Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Regarding Lamarckism, there is a novel by Roger McBride Allen, 'Rogue Powers', about an intelligent species who are the result of Lamarckian evolution. Their story is pretty sad, because of how this form of evolution (as depicted by the author) works.
Alternate means for life to develop after it starts other than evolution are not really possible to conceive, as evolution is a concept that applies not just in biology but in many other fields, such as planetary system development, language development, car and aeroplane design, and so on.
It is the basic process of the core science concept emergence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

After all, it's possible that some dinosaur species could have become a species as intelligent as us if it wasn't for a certain asteroid.

It's possible that they did.

Archaeologists have trouble finding evidence of human activity just a few thousand years ago. A dinosaur civilisation with a similar technology level to that of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt or Mesopotamia could easily have been erased entirely from the geological record in seventy million years; It's quite possible that in another seventy million, Egypt will have subducted into the mantle, leaving no trace even of the pyramids.

Certainly their surviving relatives include highly intelligent species - all of whom have very small brains by comparison to similarly intelligent mammals. So even the evidence of small skull capacity amongst surviving fossils may not soeak against intelligence - and of course there are many dinosaur species for whom no fossils (much less fossil skulls) exist.

Yeah, but why would they be destroyed at that instant? We know no past civilization reached the industrial era.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do we know that the “laws” of physics are laws at all? I don’t think they are. I think they are descriptions of what happens in the world meditated by our particular perceptual and cognitive structures.

Aliens with radically different perceptual and cognitive structures might come up with different “laws” and even maths.

Who knows?

I sure don’t.

The laws are simply descriptions of observed reality, they should be the same anywhere. You can have a different base for your numbering system--but you only replace your addition and multiplication tables, everything else works the same. There used to be lots of people fluent in this--when you're working in lower level languages on the computer you routinely deal with base 16. It's a skill that isn't needed nearly as much now, hex is mostly confined to colors and unicode characters.

 

[bilby]

Yeah, but why would they be destroyed at that instant?

Meteorite strike? Super volcanic eruption? Tsunami? There are lots of ways a species can suddenly go extinct.

 

[steve_bank]

A law in science is something that is so well tested and used within any stated bounds that it is accepted and used without question.

Newtonian gravity works on the Moon and Mars evidenced by Moon landings and Mars probes.

 

[bilby]

Newtonian gravity works on the Moon and Mars evidenced by Moon landings and Mars probes.

Newtonian gravity is only an approximation, and therefore not a physical law, on the Moon, or Mars, or anywhere else. as evidenced by observations of the orbit of Mercury.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We can see that gravity works everywhere and at all times.

How do we know that the “laws” of physics are laws at all?

You literally just went from saying that laws of physics are universal to wondering if maybe laws of physics were NOT universal.

No, not at all.

My view is that there are no “laws” of physics, which I believe is a hangover from the idea that there is a “lawgiver,” i.e. God.

I think that the so-called laws of physics are descriptions, and not prescriptions, of how the world goes.

My view depends on a correspondence theory of truth, in which truth inheres in true propositions.

Yes, they are descriptions. That's why we consider them universal. Trying to create a model of what happens when you have a junction between areas with different "laws" ends up with all sorts of strangeness, so the logical conclusion is that no such boundary exists and therefore things behave the same everywhere.

Take the simple thing of the same elements everywhere. To get those elements stars must go boom. A star detonates when the core is crushed, but if it's crushed too hard it goes black hole and star simply falls in without the fireworks. That says pretty much the same laws govern the balance between the electromagnetic force/the nuclear force/gravity there as here.

 

[Kylie]

Then you can't say things like:

We can see that gravity works everywhere and at all times.

Why, yes, I can. We have descriptive propositions about universal regularities, statistical regularities, and quantum random occurrences. And?

Ah, so it's like a law of physics then.

 

[Kylie]

Here on earth, epigenetics suggests a mild form of Lamarckism, though not a driver of evolution.

Source please?

Look it up for yourself. Google is your friend, except for Google AI.

It's not my job to support the claims you make.

I’ve no idea how this would work on other worlds, and neither do you. Maybe on other worlds, Lamarckism, or something we have not even thought of, would drive the development of living things or life-like things (we do not even have a clear definition of life or how to differentiate it from non-Iife. Is a virus alive?).

Hence agnosticism, or perhaps more apposite, philosophical skepticism.

So you think that if we can't rule something out, it must be equally likely?

No I did not say anything of the kind. Where did you get that idea?

I have explained that with one data point (life on earth) we cannot establish probabilities of how many other planets are inhabited or how life or life-like structures develop there.

And you've also suggested that if we can't rule out another explanation, then we should remain agnostic about that explanation.

 

[Kylie]

So you think that if we can't rule something out, it must be equally likely?

No, I did not say that. This would mean that everything is 50/50, so far as I can tell from your comment.

I am saying that with one example of anything, we cannot estimate probabilities at all.

That doesn't mean that Lamarckian evolution is as plausible an explanation as natural selection though, does it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am not talking about life on earth. I am talking about hypothetical life on other planets.

We have one data point — earth. We cannot extrapolate from this one example how life, or life-like things, would behave or develop on other worlds. Such life could be quite different from own experience.

I don’t know. You don’t, either.

Sure, it probably will be quite different. Might not use DNA at all, but it's going to have some equivalent. And remember Darwin knew nothing of DNA when he wrote The Origin of Species--all that is required is that there be a set of instructions and that it's possible for changes to be made to said set of instructions. We sometimes do it in software to solve certain intractable problems. (Situations where you can take a model of X and make a good estimate of how it will function, but where we do not have a model of how to make a good X.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am saying that with one example of anything, we cannot estimate probabilities at all.

If it can one day be determined how life evolved from non-life (RNA, amino acids, etc) they might be able to replicate a lot of that in a laboratory or computer physics simulation and estimate the probabilites for each part of that process. Those probabilities would mostly apply to exoplanets that resemble the Earth.

You're assuming there's only one path. That is not a reasonable assumption.

 

[excreationist]

I am saying that with one example of anything, we cannot estimate probabilities at all.

If it can one day be determined how life evolved from non-life (RNA, amino acids, etc) they might be able to replicate a lot of that in a laboratory or computer physics simulation and estimate the probabilites for each part of that process. Those probabilities would mostly apply to exoplanets that resemble the Earth.

You're assuming there's only one path. That is not a reasonable assumption.

That would involve estimating the probability of that form of evolution of life. If there are other possibilities then the probability of life evolving becomes more likely.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, but why would they be destroyed at that instant?

Meteorite strike? Super volcanic eruption? Tsunami? There are lots of ways a species can suddenly go extinct.

But they were around for a hundred million years. Something takes them out less than ten thousand years before they could leave recognizable traces? The odds are 1 in 10,000 of this happening.

 

[Kylie]

I'm asking you what would be required in order for Lamarckian evolution to work on another planet.

Some acquired traits can be passed on, if only to a small extent.

On other planets? We do not know. But this is a fact on our planet.

Do you think it could have a greater influence on another planet? Can you tell me what kind of conditions would need to exist in order for that kind of Lamarckian evolution to play a more important role in evolution on another planet? I mean, you're the one saying that it could play a more important role, so I think you should be able to demonstrate that you have enough of an understanding of the topic to say what's actually required for it.

Note also that I cited a scientific study suggesting that not all mutations here on earth are random with respect to the environment.

I mkust have missed that, could you share it again please?

We have no idea how any of this would work on other inhabited worlds. I suggest a certain level of uncertainty in talking about any of this.

So we should also consider that there are magical fairies on other planets creating life forms and causing them to change as well, yes?

 

[bilby]

Yeah, but why would they be destroyed at that instant?

Meteorite strike? Super volcanic eruption? Tsunami? There are lots of ways a species can suddenly go extinct.

But they were around for a hundred million years.

Who is "they?"

Mammals have been around for a lot more than a hundred million years (about 225 million is the current oldest mammal fossil). What are the odds that they would start building cities just in the last few thousand?

Humans, of course, have been around for far less time - as, presumably, would have been any hypothetical intelligent dinosaur.

Something takes them out less than ten thousand years before they could leave recognizable traces? The odds are 1 in 10,000 of this happening.

What is a recognisable trace, that will still be findable after seventy million years?

Bear in mind the paucity of the fossil record, and the inherent bias therein - only animals that lived in locations that had the very precise conditions needed for fossilisation are known of. Maastrichtian fossils are extremely few, and complete skeletons fewer still - how would traces of civilisation be likely to survive a process that utterly destroys everything but one femur, or a skull, or a few teeth?

These specimens could have been buried in full ceremonial armour, with a selection of weapons and food, and we would never be able to detect it.

I think people have an unrealistic view of what the fossil record actually contains, and of how much paleontologists can see therein.

FFS, the "Dark Ages" as the Early Medieval period in Europe was once known, was so called because almost no archaeological remains from that time were found. We know that the people of Early Medieval Europe had a complex and advanced civilisation, but they used very little stone for building and earthenware for food and drink containers (compared to their predecessors and their successors), so almost nothing remains except their bones - and they lived only a thousand years ago.

Modern archaeological techniques can detect their villages and cemetaries from the disturbance of the soil - graves and post-holes are generally filled with later soils that may be different in colour or texture to the surrounding "natural". That kind of evidence is easily missed even by experts who are specifically seeking it out.

Multiply the ravages of time by 70,000, and you have no hope of spotting this stuff, unless you are extraordinarily lucky.

 

[pood]

Here on earth, epigenetics suggests a mild form of Lamarckism, though not a driver of evolution.

Source please?

Look it up for yourself. Google is your friend, except for Google AI.

It's not my job to support the claims you make.

I’ve no idea how this would work on other worlds, and neither do you. Maybe on other worlds, Lamarckism, or something we have not even thought of, would drive the development of living things or life-like things (we do not even have a clear definition of life or how to differentiate it from non-Iife. Is a virus alive?).

Hence agnosticism, or perhaps more apposite, philosophical skepticism.

So you think that if we can't rule something out, it must be equally likely?

No I did not say anything of the kind. Where did you get that idea?

I have explained that with one data point (life on earth) we cannot establish probabilities of how many other planets are inhabited or how life or life-like structures develop there.

And you've also suggested that if we can't rule out another explanation, then we should remain agnostic about that explanation.

Yes … and?

 

[pood]

So you think that if we can't rule something out, it must be equally likely?

No, I did not say that. This would mean that everything is 50/50, so far as I can tell from your comment.

I am saying that with one example of anything, we cannot estimate probabilities at all.

That doesn't mean that Lamarckian evolution is as plausible an explanation as natural selection though, does it?

I don’t know. Nor do you.

In my personal opinion, natural selection is likely the default mechanism for any kind of life anywhere. However, my personal opinion doesn’t mean shit without data, which we do not have except for ONE example, here on earth. And, as noted, you cannot reliably extrapolate from one example to make generalizations.

 

[pood]

Here on earth, epigenetics suggests a mild form of Lamarckism, though not a driver of evolution.

Source please?

Look it up for yourself. Google is your friend, except for Google AI.

It's not my job to support the claims you make.

It is not my job to respond to you at all. Fortunately, out of the goodness of my heart, I gave you a link to a scientific study that supports just what I said — that epigenetics supports a mild form of Lamarckism in gene expression. You could have looked that up yourself but I did the work for you, without any pay so far.

 

[pood]

I'm asking you what would be required in order for Lamarckian evolution to work on another planet.

Some acquired traits can be passed on, if only to a small extent.

On other planets? We do not know. But this is a fact on our planet.

Do you think it could have a greater influence on another planet? Can you tell me what kind of conditions would need to exist in order for that kind of Lamarckian evolution to play a more important role in evolution on another planet? I mean, you're the one saying that it could play a more important role, so I think you should be able to demonstrate that you have enough of an understanding of the topic to say what's actually required for it.

You apparently don’t have enough understanding of the topic to know about epigenetics. So why should I cater to your demands for more information? Do your own homework.

Note also that I cited a scientific study suggesting that not all mutations here on earth are random with respect to the environment.

I mkust have missed that, could you share it again please?

Again, do your own homework. There is a search function on this site and there is also Google.

We have no idea how any of this would work on other inhabited worlds. I suggest a certain level of uncertainty in talking about any of this.

So we should also consider that there are magical fairies on other planets creating life forms and causing them to change as well, yes?

No, I did not say that. Stop shoving words into my mouth in your petty and argumentative way.

I am not arguing for magic fairies. I am saying that different life forms, under different conditions, might develop in different naturalistic ways, perhaps some that we have never thought of because we have never experienced them. Again, please stop shoving words into my mouth in your petty and argumentative way.

If you want to claim that life exists on other worlds and natural selection works on them exactly as it does here, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate both claims. I have made no claims but put out ideas that I admitted are speculative for the purpose of stimulating discussion, and not to incur petty personal attacks and hissy fits.