Author Topic: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations  (Read 28839 times)

Offline adis

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #60 on: 04/29/2018 04:57 pm »
Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.

Offline Mondagun

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #61 on: 04/29/2018 10:31 pm »
Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one.
That doesn't really help to establish the probability number with any real confidence. Firstly, why do you only consider the scientists that think the number is 100%? Why do you ignore the other scientists that think it's ~0%? And secondly, as far as I know there are very few to none scientists who claim that they have conclusively proven the probability number. They normally acknowledge that any probability number given should be interpreted as a working hypothesis.

Quote
Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.
The fact that life developed on Earth is not under dispute. The topic of dispute is whether the rate of life development within our own solar system can be generalized to the entire universe. Or to put it in statistical terms: is our sample (the solar system) representative for the population (the universe)? Unfortunately we don't really know whether this is the case, because of inevitable selection bias. The sample that we can observe was always going to contain a planet that developed life, even in case of a universe where the chance of a planet developing life is 1 in 100 billion, because otherwise we wouldn't be able to perform this statistical test due to our non-existence. That is anthropic bias in a nutshell.

I'm not arguing that life in the universe must be rare, nor am I arguing that it must be abundant. All I'm saying here is that we don't have enough data (yet) to know for sure which.

I would recommend reading the book Anthropic Bias.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2018 10:42 pm by Mondagun »

Offline rakaydos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #62 on: 04/30/2018 05:08 am »
Science is never going to have enough evidence to conclude life exists outside of Earth.  The problem is that there is no way to know what life is.  There is only one data point and will be absent of the information for cross validation. 

So science is the wrong approach.

An analogy is trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car, parked on the other side of the world???

How is somebody going to prove to anybody this magic ant is in your car?

No way science is going to help.  Science does have limitations. 

We’re more likely to find all the new life forms to ever hope to find on earth.  Perhaps realize that some creatures are on Earth and have no known explanation for their origin based on scientific principles.  That is where to look.  Not far... near.  Because there is where there actually is information!
I disagree. It is possible to design probes and telescopes capable of searching other systems of signs of life. A gravlensing observatory 1000 AU from sol could observe another star's enviros at basically any distance from sol, at a level of detail only limited by the resolution of the sensors at 1000 AU to the Einstein ring projected around Sol by grav lensing. Project starshot, on the other hand, is an attempt to send actual sensors across interstellar distances and transmit data back for future super-recievers to pick up.

Offline adis

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #63 on: 04/30/2018 11:52 am »
Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one.
That doesn't really help to establish the probability number with any real confidence. Firstly, why do you only consider the scientists that think the number is 100%? Why do you ignore the other scientists that think it's ~0%? And secondly, as far as I know there are very few to none scientists who claim that they have conclusively proven the probability number. They normally acknowledge that any probability number given should be interpreted as a working hypothesis.

Quote
Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.
The fact that life developed on Earth is not under dispute. The topic of dispute is whether the rate of life development within our own solar system can be generalized to the entire universe. Or to put it in statistical terms: is our sample (the solar system) representative for the population (the universe)? Unfortunately we don't really know whether this is the case, because of inevitable selection bias. The sample that we can observe was always going to contain a planet that developed life, even in case of a universe where the chance of a planet developing life is 1 in 100 billion, because otherwise we wouldn't be able to perform this statistical test due to our non-existence. That is anthropic bias in a nutshell.

I'm not arguing that life in the universe must be rare, nor am I arguing that it must be abundant. All I'm saying here is that we don't have enough data (yet) to know for sure which.

I would recommend reading the book Anthropic Bias.
And where exactly in my film or my post have you found  that I only consider the scientists that think the number is 100%? And ignore other opinions? Actually in my film I estimated the number at 1/20 exactly to avoid any bias and NOT to push anything to prove my point at any cost. If I considered equally scientists/opinions that think number is 0 and that it is 100% I would go with 0,5 or 50%. But I used 1/20 exactly to be conservative or objective and not to promote my personal point of view (which is much closer to 100%).
Sorry but (in other post) I don't find any analogy with  "trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car..." because analogy doesn't exist there. But I have another one. If you are on a desert island without a food and waves bring you a one day food supply would you say "Oh now i will pass it What's the use of food enough for one day if a don't have continuous daily supply"? I guess You wouldn't reject that.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #64 on: 04/30/2018 04:19 pm »
Actually in my film I estimated the number at 1/20 exactly to avoid any bias and NOT to push anything to prove my point at any cost.

So where does the 1/20 number come from?

Offline adis

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #65 on: 04/30/2018 05:22 pm »
If you watched my film

at 6 36 It is obvious that if we know that in our Solar system (and there are trillions of such in Universe) there are 2 habitable planets and at one out of these two, life actually developed. That is 50% or 1/2. I could take that 1/2 as the only data we clearly know. I didn't but i used 1/20 as a very conservative estimate, but based on that. It seems that recently many scientists tend to favour idea that EVERY habitable planet develops life once.

Offline Mondagun

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #66 on: 04/30/2018 05:49 pm »
If you are on a desert island without a food and waves bring you a one day food supply would you say "Oh now i will pass it What's the use of food enough for one day if a don't have continuous daily supply"? I guess You wouldn't reject that.
I would retrieve the box of food. Then I would store it away with the intention of eating from it only later once I'm at the point of near-starvation, in order to maximize the amount time that I'd be able to survive on just this single box of food. Because based on this single data point (arrival of a single box of food) I have no clue what the probability of another box of food arriving in the coming days is. It could be 100% or 0% or anything inbetween. I don't know yet, I can only guess.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #67 on: 04/30/2018 06:00 pm »
...there are 2 habitable planets and at one out of these two, life actually developed. That is 50% or 1/2. I could take that 1/2 as the only data we clearly know. I didn't but i used 1/20 as a very conservative estimate...

You're committing the fallacy of begging the question or assuming what you are trying to demonstrate. You're trying to answer the question, "Is earth typical?", by assuming that earth is in fact typical.




Offline whitelancer64

Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.

The big flaw in your video is that you are assuming that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms.

In the first place, it's very uncertain that "advanced life" must necessarily develop on habitable planets. There could be trillions of planets out there with bacteria or virus types of life, but just a few develop more complex forms of life. In like wise, it's very uncertain that such complex life must necessarily eventually develop some level of intelligence, or if it does, that such intelligence comes in a form suited to developing technology capable of sending interstellar signals. Dolphins, for example, are quite smart creatures, but are entirely unsuited to making a radio. Indeed, even smelting metals would be an entirely alien concept to them.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Mondagun

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #69 on: 04/30/2018 06:23 pm »
An analogy is trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car, parked on the other side of the world???

How is somebody going to prove to anybody this magic ant is in your car?
Uhhh, couldn't you simply take a plane to said other side of the world, open the trunk of the car and then record a bunch of photos/videos of the little creature?

Offline rakaydos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #70 on: 04/30/2018 06:44 pm »
An analogy is trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car, parked on the other side of the world???

How is somebody going to prove to anybody this magic ant is in your car?
Uhhh, couldn't you simply take a plane to said other side of the world, open the trunk of the car and then record a bunch of photos/videos of the little creature?
"Easy" if it exists. Impossible to prove it doesnt.

Offline adis

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #71 on: 04/30/2018 07:02 pm »
Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.

The big flaw in your video is that you are assuming that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms.

In the first place, it's very uncertain that "advanced life" must necessarily develop on habitable planets. There could be trillions of planets out there with bacteria or virus types of life, but just a few develop more complex forms of life. In like wise, it's very uncertain that such complex life must necessarily eventually develop some level of intelligence, or if it does, that such intelligence comes in a form suited to developing technology capable of sending interstellar signals. Dolphins, for example, are quite smart creatures, but are entirely unsuited to making a radio. Indeed, even smelting metals would be an entirely alien concept to them.
I don't even remember that I mentioned in my video that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. Because I consider that obvious. Obvious for anyone who knows anything about evolution and Charles Darwin? Sure there are trillions of planets out there with bacteria (as well as in any other stage of development) but it won't stay that way forever. As on Earth. lower forms will always evolve into more complex forms simply to be more effective. Evolution. And for dolphins, they are certainly smarter than they used to be, say 20 million years ago, and they will be smarter in 20 million years then they are now, and who said they won't be suitable to make a radio then? Million years ago man wasn't able to make a shoe, so you would probably draw a conclusion that he would be unable to make a radio then in the same way you claim that for dolphins. It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.

Offline Silmfeanor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1254
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 722
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #72 on: 04/30/2018 07:13 pm »
Because I consider that obvious.

Ok, other very educated people do not make the multitude of assumptions you make, and are thus not as sure as you.

Quote
It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.
Perhaps!

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #73 on: 04/30/2018 07:31 pm »
I don't even remember that I mentioned in my video that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. Because I consider that obvious.
It is absolutely not obvious, in fact there is a good chance it is simply wrong. Evolution does not have an "end goal." That is a common misconception, and makes the rest of your argument meaningless.

It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.
This site has a strong audience of scientists and engineers. This thread in particular is for "rational analysis." You have not been doing rational analysis, since you have continued to ignore the anthropic principle after it was already explained to you. You have managed to take the inherently subjective analysis of the Drake equation and make objectively wrong claims anyway. When some say the chance is almost 100% and some say it is closer to 1 in a billion, you can't just average them and say 50%, and then claim 5% is conservative. Conservative by definition would be to use the 1 in a billion (10^9) estimate. If you wanted to split the difference, you should split the order of magnitude and use something like 1 in 30000.

The analysis is inherently subjective, because we don't have the data required to make a meaningful guess at the "1 in a billion" figure, it could even be orders of magnitude smaller than that. Your guesses became objectively wrong when you claimed that you were accounting for the extremely low guesses, and still claimed you were conservative when you objectively were not.

If you want to make claims based on bad statistics and misinterpreted science and not have them rebutted, you are on the wrong site. If you are interested in facts, logic, etc. then you are in the right place.

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #74 on: 04/30/2018 08:30 pm »
An analogy is trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car, parked on the other side of the world???

How is somebody going to prove to anybody this magic ant is in your car?
Uhhh, couldn't you simply take a plane to said other side of the world, open the trunk of the car and then record a bunch of photos/videos of the little creature?
So if I asked somebody to go out to the car in the driveway to see what is in it, would that be called science?
"Find out what is in the car by observing it" fits the definition of science:

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

You are performing a "practical activity" using "observation" to determine the "structure of the physical world" (contents of the car) This can simply be formatted as "systematic study" (look in front and rear windows, open trunk, note contents)

Very likely you’d give me a weird look and say no.
This incorrect assumption is the basis of the rest of your post and shows that you don't understand the basic concept of science.

Science gets the role for what cannot be done or explained.
And this approaches claiming that science is the exact opposite of what it is. Science is specifically for what can be explained, although it is obviously most focused on what hasn't been explained yet, or can still be explained in more detail.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #75 on: 04/30/2018 08:35 pm »
That is 50% or 1/2. I could take that 1/2 as the only data we clearly know. I didn't but i used 1/20 as a very conservative estimate, but based on that. It seems that recently many scientists tend to favour idea that EVERY habitable planet develops life once.
Two issues with this:
1) It's important to distinguish between reasonable, informed speculation and statements based on specific evidence. Until we know more about how life arose or how common it is, "Life started early on Earth, so it probably starts easily in the right conditions" is firmly in the former category. As a default position, the Copernican principle is a good bet, but as Mondagun and meberbs point out, you can't exclude survivor bias.

2) Even if you assume life arises easily in the right conditions, we have very little idea how Earth-like those conditions must be, so we can't reliably estimate how common they are. In fact, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about what Earth was like when life first appeared.

Quote
I don't even remember that I mentioned in my video that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. Because I consider that obvious.
It's not obvious. It took Earth 4+ billion years to evolve intelligent life. Even if you make the unjustified assumption that technological life typically appears in this time frame, things like supernovae and giant impacts will reset a significant number of systems on shorter intervals. Survivor bias raises its ugly head again.

Offline Mondagun

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #76 on: 04/30/2018 08:45 pm »
So if I asked somebody to go out to the car in the driveway to see what is in it, would that be called science?
Meberbs beat me to it, but yes: if you go to the car to make observations, analyze these observations, and draw conclusions from it ... then that's a perfect example of a scientific investigation.

Offline Mondagun

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #77 on: 04/30/2018 10:27 pm »
It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.
That's up to you to decide. Just be aware that as long as you keep presenting your treatment of the Drake equation as conclusive and free from big uncertainties, you're likely to encounter elsewhere the same type of criticisms as you faced here.

As a scientist from the SETI League succinctly put it:
The importance of the Drake Equation is not in the solving, but rather in the contemplation. It was written not for purposes of quantification at all, but rather as the agenda for the world's first SETI meeting, in Green Bank WV in 1961. It was quite useful for its intended application, which was to summarize all the various factors which scientists must contemplate when considering the question of other life. ... For the record, I consider the Drake Equation to be a marvelous tool for quantifying our ignorance. ...
« Last Edit: 04/30/2018 10:30 pm by Mondagun »

Offline Athrithalix

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • UK
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #78 on: 05/01/2018 08:57 am »
Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.

The big flaw in your video is that you are assuming that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms.

In the first place, it's very uncertain that "advanced life" must necessarily develop on habitable planets. There could be trillions of planets out there with bacteria or virus types of life, but just a few develop more complex forms of life. In like wise, it's very uncertain that such complex life must necessarily eventually develop some level of intelligence, or if it does, that such intelligence comes in a form suited to developing technology capable of sending interstellar signals. Dolphins, for example, are quite smart creatures, but are entirely unsuited to making a radio. Indeed, even smelting metals would be an entirely alien concept to them.
I don't even remember that I mentioned in my video that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. Because I consider that obvious. Obvious for anyone who knows anything about evolution and Charles Darwin? Sure there are trillions of planets out there with bacteria (as well as in any other stage of development) but it won't stay that way forever. As on Earth. lower forms will always evolve into more complex forms simply to be more effective. Evolution. And for dolphins, they are certainly smarter than they used to be, say 20 million years ago, and they will be smarter in 20 million years then they are now, and who said they won't be suitable to make a radio then? Million years ago man wasn't able to make a shoe, so you would probably draw a conclusion that he would be unable to make a radio then in the same way you claim that for dolphins. It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.

Nowhere does the theory of evolution through natural selection suggest that increasing complexity is inevitable. Natural selection increases survival fitness in the current environment, complexity is better described as another trait that can increase or decrease, with either direction leading to an increase in survival fitness based on whether the current environment rewards or punishes complexity. Complex organisms pay a price for complexity of energy expenditure maintaining that complexity against the outside environment, if the environment is too harsh then complex organisms will be selected against and simple organisms will bloom. This can be seen on Earth in when environments become chemically or thermally extreme, eg. a pond heated and acidified will see fish, plants, and insects struggle to reproduce effectively, but bacteria and protists often thrive in these conditions as it is easier to maintain their simpler internal environment against the harsh outside conditions. I’m not aware of any chemically or thermally extreme environments that host complex life but not simple life.
The claim for increasing intelligence suffers similarly, intelligence requires the use of huge amounts of energy that can be repurposed to other things (running fast, hitting hard, etc.) and is only selected for in environments where it is reproductively rewarded more than these other choices for energy use. Though it is not as clear cut as the complexity claim, it is very likely that there are many environments that do not select for intelligence over other traits (I’d be interested if you could provide a source for the claim that dolphins have increased in intelligence).

Offline adis

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UFO - Rational Analysis, Explanations & Speculations
« Reply #79 on: 05/01/2018 10:24 am »
Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on  Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.

The big flaw in your video is that you are assuming that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms.

In the first place, it's very uncertain that "advanced life" must necessarily develop on habitable planets. There could be trillions of planets out there with bacteria or virus types of life, but just a few develop more complex forms of life. In like wise, it's very uncertain that such complex life must necessarily eventually develop some level of intelligence, or if it does, that such intelligence comes in a form suited to developing technology capable of sending interstellar signals. Dolphins, for example, are quite smart creatures, but are entirely unsuited to making a radio. Indeed, even smelting metals would be an entirely alien concept to them.
I don't even remember that I mentioned in my video that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. Because I consider that obvious. Obvious for anyone who knows anything about evolution and Charles Darwin? Sure there are trillions of planets out there with bacteria (as well as in any other stage of development) but it won't stay that way forever. As on Earth. lower forms will always evolve into more complex forms simply to be more effective. Evolution. And for dolphins, they are certainly smarter than they used to be, say 20 million years ago, and they will be smarter in 20 million years then they are now, and who said they won't be suitable to make a radio then? Million years ago man wasn't able to make a shoe, so you would probably draw a conclusion that he would be unable to make a radio then in the same way you claim that for dolphins. It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.

Nowhere does the theory of evolution through natural selection suggest that increasing complexity is inevitable
. Natural selection increases survival fitness in the current environment, complexity is better described as another trait that can increase or decrease, with either direction leading to an increase in survival fitness based on whether the current environment rewards or punishes complexity. Complex organisms pay a price for complexity of energy expenditure maintaining that complexity against the outside environment, if the environment is too harsh then complex organisms will be selected against and simple organisms will bloom. This can be seen on Earth in when environments become chemically or thermally extreme, eg. a pond heated and acidified will see fish, plants, and insects struggle to reproduce effectively, but bacteria and protists often thrive in these conditions as it is easier to maintain their simpler internal environment against the harsh outside conditions. I’m not aware of any chemically or thermally extreme environments that host complex life but not simple life.
The claim for increasing intelligence suffers similarly, intelligence requires the use of huge amounts of energy that can be repurposed to other things (running fast, hitting hard, etc.) and is only selected for in environments where it is reproductively rewarded more than these other choices for energy use. Though it is not as clear cut as the complexity claim, it is very likely that there are many environments that do not select for intelligence over other traits (I’d be interested if you could provide a source for the claim that dolphins have increased in intelligence).
Of course I disagree. Theory of evolution is all about increasing of complexity. Every living organism has to adapt, become more efficient or it will be destroyed by competitive organisms. Planets with only bacteria that live there for billions of years without change are impossible. What would that bacteria eat?  You need source for the claim that dolphins have increased in intelligence? The only way they didn't increased intelligence (what you claim) is if they are created the same as they are now together with bacteria elephants etc or in other words if they are created instantly billions of years ago with the same intelligence body structure etc as now. i e if god created them perfect as they are at the beginning without any need for improvement or evolution. Is that what you are talking about? Could you provide any other explanation for your claim that dolphins didn't increase their intelligence?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0