Aging of species

Started by SatanLucy

Replies
35
Posts
36
Page
1 / 2

Conversation

#1 •••

We know for a fact that with age, individual starts to degrade. And this is true with all individuals of all species. Simply, the odds of defect increases with age.


For example, a computer which worked for 5 years is statistically more likely to break down than a new computer.


Human who is 80 years old is statistially much more likely to die in next 10 years than a young individual.


So it seems that two rules are certain:

  1. Individual has limited life span
  2. Limited life span is due to change which is actually a defect and causes harm


So, a simple conclusion is drawn: Aging happens due to negative change which becomes defect.


But are species as a whole immune to this same rule?


For a long time, it was believed that natural selection makes sure only good traits are passed.


However, this couldnt be further from truth.


A negative trait which is harmful, but isnt too damaging to reproduction ability, actually gets passed on.


We can see that animals and humans with defects often do reproduce, and even punish their offspring with same defect they have.


So natural selection actually only applies to reproduction related big defects. It does not apply to small defects related to reproduction, and it does not apply to defects irrelevant to reproduction.


Small defects which reduce reproduction success by 1% arent really going to be ever removed by natural selection, because:

  1. Defect would still get passed on a lot
  2. Even individuals without defect could produce offspring with defect, because random mutations happen even when original genetic trait remains.
  3. When this defect happens in females, it is certain it will get passed on, because defect which reduces male's chance to reproduce might not affect female in same way



So we have 4 types of defects which arent removed by natural selection:

  1. Small harm to reproduction defect
  2. Defect which doesnt harm reproduction
  3. Random mutations which happen in offspring even when parents are not defective.
  4. Defect in females which doesnt affect female reproduction ability, but affects male offspring if inherited


Because of these 4, not only that natural selection fails to remove small defects, but given enough time, number of small defects within species greatly increases.


Because even by 3 alone, the more time passes, the more likely it becomes that at some point, most offspring experiences random small defective mutations, and these then must get passed on or species will lose most of its population.


So number of negative defects, given enough time, actually increases.


And this is negative change, or the aging of species.


the only way this can be avoided is if natural selection and random mutation remove defects faster than they are created, but this actually isnt possible. Random mutation is probably as likely to produce a negative change as it is to produce a positive change, and once it produces mass of negative change, such change becomes inherited on mass scale.


In other words, aging of species is something which happens, and it is very likely that given enough time, species at some point lose ability to reproduce, and thus perish.

Edit comment

#2 •••

Also, by logic, if a change can happen given enough time, change will happen given enough time.


Likewise, if mass defect can happen, it will happen given enough time.


the only way to avoid mass defects in species is if the odds of them happening are 0%, but when we know each individual has chance to be defective because each has some defect in family tree, the odds of mass defects happening only increase when given enough time.

Edit post

#3 •••
@SatanLucy
In other words, aging of species is something which happens, and it is very likely that given enough time, species at some point lose ability to reproduce, and thus perish.


If you focus on defects, you miss the big picture.


Species evolve, and because it is survival of the fittest, the defects accumulate over time, they are eliminated. The evolution of species is in the direction of improvement over time, it is a continuous process of transformation, unfolding in time and space. It has steadily progressed towards greater complexity and greater ability to adapt, which generally involves higher forms of sentience, from inanimate matter, to life, to thought, to self-reflective consciousness, culminating in a rational and morally responsible animal. 



Edit post

#4 •••
@Sidewalker

Trump obviously hasn't culminated yet.

Edit post

#5 •••
@SatanLucy, @Sidewalker

Yes, evolution is not about the individual, but about the species and it's role within the greater context of universal progression.


Or it's all just a whole load of random nonsense.


Either way the fallibility of the individual is of no importance.


And I'm guessing that 99% of transferred genetic information is of no value to a greater process of universal development, other than as slaves to the necessary genii.


And it's also necessary that necessary genii are continually replaced and updated.



NB. 99% is in no way meant to be an accurate statistic.



Edit post

#6 •••
@Sidewalker
Species evolve, and because it is survival of the fittest, the defects accumulate over time, they are eliminated


They are only eliminated if there are individuals without said defects, to reproduce.

Edit post

#7 •••
@SatanLucy
They are only eliminated if there are individuals without said defects, to reproduce.


Nope, they evolve because they adapt, individuals are eliminated because they can't compete..

Edit post

#8 •••
@Sidewalker
individuals are eliminated because they can't compete


And if all individuals of one species cant compete, species as a whole perishes. that is aging of species.

Edit post

#9 •••
@SatanLucy
And if all individuals of one species cant compete, species as a whole perishes. that is aging of species.


You and Trump think alike, you think if you say something stupid, all you need to do is double down and it won't be stupid anymore.


Edit post

#10 •••
@Sidewalker

We already had many species on Earth perishing precisely because they changed on mass scale in way which wasnt fit.

Edit post

#11 •••
@SatanLucy
We already had many species on Earth perishing precisely because they changed on mass scale in way which wasnt fit.


Nope, the environment changed and they didn't, it wasn't defects, it was that they didn't change, consequently, they perished because of the inability to adapt.

Edit post

#12 •••
@SatanLucy, @Sidewalker

Individuals die, because they are programmed to die when they have outlived their usefulness, or because their programming is faulty, or because of poor management, or just bad luck.


A few years of extended decrepitude is of no consequence.

Edit post

#13 •••
@Sidewalker
Nope, the environment changed and they didn't


All species change constantly. And species die because short term change which survives gets negated by long term consequences.

Edit post

#14 •••
@SatanLucy
Nope, the environment changed and they didn't


All species change constantly.


Nope, Sulfer Bacteria have remained the same for over 2.3 billion years, the Nautilus and Horseshoe Crab for over 500 million years, and the Coelacanth (a fish), has remained unchanged for over 400 million years.


On the other hand, some species, the Republican Party for instance, it changed into something completely unrecognizable in less than four years.


Edit post

#15 •••
@Sidewalker
Nope, Sulfer Bacteria have remained the same for over 2.3 billion years


No, it did not. Small changes are always present everywhere. Maybe you are talking about not evolving into different species, but that's not what I was talking about there. The variation in individuals is likewise a variation in species, and even bacteria changes with or without environment change, because bacteria is likewise subject to defects and mutation of genes. Anything which has RNA or DNA is subject to mutations of those two.

Edit post

#16 •••
@SatanLucy
Nope, Sulfer Bacteria have remained the same for over 2.3 billion years

No, it did not. Small changes are always present everywhere. Maybe you are talking about not evolving into different species, but that's not what I was talking about there. The variation in individuals is likewise a variation in species, and even bacteria changes with or without environment change, because bacteria is likewise subject to defects and mutation of genes. Anything which has RNA or DNA is subject to mutations of those two.


Nope, you are full of shit.


Edit post

#17 •••
@Sidewalker

Nonetheless, shit is an essential part of the process.

Edit post

#18 •••
@Sidewalker
Nope, you are full of shit


You just read something on some article which isn't even true. No scientist would think sulfur bacterias don't mutate. In fact, mutating is how they survived once oxygen-free area stopped being available to them.

Edit post

#19 •••
@SatanLucy
Nope, you are full of shit

You just read something on some article which isn't even true. No scientist would think sulfur bacterias don't mutate. In fact, mutating is how they survived once oxygen-free area stopped being available to them.


Nonsense, you seem to spend all of your time on the internet, which means mountains of information are at your fingertips.


When it is so easy to become informed, there is no reason for you to just make shit up and insist it is true.


Edit post

#20 •••
@SatanLucy
a computer which worked for 5 years is statistically more likely to break down than a new computer.


Usually, that's true, but I own an original Mac from 1984, and it is still working perfectly. Slow by today's standards, but...


Once had a couple of Windows products, but they failed. I am broke on the pane of Windows. Press <start> to shutdown?

Bore me with constant questions if I really want to _____________ [fill in the blank] Let me make my mistakes for God's sake!

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#21 •••
@fauxlaw

I prefer windows over apple mac. Not because mac is out of my price range (I could buy cheap used one), but windows just has way more apps and games supporting it. Windows is simple enough OS to play games and write notes. In fact, I think writing notes is very easy on windows, the only one which is easier is on phone. With Mac, you are going to have a lot of issues with a lot of apps. Maybe its true that Mac lasts longer, but my windows laptops usually last at least 3 to 4 years, which isnt exactly great, but its just decent enough, and I dont plan to pay 3 times more just to maybe extend lifespan but sacrifice a lot of apps.

Edit post

#22 •••
@SatanLucy

98% of my total productive computing is satisfied by two apps: Adobe Illustrator and Apple Pages; illustration and wordsmithing, the two activities I engage at any hour of the day or night by personal choice. Both were designed specific to Mac and function with far more features than either do in Windows; a platform for which neither was originally created. I have other apps, but their percentage of use is minimal. I play no game on my Mac but solitaire. Gaming just isn't my schtick, particularly here, sorry.

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#23 •••
@fauxlaw

Art is something I engage in too, tho personally I often use AI to convert my real life drawings into image. For example, I will draw on paper and ask AI to place drawing from paper on white background. I am not any expert in drawing. However, symbol on my profile photo is 100% original and made by me. It was just slightly corrected using AI. Now, as I said, I am not going to say windows is better than apple in terms of art. I am quite sure that "paint" which comes on windows is just the most basic drawing program and isn't even used probably by most artists. And I am not familiar with how good Adobe Illustrator is, to be able to compare it to programs from windows.

Edit post

#24 •••
@SatanLucy

Still here Lucy...You can't help yourself can you.


Testing Testing.


Testing Testing.



Test failure..



Edit post

#25 •••
@SatanLucy

The difference and the beauty of Illustrator is that it allows me to make horrible mistakes, but when used correctly, I do not need A.I. to "fix." Therefore, I am the artist, not A.I. - just the way it should be. It's called "artificial" for a reason. Poorly named, but accurate enough, anyway, and that's just more human error at work.

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#26 •••
@fauxlaw
Therefore, I am the artist, not A.I


My art is combination of me and AI. So AI makes up where I lack, or speeds up the process which would normally take longer.

Edit post

#27 •••
@SatanLucy
or speeds up the process


Or, it could slow down the process. That's a presumption due to the nature of evolution being a negative or positive result [extinction or survival] since A.I., itself, is subject to evolution by it's own self-description.

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#28 •••
@fauxlaw

In summary, AI is not merely a "speed booster"—it is a tool that requires proper, mature processes to be effective. If used poorly, it can create a "hidden chaos" of, and if used well, it acts as a, powerful, strategic partner. 

Edit post

#29 •••
powerful, strategic partner. 


I experimented with one of the members here familiar using Chat GTP to translate a phrase in English translated from "Spells for the Coming Forth by Day" [aka "The Egyptian Book of the Dead"] in Egyptian hieroglyphs back to Egyptian hieroglyphs. I am fluent in that language. ChatGPT failed miserably, simply because AI still depends on programming by humans, and damn few AI engineers, if any, are fluent in ancient Egyptian. So, AI has severe limitations, still. Also, I've experimented with AI to reproduce artwork I've done by hand, or to write a chapter of either fiction or non-fiction for me, using my style of writing. Again, failure on both counts. I'm not impressed with AI for my creative needs.

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#30 •••
@fauxlaw

Sorry that you cannot benefit from AI in your area of interest. Where is Egypt without AI but a continuation of the Book of the dead.

Edit post