Subject: Re: what is "alive"
From: Brother Blaze
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:35:22 -0600
Achim Recktenwald, PhD wrote:
>
> There exist many fungi, quite a lot of plants, even some animals which
> do not procreate sexually. For them reproduction is a purly vegetative
> process.
> Are they then as a species not alive, as stated above by 'Brother
> Blaze'?
>
But they still procreate. The members of the species create more
members of the species. They qualify.
and Cathy Mancus writes:
> specific example. Suppose we build an intelligent machine in
> a body. It can use tools, communicate in English, shows creativity,
> and by all appearances is self-aware. Assume it thinks and
> acts much like humans. The only thing it can't do is reproduce
> itself. Is it alive? I think it is more useful to define it as
> "yes" than "no" for this case, IMHO.
Use of tools, communication, and appearance of self-awarness are another
topic. We're not discussing intelligence, just life. Does the machine
grow? Does it metabolize (defined as (via Webster) the chemical
changes...by which energy is provided for vital porcesses and activities
and new material is assimilated to repair the waste).
I don't claim that this definition of life (growth, reaction,
metabolism, procreation) is an absolute definition. I simply state that
it's a standard definition given, and a good starting point in
recognizing a new organism as being alive.
--
Brother Blaze
(B.G. 2:15)
=========
Subject: Re: Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?
From: suk@pobox.com (Peter Kwangjun Suk)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 18:30:18 -0400
In article , ""
wrote:
> In article <560cps$6fo@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
> jrustyw@ix.netcom.com writes
> >suk@pobox.com (Peter Kwangjun Suk) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <55vidt$389@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
jrustyw@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> >>> Many other things can be thrown out -
> >>> including your notion of environmental manipulation.
[deleted]
> >>Intelligence would be useful for interpreting complex sensory data
> >>(dolphins), cooperative hunting (dolphins), or dealing with complex social
> >>interactions (dolphins, many primates).
> >
> >>Perhaps an evolutionary arms race that could cause intelligence to arise
> >>might stem from sexual selection.
[deleted]
> >
> >I think you misunderstand my point. The above dolphin examples
> >portray a species that is most definitely 'acting on its environment'.
> >The dolphins might not be building interstates - but they are
> >certainly killing alot of fish.....
But distinguishing that such a creature is able to do this out of
intelligence (rather than a great set of hunting instincts and other
natural abilities) will be difficult. Much more difficult than finding
highways or radio antennas. Not impossible, however, if we abandon
unreasonable requirements for rigor.
In any case, your concept of "environmental manipulation" seems to be too
general. What living thing is not capable of "modifying" its
environment. Would blue-green algae count as intelligent, then? They
changed the entire atmosphere.
[deleted]
> >The question becomes: Can you have a completely passive thing -
> >incapable of affecting its enviroment - that is 'intelligent'? I
> >would say, "Yes, it is possible." The capability to modify the
> >environment is not a condition of intelligence. *But* - how would
> >such a thing come to be? Why would evolutionary pressure conferr
> >intelligence upon such a thing?
What about eusocial organisms? One could imagine that an intelligent ant
colony would have an evolutionary advantage. Yet an ant colony as a sort
of meta-organism is essentially sessile. (Foraging worker ants amount to
the root system of a plant without the infrastructure.) As far as
environemntal manipulation goes, sessile ant colonies really don't affect
the environment more than plants that emit toxins to kill off
competitors. Perhaps an intelligent species of "army ants" which did not
have sessile colonies would arise, and wipe out all non-intelligent
species. Over time, sessile variants of the intelligent species would
evolve to take over the environmental niches of the extinct
non-intelligent ants, but retain their intelligence.
Now, imagine the above happening, not on earth with ant colonies, but with
some alien eusocial species on another planet.
Here's a question: what is it about intelligence that is unique to
intelligent creatures? What is a result of intelligence which is not just
an orders of magnitude improvement over non-intelligent species in the
same ecological niche?
--PKS
--
There's neither heaven nor hell
Save that we grant ourselves.
There's neither fairness nor justice
Save what we grant each other.
Peter Kwangjun Suk
Musician, Computer Science Graduate Student
[finger suk@pobox.com for PGP public key]
Subject: Re: Speculation on Intelligence. (was: Re: Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?)
From: Michael Martin-Smith
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:42:15 +0000
In article , Peter Kwangjun Suk
writes
>[Post responses to rec.arts.sf.science only. See below.]
>
>In article <55u8pq$1qi@lace.colorado.edu>, fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU
>(Frank Crary) wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> Peter Kwangjun Suk wrote:
>> >> Given the fact
>> >> that I've encountered a homo sapien who wouldn't pass the Turing
>> >> test, I don't think it's a useful means of identifying intelligent
>> >> life. Another species is likely to think and communicate in
>> >> very different ways, so it could easily be intelligent but not
>> >> seem intelligent to a human observer.
>>
>> >We don't yet have any "xenological examples" to establish what is
>> >"universal" to intelligence and what is not. And until we know more about
>> >intelligence, we have to rely on such data.
>>
>> Bad methodology. It's better to say, "we don't know" than to make
>> inaccurate predictions based on a sample of one intelligent species.
>
>Oh brother! Why does everyone on Usenet assume that you are a
>mall-mentality moron? Is everyone so hip to correct you that they
>automatically interpret what you say in the stupidest possible manner?
>Please read the post. I *am* saying "we don't know," but also: "let's
>just speculate for the hell of it." (All you "scientists" out there, when
>you hypothesize about someone's low intelligence, let's see some attempt
>to prove the null hypothesis! Or are all of you so eager to get your
>"demand rigor" merit badges that it interferes with your reading
>comprehension?)
>
>> >...But this is
>> >rec.arts.sf.science, so we can speculate. What do you folks think of the
>> >items on this list (as regards to being or not being universal attributes
>> >of intelligence):
>>
>> > 1) Language with syntax
>>
>> Doubtful. Syntax is variable and subject to exceptions, even in
>> human, written languages. In spoken language, I don't know anyone
>> whose syntax is always correct, and quite a few people who rarely
>> speak sentence with correct or consistent syntax.
>
>But they use *some* kind of syntax. And what the heck is "correct" syntax
>anyways? For many decades, "Black English" was considered to be
>degenerate, and carried a "lower-class" cachet. (Still.) However, a
>careful analysis reveals that its syntax reflects that of some African
>languges. It's just a different syntax, and not in any way inherently
>inferior. (i.e. You can be just as stupid speaking like a Harvard grad.)
>
>> > 2) A concept of "self" / Self Awareness
>>
>> Good, but difficult to measure. The only easily measured indicator of
>> this is the use of a personal name, and that might be an instinct
>> rather than a sign of intelligence.
>
>And who cares about measurement right now? Not I. Who mentioned it? Not
>I. Did someone posit this stuff as "a rigorous set of criteria for
>determining intelligence"? Not I. Is someone trying to unilaterally
>impose a context which puts them in the position of "corrector of poor
>unwashed dolt on Usenet?" Let me guess...
>
>A lot of these things will be unmeasurable for now, until we understand
>more about intelligence. Right now, let's just engage in some pure
>sophistry. Just like folks did way back when they speculated about the
>composition of stars. (After all, Kafka gave that as an example of
>something we'd *never* be able to determine empirically. Who knows?)
>
>> > 4) Is a social organism
>>
>> Reasonable, but it would also give false positives: Ants are socially
>> organized but not intelligent.
>
>Yes, but is it a requisite? Is it necessary? How could it arise in a
>non-social organism? Could it arise in a unique organism? (Only one of
>it's kind.) Or could an enitre species could become collectively
>intelligent? It's hard to imagine how, without the kind of evolutionary
>arms race likely to occur in social animals, but is it necessarily
>impossible? Is it even remotely possible that participation in a
>collective intelligence would increase the likelihood that certain genes
>would be passed on?
>
>> > 6) Curiosity
>>
>> Why? Homo sapien is, but what makes that a universal property of
>> intelligent life?
>
>But why would an organism with no curiosity at all do any
>intellectualizing? Perhaps it would excercise its intelligence only in
>response to threats. It could even do this in a long-term fashion,
>carrying on active "research" about remembered threats.
>
>...I see now that there are perhaps too many cross-posts in the header.
>Please post replies to rec.arts.sf.science only. (Oh well, so I came
>recklessly into the middle of a thread again.)
>
>To Frank: You're much more knowledgeable than I about much of this stuff.
>Peace.
>
>--PKS
>
Actually, it is very hard to define "Intelligence", but one point of
interest is that the Universe is intelligible at all; this seems to
imply that the Universe itself is some kind of Academy or interactive
learning game. One sign of intelligence might be the diascovery that
another race was also interacting with the Universe in a way that
suggested they have come to a similar conclusion; this need not
necessarily be the presence of Hard science or technology, but could be
Spirituality or Art .
However, given the recent discoveries in the area of asteroid
mass extinctions, and probable Oort clouds as a feature of planetary
systems formations, it is doubtful if any enduring civilised
Intelligence can exist without forming a Kardashev type 2 civilisation -
or, at least, any which have elected not to colonise Space would be
self-evidently myopic, and dangerous for us to copy!
We should therefore look for evidence of Kardashev type two
civilisations. Any races that have not yet got there are at best only 2-
3 generations ahead of us, and probably have little to teach us. And now
I wait for the brickbats!!
Michael Martin-Smith
--
Michael Martin-Smith
Subject: Re: Skull in Boulder images
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 01:29:28 GMT
Rich Travsky (rtravsky@uwyo.edu) wrote:
: Doug McKean wrote:
: >Ed Conrad wrote:
: >> [...]
: >> Rather amazing, too, is that, while the boulder itself is solid,
: >> the human skull-like protrusion emits a hollow sound when
: >> tapped.
: >Wait, Ed. "Human skull-like protrusion"?
: >I don't like how that sounds.
: >I thought it has been declared a human skull.
: >
: >The 'skull', then, has not been removed from the matrix?
: Removed? Heavens no! That would destroy its pseudo-scientific
: value.
: C'mon Ed, let's extract the skull. I'll even chip in some bucks
: to help have the work done. Anyone else with me?
Hey, I'll come and do the job myself if it'll get it done/
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thermodynamic definition of life (was Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?)
From: Phillip Bigelow
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 20:02:31 -0800
David L Evens wrote:
> Actually, the most common argument I've seen against considering viri to
> be alive is that they MUST have living hosts to reproduce. There exist
> no possible set of natural environmental conditions that would allow
> isolated viri to reproduce.
Some biochemists have defined viruses as rogue chemical messagers.
As such, they are probably best left defined as:
"Not alive, yet acting as life".
There are no rules in the rulebooks that say we can't define
intermediates. Perhaps new nomenclature will eventually
be necessary:
"Psudo-life", "semi-life", "proto-life", "para-life".
For the "purists" out there, this, of course, is an abomination.
For me, it just makes individual case-studies so much easier
to understand. Similarly, if we remove the handcuffs from our
present "only One" definition of life, we also remove one more
undesirable piece of baggage from the definition, that being the
traditional religious overtones that convey an over-blown
specialness to life. After all, life is just another prosaic part of
nature; it is not separate from it.
So, instead of getting a headache trying to fit "A" definition for
"life", just cheat a little, and define new words.
I'm not sure I fully understand this thread on the entropy-definition
for "life", so I won't comment much, except to say this:
When one casts a over-sized net for fish, he/she may wind-up
with more garbage than fish. We may be including irrelevant
phenomena as "garbage" in our search for life, if we define life
so broadly.
For instance, since planet Earth has an atmosphere that is
not in chemical equilibrium with it's hydrosphere and lithosphere,
Gaia proponents claim that that dis-equilibrium is evidence of life.
Which I agree with. But could not the Earth, itself, also be considered
a single life-form under this defintion? Since everything
interacts with everything else inside this system, what components
of the planet are explicitly NOT associated with life?
I would be hesitant to answer this question with any conviction! :-)
Subject: RE: Life on Earth Began At Least 3.85 Billion Years Ago
From: egood@cc.curtin.edu.au
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 22:59:31 +800
In Article <6NOV199622033589@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>
baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>Donald Savage
>NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC November 6, 1996
>(Phone: 202/358-1547)
>
>Stuart Wolpert
>UCLA, Department of Earth and Space Sciences
>(Phone: 310/206-0511
>
>Cindy Clark
>Scripps Oceanographic Institute, San Diego, CA
>(Phone: 619/534-1294)
>
>Cheryl Dybas
>National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA
>(Phone: 703/306-1070)
>
>RELEASE: 96-230
>
>LIFE ON EARTH BEGAN AT LEAST 3.85 BILLION YEARS AGO, 400
>MILLION YEARS EARLIER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT, SCIENTISTS SAY
>
> Life on Earth began at least 3.85 billion years ago,
>an international team of scientists reports in the cover
>story of the Nov. 7 issue of the journal Nature.
>
> The scientists, from UC San Diego's Scripps
>Institution of Oceanography, UCLA's Department of Earth and
>Space Sciences, the Australian National University and
>England's Oxford Brookes University, present evidence that
>pushes back the emergence of life on Earth by 400 million years.
>
> The evidence comes from a rock formation discovered on
>Akilia Island in southern West Greenland that is at least
>3.85 billion years old. The research -- funded primarily by
>the National Science Foundation and NASA -- has provocative
>implications.
>
> "Our evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that
>life emerged on Earth at least 3.85 billion years ago, and
>this is not the end of the story," said Stephen J. Mojzsis, a
>graduate student in geochemistry at Scripps and the lead
>author of the article. "We may well find that life existed
>even earlier."
>
> "We look in rocks like this for chemical suggestions
>and isotopic evidence, and we found both," said T. Mark
>Harrison, professor of geochemistry at UCLA and director of
>UCLA's W.M. Keck Foundation Center for Isotope Geochemistry.
>"It would be wonderful to see a head and toes, and while we
>don't have those, we have found very strong isotopic evidence
>for ancient life."
>
> "But in the cases of Earth's most ancient rocks and
>minerals, we are actually better off relying on this type of
>isotopic evidence -- chemofossils -- rather than on the shape
>of life-like objects with which nature has often been
>deceiving the unwary," said Gustaf Arrhenius, professor of
>oceanography at UC San Diego and principal investigator for
>the research project.
>
> The carbon inclusions in the rock were analyzed with
>UCLA's high-resolution ion microprobe -- an instrument that
>enables scientists to learn the exact composition of samples
>-- which Mojzsis described as the "world's best instrument"
>for this research. The microprobe shoots a beam of ions --
>charged atoms -- at a sample, releasing from the sample its
>own ions that are analyzed in a mass spectrometer. Scientists
>can aim the beam of ions at specific microscopic areas of a
>sample and analyze them.
>
> The team of scientists, Mojzsis; Arrhenius, who is his
>research adviser; Harrison; Kevin McKeegan, a researcher in
>UCLA's Department of Earth and Space Sciences; Allen Nutman,
>a research fellow at the Australian National University; and
>Clark Friend, a geologist at Oxford Brookes University,
>presents the following evidence for the ancient life:
>
>· Most importantly, a high ratio of one form -- an isotope
>-- of carbon to another, which provides a "signature of
>life," Mojzsis said. The carbon aggregates in the rock
>have a ratio of about 100 to one of 12C (the most common
>isotope form of carbon, containing six protons and six
>neutrons) to 13C (a rarer isotopic form of carbon,
>containing six protons and seven neutrons). "The light
>carbon, 12C, is more than three percent more abundant than
>scientists would expect to find if life were not present,
>and three percent is, in this case, a very large amount,"
>Arrhenius said;
>
>· The inclusion of the carbon in a phosphate mineral called
>apatite, which is also the material of which bones and
>teeth are made. Apatite is often formed by microorganics,
>but it can also be formed inorganically. The association
>of the carbon with the apatite is "suggestive, and not
>surprising, but does not in itself establish life,"
>Arrhenius said.
>
> The form of life discovered was probably a simple
>micro-organism, although its actual shape or nature cannot be
>ascertained, Mojzsis said, because heat and pressure over
>time have destroyed any original physical structure of the
>organisms.
>
> Harrison, who directs UCLA's ion microprobe, said of
>the research, "This was a scientific problem that was waiting
>for a new generation microprobe of this resolution. The
>individual samples are very small, and no other instrument
>would have been sensitive enough to reveal precisely the
>isotopic composition and location of the carbon inclusions in
>the rock."
>
> It is unknown when life first appeared on Earth, which
>is approximately 4.5 billion years old. The previous earliest
>evidence for life was presented by UCLA paleobiologist J.
>William Schopf, who showed that on the basis of bacteria-like
>fossils, primitive life, much like modern "pond scum,"
>existed on Earth 3.46 billion years ago. "The evolution of
>lifeless matter into primitive life forms, and their
>organization into the complex structure of cells like those
>found by Schopf, represent an enormous development in the
>earliest history before the deposition of the Akilia
>sediments," Arrhenius said.
>
> The residues of ancient life that the scientists have
>discovered existed prior to the end of the "late heavy
>bombardment" of the Moon by large objects, which ended
>approximately 3.8 billion years ago, Harrison said. The
>implication, he added, is that the often assumed simultaneous
>bombardment of Earth did not lead to the extinction of life.
>
> This research shows that life on Earth began during
>the first approximately 700 million years after the formation
>of the planet, placing an upper limit on the time needed for
>the creation of life on Earth, or on the time period
>available for it to arrive here from elsewhere, the
>scientists said.
>
> "Life is tenacious, and it completely permeates the
>surface layer of the planet," Mojzsis said. "We find life
>beneath the deepest ocean, on the highest mountain, in the
>driest desert and the coldest glacier, and deep down in the
>crustal rocks and sediments. Not knowing what conditions are
>needed for the emergence of life, it is only possible to
>speculate about its existence elsewhere in the universe. An
>important contribution to the solution of this problem could
>come from exploration of the surface of Mars for traces there
>of extinct life."
>
> An equally interesting question, the scientists
>agreed, that is currently studied in laboratories on Earth is
>how life originally could have arisen from lifeless
>molecules, and evolved into the already sophisticated isotope
>fractioning life forms recorded in the Akilia rocks.
>
> Mojzsis' research is supported by a graduate
>fellowship from the NASA Specialized Center for Organized
>Research and Training (NSCORT) in Exobiology, which is
>located at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Arrhenius has
>received support from NASA's Exobiology Office, from NASA
>NSCORT and from the NSF (Earth Sciences). Harrison's ion
>microprobe research is supported by a grant from the NSF's
>Instrument and Facilities Program. Nutman's research has been
>supported by the Carlsberg Foundation and the Danish Natural
>Science Research Council. Friend's research has been
>supported by the Oxford Brookes University and the Royal
>Society of London.
>
> - end -
Well, the West Australian newspaper has managed to botch this article.
They claimed that the difference between the 3.8 billion years, and 3.6 billion
was 8 million...... the mind boggles.
Subject: Re: More on the "feathered" dinosaur from China
From: Graham Shields
Date: 11 Nov 1996 11:03:41 GMT
Phillip Bigelow wrote:
>Here is some additional information (with my comments) on that
>Chinese theropod with some type of integument. This information
>did not pop up on the thread we had on this a while ago, so I
>thought I would post it.
>The following information can be found in _Science News_
>for October 26, 1996, p. 260. Author is Richarad Monastersky
>(earth science staff writer for _Science News_).
>
>The "feathers" were described as "short" ("only a few mm-long").
>Although Phil Currie saw the specimen in person (on a trip
>to China), he is one of a very few outsiders to get a glimpse
>of the specimen (he looked at it for only one hour, with a
>hand-held magnifying glass).
>At the SVP meeting, Richard Monastersky (and I also recall
>Tom Holtz) reported that Phil Currie had the best available
>photo of the specimen, which Currie was carrying around
>and showing the conveneers in the hall.
>The photo measured 3 by 5 inches. .......hmmmmm.
>The Chinese DID NOT make a formal scientific presentation on the
>find at the SVP annual meeting in New York, last month.
>So, what you are getting is here-say (well-informed heresay, of
>course, but here-say none-the-less). And the conveneers got the
>same thing: heresay.
>
>The fossil is reported by Monastersky as measuring about "1 meter-
>long". I don't know what that means...it could either be the standard
>archosaur measure of snout-to-tail (likely), or something else such as
>a ground-to-top of head measurement.
>Dated at somewhere between 140 mya - 120 mya (therefore, pre-dating
>Archeopteryx). Apparently, much of the sedimentary rocks of Asia
>are still not precisely chron-ed out.
>The fossil is in two slabs; one half currently is in the
>Ministry of Geology and Mineral Resources in Beijing, and
>the other half is in the Nanjing Institute of Geology and
>Paleontology.
>THE POSSESSORS OF THESE SLABS ARE NOT VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGISTS!
>Therefore, until these guys hand-off the work on the fossil to
>someone who specializes in either birds or theropods,
>it will probably be SOME TIME before there is any hard science
>comming out of this (my opinion, only). So don't hold your collective
>breaths for too long; you may pass out!
>
I think the tone of this post leaves a great deal to be desired.
I am also skeptical as to how you know that there are no vertebrate
palaeontologists involved in Beijing and Nanjing: two of the
largest geological institutes in the World.
Subject: Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:57:17 GMT
edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>Newsgroup question:
>> Is Lucy a Monkey?
>Damn right it is!
>``Lucy" is nothing more than a member of the ``monkey" family,
>with no connection -- none whatsoever -- to early man . . .
>To put it rather bluntly, ``Lucy" is a mockery of scientific
>integrity (if some still exits in the field of physical anthropology,
>which I sort of doubt)).
Okay, smartass, when it comes to rating various professions for
respectibility, where do you place physical anthropologists on a
scale of 1 to 10.
Uh, well, let's see, uh, okayl . . . How's a minus-2?
Bank robbers, art thieves and pickpockets are a minus-1.
To my mind, the ONLY physical anthropologist who possessed scientific
integrity in a search for honest answers to legitimate questions about
man's origin and ancestry was the late Dr. Earnest A. Hooton, longtime
professor of anthropology at Harvard University.
It says a lot about the man's integrity and intestinal fortitude when
he could write a book, appropriately titled ``Apes, Men and Morons."
Two quotes in his book stand out like beacons:
> ``I can point to many anatomical features of man
> in which the known courses of evolution can be
> explained plausibly by the theory of natural
> selection, but I do not know of one in which
> it can be proved."
> +++++++
> ``I am also convinced that science pursues
> a foolish and fatal policy when it tries to keep up
> its bluff of omniscience in matters of which it is sitill
> woefully ignorant. Sooner or later the intelligent
> public is going to call that bluff."
Subject: Re: New Study Supports Man Hunting Mammoth to Extinction
From: Longrich@princeton.edu (Nick Longrich)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:30:45 -0500
In article <5615b6$a5e@panix2.panix.com>, pcg@panix.com (Paul Gallagher) wrote:
> Some of the arguments against the hunting-to-extinction hypothesis
> were that nobody's ever found a dead mammoth that shows evidence of
> being killed by human hunting, and nobody's ever found remains of
> mammoth meat in human settlements. The same is true for other megafauna.
> Also, humans lived in Africa the longest, but didn't hunt the megafauna
> there to extinction. Elephants, hippos, etc. are still with us.
I thought they'd found spear points in some, could be wrong. In
siberia, there are entire huts made out of elephant bones, and I think
there is evidence (cut marks) of butchery of elephants. Also, you could
maybe argue that in Africa the herbivores had time to get used to the
hairless apes. Then again, while I can see sloths being dullards,
elephants aren't known for their stupidity. It seems unlikely that they
would be unable to figure out "men with spears = bad" given some of the
stories told about modern elephant intelligence.
>
> Have megafauna killed by man been found in the past few years?
>
> I don't think the absence of direct evidence of hunting is proof the
> megafauna weren't hunted, but it is something that needs to be noticed.
If anybody's thought this up before, ignore me, otherwise, HOLD YER
HORSES! Okay, so the study supports heavy hunting of mammoths. Let's just
take that as a conclusive, indisputable fact for a moment. Now let's ask:
Hunting by WHAT?
This is probably enough for a lot of people to see where I'm driving at.
Think big pointy, nasty, teeth, and not the creature in "Monty Python and
the Holy Grail". Modern elephants don't have natural predators, with the
exception of some areas in Africa where packs of lions can take down
half-ton juveniles. North America may have been very, very different in
this regard, mainly because... oh, hm... who could it be, who could it
be... I don't know, could it be (church lady voice here) SMILODON?
The obvious course of action- and I think some other people have
already suggested this- is to check with earlier mammoth populations, I
don't know if this has already been done- and see if pre-human populations
show the same patterns.
It has been suggested that Smilodon did not in fact hunt elephants, but
other big game animals like bison.
Mighty curious that bison stuck around in the _millions_ but smilodon
went extinct as soon as the elephants, rhinos and ground sloths bit the
dust. Mighty curious, huh?
Can somebody give me the ref. on this paper?
-nick Longrich
Subject: Re: Skull in Boulder images
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:15:33 GMT
scottb@ucr.campus.mci.net (Scott Begg) wrote:
>Strange... And how could a comparatively fragile bony structure like a
>human skull become fossilized in a SOLID BOULDER without being filled
>or rendered solid itself?
Strange, Scotty, but not THAT unusual!
Remember, if you will, that, after all, human skulls often commence
the intriguing -- and oftimes time-consuming -- process of
fossilization when, because of adamant refusal to use common sense, a
certain amount of cloggage develops near the Gandulae Pacchioni (also
known as the Arachnoid Villi) due to the growth of miniscule kidney
bean-shaped siderite microrganisms, purplish-green in color and just
awful to view under the miscroscope, thus causing the Ascending
Frontal Convolution to disengage ever so slightly from the Superior
Frontal Convalution and the Middle Frontal Convalution (sort of like a
band member marching out of step during the halftime show), thus
triggering a revolting development that results in gradual but
eventual total disengagement of various integral functions of the left
hemisphere of the brain that, in turns, causes or induces memory loss,
twinkle toes. premature balding and quite often diarrhea.
For crying out loud, Scotty, how the hell do I know?
Ask Macrae and Myers. They seem to have al the answers.
Subject: Re: what is "alive"
From: suk@pobox.com (Peter Kwangjun Suk)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:56:03 -0400
In article <3286125A.651B@hcn.hcnews.com>, brblaze@hcn.hcnews.com wrote:
> Cathy Mancus writes:
>
> > specific example. Suppose we build an intelligent machine in
> > a body. It can use tools, communicate in English, shows creativity,
> > and by all appearances is self-aware. Assume it thinks and
> > acts much like humans. The only thing it can't do is reproduce
> > itself. Is it alive? I think it is more useful to define it as
> > "yes" than "no" for this case, IMHO.
>
> Use of tools, communication, and appearance of self-awarness are another
> topic. We're not discussing intelligence, just life.
Certainly it exceeds "just life", which I believe was Cathy's point.
However, this being would be intelligent. Hence it would be capable of
manufacturing another of its own kind. Hence, it would be alive. Or
would it? What if it had an IQ of 90 or so, and did not have the
competence to construct another of its own kind? What if it had just
enough intelligence to subcontract the construction of its progeny to a
human corporation? Would it be alive?
What of the last member of a sexual species? Was the last male Kiwi bird
"alive" after the last female died? I would say that it was alive, even
though it could not reproduce.
--PKS
--
There's neither heaven nor hell
Save that we grant ourselves.
There's neither fairness nor justice
Save what we grant each other.
Peter Kwangjun Suk
Musician, Computer Science Graduate Student
[finger suk@pobox.com for PGP public key]
Subject: Re: Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?
From: "Walter E. Shepherd"
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:59:33 -0700
jw wrote:
>
> My labrador dog is palpably intelligent. This is not human
> intelligence, but close enough to be recognized.
> Dogs certainly communicate with people and with dogs -
> and they *invent* symbols (symbolic actions)
> to make their point. As for signatures, they
> leave one at every post, especially when there's
> another dog's post to respond to. :-)
> In a dog community, there's ego competition, there
> are personal friendships and enmities, there's status
> recognition, including one's own status; all this
> indicates a kind of self-awareness.
>
> I do believe, however, that there is a watershed
> between animals - even dolphins or dogs, even great
> apes, who are closer - and humans.
>
> It is not intelligence per se;
> it is not rudimentary self-awareness, rudimentary
> use of symbols or rudimentary tool-making.
>
> Hominids made another small step, and yet in a sense it
> was a breakthrough from the *finite* to the *infinite*.
>
more good thoughts snipped for the sake of brevity...
After following this thread for some time I'd like to offer the thought
that I think we're "wrapping ourselves around the pole" to come up with
a perfect definition of intelligence. I mostly agree with jw, but depart
with the notion of some "magical" threshold where we went from the
finite to infinite. I suggest that we stop thinking of intelligence in
binary terms... i.e., intelligent/not intelligent. I think
intelligence, like most everything else, is a continuum... it has quite
a broad dynamic range. I suggest that it is helpful to take a broader
view of intelligence... look at it from the perspective of a log scale
rather than a linear scale. If you line up all the known species which
have existed on this planet... and try to put them on some sort of a log
scale of intelligence (e.g., neuronal complexity)... that dog of jw's
(and my cat I might add) are right up there with us. We're no big
deal... nothing magical... but we are impressive... we are the
cumulative experience of natures experiment... we stand on the shoulders
of all species which have struggled to survive on this planet.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_ /| DISCLAIMER: Disclaimant is a hireling who speaks for himself.
\'o.O' He is as bothered and bewildered as you, and he
=(___)= Ack! probably didn't mean or say what you might have
U Thppft!! thought he meant or said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Skull in Boulder images
From: myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Paul Z. Myers)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:42:43 -0500
In article <567cfl$hc5@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>scottb@ucr.campus.mci.net (Scott Begg) wrote:
>
>>Strange... And how could a comparatively fragile bony structure like a
>>human skull become fossilized in a SOLID BOULDER without being filled
>>or rendered solid itself?
>
>Strange, Scotty, but not THAT unusual!
>Remember, if you will, that, after all, human skulls often commence
>the intriguing -- and oftimes time-consuming -- process of
>fossilization when, because of adamant refusal to use common sense, a
>certain amount of cloggage develops near the Gandulae Pacchioni (also
>known as the Arachnoid Villi) due to the growth of miniscule kidney
>bean-shaped siderite microrganisms, purplish-green in color and just
>awful to view under the miscroscope, thus causing the Ascending
>Frontal Convolution to disengage ever so slightly from the Superior
>Frontal Convalution and the Middle Frontal Convalution (sort of like a
>band member marching out of step during the halftime show), thus
>triggering a revolting development that results in gradual but
>eventual total disengagement of various integral functions of the left
>hemisphere of the brain that, in turns, causes or induces memory loss,
>twinkle toes. premature balding and quite often diarrhea.
You forgot logorrhea, Ed, and I think this is evidence that you have
a terminal case.
>
>For crying out loud, Scotty, how the hell do I know?
>Ask Macrae and Myers. They seem to have al the answers.
Oh? But you are the final arbiter of whether those answers are
correct, even though you don't know the answers or even how to
get the answers?
--
Paul Z. Myers myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Dept. of Biology myers@netaxs.com
Temple University http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-8848
Subject: Re: Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?
From: Ari Rothman
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:52:21 -0800
Frank Crary wrote:
>
> In article ,
> Michael Martin-Smith wrote:
> >Creatures that are not smart enough to colonise Space risk extinction by
> >asteroid/comet impact - maybe this recent discovery gives us a serious
> >clue to the origins and ultimate purpose of Human intelligence.
>
> I can't really see how. The K-T event caused the extinction of
> large animals, and selected for characteristics like small size,
> being warm-blooded, burrowing, ominvorous or carion diet, etc.
> Intelligence doesn't seem to have been a factor (although none
> of the animals alive at the time were all that intelligent) and
> the even occurred long before Homo Sapien, or any hominids for
> that matter, existed. So how could it have affected either
> the origin or purpose of human intelligence? You could argue
> something similar, however: That any species capable of
> surviving for over ~50 million years is more likely to be
> intelligent and have colonized space. Also, although it
> doesn't relate to intelligence, impacts probably have had
> a major role in evolution, by removing the dominant species
> on a regular basis and letting other species with different
> advantages and traits become dominant. And then there are
> side issues, like the existence of a Jupiter-like planet:
> Orbital simulations show that Jupiter has ejected a huge
> number of potential impactors from the solar system, and
> if Jupiter hadn't been there, K-T type events would be
> over ten times more common. It isn't clear _how_ mass
> extinctions every ~5 rather than ~50 million years
> would affect evolution, but it certainly would have
> some effect.
>
> Frank Crary
> CU Boulder
I have to draw exception to the current attitude that attributes mass
extinctions to bolide impacts. There is too little to no evidence of
this in most mass extinctions. The K-T extinction took millions of
years and can be tied to the draining of inlands seas, climatic changes
and the preference for fossil collection in North America and Europe. I
am not saying a hit did not occur, only that it was not as fatal as some
say. Ask a turtle or lizard or alligator, all cold blooded, all
survived. Sorry I got off the subject.
Subject: Re: Thermodynamic definition of life (was Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?)
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 16:54:26 GMT
Peter Kwangjun Suk (suk@pobox.com) wrote:
: In article <565qni$7og@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, devens@uoguelph.ca (David
: L Evens) wrote:
: > Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.com) wrote:
: > : Well, that's basically what it is right now. Look at viruses, for instance.
: > : Half the scientists think they're alive, half think they're not. The most
: > : common argument you'll hear against is that, "But they're nothing but
: > : chemicals that perform interesting reactions!" Well, no kidding, that's
: > : what all life is.
: >
: > Actually, the most common argument I've seen against considering viri to
: > be alive is that they MUST have living hosts to reproduce. There exist
: > no possible set of natural environmental conditions that would allow
: > isolated viri to reproduce.
: Aren't cells the "natural environment" of virii? If you "isolated" humans
: in any number of ways, they'd also fail to reproduce. (In a desert, for
: example.)
Isolated viri don't carry out any life processes, however. They just sit
there, close to chemically inert.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
From: jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 20:26:08 GMT
In article <5620jq$98n@news.ptd.net>, Ed Conrad wrote:
>
>Newsgroup question:
>
>> Is Lucy a Monkey?
>
>Damn right it is!
>``Lucy" is nothing more than a member of the ``monkey" family,
>with no connection -- none whatsoever -- to early man.
Ed, you *are* aware, surely, that apes and monkeys are different thing?
Apes are not monkeys, and monkeys are not apes. Lucy can arguably be
called an ape, as can humans, but no scientist would ever, EVER be dumb
enough to call her a monkey (quite a few creationists have, though).
>The dreamers and hallucinators who led the ``expeditionary" team
>are well aware of the fraud they had attempted to perpetrate by
>claiming it to be a missing link.
>
>Fact is, the few bits and pieces of what they called ``Lucy" -- to go
>with the vast majority of manmade bonelike additions that were used to
>fill the many gaps -- weren't even found in close proximity.
>
>Truth is, ``Lucy" is a mosaic of a few bones that were found over a
>square mile.
This misconception is based on creationist incompetence and ignorance.
Lucy was found within a small area. A knee joint found a year earlier
and about 1.5 km away was a separate find and has never been claimed to
be a part of Lucy, creationist claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
See http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/knee-joint.html
--
Jim (Chris) Foley, jim.foley@symbios.com
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest:
Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii)
Subject: Re: New Study Supports Man Hunting Mammoth to Extinction
From: gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE (Franz Gerl)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 21:07:59 GMT
rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
: On 7 Nov 1996, Franz Gerl wrote:
: > rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
[... interesting stuff deleted]
: The
: megafauna may have been supported by the diversity of the early Holocene
: three-biomes-in-one; the differentiation into three distinct biomes may
: have streched resource availability to a point where megafauna could no
: longer be supported.
:
But how would this streched resource availability show up, didn't
they starve then?
: > : humans hunted the mammoths to extinction is a half-truth at best, because
: > : it suggests sustained concentrated hunting of a large population that
: > : would have survived but for that hunting. This only has precedent in the
: > : industrial exploitation of various animals in the past two or three
: > : hundred years.
: >: > This certainly is not true. Dwarf elephants on Cyprus and Crete,
: > giant makis and elephant birds on Madagascar, Moas on New Zealand,
: > wherever prehistoric man arrived the large animals were the first
: > to go. This is only a matter of scale, the pattern remains unchanged:
: > The large and easily accessible animals disappear.
:
: I stand corrected about the precedence; but I don't think you can support
: your claim that "wherever prehistoric man [sic] arrived the large animals
: were the first to disappear" -- how come mammoths managed to hang on for
: more than 2,000 years in the old world? If humans cause extinction, it
: should be a global phenomenon.
:
In the old world homo sapiens was not such a new predator, and it probably
took some time to develop the hunting skills to kill really big game.
Your argument is only valid against my grasp of the English language.
BTW where did you get the 2000 year date?
: I think the isolated incidents you
: describe are special cases since they are on islands -- essentially
: closed ecosystems, from the perspective of large animals. The appearance
: of humans was a new element in an environment to which the small
: populations of large animals had not had to adapt. I would argue that
: although humans were a new element in the New World, the ecosystem, being
: on the scale of a continent that wasn't 90% desert, can't be thought of
: as a closed system.
:
This is, what the argument is about, but Madagascar is not that small
either. Computer simulations suggest it could have happened. I just
have a hard time to imagine conditions changing over two hemispheres
in a way that any large animal which is easily accessible suddenly
disappear. Of course it has to be examined in detail, whether the
steppe is enough of a save haven for the bison.
: > : Of course, the hunting hypothesis assumes that people arrived in the New
: > : World only 10 or 12 kya, a date which is being challenged harder every day.
: >
: > More often than not these claims seem to have an agenda beyond simple science.
:
: *Simple science*....what is that? What dreamland are you living in?
:
I for one believe that there is science which is not overwhelmed by
political objectives. OTH some of these claims are accompanied by
weird claims of people arriving by boat from Africa,
old forgotten civilizations and stuff like that. Some people seem
to have a hard time accepting that the ancestors of the Indians
could have done this overkill.
: > I am not holding my breath until a real convincing site shows up.
:
: Look at the most recent issue of *American Antiquity*. The site
: reported therein (I don't have my copy handy) meets ALL of Griffin's
: hardass requirements for such a site.
:
I will wait and see. Anyhow, dating is ambiguous enough, not to get
excited about a single data point.
: > : What would be interesting to know is, when did mammoths go extinct in the
: > : Old World? If the hunting-to-extinction hypothesis is right, and the
: > : date of human migration is right, you would expect mammoths had gone
: > : extinct earlier in the old world than in the new.
: >
: > The last dwarf mammoths on an isolated Sibirian island were killed off by the
: > Inuit about 4000 years ago. I would be curious whether the age difference
: > on the mainland-extinctions has been resolved as well.
:
: Mainland extinctions would be the ones of concern here, since North
: America is not an island. Is that 4000 year date coincident, or within
: 2000 years of, the introduction of humans there? If not, how would you
: explain the extinction, due to human predation, of a continent full of
: large animals, while a small population managed to hang on in the face of
: similar stress?
:
What I remember from the article in nature is, that they disappeared
with the arrival of Inuit in that area. What I consider strange, is
that conditions should stay favorable on a small island, but deteriorate
enough in all of Asia.
: I don't think that island examples can really be taken as representative
: of continental processes.
:
But climate change and its effects can wipe out these communities without
a replacement?
Franz
Subject: Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
From: "Tom E. Morris"
Date: 11 Nov 1996 21:57:39 GMT
> To my mind, the ONLY physical anthropologist who possessed scientific
> integrity in a search for honest answers to legitimate questions about
> man's origin and ancestry was the late Dr. Earnest A. Hooton, longtime
> professor of anthropology at Harvard University.
>
> Two quotes in his book stand out like beacons:
>
> > ``I can point to many anatomical features of man
> > in which the known courses of evolution can be
> > explained plausibly by the theory of natural
> > selection, but I do not know of one in which
> > it can be proved."
> > ``I am also convinced that science pursues
> > a foolish and fatal policy when it tries to keep up
> > its bluff of omniscience in matters of which it is sitill
> > woefully ignorant. Sooner or later the intelligent
> > public is going to call that bluff."
Hooten addresses two frequent misconceptions held by scientists and
laypersons about science. First, the philosophy of science is founded on
the notion of the natural selection of ideas. Ideas are subjected to tests
that try to kill them. Ideas that survive these tests, live to be tested
yet again. Surviving ideas may not be complete, but they remain the best so
far. That is, it is not up to science to adopt an idea then try to 'prove'
that they are 'right', while ignoring evidence to the contrary. This was
one of Sir Francis Bacon's biggest gripes about scientists back in the
1400s(?). Bacon introduced the notion of 'negative instances' in which it
is more efficient to try to prove a thing wrong than it is to look for
evidence to support it. The point is that if an idea is wrong, then we darn
sure want to know it as soon as possible. This means that, while engaging
in the practice of science, egos and belief systems must be subserviant to
science. To the extent that they are not, then the practice of science is
compromised. This is not to say that science must consume our lives and
displace other ways of knowing. It just means that when we wear the science
hat, we must practice science. That means following the strict guidelines
of science and keeping our egos and other beliefs at bay while we get on
with it.
Second, When Hooten refers to the fallacy of omniscience among the
practitioners of science, he may have been unwittingly responding to the
notion of science as a belief system (scientism). I need to make two
points. 1) The 'practice' of science is a process. 2) Scientism is a belief
system that operates outside the box of empiricism that otherwise contains
all scientific enterprise. The idea that science can explain all aspects of
our experience is a reflection of the scientism ideology. When I wear my
science hat, I must recognize that there are many questions whose answers
are incomplete. The evolution of humans, for example. Still, it has been
demonstrated so powerfully over the last 4000 years that the trail to more
complete and satisfying answers will best be blazed by patient practice of
the scientific process. Just because we don't know today, is no reason to
reject future prospects for scientific discovery. And finally, I must
recognize that there are many questions that simply are unavailable and
inappropriate for science to answer. So, to address those questions, I take
off my science hat and put on another.
Tom Morris
Fullerton College
Fullerton, CA
Subject: Re: New Study Supports Man Hunting Mammoth to Extinction
From: jimamy@primenet.com
Date: 11 Nov 1996 17:26:02 -0700
gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE (Franz Gerl) wrote:
>: What about all the larger mega-fauna that reduced in size or died out in
>: the early and mid-pliestocene, before the late-pliestocene extinctions.
>: Any suggestions for what happened to them?
>
>Could you specify these extinctions?
Surely: Blancan/138 species, 6 of which were over 1.9 tons;
Irvingtonian/89 species, 14 if which were over 1.9 tons;
Rancholabrean/Late Illinoian/ Sangamonian/Wisconsinan pre-20,000 ybp many
more species, including,Bison latifrons, the largest bison of all. See
Pliestoncene Mammals of North America, Kurten and Anderson.
>: >This certainly is not true. Dwarf elephants on Cyprus and Crete,
>: >giant makis and elephant birds on Madagascar, Moas on New Zealand,
>: >wherever prehistoric man arrived the large animals were the first
>: >to go. This is only a matter of scale, the pattern remains unchanged:
>: >The large and easily accessible animals disappear.
>
>: Curious how the vegitative patterns and climatological change preceded
>: these events, in some cases permitting mans travels in the first place.
>
>The events I mentioned happened within the last 7000 years. Care
>to elaborate on any climatological change related to these extinctions?
My quote is self explanatory and answers your question. See my use of the
word "preceded" in the above quote (i.e. the dwarf mammoths were on their
way out and man was not the sole factor in their demise). I will grant
that the flightless birds were probably killed off by man. I will not
agree that continental mega fuana were subject to the same fate (see
large fauna in Africa and America that still remain). Further, your
comment (before you edited portions out) was not limited to island
examples. My reference included continental fauna. As to the island
examples, I've seen no evidence that man ever hunted the dwarf mammoths of
Wrangle Island which, I understand, were the last (most recently extinct)
mammoths.