussion my interpretation of it. Please fogive me, Kind Sir!
Why do you have to turn a good discusion into a flamming wall of hate? Get off your high horse, please. If I am wrong about something lets dissucuss it. I'm open to learning and communicating. I just don't understand why you have to resort to talking shit.
Good Day!!!
Okay, sorry if I'm being too harsh. What I would like to say is, if a person is not particularly knowledgeable about a subject, certain points may be erroneous. Some people coming along to read this thread might interpret this as truth, and in turn may spread (and exaggerate) these inaccurate statements. I'm a scientist (or trying to become one), and seeing these stuff propagate all over the internet hurts me, especially when my friends are the one communicating these false ideas. For example, one of my friends recently posted a link on Facebook about the alkaline diet. Omg.
If you've read my previous posts, I've been relatively civil about them, until people start refuting my arguments with theories that have no scientific grounding or proof. My previous posts have been illustrated with examples to prove my point; I'm trying to promote discussion and more importantly, the passage of correct facts. I didn't intend for that last paragraph to be hostile. I guess I phrased it pretty badly. Sorry about that. Wasn't meant to be a personal attack.
On May 02 2012 02:04 NadaSound wrote: Yes, of course there is more than one way to skin a cat. This is not what I am getting at. I am just stating that there is evidence that evolution might not be a random process of mutations but that there is an underlying order to the mutations that follow certain parameters and possibly show patterns, all outside of the context of ancestry.
Please give me a link to the evidence. The only case of "directed mutation" is when interactions between two proteins are destroyed by a point mutation, and this is reverted by a corresponding mutation on the interacting partner. I can think of no other example of an "external guiding hand" directing evolution.
If you're talking about macroevolution, evolution is guided by relative fitness. If you're talking about molecular evolution, mutations are NOT guided at all. Only cytidine deaminases and transposons are capable of deliberately modifying DNA sequences. Evolution is based on having a pool of individuals bearing different mutations that are already present.
I think you're getting confused between homology and analogy.
The information you are looking for is in the videos that I linked to. Watch them they are quite fascinating. Sorry but it has been a couple of months so I can not remember if they touch on this subject in the first or third episode. If you do take the time to watch them I would love to hear your take on it as I am not as well versed in the subject of biology and evolution as you are. I'm an astrophysics guy.
I scanned through the two episodes you've mentioned and I don't see anything that suggests that evolution is directed by a "guiding hand". There's a part about the board game where certain patterns keep appearing, which hint that evolution has several overarching principles. This can be summarized as "relative fitness". Read the wikipedia link I posted previously. That's the closest you get to "directing evolution". The mutations that are present occur entirely at random, and some of them "happen" to enable the individual to be able to survive and reproduce better than others. We cannot even predict what is the "best solution" to a given evolutionary problem; the same answer can be obtained from multiple ways (see rabbit and cow example) and are both sufficient for the organism to survive and reproduce.
I hate it when people without any knowledge about a subject come in and make broad statements that are simply wrong. As I've mentioned before, this is the internet and people are stupid enough to believe everything that is said. So please don't make such statements without good knowledge about the subject. It opens up a can of worms.
Im sorry you feel that way! I'm sorry I chose to major in astrophysics and not biology! I'm sorry for thinking about something fascinating and trying to discussion my interpretation of it. Please fogive me, Kind Sir!
Why do you have to turn a good discusion into a flamming wall of hate? Get off your high horse, please. If I am wrong about something lets dissucuss it. I'm open to learning and communicating. I just don't understand why you have to resort to talking shit.
Good Day!!!
Okay, sorry if I'm being too harsh. What I would like to say is, if a person is not particularly knowledgeable about a subject, certain points may be erroneous. Some people coming along to read this thread might interpret this as truth, and in turn may spread (and exaggerate) these inaccurate statements. I'm a scientist (or trying to become one), and seeing these stuff propagate all over the internet hurts me, especially when my friends are the one communicating these false ideas. For example, one of my friends recently posted a link on Facebook about the alkaline diet. Omg.
If you've read my previous posts, I've been relatively civil about them, until people start refuting my arguments with theories that have no scientific grounding or proof. My previous posts have been illustrated with examples to prove my point; I'm trying to promote discussion and more importantly, the passage of correct facts. I didn't intend for that last paragraph to be hostile. I guess I phrased it pretty badly. Sorry about that. Wasn't meant to be a personal attack.
Its cool, I forgive you. I am also an aspiring scientist and I too have a strong appreciation for truth and accuracy. But, as scientist we must never forget the true nature of the universe and the vast uncertainties with in it. For everything we know and learn the unknown will remain large and daunting. So please don't be too quick to judgment. Don't dismiss ideas, absorb them, let your doubt grow. I do not direct this solely towards you, but also to myself and any other inquisitive person who may read this post. For I feel that in order to be a good scientist we must respect the mystery of the universe and be left in awe and wonder of the great unknown.
I must say that you did lead me to the concept of convergent evolution which is pretty much what I was trying to describe. So I thank for that.
Now for Something Completely Different
Here is a wonderful little series featuring some words spoken by Carl Sagan. These videos always gives me chills. I don't know what else to say but enjoy.
If you did enjoy that there is a similar series that features Richard Feynman as well.
On May 02 2012 02:59 dpurple wrote: I dont believe there is life on other planets. Give me proof first.
I'm going to be parroting smart people here, who have made these points before and with much greater eloquence.
The more I've looked into this topic, the more likely it seems to me that life is probably flourishing in the universe. For starters, life on earth is made out of the most common elements found in the universe - hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen. The top four elements in our bodies, in order from most common to fourth most common, exactly mirrors the universe. As much as we envision ourselves to be unique, we aren't - not chemically.
Second, consider extremophiles. These are organisms that survive and thrive in environments we used to consider lethal for life. There are animals that can literally survive in space. We've found them; they're real. From this we can infer that we probably don't even need a celestial body located within what we call the habitable zone for life to exist. Heck, we could very possibly find life right here in our own solar system -- on the moon of Europa, which gets its heat from Jupiter.
Intelligent life requires something more to work with, certainly, which is where you can start arguing for rarity. Intelligent, tool using species need to form in environments where being able to make these things has an evolutionary benefit. That's where you start needing the perfect conditions of a planet with water right in the middle of the habitable zone.
Third, to demand proof this early in our endeavors is completely unreasonable. It's like taking a glass of water from the ocean and concluding from its contents that there are no fish in those oceans. You need a slightly bigger sample.
On May 02 2012 02:59 dpurple wrote: I dont believe there is life on other planets. Give me proof first.
I'm going to be parroting smart people here, who have made these points before and with much greater eloquence.
The more I've looked into this topic, the more likely it seems to me that life is probably flourishing in the universe. For starters, life on earth is made out of the most common elements found in the universe - hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen. The top four elements in our bodies, in order from most common to fourth most common, exactly mirrors the universe. As much as we envision ourselves to be unique, we aren't - not chemically.
Second, consider extremophiles. These are organisms that survive and thrive in environments we used to consider lethal for life. There are animals that can literally survive in space. We've found them; they're real. From this we can infer that we probably don't even need a celestial body located within what we call the habitable zone for life to exist. Heck, we could very possibly find life right here in our own solar system -- on the moon of Europa, which gets its heat from Jupiter.
Intelligent life requires something more to work with, certainly, which is where you can start arguing for rarity. Intelligent, tool using species need to form in environments where being able to make these things has an evolutionary benefit. That's where you start needing the perfect conditions of a planet with water right in the middle of the habitable zone.
Third, to demand proof this early in our endeavors is completely unreasonable. It's like taking a glass of water from the ocean and concluding from its contents that there are no fish in those oceans. You need a slightly bigger sample.
We have no proof. But we've barely looked.
What ever dude, that was pretty concise and elegant if you ask me. I just want to expand on the first point.
I believe that some people just don't think about themselves as being apart of the universe, but rather as being just in the universe, separate from it. It was in the cores of ancient, long-dead, stars that the atoms of our Earth and your bodies were forged. Where theses ancient stars formed out of the left over debris of creation.
I need to go on a walk now and ponder the implications of this.
On May 02 2012 02:59 dpurple wrote: I dont believe there is life on other planets. Give me proof first.
...
Second, consider extremophiles. These are organisms that survive and thrive in environments we used to consider lethal for life. There are animals that can literally survive in space. We've found them; they're real. From this we can infer that we probably don't even need a celestial body located within what we call the habitable zone for life to exist. Heck, we could very possibly find life right here in our own solar system -- on the moon of Europa, which gets its heat from Jupiter.
... We have no proof. But we've barely looked.
A somewhat relevant tale:
NASA sent astronauts on the moon and brought a camera with them. They took a couple of pictures and did a couple of missions and whatnot. Afterwards when they returned to earth the scientists examined the inventory. They noticed that on the camera, which is quite expensive and was new, had a small scratch on the lens. Obviously this isn't right so when the scientists examined it they found bacteria on the lens. Everyone panicked and essentially shut the whole facility down quarantining everything. Later they examined it and found it to be earth-born. This is when they realized how some microbes could survive in space.
European astronomers have discovered a planet with about the mass of the Earth orbiting a star in the Alpha Centauri system -- the nearest to Earth. It is also the lightest exoplanet ever discovered around a star like the Sun. The planet was detected using the HARPS instrument on the 3.6-meter telescope at ESO's La Silla Observatory in Chile. The results will appear online in the journal Nature on 17 October 2012.
Alpha Centauri is one of the brightest stars in the southern skies and is the nearest stellar system to our solar system -- only 4.3 light-years away. It is actually a triple star -- a system consisting of two stars similar to the Sun orbiting close to each other, designated Alpha Centauri A and B, and a more distant and faint red component known as Proxima Centauri [1]. Since the nineteenth century astronomers have speculated about planets orbiting these bodies, the closest possible abodes for life beyond the solar system, but searches of increasing precision had revealed nothing. Until now.
"Our observations extended over more than four years using the HARPS instrument and have revealed a tiny, but real, signal from a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri B every 3.2 days," says Xavier Dumusque (Geneva Observatory, Switzerland, and Centro de Astrofisica da Universidade do Porto, Portugal), lead author of the paper. "It's an extraordinary discovery and it has pushed our technique to the limit!"
On May 02 2012 02:59 dpurple wrote: I dont believe there is life on other planets. Give me proof first.
There are roughly 80 billion estimated galaxies in the universe, possibly more. It seems...statistically improbable doesn't quite cut it, but it will have to do, statistically improbable that there is no life outside of terra.
I mean, we found evidence of water on Mars, our cosmic nextdoor neighbor. We have existed for a cosmic blink of an eye, barely, and have seen and explored nothing that is even measurable against the scale of the known universe. Saying that you don't think there is life elsewhere in the universe because we haven't found any is akin to saying you don't believe that cats exist because you didn't find any in your fridge.
So they just found a planet that is like earth in its mass and star?
But there is zero chance it could ever support life?
"This is the first planet with a mass similar to Earth ever found around a star like the Sun. Its orbit is very close to its star and it must be much too hot for life as we know it,"
"This is the first planet with a mass similar to Earth ever found around a star like the Sun. Its orbit is very close to its star and it must be much too hot for life as we know it,"
I fail to see the importance of this discovery..?
It's also interesting because it is in the nearest system to ours, and because the presence of one planet means there could be more, including some that may not be as hot.
On May 02 2012 02:49 sevia wrote: This whole post came out like a speculative rant, but I'm interested if anyone has suggested a plan like this:
Multi-generational ships and cryo-freezing are way out of our technical reach right now, but robotics and 'ex-utero' birth both look like they will be sufficiently advanced before the end of the century. This definitely sounds science-fictiony, but the general plan would be to: 1. load up a compact ship with robots, building materials, and cloning facilities, 2. send the ship on a centuries-long flight to a system thought to have an Earth-like planet, 3. upon arriving, begin constructing basic life-support systems, gathering resources, and building a settlement, and 4. clone human beings using materials carried on the ship, which are then raised and educated by 'caretaker' robots in the new settlements (this would be the hardest part, I think). After that, transition into fairly 'normal' human colonization.
Some of the technology seems way too advanced right now, but this is what I believe to be the nearest option (technologically and time-wise) if we really want to get humans out of the solar system. Are there any glaring flaws that anyone sees?
How about the purpose for doing so?
What incentive is there for the current generation to invest in a colony separated by a distance of centuries?
What if 300 years into the 900 year journey to the planet, earth develops a technology that can get there in 100 years instead of 900 and at half the cost?
EPT
