posted 12-02-98 04:01 PM ET        

1) The group that is sent will probably be hand-picked for certain traits like intelligence and a lack of genetic "impurities". (Harsh as it is, would you send anybody with a recessive Hemophilia gene to a new colony? Not if you could help it, I would think!)

2) Given that the gene pool would be a small sub-sample of the entire human gene pool, their evolutionary options would be different.

3) The environmental pressures of Chiron (atmospheric, gravity, etc.) would begin shaping and selecting humans in a way different from Earth.

4) If Earth isn't entirely wiped out after the Unity leaves, they would continue to develop/evolve in their polluted and dissimilar environment (taking the human "norm" farther away from the colonists, even if the colonists stayed exactly the same).

So, how long after landing would the colonists on Chiron be sufficiently different as to constitute a different species? Homo Chironensis? Homo Cenatauri? Obviously there would have to be a few generations at least.

Which faction (if any) would force particular matings to select for desirable traits and which factions would just let romance dictate things? I think the Hive and the Gaians would be most likely to do genetic manipulations. The UoP will die out after 50 years because we all know that geeks can't get dates to save their lives. The others would probably let romance take things over and not worry about it.

Saras, I'm expecting to see your opinions! (since you wanted some big discussions)

posted 12-02-98 04:19 PM ET            

There was a good discussion on evolution several months ago on the old, now historical SMAC forums. I am scifi guy and want to believe there never was any evolution of humans on a major scale of this planet. We are to damn complex to evolve and too stupid to survive with one another. Therefore, since the evidence suggests that the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Chimyans, etc, were very advanced for there times, and since there is no relative explaination as to why they were so brilliant, I really like to believe there was outside planetary assistance in the early life of humans on Earth. I think some day in the future, our species will repay the favor and drop humans on some other planet with very little technology other than there hands and they too will be the beginnings of some ancient civilization.
I can't help but believe some of the Star Trek old episode where Kirk and McCoy are trying to save the asteroid from a collision course and it hitting an a planet with a billion inhabitants. Kirk becomes a native american for a short time and actually gets married....remember. Well, the technology of the planet came from a group of beings called, The Preservers. A race that populated planets.
I think Earth humans are probably some type of inhabitants of a far away world that may have either blown itself to bits or the sun died. It just doesn't coincide with our timing and the timing of the Dinosaurs, the Ice ages, etc, ....
I am no genetics expert, by any imagination, but I just think evolution sucks. It is science way of trying to evade our lives with "lose explanations". Lets face it, the ancient and extinct civilizations of this planet were too damn smart for so long ago!

posted 12-02-98 05:05 PM ET            

Its sure that after a couple of generations of genetic manipulation, everyone would be similar, so their would be no need of doing more genes mixing. But then dating looses its purpose, since everyone is the same, and alos at a time the presence of only good genes will render the childs less perfect (life needs diversity) or all the evoluted humans will become sterile.

So, I vote lets keep with the usual way. It has done its job for 2 million years, I think it is still the best way to go...

posted 12-02-98 09:03 PM ET            

So it would take a damn long time for the Chronians to breed themselves out of the human race (though they would fairly quickly become a subrace adapted to the slightly higher grav, and radiation.)

As far as genetic tinkering you must remember that perfect is defined differently depending on what the kid is supposed to do. One good way to show this is to point to musicians, and physicists. Both music and physics requires a phenominal memory and intilect, but being good at one does not mean you are good at the other. It has to do with the layout of the brain and the chemical balance within it. So though possible to create a perfect human that is super smart, hardy, strong, agile, and equally excellent at everything they try to do it would take quite a while as you would have to tinker, wait for the person to grow up and live, and tinker with the next generation.

Heckler

posted 12-02-98 11:15 PM ET            

There really wouldn't be any advantage to the species trying to create people like this. Human civilizations have been advancing at increasing rates throughout time due to increased specialization. There's no point in specially creating a physicist who can break the world record in the 100 meter if all he ever does is sit around in a lab. You've basically just wasted a bunch of resources, since your competitors can do an equivalent job by "creating" a regular phsyicist who's not a super athlete. If a society was going to engage in genetic manipulation, they'd be best off focusing on single characteristics, such as intelligence, etc., in isolation. That, however, is not easy.

posted 12-02-98 11:36 PM ET            

So there you go.

However, Darwin's theory (from what I understand of it) sort of states that we (and animals) will evolve to suit their needs. Obviously the Aborigines and Maoris didn't need to evolve (beyond being human). However, the humans on Chiron will eventually evolve to suit the gravity, and possibly even the environment over time.

Adapting to the gravity would be relatively short I believe, in that newborns would develop stronger muscles to cope with it. Trying to breathe the atmosphere however would be a much longer process, and would require careful regulation by somebody...

That is of course if you believe in Darwinism and Evolution, and not that God created us all as we are right now.

posted 12-03-98 12:01 AM ET            

Being a creationist doesn't preclude believing in Darwinian systems. The concept of variation through natural selection is pretty much impossible to refute, the sticky bit is saying that variation through natural selection accounts for all of the diversity in species around us. For example, I remember that Larry Boy believes that Darwinian selection can cause what he calls "micro-evolution", e.g. small variations is size, shape, etc., but he doesn't believe in "macro-evolution", that all of the species around us arose through Darwinian selection. Personally, I think creationism is totally wrong, but Larry Boy's philosophy is at least defensible.

Darwinian evolution only works if there's selection pressure. Because of the advanced medical facilities available to the colonists, it is unlikely that anyone will die due to "high gravity", with only those members of the population who are better suited to the higher gravity surviving. Basically, without a selection pressure, there's no evolution. Since high gravity likely won't affect anybody's ability to get genes into the next generation, humans probably wouldn't "evolve" to better deal with it. (Although, I suppose there could be a very SMALL selection pressure, so evolution could happen, it'd just take a LONG time).

posted 12-03-98 12:14 AM ET            

And yes, I am being facetious.

Anyway, it was more aimed at those who believe in God creating us as we are now, and not that we evolved from Apes (or originally from a creature that dragged itself out of the oceans, or whatever).

posted 12-03-98 12:57 AM ET            

Jeff >>> That's not a bad theory, but how would you explain that the difference in ape DNA and human DNA is only 1% ??? Your theory would make sense if whoever populated us also deposited other life forms too. Although, I really don't think we have enough evidence to rule out your theory 100%, for all we know, Earth could be one giant labratory, where we are the rats !!!

Darkstar >> I have no opinion on the "dating" matter, until I actually get a few scientific studies stating the pros and cons of all the possibilities, I can't say !!!
The actual evolutionary process takes millions of years for distinct changes to take place, not just a few generations !!!

In fact, this is a huge concern for our current population, we are currently tampering with our own progress !!! In curing people with many deadly deseases, they in turn live on and reproduce, whereas a few hundred years ago, they would have died and not reproduce !!! The problem arises that in curing people and having them reproduce, their defective genes get passed on down through the generations and actually harm our evolutionary steps by pulling us back instead of pushing us forward !!!

The earth has been about "survival of the fittest for 4 billion years, and now all of a sudden, we are protecting disabilities !!!
I know what I'm saying is sad and cruel, but in impeading the evolutionary process, we are worsening the live of trillions of potential future humans down the line !!!

Just a thought, and I am aware alot of disabilities and deseases don't apply either !!!

I don't even have an opinion on the matter because I do not consider myself well enough informed as of yet !!! But it is something we need to address, and soon !!! In creating vaccines and other medicines, we force the deceases to mutate to overcome our medicines, eventually, these viruses and deceases will be too powerful for us to survive against !!!

In curing ourselves now, we are killing future generations !!!

Do we have the right to impose these factors on future generations ???

OK .. LOL .. start flaming me now !!! I know my views are a little perverse, but they are the unfortunate reality !!!

Victor >>> I think the UoP will be the ones who thrive the most, they will be the first to answer and address some of the question I just asked !!! They will adapt accordingly !!! Although, I think most of the scientists will tend to prefer monogomous relationships if at all posible !!!

In reality, that's what we all want, to find one person with whom we are utterly content with, who fills our life with meaning ... yadda yadda yadda >>>Insert more muchy stuff here<<< .. being scientific does not at all mean that one can't be pationate about someone or something !!!

BG >> Do you think we would grow more muscles ??? Evolution really takes longer for that to be part of our genetic code ... on the other hand, the colonists would end up being more muscular simply because of the forces exerted on their bodies !!!

Octopus >>> You are right in thinking that tapering with intellence would probably be the most likely thing scientists would do, but that is here. Actually, on Chiron, they probably would want to alter our bodies to adapt more quickly to the new environment. As I said before, it would take ten/hundreds of thousands of years for our genetic code to change from evolution, but that would/could be shorted drasticly with outside human interference !!!

Octopus .. yes I agree with you .. lol .. as I just said, it would take thousands of years to addapt to the gravity !!! But you are right, if the gravity/new evironment does incur a high number of deaths, then the changes would be much quicker !!!

posted 12-03-98 01:14 AM ET            

Darwinian evolution does not make moral judgements. There is no "evolutionary path" from bacteria up to us. All currently surviving species are equally valid in a Darwinian view of things, because the only important thing is SURVIVAL. A bacterium is just as evolved as you are. "Evolved" means that you fit into your niche. A bacterium couldn't live in your niche, and you couldn't live in a bacteriums. If we change, we change, but it is not moving forward or backward, it's just moving. Darwinian systems make no statements about morality, they just say which organisms live.

"Actually, on Chiron, they probably would want to alter our bodies to adapt more quickly to the new environment."

posted 12-03-98 01:26 AM ET            

And no DJR, I wouldn't see us growing more muscles, just that after a few generations, our muscles would become better adapted to their jobs. Sorta like training can change the composition of your muscles, their chemical make up and the like.

posted 12-03-98 01:41 AM ET            

1. Natural variations exist within a population (e.g. some members of the species are tall while others are short).
2. Some of these variations are heritable (i.e. they are genetic, so if the parents have the trait, the child probably also has the trait).
3. Some of these variations will have an impact on whether or not those genes will be passed on to the next generation (e.g. you are killed before you can reproduce, so you don't show up in the next generation)
4. Since the genes that encode these traits are more prevalent in the next generation, those traits are more prevalent in the population as a whole. The species has "evolved" to possess these traits.

The tricky part is that step 3. A lot of people get confused by that. Basically, ANYTHING that gets your genes into the next generation is a GOOD IDEA from Darwin's perspective. Anything that prevents YOUR genes from getting into the next generation is a BAD IDEA.

So, now comes the fun part. There are a lot of different ways to do step 3. The most obvious one is the "survival" one. If you don't survive, then you obviously can't reproduce, so anything that helps you survive is good. However, this isn't the only factor. Consider "sexual selection", in which females of some species consider males with some particular trait "sexy". Since males with this trait will get more of their genes into the next generation than males without it, the species will evolve to possess that trait, EVEN IF THE TRAIT REDUCES THE CHANCE OF SURVIVAL. The peacock's tail is an example of this.

posted 12-03-98 01:52 AM ET            

As for the evolutionary thing >>>
What I was trying to say actually seems to apply to your statement:

"the result of a species' attempt to maintain the status quo in a constantly changing environment"

I'm saying, that in curing many deseases and forcing them to mutate to survive, we are in fact changing our future environment !!! We are making it more dangerous and hostile !!! The question I really ask, is if we are really prepared to commit our future generations to this evironment of which we aren't sure of their survival !!!
Most of the new medicines we create just mask the symptoms (many of them very well), but the defective genes are then passed on, so in fact, natural evolution does not take place because of our scientific advances in medicine !!!
For the first time in 4 billion years, a spicies has the ability to change it's own environment and in urn impede it's own evolution !!! This is really just the start, these effect will be compounded of time !!!

BG >>> What you're saying about muscles being more effective would then apply to the first generation, as it is solely based on the environment and not genetics or evolution!!!

posted 12-03-98 01:56 AM ET            

First of all evolution is best measured in generations and probably the least amount of time for a new species to develop, would be several hundred to several thousand generations (although it could be done quicker, ie Chiuauas and Great Danes would be seperate species but for all the dogs of intermediate size and that was simple selection)

In any case I agree with whoever it was that pointed out that natural selection doesn't have much force on humans anymore, If genes like hemophilia are eliminated it will be because
a) they finally decide to start tampering with the germ line
or more likely
b) couples in which one has hemophilia genes use other peoples sperm/eggs, fetuses, or infants for their own children. (or just dont have kids)

Essentially, rather than being removed from the gene pool by premature death, "bad" genes would be removed from the pool because they discourage the people who have them from passing them on.

Except in the Hive and possibly the Gaians I wouldn't see much of a move to select too far from the human norm. And even then it would take hundreds of generations to accomplish.

With option a) on the other hand - well it would take 1 (one) generation [assuming sufficient tech] to make a Chironis sapiens (I change the genus because the change could be that much) In this case almost all factions could tend to become seperate species because in messing with extreme bits either a)- the hybrids wouldn't live long
or (again more likely)
b)- any drastic change would include somthing to make the news not interfertile with the old because of a)

posted 12-03-98 02:11 AM ET            

Although, I think you knew what I meant in my first super long post, thanks to your explanation, I'll reword one part !!!

"The problem arises that in curing people and having them reproduce, their defective genes get passed on down through the generations and actually harm our evolutionary steps by pulling us back instead of pushing us forward !!!"

I should have worded it as :

The problem arises that in curing people and (because they live on), they end up reproducing into the next generation, their defective genes get passed on, and in the long run, we evolve in a way that we have more difficulties surviving in future environments because of these negative traits !!!

posted 12-03-98 02:18 AM ET            

Why would it be any different on Chiron? Why would anyone try to solve a problem as simple as "we need to breathe" with something as complicated as genetic manipulation? Genetic manipulation to create a human who could live comfortably in a hostile environment is a mind bogglingly complicated task, while building pressure suits and sealed rooms is a simple engineering problem. If your life depended on it, which would you put more faith in?

Here's an analogy: You need to get across town. On of your frieds says "well, I'll just build you a transporter, like they use on Star Trek. We'll have to be careful no flies get in there with you, though...". Another fried says "I'll take you in my car." How are you going to get across town?

DJ RRebel: "don't see where that applies to human evolution !!! "

Basically, I'm saying that it is a moot point. There's no right way or wrong way for a species to evolve. You may have opinions about which traits you'd like to see in future generations, but the decision will be made by the environment. So, we're changing the environment. Species deal with changing environments all the time. Natural Selection is a game of differential fitness. You need to be a little bit better off than the next guy. Think of it this way: if you get a law passed that says I have to give you $1, but in order to do so, they have to charge everybody on the planet $1000 in extra taxes (don't you just hate beurocracy? ). So, you are $999 in the hole, but I'm $1001 dollars in the hole, so you are better off than I am, even though you've pretty much screwed everybody. As long as you don't hurt yourself so much that another species has more fitness than you, it's a good idea, as crazy as it sounds (at least from a Darwinian perspective). So maybe things are going to be tougher down the road. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

posted 12-03-98 02:28 AM ET            

Having the subjects in question cured and then just not be aloud to reproduce would result in the same thing and would be more humane in my point of view. But there are 2 major problems with this:

1> Most people would see not being able to reproduce as a cruel and unusual punishment (and they didn't even commit a crime) .. if say, you know before a feotus was born, that it would be severely handicaped, or severely ill, would it be right to let it live, knowing it wouldn't be aloud to reproduce for the sake of future humanity ??? I don't know if I would want my child to not have the choice of reproducing !!! I could go on listing other ethical problems, but I think you get the idea !!!

2> In letting the subject in question live, the desease in question could change or mutate (viruses and deseases unfortunately evolve much faster than we do because of their relatively short life span and high rate of reproducttion) .. so in keeping one subject alive, the subject could be responsible for making the desease or whatever worse !!! Again, I'm not too sure of the specifics, but what if a genetic illness were to mutate to become contagous !!! (I know this is very hipothetical and very hollywood, but I'm fairly sure that it is posible in some way, let me know if I'm wrong) .. This would mean that we are actually changing our environment in a hostile direction, and at a speed at which we cannot adapt to before it's too late !!!

posted 12-03-98 03:00 AM ET            

"There's no right way or wrong way for a species to evolve. You may have opinions about which traits you'd like to see in future generations, but the decision will be made by the environment."

Yes, you are right, but my point is, that we are both impeading our natural evolution with drugs and science, and at the same time, we are drastically changing our environment at a pace far greater than we can adapt to !!!

you also say there is no right or wrong way for a species to evolve, but what happens when the evolutionary path leads towards iminent extinction ??? That may not be "wrong" in darwin's book, and technically, I even agree with him, evolution can by definition lead to extinction, but myself, personnally, any path that leads to extinction is the WRONG path !!!

LOL .. I love your money law analogy, it's good !!! But again, my point is that we are changing things in extreme ways (and the future will only be more extreme) .. so I turn my analogy back to you !!!

A law is passed, you have to give me $1, but in order to get it, the whole planet gets charged $1000000000000 each person !!! Everyone goes bankrupt, loan sharks then kill 99% of the population, the last 1% die because of the desease cause by 5.94 billion corpses !!! Do you understand my point ??? I fully understand yours, but I don't think you understand that I'm saying we won't be able to evolve to survive the future environment, so we are following the wrong path !!!

"..., but evolution isn't going to have an opinion. It's just going to happen."

Yes .. I agree, but if can stop our changes to our environment, then we can prevent the "negative trait" evolution !!! Because the fact is, we are changing our environment in many countless dangerous ways !!!

"So maybe things are going to be tougher down the road. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."

posted 12-03-98 03:20 AM ET            

You have a point that we can go too far with some things, and I agree with you that these are the sorts of things that people should consider from a social policy perspective, I'm just saying that it's par for the Darwinian course, which I think you understand.

Personally, I'm not as pessimistic as you are about our chances for the future, because I believe that medical technology will probably keep a few steps ahead of any "bad genes" that we spread through our population.

"what if a genetic illness were to mutate to become contagous !!!"

posted 12-03-98 03:32 AM ET            

I also have to point out that we are far
from the first species in 4 billion years
that can change our environment in ways that
affect our evolution. (As a matter of fact,
the idea of changing an environment in ways
that DON'T affect evolution is almost
laughable... if it's not going to change
your survival/reproductive potential, why
change the environment at all? In Darwinian
terms, it's a waste of energy.)

To site some examples:

Beavers create dams, forming lakes, forming
habitats they find beneficial.

Termites build mounds with regulated
temperatures, aiding their ability to survive.
(This is a pretty wild example actually,
all termite mounds of the same species of
termite will all have exactly the same
internal temperature, regardless of the
climate outside the mound. I believe the
temperature they maintain is just slightly
above average human body temperature.)

posted 12-03-98 04:12 AM ET            

"Only on Star Trek. A risk we run currently is that viruses and bacteria are evolving to become resistant to the treatments we're using against them (survival of the fittest at its best ), but I still think medicine will keep at least one step ahead."

posted 12-03-98 04:25 AM ET            

I know plenty of species do that on a smaller scale, but we, as human, are making massive changes to our environment (accumulated waste, radioactivity, depleted ozone, acid rain, potential resistant viruses bacteria, overpopulation, deforestation ... blah blah .. on&on&on&on ...) not for natural reason, but out of material need and greed !!! I think the world we're living in is nothing short of miraculously spectacularly amazing .. we have evolved to a point that's incomprehensible almost on the scales of physics !!! But, what will be the cost, it's not that we're changing the environment too fast, it's that we aren't prepared for the concequences !!! (Well, most people don't even know there will be consequences) .. IGNORENCE IS ONLY BLISS FOR SO LONG !!! Eventually, the changes will become so obvious, so that even the most ignorant will realise our unpreparedness !!!

Anyways, what the hell was my point ??? LOL

ummmn, yes, we are affecting masive changes on our environment that we have yet to grasp at the posible concequences !!!

posted 12-03-98 01:44 PM ET            

DJ - you're beginning to sound more and more like a Gaian. What faction did you claim to represent?

posted 12-03-98 08:49 PM ET            

Who knows? maybe the ancient Greeks and Romans had the right idea about other Gods. Mount Olympus had some foundation. The Egyptians set up the Pyramids in order of Orions belt. The precision of the pyramids and the distance of the stars in Orions belt are just too damn brilliant!

posted 12-04-98 12:35 AM ET            

"I have real doubts any human evolution has taken any "real" changes for thousands of years."

Nobody thinks humans have changed significantly in thousands of years. We are the same species as Cro-Magnon. I don't know the dates that Cro-Magnons were around, but it was a LONG time ago.

"that doesn't alter the fact that the Human model had lungs when it first came out."

Ummm... A LOT of animals have lungs. Those species which are very similar to us (e.g. apes) have lungs which are very similar to ours. What are you trying to get at?

"There is too many unexplained history in acient civilizations that were just way, way advanced to have been anything other than brilliant!"

Humans started doing impressive things about six thousand years ago. Those people were almost definitely identical to us biologically. The advancements that humans have demonstrated over the years since then because of advances in civilization (e.g. specialization in the labor force), not because of any biological factors. It doesn't take any sort of genius to build a pyramid, it just takes a lot of work. Are there other examples of these "inexplicable" phenomena you're talking about? I'm afraid I don't see why you need to be "brilliant" to look at the sky and see patterns in the stars, or to architect some buildings in that same pattern.

posted 12-04-98 11:25 AM ET            

Saras, please don't sit back and read, that's why good topics die !!!
Everyone must participate for the thread to continue !!!

Anyways, I have to go to bed soon, I'll respond to other comments in a day or two on my w/e !!!

posted 12-04-98 12:30 PM ET            

This is not really true. In the entire natural world, there is a constant arms race between predators and prey.

Prey: I'll run fast to escape!
Predator: I'll run FASTER!
Prey: I'll become poisonous so you can't eat me!
Predator: I'll become RESISTANT to poison!

This is the same thing that is happening with humans and diseases. We, in fact, have a hefty andvantage, since our "adaptations" can spread at the speed with which doctors can communicate, while the advancements of the diseases are limited by the speed at which they can biologically move and reproduce.

" Having to live your entire life in a bubble is not as "acceptable" for most people if there is an alternative!"

posted 12-04-98 12:51 PM ET            

Why would the Dinosaurs, an Ice Age, planetary disasters wiped out alot of the planet life but not humans or there genetic ancestors?

I know it sounds rediculous, but I am a firm believer that we are all ancient dessendants from an outside world. How, why, I don't know, but there is just too many holes in a good 'ol evolution story.

I have to refer back to the ancient advancements of past civilizations. The archeticture, the study of the stars, the study and design of math and time tables. Who knows, the ancient Great Library that was destroyed after Alexander the Great may have contained so many vast secrets of this world that we are only now rediscovering.

On that note, has there been any evidence to suggest that lungfish evolved to land creatures to mobile creatures, to cro-magnon, to homosapien, etc.? I am not sure. I have read and seen models in museums of what early man would have looked like. Sure he was hairy and fast, but to evolve from a complete lower lifeform? Sorry, guys, I can't be convinced.

posted 12-04-98 12:54 PM ET            

As fanciful as that is, claiming that the "advanced" nature of ancient Earth civilizations is becuase humans where placed here just doesn't really cut it. Have you ever heard of the term "serendipidy" (sp?). It basically means "a scientific advance brought about by fluke or accident". A lot of our modern advances came about like that. Penicillian was largely an accidental discovery.

The other thing to consider is that the timelines for evolution are immense. We're talking MILLIONS of years, 100's of thousands of generations. One analogy that I like is this:

If you picture the history of the Earth as a calendar spanning one year, humans appeared at something like 2 minutes to midnight on December 31st and have formed civilizations in the last couple of seconds. Even though the Egyptians built their pyramids a couple thousand years ago and that seems like a long, long time ago, on an evolutionary scale that happened just a blink of an eye ago.

posted 12-04-98 01:33 PM ET            

1) Evolution does not involve the continual growth of every member of one species from creature A to creature B. Often, it involves a few members of the species getting cut off from the rest and having to adapt to a new environment. Darwin's famous finches are an example of this. A few birds arrived at the Galapagos (probably carried there by a tropical storm). All of a sudden, they are in a new environment with no way to get back to the old. The members of their species in their old environment stay the same because nothing has changed for them (apart from losing some friends). The birds in the new environment face new pressures (different predators, different food sources) and so they begin to "evolve" into a new species because different traits (beak shape/size) than the old ones are better suited to the new environment.

That's why the chimps and gorillas are still around. If you know anything about the great apes, most of the ranges do not overlap. The orangutans, for example, are isolated on islands in the south pacific. Presumably their ancestors got separated because of flooding or valcanoes that separated the islands. Or, they were some how swept up along the shore and washed across to the islands. So, the point is that evolution isn't a linear path, it's a branching tree. Just because a new species is formed, doens't mean that the old one died out.

2) There were some mammals around at the time of the dinosaurs. They were basically prehistoric rats and mice. They were small enough to avoid being prey items for the most part and probably lived on carrion. (After all, a T.Rex isn't exactly a neat eater!) If the asteroid impact theory of dinosaur extinction is correct, this accounts for the raise of mammals in several ways.
(i) There would have been a LOT of carrion food for the mammals to eat.
(ii) With the dinosaurs gone, it opened up a bunch of niches that had preivously been filled. This meant that there were suddenly new roles/environments open for properly suited creatures to take advantage of.
(iii) Evolution happens on a timeframe of generations. The members that breed pass their genes on. The faster new generations are born, the faster the rate of evolution. Therefore, something like a mouse that breeds at age 1 or 2 can evolve a lot more quickly than a human that doesn't breed until 14 or 15. (Yes, we don't usually breed that early nowadays, but that is when the species is "sexually mature" and capable of breeding. It is not unreasonable to preume that in ancient times humans would have breed at that point and the generational times would have been around 15 years.)

The point here is that even if only a few speicies of mammals survived the dinosaur extinction, there was plenty of room for them to grow. Some rats may have discovered that by climbing trees, they could get at all kinds of nuts that no other creature was using. After time, the ones that are good at this would pass on their genes and you would arrive at squirrels. Imagine that some squirrels had longer arms or legs and this proved to be an advantage. Over time these triats would get selected for and eventually you could wind up with monkeys. (I am NOT saying this is how it happened, just that it is one way it could have...)

posted 12-04-98 01:52 PM ET            

I don't doubt evolution, please don't get me wrong there, I only suggest there could be other explanations as to our existence. I also believe in some species, they have the innate ability to evolve at a higher level than others, and if that is the case, maybe thousands upon thousands of years ago, human models had the ability to evolve faster, something like a breed of frogs do today??? Nevertheless, thinking of the original thread intent, it would be interesting to see that Humans would evolve on Chiron. I think they would, but if the living conditions were so extreme, wouldn't you think we would just die out? Many species do just die out because the environment is just too harsh.

Also, just as another question: I like your analogy of the tree and the branches. What would the trunk of the tree be? With that analogy, aren't you assuming that all species evolved from the same source???

posted 12-04-98 02:29 PM ET            

Since that sounds like so much fluff... here's a what-if. Take for granted that protiens could form naturally by themselves. They are just molecules and the right concentrations of raw elements with the right energy source (radiation or heat) would be enough. Protiens will bind to each other if the receptors are compatible. Again, no magic here, just basic chemistry (remember bonds and stuff?). Well, say that a bunch of protiens group together and form a sac. (Sort of like a skin on your cream-of-whatever soup that gets folded in on itself.) The interior of this sac would have slightly different properties than the outside. It would allow certain chemicals in and others would be kept out. (The skin would act like a curtain with holes--only things small enough to fit in would get in.) Well, what you have here is the outside of a cell.

One of the problems that a lot of people have with evolution is that at it's simplest level it says "There is no plan for life, the outcomes are all based on luck". This bothers a lot of people because it means that there is no reason or purpose for our being here and it also means that once we're gone, nothing is going to miss us. Tends to be a tad depressing, no?

Anyway, the theory is that single cell organisms sort of formed in some chemical soup. The first ones would have been similar to viruses or even something less advanced. Over time, slightly different chemical compunds got together and there would have been many different "species" of these early life forms.

One thing you might be curious to research is the Burgess Shale. It is a fossil find of soft-bodied creatures from before the dinosaurs. It tells the story of a land completely alien to anything we can imagine having been on the Earth and also shows that there must have been other mass extinctions before the dinosaurs.

You can find info about it at:
http://www.scienceweb.org/burgess.html

Also, you might consider reading "Wonderful Life" by Stephen J. Gould. (A reference is on the site mentioned above.)

posted 12-05-98 12:03 AM ET            

CClark, be extremely careful when using any example from Star Trek, because that show has some of the worst science imaginable. This episode in particular really got to me on that front. The message they were TRYING to send was "we're all related, we shouldn't fight each other". However, the closeness in relationship is derived completely from how long ago the two species diverged from a common ancestor. If you think about this episode, what it means is that humans are more closely related to dogs and cats than they are to klingons or vulcans. Seems like that is just the opposite of what they wanted.

posted 12-07-98 07:59 AM ET            

Let me start off commenting a couple of quotes from WAY back in the thread. Please, don't be too annoyed:

DJRR: The earth has been about survival of the fittest for 4 billion years, and now all of a sudden, we are protecting disabilities [...]in impeading the evolutionary process, we are worsening the live of trillions of potential future humans down the line !!!"

Allright DJ, that's MY point! I started a thread in the old forums on this subject (the one that spinned off the "Is homosexuality a genetic condition?"-thread). Didn't you notice the (c) sign at the bottom saying "all rights reserved"? OK, it was printed in 1-point lettering, but you should have seen it. Now pay up or I'll sew your ass of for copyright infringement! However eugenics - which is what it would be if we decided to DO something about it - does stir up some ugly associations with people wearing leather boots, doesn't it? To do or not to do, that is the question. Personally I'm torn:
One part is in favor of doing something, since as humankind we're essentially suspending (some of) Mother Nature's mechanisms for "weeding out the weak" (Gee, Roland, I hope you're reading this..the phrasing goes out to you.. ), keeping man adaptable and fit in his current form.
Another says, well man is becoming everincreasingly dependant on his own inventions to even stay alive. This could indicate a movement away from his present biological form towards..? Perhaps a spiritual or technological form. Hmm, a very alien thought.

Octopus: Why bother mucking around with somebody's DNA when you can just give them an oxygen mask? Why make somebody super strong when you can just teach them to drive a forklift?

For one thing, Chiron is their new home planet, future home of humankind. Now I strongle dislike the thought of having to wear a oxygen mask and drive a forklift (a more viable option combining the two would be a sealed powersuit of some sort) on my home planet. I know, what you mean is more generally speaking going after technological rather than genetic solutions whenever possible, but I really believe that if we look at where we are now in genetic engineering and add some 50 years of additional research working on increasingly powerful computers then we end up with a SERIOUS power on our hands, allowing much broader scope of what we will call human form. We will get our identity as humans much more from how we think than from how we look (and this is what will ultimately allow us to transcend, if we stay inside the SMAC-scenario).
As for the safety, well we're messing a lot with nature as it is without really knowing the consequences of it: DJ mentions vaccines, I'll add pesticides, deforestation and fossil fuel burning. How is all this going to affect Chiron, our new basis of existance?

posted 12-07-98 12:39 PM ET            

Octopus: 'My impression of your argument went something like this: "Danger! Danger! Birth rate of intelligent and/or successful people seems to be low! Danger! We'll evolve into a species of idiots!".'

I believe I had just rented Lost in Space