No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Oldskeptic · **#101** by **Oldskeptic** » Oct 02, 2015 8:23 am

Predictions concerning evolution and natural selection? I can think of quite a few just off the top of my head:

The prediction of a creature like tiktaalik being found where it was then found.

The guppy studies that predicted changes in coloring, pattern, size, and breeding habits dependent on the prevalence of predators and the size and color of pebble bottoms.

The prediction by Darwin and then discovery of Xanthopan morganii in 1903.

The prediction that a human chromosome would be found to be a fusion of two chromosomes found in other ape species.

The prediction by Richard Lenski and his team that his E. coli bacteria would evolve over time to metabolize citrate.

The prediction that Galapagos finch beaks would change along with environmental conditions.

The prediction that birds would be shown to have been descended from theropod dinosaurs.

The prediction that opossums living on islands off the south eastern sea board would have much delayed onset of geriatric disease and symptoms and smaller litters spaced farther apart with later sexual maturity than opossums on the mainland where they tend to die young due to getting run over by cars.

That's just some that I can think of right now, but there are many thousands more. Scientists don't often perform experiments just to see what will happen. Almost every single one involves some amount of predicting what the outcome will be, and that goes for evolutionary scientists as much as it does for particle physicists. A standard application for funding of a study or series of experiments includes explanations of what the scientist expects to find; these are called predictions.

Also there have been predictions of what won't be found by exploration or experiment, the most famous being J.B.S. Haldane's retort concerning what could falsify evolution? "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." That was a prediction that fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata weren't going to be found, and they haven't been. That was a clever quip, but it is part of a larger prediction, that being that no fossils will be found where evolution science wouldn't predict them to be, and despite creationist claims to the contrary, none have ever been found.

All of evolution history is one long chain of predictions being verified, beginning with Darwin's many predictions and continuing on as I type this.

crank · **#102** by **crank** » Oct 02, 2015 10:37 am

Thanks, Oldskeptic, for stepping in with some great examples. I knew this is such a common thing, and there would be plenty of members who could rattle this stuff off in their sleep, I really thought Ven. Kwan Tam Woo would go try a search for himself. If I were interested enough in something that I would go to the lengths he did in his last post, especially if told by others it was common, I would have looked way before that for myself, wouldn't you? Again a couple of seconds effort and:

: octo-2015-10-02 05_15_45-rodent dark rock light and selection process - Google Search.png (232.66 KiB) Viewed 1400 times

On the microbe side, like I said earlier, if someone is interested in this, they would have seen plenty of examples even in the regular news. Right now, there is tons of ongoing work on how your intestinal biota is of enormous importance to your health, much of that work is going to rely on a theoretical framework driven by processes of natural selection, just read a little.

ScholasticSpastic · **#103** by **ScholasticSpastic** » Oct 02, 2015 12:10 pm

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
ScholasticSpastic wrote:
Speciation is pretty much guaranteed once colonization beyond solar systems happens. It's just not feasible to do any substantial mixing of gene pools over those distances. But I don't see that as an objection to interstellar civilizations. There is no reason a civilization cannot be composed of multiple related- or unrelated- species. It would probably work better if they were related.

Yes that one was a bit of a long bow to draw. But it does raise some interesting questions. Would we really be preserving our own species, or simply ensuring the existence of some future unknown species that might descend from and supplant us? Does that even matter? And why would a highly intelligent species capable of space-faring content itself with being locked into "the struggle for existence" rather than seeking a way to get beyond that struggle once and for all?

There are two worlds, Earth and a world which has been colonized by humans from Earth. The two populations diverge. Which world doesn't have humans on it anymore? That's kind of a trick question, since "human" isn't a species. Homo sapiens is a species. That we can currently use the two interchangeably is more an accident of history than any formal decision on anyone's part. There is no reason we could not continue to regard a population which has diverged from the one on Earth as "human" even if they were no longer Homo sapiens.

Also, what the hell would no longer being involved in the struggle for existence entail except for no longer existing?

Number of extra-solar planets believed to have breathable atmospheres (last time I checked): 0
Amount of breathable atmosphere present in the immensity of outer space: 0

False. There is a very, very significant difference between not having detected something and that something not being there. We have DETECTED zero extra-solar planets with breathable atmospheres. Or, more accurately, we have not confirmed that any of the extra-solar planets detected thus far have breathable atmospheres. This is a far cry from there being zero breathable atmospheres in the immensity of space aside from Earth.

Nope. "Colonization" is exactly what it is, in the purest sense of the term. And, in principle, it's pretty much the same. All that changes is the magnitude of the endeavor.

Really?? In principle it's "pretty much the same" to colonize a place with:
no breathable atmosphere;
no magnetic field;
no natural fresh-water sources;
no aboriginals to help you out when times gets tough;
no biosphere to speak of; and
no way of retreating to and/or readily acquiring aid from the homeland

...as it is to colonize a place with most or all of those things??

Correct. You can colonize a place with none of those things and it would still be colonization.

However, I am not proposing that we stick to worlds which lack all of these things and you would be a fool to suggest that Earth is so peculiar in this universe that it's the only world which has all of these things.

(ETA: Aboriginals are problematic at least as often as they are helpful. I'm not sure they ought to be added uncritically to the "plus" category. How about we stick with what we know will be helpful. Take hydrogen and oxygen, for example (water): Hydrogen and oxygen are easily mined on every rocky planet in our solar system. Especially oxygen. Oxygen is so abundant as a component of minerals that worrying about where your oxygen will come from can only be histrionics as long as you have an energy source. A more problematic issue would be the paucity of nitrogen. There is very little non-atmospheric nitrogen in our solar system, so colonizing a world without sufficient nitrogen in its atmosphere would probably be a lot more suicidal than colonizing a world without sufficient oxygen in its atmosphere.)

There might be life-bearing worlds out there, but even if there are then that raises other issues. Is it ethical to colonize other life-bearing worlds? Is it safe for us to try?

Why would it be unethical to colonize a life-bearing world? And when have we ever only done what was safe? Do you think driving a car is safe? Do you think transmitting electricity is safe? You engage in life-threatening adventures every time you go into your bathroom or step outside your home. Safety is a non-issue.

Sexual selection may well have something to do with it. But imo there are probably so many factors involved and intertwined with one and other that it only makes sense to talk about "selection pressures" in the most superficial of senses.

For any imperfectly self-replicating system, there will always be differential success of the replicating units. This differential success is called selection, and it dictates pretty much everything we can expect from that system. Any time we talk about any sort of animal- terrestrial or otherwise- if we fail to take selection pressures in to account, we're merely talking bullshit. It's like trying to consider cars without taking internal combustion engines into account. There isn't even a point to it.

As far as SETI-style contact, I'm really dissatisfied with it for a number of reasons, but I can collapse those reasons down to a nice, simple umbrella objection: It presupposes aliens which are too much like us, or perhaps like better versions of us.

And contact by space-colonization doesn't also presuppose this?

It does not- or at least not to the same extent. SETI presupposes aliens which wish to talk to aliens. For physical contact, all we need is an alien with some reason (any reason) to have wandered into our neighborhood, or for us to have wandered into their neighborhood. When one encounters a bear, one does not assume it has come looking for them. One rather assumes it was about on bear business and that the encounter was accidental.

Given entities which we are likely to be less similar to than we are to bears, I think it's reasonable, if we wish to find them, to stick to methods which do not require that they be similar to us.

ScholasticSpastic · **#104** by **ScholasticSpastic** » Oct 02, 2015 12:16 pm

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
<snip?And why would a highly intelligent species capable of space-faring content itself with being locked into "the struggle for existence" rather than seeking a way to get beyond that struggle once and for all?</snip>

<snip>Also, what the hell would no longer being involved in the struggle for existence entail except for no longer existing?</snip>

Just as an aside: How is it that when we bring up the OBSERVED FACT of natural selection you demand that we back our shit up (happy to, by the way), but then you think it's acceptable to throw out inanities like this one? Or to make generalizations like confidently implying that the Earth is the only Earth-like planet in the galaxy?

I am always in favor of requiring that people be willing to provide evidence for their claims, but those standards for evidence must be evenly applied or all you're doing is hypocrisy.

DavidMcC · **#105** by **DavidMcC** » Oct 02, 2015 12:39 pm

crank wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
CdesignProponentsist wrote:DavidMcC's new bugbear - Sim-worlders!

Not really. It was crank who started talking about simworlds, not me. I just think it is absurd to suggest that we are all in a simworld.

EDIT: If crank doesn't go all off-topic, I won't have to chase him about it.

Chasing me about it? What does that even mean?

If you don't understand plain English, I can't help you.

You keep implying that I think we are in one even though I've repeatedly said I mentioned it only as a possibility. And that is the context in which I brought it up, as one scenario left out of an intended exhaustive list. And you still haven't attempted to justify your position on this, only repeat repeatedly that it's absurd.

Are you serious? A Possibility?? :rofl:

EDIT: That's about as "possible" as that god made the world! :lol:

The idea itself, as I was discussing it, is not off-topic, for reasons I already gave, not the least of which is that I started the damn thread!

You're not chasing me, that's your own tail.

There is no mention of sim-worlds in your OP, and being the thread-starter does not mean you can alter the topic to suit yourself.

ScholasticSpastic · **#106** by **ScholasticSpastic** » Oct 02, 2015 12:43 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
There is no mention of sim-worlds in your OP, and being the thread-starter does not mean you can alter the topic to suit yourself.

There is mention of "nearby advanced civilizations" in the thread title. Were this a sim-world, where do you suppose the aliens running the simulation would be? Hundreds of light-years away, or down to the office vending machines at the end of the hall to get a snack?

Spearthrower · **#107** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 02, 2015 12:49 pm

hackenslash wrote:
crank wrote:You keep implying that I think we are in one even though I've repeatedly said I mentioned it only as a possibility.

Called it on page 2. We've been here before with FTL, a topic in which anybody who doesn't immediately villify the merest suggestion of any possible framework that might allow for it (like, oh, I don't know, General Relativity) is immediately labelled a trekkie and dismissed. It's Dave's very own version of the twin fallacies of poisoning the well and the genetic fallacy.

Prediction validated again.

DavidMcC · **#108** by **DavidMcC** » Oct 02, 2015 12:53 pm

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
There is no mention of sim-worlds in your OP, and being the thread-starter does not mean you can alter the topic to suit yourself.

There is mention of "nearby advanced civilizations" in the thread title. Were this a sim-world, where do you suppose the aliens running the simulation would be? Hundreds of light-years away, or down to the office vending machines at the end of the hall to get a snack?

To me, "advanced civilization" does not imply "capable of creating an entire simworld", it merely implies one comparable or slightly more advanced than us. To create a simworld with billions of independently conscious characters is almost certainly not possible, IMO. You would need to have a mind that is so "open" as to have its lid flapping in the wind to believe that.

kennyc · **#109** by **kennyc** » Oct 02, 2015 12:53 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
crank wrote:You keep implying that I think we are in one even though I've repeatedly said I mentioned it only as a possibility.

Called it on page 2. We've been here before with FTL, a topic in which anybody who doesn't immediately villify the merest suggestion of any possible framework that might allow for it (like, oh, I don't know, General Relativity) is immediately labelled a trekkie and dismissed. It's Dave's very own version of the twin fallacies of poisoning the well and the genetic fallacy.

Prediction validated again.

Yea Science!
:thumbup:

DavidMcC · **#110** by **DavidMcC** » Oct 02, 2015 12:59 pm

hackenslash wrote:
crank wrote:You keep implying that I think we are in one even though I've repeatedly said I mentioned it only as a possibility.

Called it on page 2. We've been here before with FTL, a topic in which anybody who doesn't immediately villify the merest suggestion of any possible framework that might allow for it (like, oh, I don't know, General Relativity) is immediately labelled a trekkie and dismissed. It's Dave's very own version of the twin fallacies of poisoning the well and the genetic fallacy.

A. Please show how GR allows for FTL travel. I think you'll find it only allows for spatial variation of the speed of light close to the event horizon of a black hole, so that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light at one place when you are in another place. That's all.
B. Genetic fallacy?? :roll:

Spearthrower · **#111** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 02, 2015 1:00 pm

Yep, called it Hack!

DavidMcC · **#112** by **DavidMcC** » Oct 02, 2015 1:09 pm

Perhaps we are using the word, "possible" in different ways. To me, your version of it allows for a god-made world as much as it allows for an "advanced civilization"-made sim-world. To me, "possible" has to be "credible", and us being in a simworld ks about as credible as us being made by a god.

If you disagree, I suggest you submit a paper on it to a peer-reviewed science journal. Interesting that nobody has, AFAIK.

ScholasticSpastic · **#113** by **ScholasticSpastic** » Oct 02, 2015 1:19 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
To me, "advanced civilization" does not imply "capable of creating an entire simworld", it merely implies one comparable or slightly more advanced than us. To create a simworld with billions of independently conscious characters is almost certainly not possible, IMO. You would need to have a mind that is so "open" as to have its lid flapping in the wind to believe that.

Noted: A civilization which is capable of creating an entire simworld is not advanced. :lol:

Also noted: Given a sample set of zero, DavidMcC sets out to demonstrate what is possible. :doh:

ScholasticSpastic · **#114** by **ScholasticSpastic** » Oct 02, 2015 1:25 pm

DavidMcC wrote:Perhaps we are using the word, "possible" in different ways. To me, your version of it allows for a god-made world as much as it allows for an "advanced civilization"-made sim-world. To me, "possible" has to be "credible", and us being in a simworld ks about as credible as us being made by a god.

If you disagree, I suggest you submit a paper on it to a peer-reviewed science journal. Interesting that nobody has, AFAIK.

We're using the common meaning of the word "possible." Which meaning are you using? And when, aside from just now, did god-made worlds come into it?

"Possible" means having a non-zero probability. I would agree that our world being a sim-world isn't informative because it isn't falsifiable, but I strenuously disagree that it's not possible.

Good burden-of-proof shifting, by the way. You are the one making the strong claim, the hard probability claim. You are the one with the burden of proof. The position that this COULD be a sim-world is necessarily an agnostic one. We don't know. Nobody in this thread has claimed to know. When you ask that we prove our positions, given that we're not the ones who have taken one, you are spouting gibberish.

crank · **#115** by **crank** » Oct 02, 2015 1:25 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
crank wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
CdesignProponentsist wrote:DavidMcC's new bugbear - Sim-worlders!

Not really. It was crank who started talking about simworlds, not me. I just think it is absurd to suggest that we are all in a simworld.

EDIT: If crank doesn't go all off-topic, I won't have to chase him about it.

Chasing me about it? What does that even mean?
If you don't understand plain English, I can't help you.

Obviously I understand it better than you since I see this sentence is at best ambiguous.

DavidMcC wrote:
You keep implying that I think we are in one even though I've repeatedly said I mentioned it only as a possibility. And that is the context in which I brought it up, as one scenario left out of an intended exhaustive list. And you still haven't attempted to justify your position on this, only repeat repeatedly that it's absurd.

Are you serious? A Possibility??
EDIT: That's about as "possible" as that god made the world!

How many times do we have to go through this? I've dealt with this, you won't back up your claim about it being so ludicrous an idea it's laughable.

DavidMcC wrote:
The idea itself, as I was discussing it, is not off-topic, for reasons I already gave, not the least of which is that I started the damn thread!

You're not chasing me, that's your own tail.

There is no mention of sim-worlds in your OP, and being the thread-starter does not mean you can alter the topic to suit yourself.

It sure as fuck doesn't mean you can tell me what I mean when I say something. You're giving me the distinct impression of someone trying to discuss something well beyond their ability to comprehend, and in DunningKruger mode, make breathtakinglyinane comments lacking relevance or giving any hint of insight.

DavidMcC · **#116** by **DavidMcC** » Oct 02, 2015 1:31 pm

crank wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
crank wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Not really. It was crank who started talking about simworlds, not me. I just think it is absurd to suggest that we are all in a simworld.

EDIT: If crank doesn't go all off-topic, I won't have to chase him about it.

Chasing me about it? What does that even mean?
If you don't understand plain English, I can't help you.

Obviously I understand it better than you since I see this sentence is at best ambiguous.

DavidMcC wrote:
You keep implying that I think we are in one even though I've repeatedly said I mentioned it only as a possibility. And that is the context in which I brought it up, as one scenario left out of an intended exhaustive list. And you still haven't attempted to justify your position on this, only repeat repeatedly that it's absurd.

Are you serious? A Possibility??
EDIT: That's about as "possible" as that god made the world!

How many times do we have to go through this? I've dealt with this, you won't back up your claim about it being so ludicrous an idea it's laughable.
DavidMcC wrote:
The idea itself, as I was discussing it, is not off-topic, for reasons I already gave, not the least of which is that I started the damn thread!

You're not chasing me, that's your own tail.

There is no mention of sim-worlds in your OP, and being the thread-starter does not mean you can alter the topic to suit yourself.

It sure as fuck doesn't mean you can tell me what I mean when I say something. You're giving me the distinct impression of someone trying to discuss something well beyond their ability to comprehend, and in DunningKruger mode, make breathtakinglyinane comments lacking relevance or giving any hint of insight.

I can't believe I'm reading this! You're just like hack. Someone inb this thread is way out of his depth, but it isn't me.
PS, reference to D-K cases and such hyoperbolae as used above is a well known hack trick, hoping to provoke an aggressive reaction from me, and hence a suspension/ban.
EDIT: The inanities here do not come from me.

crank · **#117** by **crank** » Oct 02, 2015 1:43 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
To me, "advanced civilization" does not imply "capable of creating an entire simworld", it merely implies one comparable or slightly more advanced than us. To create a simworld with billions of independently conscious characters is almost certainly not possible, IMO. You would need to have a mind that is so "open" as to have its lid flapping in the wind to believe that.

Are you fucking kidding me? 'Advanced civilization' is used far far more often to discuss vastly more advanced civilizations than ours. I've already laid out numerous reasons to why it's prudent to think it highly likely we'll attain the capability to simulate human minds. As to simulating "billions of independently conscious characters", what a gross lack of understanding the issue. You don't even realize that for it to be true that we are in a simulation, it would only require the sim to contain one mind. A more useful simulation in no way requires simulating every detail. If we can simulate one mind, billions really is only a scaling issue, and it's always a bad bet to place limits on how far things can go. In the 60's, how many of the best computer science geeks would think the $100 GPUs available now, with billions of transistors and TFLOP capabilities, nothing more than a fantasy?

crank · **#118** by **crank** » Oct 02, 2015 1:44 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
crank wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
crank wrote:
Chasing me about it? What does that even mean?
If you don't understand plain English, I can't help you.

Obviously I understand it better than you since I see this sentence is at best ambiguous.

DavidMcC wrote:
You keep implying that I think we are in one even though I've repeatedly said I mentioned it only as a possibility. And that is the context in which I brought it up, as one scenario left out of an intended exhaustive list. And you still haven't attempted to justify your position on this, only repeat repeatedly that it's absurd.

Are you serious? A Possibility??
EDIT: That's about as "possible" as that god made the world!

How many times do we have to go through this? I've dealt with this, you won't back up your claim about it being so ludicrous an idea it's laughable.
DavidMcC wrote:
The idea itself, as I was discussing it, is not off-topic, for reasons I already gave, not the least of which is that I started the damn thread!

You're not chasing me, that's your own tail.

There is no mention of sim-worlds in your OP, and being the thread-starter does not mean you can alter the topic to suit yourself.

It sure as fuck doesn't mean you can tell me what I mean when I say something. You're giving me the distinct impression of someone trying to discuss something well beyond their ability to comprehend, and in DunningKruger mode, make breathtakinglyinane comments lacking relevance or giving any hint of insight.

I can't believe I'm reading this! You're just like hack. Someone inb this thread is way out of his depth, but it isn't me.
PS, reference to D-K cases and such hyoperbolae as used above is a well known hack trick, hoping to provoke an aggressive reaction from me, and hence a suspension/ban.
EDIT: The inanities here do not come from me.

QED

crank · **#119** by **crank** » Oct 02, 2015 1:51 pm

DavidMcC wrote: You're just like hack.

What a horrible insult to hack, you really should apologize to him.

hackenslash · **#120** by **hackenslash** » Oct 02, 2015 3:03 pm

DavidMcC wrote:A. Please show how GR allows for FTL travel. I think you'll find it only allows for spatial variation of the speed of light close to the event horizon of a black hole, so that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light at one place when you are in another place. That's all.

This ground was all covered in the other thread, along with your failure to address the fact that your entire objection is rooted in soemthing that is subject to your own objection.

B. Genetic fallacy??

Yes, labelling somebody a trekkie precisely so that you can dismiss anything said based only on the source. Poisoning the well is actually a species of the genetic fallacy in any event.

No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Re: No nearby advanced civilizations, astronomer says

Who is online