I like those articles that are basically condensed versions of something way more complex. I thought this fit the bill:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141202-...t-predator
The article will tell you that predation likely began very early in the history of life on Earth. Makes me wonder what the first real defence against predation was. Could it have been simply numbers? Some interesting facts and what to look for as evidence. It doesn't say much about environmental factors but it's really dealing with predation.
I have asked myself why predation had to occur in the first place. When trying to figure that out, one can't help but think that life struggles to survive while at the same time its very life forms kill one another. It sort of sounds counter productive but at the same time it's organisms are evolving defences in the bid to survive. Is there some ultimate end or is the process doomed to go on as long as it can?
(Mar 23, 2017 10:07 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]I like those articles that are basically condensed versions of something way more complex. I thought this fit the bill:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141202-...t-predator
The article will tell you that predation likely began very early in the history of life on Earth. Makes me wonder what the first real defence against predation was. Could it have been simply numbers? Some interesting facts and what to look for as evidence. It doesn't say much about environmental factors but it's really dealing with predation.
I have asked myself why predation had to occur in the first place. When trying to figure that out, one can't help but think that life struggles to survive while at the same time its very life forms kill one another. It sort of sounds counter productive but at the same time it's organisms are evolving defences in the bid to survive. Is there some ultimate end or is the process doomed to go on as long as it can?
Here’s another interesting paper.
ORIGINS AND EARLY EVOLUTION OF PREDATION
I like how your mind works, Zinman. Now, I have something interesting to read in bed.
Thanks!
(Mar 24, 2017 12:29 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 23, 2017 10:07 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]I like those articles that are basically condensed versions of something way more complex. I thought this fit the bill:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141202-...t-predator
The article will tell you that predation likely began very early in the history of life on Earth. Makes me wonder what the first real defence against predation was. Could it have been simply numbers? Some interesting facts and what to look for as evidence. It doesn't say much about environmental factors but it's really dealing with predation.
I have asked myself why predation had to occur in the first place. When trying to figure that out, one can't help but think that life struggles to survive while at the same time its very life forms kill one another. It sort of sounds counter productive but at the same time it's organisms are evolving defences in the bid to survive. Is there some ultimate end or is the process doomed to go on as long as it can?
Here’s another interesting paper.
ORIGINS AND EARLY EVOLUTION OF PREDATION
I like how your mind works, Zinman. Now, I have something interesting to read in bed.
Thanks!
I think it would go further back than either of those papers have covered from the point where single celled organisms competed through osmosis and eventually led to multicellular organisms through either colonial similarity (the cell won't reject what it see's as itself such as a sibling) or through symbiotic's (where the cells become integrated).
If predation is practically as old as life itself, would it not be imprinted(not sure of correct word...inherent?) on every cell that followed, even today?
(Mar 24, 2017 11:43 AM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]I think it would go further back than either of those papers have covered from the point where single celled organisms competed through osmosis and eventually led to multicellular organisms through either colonial similarity (the cell won't reject what it see's as itself such as a sibling) or through symbiotic's (where the cells become integrated).
They touched on it, barely, though.
"From unicellular to multicellular. This step was taken many times independently, but as a means of producing bigger organisms it may reflect predatorial pressures from cell-engulfing eukaryotes."
Archaea
From Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes
A Reformatted View of the Tree
What do you guys think about this paper?
Woe Is the Tree of Life
...Life is a chemical reaction. Three major transitions in early evolution are considered without recourse to a tree of life. The origin of prokaryotes required a steady supply of energy and electrons, probably in the form of molecular hydrogen stemming from serpentinization. Microbial genome evolution is not a treelike process because of lateral gene transfer and the endosymbiotic origins of organelles. The lack of true intermediates in the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition has a bioenergetic cause.
...Biology currently lacks a robust and comprehensive description of early evolution. We should aim to fill that void, but in a language that operates with biology and chemistry, not with branching patterns in phylogenetic trees, versions of which based on informational genes are called the tree of life. Genomes attest unequivocally to the abundance of lateral gene transfer in microbial chromosome history, but current thinking on early evolution is still largely couched in the conceptual framework of trees. When it comes to getting a fuller grasp of microbial evolution, trees might be standing in the way more than they are actually helping us .
...There is more to evolution than will fit on any tree. For understanding major transitions in early evolution, we might not need a tree of life at all.
...Tracking early evolution without a tree of life affords far more freedom to explore ideas than thinking with a tree in hand. The ideas need to generate predictions and be testable, though, otherwise they are not science. If we check our thoughts too quickly against a tree whose truth nobody can determine anyway, the tree begins to decide which thoughts we may or may not have and which words we may or may not use. Should a tree of life police our thoughts? Working without one is an option.
With all I have going on personally I'm finding it tough to read all this material. However I'm still going to try.
You know, when I think of a microbial first predator I find it hard to think of only one life form in the beginning of life on Earth. I've always read of the right conditions for life but have always assumed only one life form emerged during that beneficial time period. Why couldn't there have been many different microbial life forms?
Hey, isn't killing a plant for dinner also predation?
(Mar 23, 2017 10:07 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]I like those articles that are basically condensed versions of something way more complex. I thought this fit the bill:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141202-...t-predator
The article will tell you that predation likely began very early in the history of life on Earth. Makes me wonder what the first real defence against predation was. Could it have been simply numbers? Some interesting facts and what to look for as evidence. It doesn't say much about environmental factors but it's really dealing with predation.
I have asked myself why predation had to occur in the first place. When trying to figure that out, one can't help but think that life struggles to survive while at the same time its very life forms kill one another. It sort of sounds counter productive but at the same time it's organisms are evolving defences in the bid to survive. Is there some ultimate end or is the process doomed to go on as long as it can?
might be a little early yet to pin the tail on the evolutionary donkey.
how much of our brain do we use currently ?
(Mar 26, 2017 02:08 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]how much of our brain do we use currently ?
Hopefully all of it. I don't like the thought that some of my brain isn't working. Actually I've read that the belief we don't use all of our brain is not true.
(Mar 26, 2017 02:36 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 26, 2017 02:08 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]how much of our brain do we use currently ?
Hopefully all of it. I don't like the thought that some of my brain isn't working. Actually I've read that the belief we don't use all of our brain is not true.
LoL same.
Cat Scans show large portions of the brain being used and/or activated by various things, however they dont seem to know what is going on in there to some point.
maybe we can morph the debate into how much of your frontal lobes can you amalgamate to use with full recall and full real time access while maintaining all your senses recording all sights sounds and languages simultaneously...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...ir-brains/
Quote:"Evidence would show over a day you use 100 percent of the brain," says John Henley, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
oops i hope there are no mayo clinic haters reading this.
here you go
Quote:Though an alluring idea, the "10 percent myth" is so wrong it is almost laughable, says neurologist Barry Gordon at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.
Well from what I can surmise, a living organism doesn't require a brain to be predator or prey.
I think of the very first days of life on Earth and wonder if predation at that time, if it existed, was simply a natural chemical reaction between sets of molecules. If so and I extrapolate to the present, would anything have changed other than become more complex and plentiful?