If Evolution Were Rerun ...

[OrdinaryClay]

If evolution were rerun on Earth would a sentient animal with the same level of abstract thought as humans, i.e. able to understand and predict the universe, have arisen? I'm not asking could it have arisen. I'm asking would it have.

[Snakefoot]

Absurd question. That's like asking if a given football season were replayed, would the same team win the Superbowl.

[Ouroboros]

If evolution were rerun on Earth would a sentient animal with the same level of abstract thought as humans, i.e. able to understand and predict the universe, have arisen? I'm not asking could it have arisen. I'm asking would it have.

Absolutely yes and absolutely no.

[Legion]

I think it's a good question Snakefoot.

 

I see that many animals have developed rather elaborate nervous systems. Most of them are mammals, but not all. An octopus has a fairly developed brain. My inclination is that evolution produces ever more capable organisms. Further, I think the more an animal is able to understand then the more capable they will be at achieving optimality for themselves.

 

I also strongly suspect that life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. And I suspect that evolution in these places has also produced intelligence.

[Snakefoot]

I think it's a good question Snakefoot.

 

I see that many animals have developed rather elaborate nervous systems. Most of them are mammals, but not all. An octopus has a fairly developed brain. My inclination is that evolution produces ever more capable organisms. Further, I think the more an animal is able to understand then the more capable they will be at achieving optimality for themselves.

 

I also strongly suspect that life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. And I suspect that evolution in these places has also produced intelligence.

I suspect you are right, but narrowing the focus from "could" to "would" sets up far too many presuppositions.

[bdp]

Topic spammer, and this one is a pretty stupid topic.

[Ouroboros]

Topic spammer, and this one is a pretty stupid topic.

Stupid people tend to start stupic topids.

[Legion]

I suspect you are right, but narrowing the focus from "could" to "would" sets up far too many presuppositions.

I suppose we could seed some planet with single cellular life and wait for a few billion years.

[Vixentrox]

I imagine if life wasn't largely wiped out several times in Earths history there would be a number of different sentient life forms today. Mostly lower order critters survived the great wipe-outs.

[Ouroboros]

I suspect you are right, but narrowing the focus from "could" to "would" sets up far too many presuppositions.

I suppose we could seed some planet with single cellular life and wait for a few billion years.

"Could" is the keyword.

 

Clay is going to argue the probability and statistical numbers for evolution of intelligent life, just wait and see.

 

He will argue that it is impossible to evolve to what we are because the probability is so low.

[Shyone]

Hypothetically, let's say that the K-T boundary didn't happen.

 

Dinosaurs ruled the world with brute power for hundreds of millions of years. I think that the balance of power would have shifted in favor of a better strategy than the previous power/size/speed ratios that had predominated. Intelligence worked once, and there are many creatures bordering on our intelligence, but I don't know if it would have been birds, mammals, insects or reptiles.

 

Um, when do you stop the clock? In another 3 billion years? Just before the sun burns out?

 

If you want to know how evolution might have turned out given different reruns, just watch Star Trek reruns. We have the Vulcans, the Klingons, the Ferengis...

[Snakefoot]

I imagine if life wasn't largely wiped out several times in Earths history there would be a number of different sentient life forms today. Mostly lower order critters survived the great wipe-outs.

Ground-burrowing animals and some sea life at that.

[ghost_warlock]

I imagine if life wasn't largely wiped out several times in Earths history there would be a number of different sentient life forms today. Mostly lower order critters survived the great wipe-outs.

 

If we started selectively breeding say, bonobos, we could probably have another sentient life form in a couple hundred years.

 

But, oh, the controversy!

 

Stupid people tend to start stupic topids.

 

I look at it like this: at least he accepts the theory of evolution (said so in another thread) and isn't spamming young earth creationism at us.

 

Really, this alone is enough to give me hope.

[Vixentrox]

Well he could just be speaking of evolution hypothetically, just like we do about heaven, hell, gods. That they don't exist doesn't stop us from talking about them.

[NotBlinded]

I suspect you are right, but narrowing the focus from "could" to "would" sets up far too many presuppositions.

I suppose we could seed some planet with single cellular life and wait for a few billion years.

"Could" is the keyword.

 

Clay is going to argue the probability and statistical numbers for evolution of intelligent life, just wait and see.

 

He will argue that it is impossible to evolve to what we are because the probability is so low.

I agree totally. He isn't doing this to gain insight due to the deliberate phrasing of his one to two line topic starters and lack of his own input. Well, his bait stinks. I would assume that he will eventually take all of the answers and twist them around in order to look like they were answered in a way that they weren't. What is that word? Deceitful? Wait...OC is a lawyer.

[ghost_warlock]

Well he could just be speaking of evolution hypothetically, just like we do about heaven, hell, gods. That they don't exist doesn't stop us from talking about them.

 

That is a possibility, but then he'd be contradicting himself rather obviously here.

 

Full quotation spoiler'd below for quick reference.

 

 

 

yeah I do believe that morals are objective. I believe that these objections are not monotheistically specific. If I could sumerize it in a sentence or to. Do the least amount of harm, and allviete as much suffering as you can. And this is something that we are born with. it objective in the sense that it is something that culturally mandible, but you can't eliminate. Like I said, for example, murder is a crime in every culture in some form.

Thank you. I agree I think anyone who really searches their heart will realize that there are acts which are never morally acceptable no matter how many people say it is okay. Rape is always immoral even if every person in the wold said it was not.

 

How can we be born with something such as morals, though? Animals don't rape, murder or steal. They just act out of behavior. Why would humans be the only species with these moral values? I believe these moral values are imputed to us as part of God's image. You have to be careful not to confuse how we got our moral apprehension with where the legitimacy of these morals comes from. IOW, I believe we acquired these values through evolution, but that what makes them truly valid is there objective existence.

 

If God does not truly exist then I can not see where these objective moral values could reside. If they just exist in our minds then they are subjective as many on here claim. I can not get my self to accept that there are not truly things that are immoral. I would hold that the Holocaust was wrong even if everyone in the world said it was right.

Specific quote underlined by me for emphasis.

 

 

[Snakefoot]

Well he could just be speaking of evolution hypothetically, just like we do about heaven, hell, gods. That they don't exist doesn't stop us from talking about them.

 

That is a possibility, but then he'd be contradicting himself rather obviously here.

 

Full quotation spoiler'd below for quick reference.

 

 

 

yeah I do believe that morals are objective. I believe that these objections are not monotheistically specific. If I could sumerize it in a sentence or to. Do the least amount of harm, and allviete as much suffering as you can. And this is something that we are born with. it objective in the sense that it is something that culturally mandible, but you can't eliminate. Like I said, for example, murder is a crime in every culture in some form.

Thank you. I agree I think anyone who really searches their heart will realize that there are acts which are never morally acceptable no matter how many people say it is okay. Rape is always immoral even if every person in the wold said it was not.

 

How can we be born with something such as morals, though? Animals don't rape, murder or steal. They just act out of behavior. Why would humans be the only species with these moral values? I believe these moral values are imputed to us as part of God's image. You have to be careful not to confuse how we got our moral apprehension with where the legitimacy of these morals comes from. IOW, I believe we acquired these values through evolution, but that what makes them truly valid is there objective existence.

 

If God does not truly exist then I can not see where these objective moral values could reside. If they just exist in our minds then they are subjective as many on here claim. I can not get my self to accept that there are not truly things that are immoral. I would hold that the Holocaust was wrong even if everyone in the world said it was right.

Specific quote underlined by me for emphasis.

 

 

Ah, but he was referring to mental/social/spiritual evolution, don't you see.

[florduh]

Bogus question. All it asks is, "Would things be different if they were different?"

[mwc]

If evolution were rerun on Earth would a sentient animal with the same level of abstract thought as humans, i.e. able to understand and predict the universe, have arisen? I'm not asking could it have arisen. I'm asking would it have.

You bet it would have because you said we're rerunning it and like a rerun it's just the same show over and over and over.

 

Unless you want to just wipe the slate clean at some arbitrary period and see if things would ultimately work out like they have until now. Then maybe. That's not rerunning. That's more of a restart or do-over. Different conditions, different outcome.

 

If I could simply hit rewind on the galactic Tivo, and watch it rerun, it would all be the same though. Not even quantum physics can escape the Galactic Tivo.

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

If evolution were rerun on Earth would a sentient animal with the same level of abstract thought as humans, i.e. able to understand and predict the universe, have arisen? I'm not asking could it have arisen. I'm asking would it have.

You bet it would have because you said we're rerunning it and like a rerun it's just the same show over and over and over.

 

Unless you want to just wipe the slate clean at some arbitrary period and see if things would ultimately work out like they have until now. Then maybe. That's not rerunning. That's more of a restart or do-over. Different conditions, different outcome.

 

If I could simply hit rewind on the galactic Tivo, and watch it rerun, it would all be the same though. Not even quantum physics can escape the Galactic Tivo.

 

mwc

Oh man! Of course!

[OrdinaryClay]

I see that many animals have developed rather elaborate nervous systems. Most of them are mammals, but not all. An octopus has a fairly developed brain. My inclination is that evolution produces ever more capable organisms. Further, I think the more an animal is able to understand then the more capable they will be at achieving optimality for themselves.

Makes sense, but still we have no evidence of any other species understanding the cosmos as we do.

 

I also strongly suspect that life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. And I suspect that evolution in these places has also produced intelligence.

Possible, but then you have to ask the question Fermi did.

[OrdinaryClay]

I imagine if life wasn't largely wiped out several times in Earths history there would be a number of different sentient life forms today. Mostly lower order critters survived the great wipe-outs.

Reasonable point, but when you look at the data you see that the period between major extinction events was much longer then it took to evolve hominids. We popped up rather quickly - evolutionarily speaking.

[OrdinaryClay]

Clay is going to argue the probability and statistical numbers for evolution of intelligent life, just wait and see.

While no one can calculate the probabilities involved exactly because of the complexity of the problem, one can not help but be amazed at given how many vertebrate species that have evolved on our planet over the last 200 my or so that we are the only one that has reached the level we have. We certainly are the only one that has calculated the beginning of the cosmos, and archaeology strongly suggest we are the only one to have created complex religious structures.

 

He will argue that it is impossible to evolve to what we are because the probability is so low.

Low probability does not equate to impossible, so I would not ague that.

[OrdinaryClay]

Bogus question. All it asks is, "Would things be different if they were different?"

No, I'm asking for a specific outcome(equally sentient life) not any outcome (as in any difference).

[Snakefoot]

Bogus question. All it asks is, "Would things be different if they were different?"

No, I'm asking for a specific outcome(equally sentient life) not any outcome (as in any difference).

Yes, no, maybe, possibly, probably.