Is the planet "broken" and did that cause the evolution of predation?

[Wexler]

No I don't think we do, actually.

I think most people would consider that organisms started eating other organisms either (a) to grow and reproduce more efficiently or (b) to neutralise organisms that might threaten their wellbeing (immune response).

"Fail to advance" suggests a teleological thought process that is not appropriate here.

Fair enough...and you don't see how the "to grow and reproduce more efficiently" supports my argument?

There's no possible other way in the universe, on any other type of planet, with any other type of star, to grow and reproduce without eating other organisms?

 

[Wexler]

I do not agree with that at all. Not eating other organisms is a wasted opportunity that evolution is not going to miss.

Before we go round and round here...neither you, nor I know this as fact for all planets, in all other environments.

What we do know is that muticelluarity can occur in a lab without any organisms being eaten...and I'm not sure why folks are ignoring that fact...

 

[origin]

Before we go round and round here...neither you, nor I know this as fact for all planets, in all other environments.

What we do know is that muticelluarity can occur in a lab without any organisms being eaten...and I'm not sure why folks are ignoring that fact...

You know this really is rather boring.

 

[Russ_Watters]

...but the one thing we ALL agree on is that organisms on this planet start eating other organisms when the inanimate resources for life run out...or fail to provide enough energy to advance.

I don't agree either.

Do you believe in scaling laws or the principles of self-similarity? Do you think it is at all possible that amongst 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars there might be some sort of principle of scaling?

Just asking.

I don't know what "self similarty" and "principle of scaling" mean - I suspect you just made them up - but they don't appear to me to answer my question. Are you trolling?

Just asking.

 

[Wexler]

I don't agree either.

I don't know what "self similarty" and "principle of scaling" mean - I suspect you just made them up - but they don't appear to me to answer my question. Are you trolling?

Just asking.

Give this a shot.

http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations

 

[Wexler]

You know this really is rather boring.

Look forward to no longer having to answer you!

 

[origin]

Look forward to no longer having to answer you!

Of course not, then you won't have to actually think logically about your pitifully ignorant idea.

 

[Wexler]

You have been put on ignore.

 

[Hipparchia]

Sorry you do not see the distinction. My mistake..

I have no idea if you are admitting the wriggle, or suggesting that I failed to see your subtle point. If the former - thank you. Let's not have to do this every time. If the latter - you are equivocating. It is unseemly. Stop it.

You stand by that statement? This is from this past February...

http://time.com/3705594/inner-core-earth-planet-iron/

There may be an 'inner inner' core at the heart of the planet

I said "We have a very sound knowledge of the core composition and of its properties.What makes you think we don't? We have known its gross properties for several decades and are regularly refining our understanding of the details."

You stated that the Earth has "some sort of core that we have no idea what it is made of or it's properties." Let's consider some of the features of the core before and after this research you seem to feel is so important.

1. There is a core. No change there.
2. The core has about a 4620 km radius. No change there.
3. There is an outer core that will transmit P waves, but not shear waves. It is therefore liquid. No change there.
4. The outer core consists primarily of iron, with an admixture of nickel and other minor constituents. No change there.
5. Convection currents exist in this outer core that generate the Earth's magnetic field. No change there.
6. There is an inner core that is solid. No change there.
7. The inner core has a radius of about 1220km. No change there.
8. The inner core is composed primarily of iron crystals with an admixture of other minor components. No change there.
9. The iron crystals are oriented in a N-S direction. Partial change here - there is a smaller inner inner core where the crystals are oriented E-W.

We know what the core is made of. We know its properties. One small, interesting detail has changed. Your assertion that we have no idea what it is made of or it's properties is not simply hyperbole. It is demonstrably wrong. If you wish your ideas to be taken seriously you need to stop making gross exaggerations and concede promptly when you have been shown to be wrong.

Again, you are taking an incredibly Earth-centric-approach while ignoring the England evidence...watch that lectrue...and then consider that multicelluarity is a pivotal leap in evolution and seems to occur without the consumption of another organism.

Stop changing the subject. I was addressing your specific claim that the Theia impact imparted the Earth's axial tilt; that this led to much variability in surface conditions; and that this represented a broken Earth.

I demonstrated that the Theia impact had actually contributed to the stability of the Earth's axis by providing the moon.

I don't think you even realise that you are behaving dishonestly. You challenge me on one point. I address it and you ignore the facts I have provided and shoot off at a tangent. I ask you please to stop behaving in such an unpleasant manner. Address the points directly, do not equivocate, do not avoid answering by changing the subject.

 

[Wexler]

I have no idea if you are admitting the wriggle, or suggesting that I failed to see your subtle point. If the former - thank you. Let's not have to do this every time. If the latter - you are equivocating. It is unseemly. Stop it.

I said "We have a very sound knowledge of the core composition and of its properties.What makes you think we don't? We have known its gross properties for several decades and are regularly refining our understanding of the details."

You stated that the Earth has "some sort of core that we have no idea what it is made of or it's properties." Let's consider some of the features of the core before and after this research you seem to feel is so important.

1. There is a core. No change there.
2. The core has about a 4620 km radius. No change there.
3. There is an outer core that will transmit P waves, but not shear waves. It is therefore liquid. No change there.
4. The outer core consists primarily of iron, with an admixture of nickel and other minor constituents. No change there.
5. Convection currents exist in this outer core that generate the Earth's magnetic field. No change there.
6. There is an inner core that is solid. No change there.
7. The inner core has a radius of about 1220km. No change there.
8. The inner core is composed primarily of iron crystals with an admixture of other minor components. No change there.
9. The iron crystals are oriented in a N-S direction. Partial change here - there is a smaller inner inner core where the crystals are oriented E-W.

We know what the core is made of. We know its properties. One small, interesting detail has changed. Your assertion that we have no idea what it is made of or it's properties is not simply hyperbole. It is demonstrably wrong. If you wish your ideas to be taken seriously you need to stop making gross exaggerations and concede promptly when you have been shown to be wrong.

Stop changing the subject. I was addressing your specific claim that the Theia impact imparted the Earth's axial tilt; that this led to much variability in surface conditions; and that this represented a broken Earth.

I demonstrated that the Theia impact had actually contributed to the stability of the Earth's axis by providing the moon.

I don't think you even realise that you are behaving dishonestly. You challenge me on one point. I address it and you ignore the facts I have provided and shoot off at a tangent. I ask you please to stop behaving in such an unpleasant manner. Address the points directly, do not equivocate, do not avoid answering by changing the subject.

I am attempting to be as civil and non-confrontational as possible...and if you go back and look, I have admitted where I have made a mistake in the discussion. Sorry if you feel this is offensive.

It may well be close to the optimum size for the parent of a system with life.

Should I throw an accusation of wriggle here? I mean, let's be fair, "may well be" isn't all that...well, firm.

We have a very sound knowledge of the core composition and of its properties. We have known its gross properties for several decades and are regularly refining our understanding of the details...One small, interesting detail has changed.

When dismissing my point, you make it sound like we have absolute knowledge of the subject and nothing else can or could be learned....yet we see "sound knowledge" and "regularly refining our understanding". Is "we absolutely have no idea?" a fair statement? Probably not, but there is a distinct difference between absolutes and "regularly refining". Call it semantics in a message board discussion.

Not changing the subject in the least. I answered your question about the moon, no? Sorry if I missed it, I said it was an unusually large moon that was once two, no?

 

[exchemist]

Fair enough...and you don't see how the "to grow and reproduce more efficiently" supports my argument?

There's no possible other way in the universe, on any other type of planet, with any other type of star, to grow and reproduce without eating other organisms?

I don't know this for a fact but it seems likely that consuming other living things takes a nice short cut in terms of biochemistry, because other organisms already are made from the right sorts of things: amino acids, carbohydrates, etc. So from an evolutionary perspective it looks like something that has selective advantage to eat things that give you those things ready-made.

 

[Wexler]

I don't know this for a fact but it seems likely that consuming other living things takes a nice short cut in terms of biochemistry, because other organisms already are made from the right sorts of things: amino acids, carbohydrates, etc. So from an evolutionary perspective it looks like something that has selective advantage to eat things that give you those things ready-made.

Yes, and I have not once disputed the "short cut" in this thread. But this is a survival strategy based on the available resources, no?

I think I am taking a break from this thread...really can't understand why two folks have gotten so upset to make personal attacks in this sort of discussion.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Give this a shot.

http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations

So, yes -- yes, you are trolling. Thanks for the clarification.

...really can't understand why two folks have gotten so upset to make personal attacks in this sort of discussion.

We don't like your attitude and tactics. But I suspect you knew that and really do understand why people are getting annoyed with you.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, and I have not once disputed the "short cut" in this thread. But this is a survival strategy based on the available resources, no?

I think I am taking a break from this thread...really can't understand why two folks have gotten so upset to make personal attacks in this sort of discussion.

No it is driven by opportunity, not shortage.

 

[Hipparchia]

I am attempting to be as civil and non-confrontational as possible...and if you go back and look, I have admitted where I have made a mistake in the discussion.

And yet, I still have no idea what you have actually "admitted to", or apologised for, because your writing is ambiguous. And each time I seek to remove that ambiguity by asking precise questions, you seemingly answer a different question.

Should I throw an accusation of wriggle here? I mean, let's be fair, "may well be" isn't all that...well, firm.

Oh, for heaven's sake! I will walk you through this and if you cannot see what is actually occurring I am done with you. Here is the sequence of events.

1. You asserted that the planet was broken.
2. One aspect of this "brokenness" was it's "mediocre energy source".
3. I elected to challenge this claim.
4. I pointed out that it was anything but a mediocre energy source. (Citations can be provided to justify this assertion if required. I don't think they should be. I think it is common knowledge among anyone with a serious interest in astronomy. )
5. Your assertion was thus refuted. The Earth is not broken on the basis that is has a mediocre energy source, since the sun is not a mediocre energy source. (This does not demonstrate that it is not broken, only that the size of the sun is not one of the pieces of evidence that would support such a view.)
5. I then added - as an additional point, not part of the refutation - that it may well be the optimal size of star. If it isn't the optimal size that does nothing to my refutation of your assertion. No one, that I have noticed, in this thread is claiming the Earth is the best of all possible worlds. We are simply claiming that it is not "broken".

Now, do you get that, or not?

 

[Wexler]

So, yes -- yes, you are trolling. Thanks for the clarification.

We don't like your attitude and tactics. But I suspect you knew that and really do understand why people are getting annoyed with you.

You are now on ignore.

 

[Wexler]

And yet, I still have no idea what you have actually "admitted to", or apologised for, because your writing is ambiguous. And each time I seek to remove that ambiguity by asking precise questions, you seemingly answer a different question.

Oh, for heaven's sake! I will walk you through this and if you cannot see what is actually occurring I am done with you. Here is the sequence of events.

1. You asserted that the planet was broken.
2. One aspect of this "brokenness" was it's "mediocre energy source".
3. I elected to challenge this claim.
4. I pointed out that it was anything but a mediocre energy source. (Citations can be provided to justify this assertion if required. I don't think they should be. I think it is common knowledge among anyone with a serious interest in astronomy. )
5. Your assertion was thus refuted. The Earth is not broken on the basis that is has a mediocre energy source, since the sun is not a mediocre energy source. (This does not demonstrate that it is not broken, only that the size of the sun is not one of the pieces of evidence that would support such a view.)
5. I then added - as an additional point, not part of the refutation - that it may well be the optimal size of star. If it isn't the optimal size that does nothing to my refutation of your assertion. No one, that I have noticed, in this thread is claiming the Earth is the best of all possible worlds. We are simply claiming that it is not "broken".

Now, do you get that, or not?

You are now on ignore.

 

[Wexler]

For the rest that would like to attempt to continue a civil conversation, I have found these lectures particularly interesting:

Part two at about 28:00 is particularly interesting to this discussion...

 

[Wexler]

...I was just getting started on the Earth's core...

The iron in the Earth's ancient oceans was spat out of hot springs on the seafloor as dissolved, reduced ferrous [Fe(II)] iron. The classic model for the formation of iron deposits suggested that the Fe(II) from the Earth's core was oxidized by the oxygen produced by cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). This process can happen either chemically (as in the formation of rust) or by the action of microaerophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria.

Lecture 1 @ 4:22 - now think about the planet and the sun

Lecture 1 @ 30:00 - now think about the iron from the core and the possible influence on the primordial soup.

 

[exchemist]

...I was just getting started on the Earth's core...

The iron in the Earth's ancient oceans was spat out of hot springs on the seafloor as dissolved, reduced ferrous [Fe(II)] iron. The classic model for the formation of iron deposits suggested that the Fe(II) from the Earth's core was oxidized by the oxygen produced by cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). This process can happen either chemically (as in the formation of rust) or by the action of microaerophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria.

Lecture 1 @ 4:22 - now think about the planet and the sun

Lecture 1 @ 30:00 - now think about the iron from the core and the possible influence on the primordial soup.

What is your point, though? (Like most people here I do not watch videos. I prefer to see arguments set out in print).