| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - What determine long-term survival?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


What determine long-term survival?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What determine long-term survival?
    Posted: 22 Oct 2013 at 18:59
What are most important for very long term survival of populations and species of living creatures?
Is it mostly dependent upon gradual change, as in "traditional" view of evolution? Or it is really about surviving catastrophical times of change, perhaps by very small margins? If disasters, like impacts from space, extreme volcanism, other catastrophes of extraterrestrial or terrestrial origin it could be the line between survival or extrinction was sometimes very fine and dependent upon very small fractions of "normal" populations just surviving or not.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 03:09
What? Very simple: the rate of reproduction. That's all.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2013 at 15:27
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

What? Very simple: the rate of reproduction. That's all.
Simple reply: wrong. Of course there has to be reproduction, but if all dies no rate  of reproduction helps!
Under some natural disaster mortality for many populations became 100 %. For those populations with a mortality of "only" 99.99% there just could be a chance of survival. If almost all other creatures except perhaps microbes were removed those 0.01 % could spread even without high reproduction rates.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Oct 2013 at 13:33
Depends on your definition of long term. Are we talking hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of years?

Also depends on your definition of survival. Do you mean and organism which will have descendents lasting for that timespan? Or do you mean organisms which will have descends lasting that timespan which are largely unchanged in physiology and design from its distant ancestors?

At the moment, I have to go with bacteria.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Oct 2013 at 18:00
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Depends on your definition of long term. Are we talking hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of years?

Also depends on your definition of survival. Do you mean and organism which will have descendents lasting for that timespan? Or do you mean organisms which will have descends lasting that timespan which are largely unchanged in physiology and design from its distant ancestors?

At the moment, I have to go with bacteria.
I would say from some hundredthousands years upwards. And primary organisms who are more than microbes(though I think catastrophes of sufficient size may kill off microbes too), and their descendants, wether they change or not. The question was not only about what kind of organisms survive, but what (kind of factors) made them do so. Example: If it was to a very large degree a question of surviving mass-extinctions, caused by particular catastrophic events, those factors could have been very different of what under "normal" circumstances made "succes". It could be such a thing as being able to hide quickly under earth or water or something else.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Oct 2013 at 01:38
Looking back to the dinosaur extinction we come to the conclusion that a number of key organisms survived because they possessed specific features which allowed them to escape the inhospitable environment following meteor impact. The capability to dive underwater, burrow into the ground, possibly hibernate, and feed on detritus all helped the ancestors of today's creatures survive the fauna apocalypse. Being smaller rather than larger typically helped (ability to survive on smaller portions of food in an environment of scarcity).

Of course, I am describing the above in terms of helpful survival traits during the mass extinction event. And only in terms of animal life.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Oct 2013 at 01:56
Of course, if humanity is going to survive for thousand of years, or even million of years, it will have to move from earth to the solar system, just in case something goes wrong with our planet. Then from the solar system it should populate other stars, as many as possible and as far away, as well, just in case the sun explodes suddenly, or we cross a wandering black hole. Some thousand years more we should attempt to cross to other galaxies and conquered the whole universe, or even going to other universes!! The rule is quite simple: spread the chances of survival.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Oct 2013 at 17:14
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Looking back to the dinosaur extinction we come to the conclusion that a number of key organisms survived because they possessed specific features which allowed them to escape the inhospitable environment following meteor impact. The capability to dive underwater, burrow into the ground, possibly hibernate, and feed on detritus all helped the ancestors of today's creatures survive the fauna apocalypse. Being smaller rather than larger typically helped (ability to survive on smaller portions of food in an environment of scarcity).

Of course, I am describing the above in terms of helpful survival traits during the mass extinction event. And only in terms of animal life.
there has been a few extinctions as large or larger than the one mentioned. And I think a lot of smaller ones. I imagine a planet, that imediately after would seem to be dead in almost all places.
A lot of branches on the "tree of life" may only just have survived. If only a few remnants survived in "odd places" that could have been enough. An ability to "hibernate" could have saved many lifeforms through extreme periods.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Oct 2013 at 17:18
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Of course, if humanity is going to survive for thousand of years, or even million of years, it will have to move from earth to the solar system, just in case something goes wrong with our planet. Then from the solar system it should populate other stars, as many as possible and as far away, as well, just in case the sun explodes suddenly, or we cross a wandering black hole. Some thousand years more we should attempt to cross to other galaxies and conquered the whole universe, or even going to other universes!! The rule is quite simple: spread the chances of survival.

Though such a way of thinking is far from unknown or perhaps even very uncommon I find it "questionable" to put it mild. Or better: Its probaly delusional.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2013 at 04:15
Delusional? Life works with challenge and response. If a species or group doesn't respond to a challenge it get extinct and it is replaced by another more responsive. As simple as that.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2013 at 08:56
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Delusional? Life works with challenge and response. If a species or group doesn't respond to a challenge it get extinct and it is replaced by another more responsive. As simple as that.

You use this simple word "simple" a lot. Not that it is always wrong to do so, but I think there is a mindset called a "simple" mindset. Or is it rather an overconfidence in personal insight without trying arguments for and against? A sense of "infallibillity"?
Believe it or not: For some, almost every "simple truth" as You see it seems rather to be the opposite.


Edited by fantasus - 26 Oct 2013 at 08:58
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2013 at 15:12
So. Do you mean life is not challenge and response? Whatever. I have a scientific and evolutionist point of view, and I believe the ideas are tested in practice. If it doesn't work, it means the idea is wrong, and it has to be changed. And I believe life in the universe as a whole passes, and each civilization it may exist on it, must past the test of the survival of the fittest. We have the challenge of survive and spread. If we don't, we will perish. You may think otherwise, and that's fine, it is your choice.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2013 at 18:16
Such spread is not an option. At least not in any foreseable future or way. That is my view.
I will also question the desireability and sensibility of trying, though I will not say anything about an indefiate future.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2013 at 18:20
Tsiolkowsky said: Earth it is the cradle of mankind... but humans shouldn't life forever in the cradle.

Edited by pinguin - 26 Oct 2013 at 18:21
Back to Top
rocket7777 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 26 Oct 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rocket7777 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2013 at 23:11
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

What are most important for very long term survival of populations and species of living creatures?
Is it mostly dependent upon gradual change, as in "traditional" view of evolution? Or it is really about surviving catastrophical times of change, perhaps by very small margins? If disasters, like impacts from space, extreme volcanism, other catastrophes of extraterrestrial or terrestrial origin it could be the line between survival or extrinction was sometimes very fine and dependent upon very small fractions of "normal" populations just surviving or not.

It is luck.  Race, country, location etc.  For example, millions of people die of starvation because others prevent them from migrating and bringing down standard of living.

We are living in unusual time.  Global awareness due to technology.  Also, there will be a computer that is smart as human in 10 years or so and way smarter in few years after that.  People will be having a chip implants to connect to internet plus help with memory.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2013 at 08:02
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Tsiolkowsky said: Earth it is the cradle of mankind... but humans shouldn't life forever in the cradle.
And without doubt others approved. But what is the reasons to believe they are or were right?
I will add: Whatever others said and however great reputation they had,we should not loose or crtitical sense.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2013 at 08:11
Originally posted by rocket7777 rocket7777 wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

What are most important for very long term survival of populations and species of living creatures?
Is it mostly dependent upon gradual change, as in "traditional" view of evolution? Or it is really about surviving catastrophical times of change, perhaps by very small margins? If disasters, like impacts from space, extreme volcanism, other catastrophes of extraterrestrial or terrestrial origin it could be the line between survival or extrinction was sometimes very fine and dependent upon very small fractions of "normal" populations just surviving or not.

It is luck.  Race, country, location etc.  For example, millions of people die of starvation because others prevent them from migrating and bringing down standard of living.

We are living in unusual time.  Global awareness due to technology.  Also, there will be a computer that is smart as human in 10 years or so and way smarter in few years after that.  People will be having a chip implants to connect to internet plus help with memory.
I think what You wrote is more relevant for 1: humans in this age. 2: Individuals rather than populations.
3: Relevant in the "short" rather than "long" perspective.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2013 at 16:42
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

 
And without doubt others approved. But what is the reasons to believe they are or were right?
I will add: Whatever others said and however great reputation they had,we should not loose or crtitical sense.


Sorry but, if one has to believe in what someone said, and I have to chose between Tsiolkowsky and Fantasus... Obviously I bet on Tsiolkowsky.


Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2013 at 18:24
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

 
And without doubt others approved. But what is the reasons to believe they are or were right?
I will add: Whatever others said and however great reputation they had,we should not loose or crtitical sense.


Sorry but, if one has to believe in what someone said, and I have to chose between Tsiolkowsky and Fantasus... Obviously I bet on Tsiolkowsky.


Why believe in any of them - without good reason?
Back to Top
rocket7777 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 26 Oct 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rocket7777 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Oct 2013 at 17:33
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by rocket7777 rocket7777 wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

What are most important for very long term survival of populations and species of living creatures?
Is it mostly dependent upon gradual change, as in "traditional" view of evolution? Or it is really about surviving catastrophical times of change, perhaps by very small margins? If disasters, like impacts from space, extreme volcanism, other catastrophes of extraterrestrial or terrestrial origin it could be the line between survival or extrinction was sometimes very fine and dependent upon very small fractions of "normal" populations just surviving or not.

It is luck.  Race, country, location etc.  For example, millions of people die of starvation because others prevent them from migrating and bringing down standard of living.

We are living in unusual time.  Global awareness due to technology.  Also, there will be a computer that is smart as human in 10 years or so and way smarter in few years after that.  People will be having a chip implants to connect to internet plus help with memory.
I think what You wrote is more relevant for 1: humans in this age. 2: Individuals rather than populations.
3: Relevant in the "short" rather than "long" perspective.

1) I disagree, starvation due to selfishness existed forever
2) Millions/Billions of people are not individuals.
3) Long term perspective on technology is even more relevant.  Humans are totally not needed.  Smartphone sized computer that are way smarter than humans, trillions of them in hundred years from now.  Things like emotion, curiosity etc. is easy to progam(ie dog vs human).


Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Oct 2013 at 20:35
Originally posted by rocket7777 rocket7777 wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by rocket7777 rocket7777 wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

What are most important for very long term survival of populations and species of living creatures?
Is it mostly dependent upon gradual change, as in "traditional" view of evolution? Or it is really about surviving catastrophical times of change, perhaps by very small margins? If disasters, like impacts from space, extreme volcanism, other catastrophes of extraterrestrial or terrestrial origin it could be the line between survival or extrinction was sometimes very fine and dependent upon very small fractions of "normal" populations just surviving or not.

It is luck.  Race, country, location etc.  For example, millions of people die of starvation because others prevent them from migrating and bringing down standard of living.

We are living in unusual time.  Global awareness due to technology.  Also, there will be a computer that is smart as human in 10 years or so and way smarter in few years after that.  People will be having a chip implants to connect to internet plus help with memory.
I think what You wrote is more relevant for 1: humans in this age. 2: Individuals rather than populations.
3: Relevant in the "short" rather than "long" perspective.

1) I disagree, starvation due to selfishness existed forever
2) Millions/Billions of people are not individuals.
3) Long term perspective on technology is even more relevant.  Humans are totally not needed.  Smartphone sized computer that are way smarter than humans, trillions of them in hundred years from now.  Things like emotion, curiosity etc. is easy to progam(ie dog vs human).


Except for the point about starvation, that has occured in very different epochs and regions, we could hardly disagree more.
Back to Top
banna32 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2013
Location: texas
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote banna32 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 03:30
age
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2014 at 08:57
Rocket7777 wrote, "Humans are totally not needed."
 
You've got to be kidding!
 
Although the use of human beings is becoming defunct in some manufacturing industries, there are still plenty of jobs that only humans can do. Like programming the computers and automated machinery for example.
 
As I see it, the biggest influences on long term human survival are the increasing population and the lack of ability to feed the increasing numbers.
 
Now put that with changing atmospheric conditions and, Huston, we have a problem!!
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2014 at 09:00
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Rocket7777 wrote, "Humans are totally not needed."
 
You've got to be kidding!
 
Although the use of human beings is becoming defunct in some manufacturing industries, there are still plenty of jobs that only humans can do. Like programming the computers and automated machinery for example.
 
As I see it, the biggest influences on long term human survival are the increasing population and the lack of ability to feed the increasing numbers.
 
Now put that with changing atmospheric conditions and, Huston, we have a problem!!
Or those problems are of short time survival, depending upon what we call "lang" and "short".
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2014 at 09:08
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Rocket7777 wrote, "Humans are totally not needed."
 
You've got to be kidding!
 
Although the use of human beings is becoming defunct in some manufacturing industries, there are still plenty of jobs that only humans can do. Like programming the computers and automated machinery for example.
 
As I see it, the biggest influences on long term human survival are the increasing population and the lack of ability to feed the increasing numbers.
 
Now put that with changing atmospheric conditions and, Huston, we have a problem!!
Or those problems are of short time survival, depending upon what we call "lang" and "short".
Are you being facetious?
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2014 at 12:29
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Rocket7777 wrote, "Humans are totally not needed."
 
You've got to be kidding!
 
Although the use of human beings is becoming defunct in some manufacturing industries, there are still plenty of jobs that only humans can do. Like programming the computers and automated machinery for example.
 
As I see it, the biggest influences on long term human survival are the increasing population and the lack of ability to feed the increasing numbers.
 
Now put that with changing atmospheric conditions and, Huston, we have a problem!!
Or those problems are of short time survival, depending upon what we call "lang" and "short".
Are you being facetious?
Why? What appear as "long term" for each individual may appear extremely short perspective compared to how long humans existed, not to say how long there has been life on this planet.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2014 at 14:08
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

What are most important for very long term survival of populations and species of living creatures?
Are we talking about the past or the future?
 
Originally posted by fantasus</DIV>
<DIV>Is it mostly dependent upon gradual change, as in traditional view of evolution? Or it is really about surviving catastrophical times of change, perhaps by very small margins? If disasters, like impacts from space, extreme volcanism, other catastrophes of extraterrestrial or terrestrial origin it could be the line between survival or extrinction was sometimes very fine and dependent upon very small fractions of normal populations just surviving or not.[/QUOTE fantasus
Is it mostly dependent upon gradual change, as in traditional view of evolution? Or it is really about surviving catastrophical times of change, perhaps by very small margins? If disasters, like impacts from space, extreme volcanism, other catastrophes of extraterrestrial or terrestrial origin it could be the line between survival or extrinction was sometimes very fine and dependent upon very small fractions of normal populations just surviving or not.[/QUOTE wrote:

 
All of the factors you've mentioned above are part of the evolutionary cycle. The need to change to meet environmental factors; the need to survive all sorts of atmospheric changes; lifestyle changes forced upon the population by changes in technology, diet and education; all of these are influences on how al species have and will evolve. And there is no doubt that other factors will arise over time.
 
 
All of the factors you've mentioned above are part of the evolutionary cycle. The need to change to meet environmental factors; the need to survive all sorts of atmospheric changes; lifestyle changes forced upon the population by changes in technology, diet and education; all of these are influences on how al species have and will evolve. And there is no doubt that other factors will arise over time.
 
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2014 at 19:16
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

What are most important for very long term survival of populations and species of living creatures?
Are we talking about the past or the future?
 
Originally posted by fantasus</div>
<div>Is it mostly dependent upon gradual change, as in traditional view of evolution? Or it is really about surviving catastrophical times of change, perhaps by very small margins? If disasters, like impacts from space, extreme volcanism, other catastrophes of extraterrestrial or terrestrial origin it could be the line between survival or extrinction was sometimes very fine and dependent upon very small fractions of normal populations just surviving or not.</td></tr></table> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><em>All of the factors you've mentioned above are part of the evolutionary cycle. The need to change to meet environmental factors; the need to survive all sorts of atmospheric changes; lifestyle changes forced upon the population by changes in technology, diet and education; </em>all of these are influences on how al species have and will evolve. And there is no doubt that other factors will arise over time.</div>
<div> </div>[/QUOTE fantasus
Is it mostly dependent upon gradual change, as in traditional view of evolution? Or it is really about surviving catastrophical times of change, perhaps by very small margins? If disasters, like impacts from space, extreme volcanism, other catastrophes of extraterrestrial or terrestrial origin it could be the line between survival or extrinction was sometimes very fine and dependent upon very small fractions of normal populations just surviving or not.
 
All of the factors you've mentioned above are part of the evolutionary cycle. The need to change to meet environmental factors; the need to survive all sorts of atmospheric changes; lifestyle changes forced upon the population by changes in technology, diet and education; all of these are influences on how al species have and will evolve. And there is no doubt that other factors will arise over time.
 
[/QUOTE wrote:

From the start I intended to discuss the topic in general, for living organisms, not for humans in particular, but that is not to say a discussion of the later is not welcome. And I had the past in mind I think. That said, it is not self evident evolution is "cyclic" in any sense.
From the start I intended to discuss the topic in general, for living organisms, not for humans in particular, but that is not to say a discussion of the later is not welcome. And I had the past in mind I think. That said, it is not self evident evolution is "cyclic" in any sense.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 867
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Mar 2014 at 14:03
The long term survival of a species depend on the persistence of a favourable enviroment, balance with predators or other hazards such as disease, rate of change (mutations, behaviour, and so forth), lack of catastrophe inflicting irrecoverable loss, lack of specialisation to the enviroment (thus avoiding over-dependence). Social behaviour does appear to help considerably, due to coperation, and better problem solving/memory capacity can help. We're not alone in problem solving by the way. Crows/ravens are now well known for their extraordinary feats of in that regard, linked to relative body/brain size. Large brains are only useful if they are larger in relation to your body size (which was why poor old Stegasaurus, with a brain the size of a dog's, needed a large swelling in the spinal cord just to control his back legs and tail, leaving nothing to the intellect)

Recently the idea of "Resonant Morphing" has arisen. The prime example is birds in Britain. In one area, birds discovered that they could feed from milk bottles left on doorsteps. Within a very short space of time, almost every area in Britain showed evidence of this behaviour even in cases where no interaction between the species of bird was possible, thus they could not have learned from each other. Human beings might have the same capacity - note the odd cultural parallels that have occurred in history, the most striking being the comparison between Japanese samurai and medieval knight - both words derive from "retainer", both involved honour systems based on a fighting class that would later dominate politics, and both emerged in the same period in two entirely seperate places in the world. If true, then Resonant Morphing is an important survival asset, as we all learn subliminally from each other. It does sound a bit dubious to the rational mind, I have to say, and I have my doubts, but then there are too many coincidences.


Edited by caldrail - 27 Mar 2014 at 14:04
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Mar 2014 at 16:42
Fantasus wrote:
From the start I intended to discuss the topic in general, for living organisms, not for humans in particular, but that is not to say a discussion of the later is not welcome. And I had the past in mind I think. That said, it is not self evident evolution is "cyclic" in any sense.
 
 
Yes, I should have said "chain".
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.