I think the questions here are being asked in good faith on a very interesting subject, so I will encourage my fellow Dopers to be as accommodating as they can.
I will explain what my basic concept is and if that means I don’t have the right to talk about something I will happily concede and just try to find posts that relate to what I am thinking about.
Thats a fair statement as it might apply to many aspects of this topic but many areas of this topic are still open to speculation. Sometimes things appear to be forming patterns if looked at from different perspectives. I openly admitted that I was looking for patterns that might suggest some intelligent process behind evolution. So if a scientist tells me that there are no patterns, evolution just does what it does and cares less about the results I should just accept that at face value? I also openly admitted that it does appear to operate that way but occasionally I will see things that cause me to question that. I don’t expect to get a definitive answer .but I do think it is interesting to speculate on the ramifications . If evolution did have a direction how would that express itself in DNA. What would be required? Things like that.
Thats also a fair statement but sometimes there is a fine line between frustration with making their point as opposed to hostility toward a general line of thinking.
From my perspective I see the possibility of a situation where humans will have to make some choices that could have some long-term effects on evolution on this planet. There are several questions that I am looking for answers to and depending on the answers could satisfy me and send me back to my hole. The main question is about carbon. I know carbon levels have been relatively stable over the past million years but over all have been trending downward. So my first question would be how long would it take before carbon levels dropped to a level that would no longer support major life forms if ever? If the answer is more than 1 billion years I would consider it a mute point and move on to something else. If the answer was 10,000,0000 years I would think it is worth looking at a little harder. If humans recycled all of the available carbon reserves how long would that affect life on the planet? Are new reserves being created that might be available 200,000,000 years from now. Things like that. Does carbonization of minerals lock up the carbon forever? I could just keep going with little question that may or may not be meaningless depending on the answers to other questions that might not be directly related.
Humans are good at finding patterns in things. Especially things that don’t have patterns.
Looking for patterns is not a good way to do science. Starting with a conclusion and looking for patterns to conform to that conclusion is even worse.
I wouldn’t, because that’s not what a scientist would say. If that’s what you have gotten from this discussion, I urge you to go back and reread the answers you were given, without your preconceived biases against answers that don’t conform to your perceived patterns.
Of course you should question that, as it’s not the conclusion that scientists have come to.
To a certain extent speculation is always interesting. Speculating on how well my garden would grow if I used unicorn poop as fertilizer could be interesting, but it’s not going to lead to anything useful.
It wouldn’t. DNA can tell us a lot about the past evolution of a species, but nothing about the future.
If you want to know how something will evolve in the future, it’s better to look at its environment, and speculate on how it would become more fit for that environment.
It’s not so fine a line, and I’ve seen only frustration with the rejection of information that was requested, not hostility towards a line of thinking. If that line of thinking is what is causing you to reject the answers that you have sought, then I can understand why you would choose to interpret that frustration as hostility, but that’s because you are looking for patterns that conform to your preconceived beliefs, not because that’s what the evidence actually says.
They really haven’t. What is sequestered is replaced by volcanic action. It’s been pretty steady for the last several million years. It’s been below 400 ppm for the last 10 million, until recently.
The answer is more than a billion years. In fact the problem is that in less than a billion years, more like 500 million, the sun will be hot enough that if there is enough carbon in the atmosphere for plant life, it will be too much carbon to prevent a runaway greenhouse effect.
I’m not sure what pattern you are seeking here, but , real simple answer here, we aren’t going to run out of carbon.
What level of conversation do you expect if you don’t know what a cell is, what a genome is? Evolutionary theory is my academic specialty, and I answered your other question about speciation. But I’ve stayed out of this thread because frankly it’s just so bizarre and ill-conceived that I just don’t know where to start.
Do you want a reading list? I think I mentioned a couple of books in the other thread you started about the “purpose” of life in a fundamental physical sense.
I appreciated all of your replies
I actually appreciated everyone’s comments, I just thought Chrono was being a little snarky because he rejected a premise without fully understanding the premise.
Your focus on carbon is kind of odd – it’s like something pulled out of context from a climate denier’s blog.
You seem very interested in evolution, but your misconceptions are quite large. It’s not directed towards a human goal or toward a plant goal or toward an intelligence goal. If you read The Selfish Gene, Dawkins makes a great case that a really good way to look at evolution is from the point of view of a gene.
I highly recommend that book – not difficult to read, explains evolution quite well.
Yes, all of Dawkins’ books are accessible and communicate the overarching concepts of evolution effectively. And they are not dated at all in any significant way, the fundamental principles have not changed. (Also, it’s clear that 90% of the critics of The Selfish Gene either have not read it, or read it with insurmountably distorting preconceptions. It’s a science book, not an ethics or philosophy book.)
On the fundamental physical principles of what life “is”, I’d also recommend
Nick Lane - The Vital Question
Addy Pross - What Is Life
The specific hypotheses that these authors favor are not so important, but they give an excellent presentation of the basic scientific principles, and how to think about the kind of questions OP is interested in.
This isn’t really true - carbon sequestration will eventually draw down most of the CO2, but on a somewhat longer timescale than the increase in temperature due to Solar luminosity. Perhaps more efficient photosynthesis will evolve, and the biosphere may persist in the regions around the poles for awhile; but as the oceans evaporate the Earth’s greenhouse effect will increase due to water vapour, making the climate even more inhospitable.
This is exactly where I was going with this. I am interested in mitigation through the bio mass. I was reading yesterday it would take 7 acres of trees to mitigate i persons carbon. We don’t have enough acres on the planet but there are some scientists working on nitrogen fixing bacteria that could show great promise in making the bio sphere more efficient. There is also a lot of work going on regarding nitrogen pollution promising less damaging ways of using nitrogen.
I will ask one last question then I will shut up. Is it reasonably possible that DNA might contain monitors of some sort that could direct it to make changes.
Yes. The information in DNA is responsible for the construction of human brains. We can monitor our own genomes and the environment, and we can make directed changes to both.
A fair amount of that gets blown back up into the atmosphere as those carbon containing sedimentary rocks are subducted.
Anyway, my point was that we are not running out of carbon. I meant it as a simple answer. There will be plenty of carbon to go around till long after the sun has warmed to the point where life on Earth is no longer possible. If some chemical process continues to sequester carbon after that, maybe the lifeless Earth will someday become carbon free, but there be no life left on Earth to care.
Riemann’s answer aside, no, you will not find that DNA itself has any sort of monitors built into it. Genes “want” to find ways to replicate themselves, either by creating creatures with bigger brains, or that build dams, or that send out spores, or however its ancestors were successful at replicating.
There is no grand purpose, no direction, no plan. The genes that find a better way to spread copies of themselves will be more numerous (obviously) and those are the ones that will stick around. If some mutation causes a gene to be even more successful, then that version will end up sticking around.
Let that go for billions of years and you get microbes and dinosaurs and sharks and ferns. Send a meteor at the planet to really shake things up and wait 65 million more years, and you have the world today – probably dominated by bacteria and insects, but with lots of humans, too.
If you want to layer in some design or purpose, philosophy and religion are thataway. There is zero scientific evidence that evolution is working towards some end goal.
Sure it is, but not concentrated in mines. The easy deposits are all gone. Want iron? Drill down 3000 miles; there’s plenty.
Well, the easy deposits are gone for now.
In some point in the future, our cities may be the iron mines of whatever comes after us.
I don’t think too much an end goal as much as I do a direction evolution takes. And just like you ihave never seen any evidence to suggest otherwise. For some reason this carbon thing got me thinking of what a coincidence it was that humans came along when they did and the impact they had on carbon. I obviously see carbon as a major player in whatever time left this planet has. I see one possible ethical question, what responsibility do we have to the creatures of the earth long after we are gone?
Considering how little responsibility we take for creatures that are on the earth while we’re here, I’d say very little. We can’t do anything to help creatures one million years from now – we have no idea what they will be like.