Reptilian Theory

[Willwhite]

My idea is that if the evolutionary theory is correct, and that their are planets that can support life, that the dominant species of those planets would be reptilian. The reason I say this is because scientists say that reptiles and dinosaurs were the most dominant on this planet before the mass extinction by the comet or volcanic eruption. If a different planet had went through the evolutionary steps as earth did, and didn't have a mass extinction, then reptiles would be the most dominant species. And since they would be the most dominant, that means they would have went through millions of years of evolution, so who really knows how these creatures can modify their body or do anything special? Any ideas/thoughts/or suggestions?

[Moontanman]

My idea is that if the evolutionary theory is correct, and that their are planets that can support life, that the dominant species of those planets would be reptilian. The reason I say this is because scientists say that reptiles and dinosaurs were the most dominant on this planet before the mass extinction by the comet or volcanic eruption. If a different planet had went through the evolutionary steps as earth did, and didn't have a mass extinction, then reptiles would be the most dominant species. And since they would be the most dominant, that means they would have went through millions of years of evolution, so who really knows how these creatures can modify their body or do anything special? Any ideas/thoughts/or suggestions?

 

 

Why reptiles? Why not arthropods? Arthropods, even now out number all vertebrates by a considerable margin. What criteria are you using to judge dominate in this context?

[Willwhite]

Why reptiles? Why not arthropods? Arthropods, even now out number all vertebrates by a considerable margin. What criteria are you using to judge dominate in this context?

 

Like I said in my post, if a planet went through the same evolutionary steps as the earth did, no doubt reptiles would be dominant, like they were millions of years ago. And arthropods may outnumber all vertebrates, but they are no competition to bigger predators. The criteria im using to judge in my context is the evolutionary theory that can apply to different planets, as well as the "Big Bang Theory".

[Moontanman]

Like I said in my post, if a planet went through the same evolutionary steps as the earth did, no doubt reptiles would be dominant, like they were millions of years ago. And arthropods may outnumber all vertebrates, but they are no competition to bigger predators. The criteria im using to judge in my context is the evolutionary theory that can apply to different planets, as well as the "Big Bang Theory".

 

I see no clear path that says vertebrates would dominate or even really evolve. I think you are assuming that evolution has only one path.

 

I see no reason to assume vertebrates much less reptiles. Arthropods are no competition to large predators? Quite the contrary arthropods can and do compete with vertebrates their own size and win, vertebrates have an advantage due to an internal skeleton but the evolution of vertebrates was not sure thing. Arthropods dominated the seas for a very long time before vertebrates even evolved and arthropods competed quite well with vertebrates on land when the Earth's atmosphere was much higher in oxygen, only a slight shift in environment could have stilled the vertebrates before they had a chance but arthropods had already evolved a very large number of body plans by the time the first vertebrates had come on the scene.

[Keenidiot]

Probably worth mentioning that dinosaurs were dieing off at the end of the Cretaceous, the impact only seems to have helped them along.

Even then they stuck around several thousand years after the impact.

The problem with trying to predict how evolution may occur, is that there are to many variables. It's entirely possible that on an alien planet you could have lifeforms that don't fit into any of our traditional categories, and are entirely unique.

[Appolinaria]

I would not call reptilian species dominant if they are unable to survive an asteroid impact, which on a grander scale, might be considered a common occurrence on planets with life. Although, I may be wrong. But let's say a planet is more susceptible to asteroids, occurring quite often, then smaller species who don't require as much food or sunlight may survive through each impact and continue to evolve.

[John Cuthber]

The bacteria are laughing at this thread.

[Appolinaria]

Brains > brawn though. Humans ftw.

[Moontanman]

The bacteria are laughing at this thread.

 

 

Indeed...

[Appolinaria]

Bacteria might be able to survive asteroid impacts, but so can species with large brains. They can also overcome bacteria.

[Moontanman]

Bacteria might be able to survive asteroid impacts, but so can species with large brains.

 

Yes but species with large brains have a much worse time of it.

 

They can also overcome bacteria.

 

 

No, actually they cannot, all life on earth exists at the "whim" of bacteria. You cannot live with out bacteria, there are far more bacterial cells in your body than human cells.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiome

[Appolinaria]

Yes but species with large brains have a much worse time of it.

 

 

 

 

No, actually they cannot, all life on earth exists at the "whim" of bacteria. You cannot live with out bacteria, there are far more bacterial cells in your body than human cells.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiome

 

 

That isn't what I meant. What I meant was that our intelligence allows us to control bacteria and also prevent dangerous pathogens from wiping out our species. In time I think we will evolve in intelligence and be able to stop even more diseases. Also, colonize other planets, so our eggs won't all be in one basket, so to speak. So if Earth is wiped out, we can quarantine other planets were on and develop a cure.

 

It is my opinion that we are superior to bacteria.

[CharonY]

Yet, we happily serve as vessels for bacteria. And if they are unhappy we get all kind of conditions, ranging from acne to diarrhea to worse things. We clearly dominate those little bastards.

 

Also good luck with maintaining decent nitrogen and carbon cycles without them. Or any kind of ecosystem, for that matter.

[Appolinaria]

Yet, we happily serve as vessels for bacteria. And if they are unhappy we get all kind of conditions, ranging from acne to diarrhea to worse things. We clearly dominate those little bastards.

 

We do clearly dominate them if even the worst kinds we've encountered can't kill us off as a species.

 

Also good luck with maintaining decent nitrogen and carbon cycles without them. Or any kind of ecosystem, for that matter.

 

I never proposed living without bacteria. I proposed that our species currently has enough control over bacteria to survive and our control will only become stronger as time goes on.

[zapatos]

My idea is that if the evolutionary theory is correct, and that their are planets that can support life, that the dominant species of those planets would be reptilian. The reason I say this is because scientists say that reptiles and dinosaurs were the most dominant on this planet before the mass extinction by the comet or volcanic eruption. If a different planet had went through the evolutionary steps as earth did, and didn't have a mass extinction, then reptiles would be the most dominant species. And since they would be the most dominant, that means they would have went through millions of years of evolution, so who really knows how these creatures can modify their body or do anything special? Any ideas/thoughts/or suggestions?

You are assuming of course that evolutionary theory is correct anywhere other than earth, which may not be the case. You are also assuming that reptiles would evolve which is probably not likely.

[CharonY]

We do clearly dominate them if even the worst kinds we've encountered can't kill us off as a species.

 

 

 

I never proposed living without bacteria. I proposed that our species currently has enough control over bacteria to survive and our control will only become stronger as time goes on.

 

That is an odd view. Why should bacteria kill us off? We are a nice habitat and an excellent source of food? Also terms such as stronger or weaker have little biological meaning.

[Appolinaria]

That is an odd view. Why should bacteria kill us off? We are a nice habitat and an excellent source of food? Also terms such as stronger or weaker have little biological meaning.

 

Why should bacteria try to kill us off? A vast amount have tried. Hence antibiotics, sterilization, septic systems, etc.

 

We can control bacteria and develop antibiotics. I only see our methods improving. Perhaps one day we might even be able to stop mutations altogether.

 

How is it odd to believe humans are superior to bacteria?

 

I think your viewpoint is odd.

[CharonY]

Antibiotics are used by bacteria (and fungi) way longer than humans even existed. Also thinking in terms of superiority does not make sense, biologically. Biology is dependent on complex interactions. There is really not top or bottom in it.

[Appolinaria]

Antibiotics are used by bacteria (and fungi) way longer than humans even existed. Also thinking in terms of superiority does not make sense, biologically. Biology is dependent on complex interactions. There is really not top or bottom in it.

 

 

How is there no superiority? Intelligent life is capable of developing technologies that can ensure it's survival in circumstances where it would otherwise perish.

 

Once larger brains and intelligence are thrown into the mix, nature's scythe is no longer as sharp. How does that not qualify as being superior to other life forms that are completely influenced by the fluctuations of their environment?

[CharonY]

So termites are superior to, say wolves, because they are able to change their environment (i.e. in form of climatized hives)? And by the same note beavers are superior to most apes?

What you demonstrate is a perfectly anthropocentric view that neglects the complexity of the interaction of organisms with their environment and with each other. In any case the OP was already deep in the speculation area and it should be continued from there (especially as no evidence has been provided why evolutionary trajectories should be similar).

Edited May 28, 2012 by CharonY

[Appolinaria]

So termites are superior to, say wolves, because they are able to change their environment (i.e. in form of climatized hives)? And by the same note beavers are superior to most apes?

What you demonstrate is a perfectly anthropocentric view that neglects the complexity of the interaction of organisms with their environment and with each other. In any case the OP was already deep in the speculation area and it should be continued from there (especially as no evidence has been provided why evolutionary trajectories should be similar).

 

I agree with you that I am possibly demonstrating an anthropocentric view and I am wrong for thinking so simply.

 

However, I don't see how you can compare years and years of natural selection that have shaped the bees to make hives, to human intelligence.

 

Also, on the anthropocentric thing, thanks. Last time I was another one of those responsible for perpetuating flawed perceptions of race. Something along those lines. I must be a huge idiot. Sorry. Anyway, I am not arguing that humans are the most superior things in the universe. I am arguing that organisms with brains, and intelligence, might also be able to survive a huge disaster as bacteria would.

[Ophiolite]

However, I don't see how you can compare years and years of natural selection that have shaped the bees to make hives, to human intelligence.

I agree with you completely. The instinctive behaviour of bees is quite inacapable of destroying the biosphere, developing nuclear weapons, initiating the sixth major global extinction event, polluting the oceans, poisoning the land, imbalancing the climate and producing reality TV shows. But human intelligence allows us to do all that and more. We are clearly superior.

[Appolinaria]

So man is no more intelligent than a bee? There is absolutely no notion of higher/lower intelligence in biology? All of our advancements are thanks to instinct, brought on by years and years of natural selection... and has nothing to do with the structure of our brains?

 

Sounds ridiculously wrong.

[mississippichem]

So man is no more intelligent than a bee? There is absolutely no notion of higher/lower intelligence in biology? All of our advancements are thanks to instinct, brought on by years and years of natural selection... and has nothing to do with the structure of our brains?

 

Sounds ridiculously wrong.

 

How is the structure of our brains not a result of natural selection?

Edited May 28, 2012 by mississippichem

[Ringer]

But photosynthetic bacteria were responsible for responsible for one of the biggest changes in the history of the Earth, namely adding loads of O2 instead of CO2 to our atmosphere. Without this we wouldn't even exist. Bacteria, and other organisms, also tend to be responsible for large 'dead zones' in the ocean by making them hypoxic, given we can help out a lot, but so can many other organisms. Also, to photosynthetic organisms, this transfer from CO2 to O2 was pollution that could easily have wiped out life if aerobic respiration didn't come into play.

 

Our brains are a result of millions of years of selection just like the bee's pheromones, which IIRC are responsible for them making hives and working together not instinct.

 

The main point of this is that we very little of what we do is 'special' or superior any more than the things other organisms is 'special' or superior because we cannot do them.