BACTERIA!..the most viable life form on earth.

1. 61

   qwarkposted 13 years ago

   Is bacteria the most evolved and adaptive life form on earth?

   replyreport
   1. 82

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Any form of life that persists is adapted to its niche--there may be more or less adaptive fitness, but I don't think there can be "most".

      replyreport
      1. 61

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Considering all forms of life on this planet, which do you think has the greatest chance of surviving the worst catastrophes the earth can experience, oh say, for the next 1 1/2 billion yrs when the earth will most probably become to hot for most life to exist?

         replyreport
         1. 72

            mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea

            replyreport
            1. 61

               qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Popo:
               I hadn't considered "archaea."
               You are quite right. I had always classified them as bacteria.
               Ty for bringing me up to date...appreciated..
               Ok lets add them to this forum question.." bacteria and archaea."   :-)

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Anytime quark. I assumed you classified them as bacteria, I do the same. But they are incredibly unique, wouldn't you agree?

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     ...absolutely!  :-)

                     replyreport
            2. 62

               Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Wow! I never knew... Thanks MrPopo

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Anytime Misha

                  replyreport
   2. 71

      Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      What is a life form?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         RAf:
         Any extant life on this planet.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              I'm just being difficult, I guess.  I don't honestly feel bacteria is a life form because if it were then Earth would be a life form.  I accept bacteria and Earth are alive, just as trees and other plants are, but I cant agree to a living breathing life form without the necessities.  Bacteria doesn't think, it just survives because that's what it was meant to do.    jmho.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Raf:
               As is usual, I disagree with everything you have presented...lol
               No problem, you offered your opinion civilly.  :-)

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    I expected us to disagree.  lol  As soon as I posted I should have known to stay away. lol

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Raf:
                     Not at all!
                     Your opinions are always welcome as long as they are civilly offered...:-)

                     replyreport
            2. 94

               wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               "Bacteria doesn't think, it just survives because that's what it was meant to do".  Pretty much describes my in-laws, too! 

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    mine too!!

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Clearly intelligence or the ability to think,does not require consciousness, nor does it require feelings or emotions.
                     
                     One might also ask what consciousness has to do with intelligence. Since we know that computers have intelligence and no consciousness, why should we even classify intelligence with consciousness at all?
                     
                     Consciousness has more to do with feelings and emotions (qualia) than it does with intelligence. In fact you can even train yourself to eliminate thought (and thus intelligence) through mediation or biofeedback techniques, at least briefly, but you will still feel.
                     
                     It appears that consciousness evolved later in complex brains, perhaps even as an emerged property of brain chemistry.
                     
                     You might ask yourself at what level of evolution does consciousness exist in animals. We have little problem with seeing evidence of consciousness in humans, apes, dolphins, or even cats and dogs, but what about insects, microbes and viruses?
                     
                     Trying to pigeonhole just where non-con consciousness ends and consciousness begins only misses the mark and can lead us to create reification fallacies.

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        computers dont have intelligence - intelligence is the ability to think.
                        
                        Computers have stored intelligence - which involves the ability to recall information.

                        replyreport
                        1. 62

                           luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           This has been a much debated question in that you weren't born with intelligence but it was learned.
                           
                           First of all I have would like you to answer a question.
                           
                           What is 4x13? Did you have to think to answer that? Yes? Well does that mean that a computer can think because it can answer that question.
                           
                           I think yes, depending on your definition of thinking.
                           
                           From everything we know about intelligence, one thing remains clear: intelligence requires some kind of central processing system-- a brain. Whether the brain consists of biological or electrical components, it must have the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge by means of thought and reason.

                           replyreport
                           1. 71

                              Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Mankind is born with intelligence because intelligence involves the ability to acquire knowledge through logic, thought, critical thinking, reasoning, and analytical skills as well as emotion.
                              
                              Computers are created to process information - computers don't think for themselves.
                              
                              Will the time come when computers can do what mankind can do?  I doubt it.

                              replyreport
                              1. 62

                                 luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Computers can think (calculate) by performing logical rules within algorithms, gather information (knowledge) about its environment though sensors, and apply its acquired knowledge for an unconscious goal.
                                 
                                 Thinking then, means a dynamic system able to manipulate abstract symbols, regardless of whether they occur in nervous systems, brains, computer programs, or neural nets.
                                 
                                 To achieve a goal means to gather information about the environment (knowledge) and to make predictions from that information.
                                 
                                 To gather information requires senses, or sensors and the ability to attach labels to the sensed perceptions and to manipulate these labels to make predictions (algorithms, thinking).
                                 
                                 Biological intelligence evolves out of multi-cellular bodies with senses, nervous systems or brains (wet-ware).
                                 
                                 Non-biological forms of intelligence require sensors, electrical networks or computer brains (hardware).
                                 
                                 I agree...emotion is lacking.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 71

                                    Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Computers can think (calculate) by performing logical rules within algorithms, gather information (knowledge) about its environment though sensors, and apply its acquired knowledge for an unconscious goal.
                                    
                                    Computers can't think!  Everything you claim a computer can 'do' is actually called 'Programming'.  A computer which has been programmed has been told what to 'think' therefore no actual thinking occurs.
                                    
                                    Achieving a goal does not necessarily involve gathering information.  I had a goal to quit smoking - I achieved my goal.  I did not have to gather information in order to achieve this goal - I had to have will-power and use a technique called 'Mind Over Matter'.
                                    
                                    Computer sensors are no different than a computer which has been programmed and told what to 'think' - therefore, again, no actual thinking occurs.
                                    
                                    
                                    Something I didn't mention above: Intelligence involves independent thought, which, by definition, proves a computer does not have intelligence because a computer has to be told what to 'think'.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 62

                                       luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       The dictionary meaning defines intelligence as "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge by means of thought and reason." Note, this meaning leaves out many other capabilities which we might also consider intelligent.
                                       
                                       For example an artist who creates an abstract painting does not necessarily need to acquire knowledge nor even apply it through reason, yet we label many artists as intelligent or genius. However at least one common denominator seems requisite for all known types of intelligences to occur: thinking.
                                       
                                       To have intelligence means having the ability to think. All forms of thinking (excluding, perhaps extremely insane forms of thinking) results in some kind of intelligent action, even if it may seem very low intelligence to us. The neurological understanding of the mechanisms of intelligence remains unclear but I suspect that we will discover that the terms "intelligence" and "thinking" will prove entirely synonymous. The advent of AI may prove this theory correct.

                                       report
                                    2. 72

                                       mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Technically, we're programmed through DNA... we've been told what to think through our environment as well.
                                       
                                       Your smoking example (good on you, btw) involves a technique which you had to learn. You were not inherently able to do so, and even if you were that would boil down to DNA.
                                       
                                       We, in many ways, are told what to think as well, again through the environment and DNA.
                                       
                                       I'm not saying our thought processes are the same as computers, but we do function very similarly. It's quite difficult to define thinking.

                                       report
                                    3. 71

                                       Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Luvpassion -
                                       
                                       Dictionary definitions are simplified examples - its up to the human thought processes to boil it down to specifics. 
                                       
                                       I believe the reason we can call an artist a genius is because they have the ability to create without putting effort of thought into their creation - but that doesn't mean they don't think in order to create. 
                                       
                                       (what do you mean by 'the advent of AI?)
                                       
                                       mrpopo -
                                       
                                       I disagree.  If my DNA had programmed me I believe I'd be a completely different person! (based on my parents)   lol  Our environment does influence our thinking, but doesn't tell us what to think.
                                       
                                       Sorry, but I find it funny how you are saying humans and computers function similarly - humans created computers so...naturally there would be some similarities.
                                       
                                       I don't think its difficult to define thinking, but it is difficult to explain the thinking process.

                                       report
                  2. 62

                     luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Don't misunderstand Raf...I agree that computers will never become self-aware(My Opinion) The theories behind AI are compelling...hence the debate. Thanks for the discussion.
                     
                     Teri

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Glad you said that - I was getting a different impression.

                        replyreport
                        1. 62

                           luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Sorry...lol, I was just considering how the computers in my husbands aircraft help protect him. I'm amazed at the differences in technology between his and my grandfathers old warbird.

                           replyreport
                           1. 71

                              Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Technology is meant to amaze - I'm disappointed in the younger generations who take technology for granted.

                              replyreport
            3. 82

               psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Life forms consume, excrete, grow and reproduce.  The earth doesn't do the last two.

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  How do you know?

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     It's a bit big to be doing them without anyone noticing.  But if it is, then it is alive. (I don't think it is).

                     replyreport
                     1. 72

                        mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.
                        
                        By that definition, planets are not "living". But Earth does contain living creatures, which you can consider as cells of the planet. It can also be healthy (thriving with life) or unhealthy (a barren wasteland).

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Indeed, that is the more complete way of saying it.  "Life" is defined biologically.

                           replyreport
                        2. 94

                           wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Well, Mrpopo, let's see here.  The earth constantly "eats" meteors and as a result is still growing.  Tectonic plates are continually being forced down into the interior, while volcanoes produce lava coming out; this maintains the homeostasis process.  We "stimulated" it in the gulf of mexico and it is still spitting at us like an octopus.  When tapped by another planet a few years ago it produced the moon, which is also growing.  Not sure if it can evolve; we've only seen it only in the environment of space.

                           replyreport
                           1. 82

                              psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              The earth doesn't really eat meteors any more than my car eats mosquitoes, and it isn't growing.

                              replyreport
                     2. 72

                        Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Science has already discovered that the Earth is still evolving. Therefore it is alive. It reproduces life forms, grows different arrays of life-forms. It no longer produces human life forms because it's evolved beyond that by now.

                        replyreport
                        1. 72

                           mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Can you show me where science has discovered this?
                           
                           A dead carcass is home to bacteria and scavengers, which grow and reproduce.
                           
                           I don't think you can consider that to be "living" simply because it has living things in it.

                           replyreport
   3. 72

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No! Human beings are.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         CAgs:
         Absolutely wrong...lol

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Hey Qwark, did you see the at the end.
            
            You are NO fun!

            replyreport
            1. 61

               qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Cags:   lolol
               Yeh but my bad!
               I didn't pay any attention to the look on it's face....:-)
               I'm bent over , apply boot to "bumpkin."  :-)

               replyreport
   4. 68

      waynetposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Well pour some bleach on it and ask it in the morning, if there's no reply, consider it a hopeless life form!

      replyreport
2. 57

   yoshi97posted 13 years ago

   The most successful life is that which can exist under the most conditions. That's what makes us successful - and bacteria even more so. And of course, bacteria will outlive us. They were here first, and they'll still be here - long after we are gone.
   
   It's their own basic simplicity and meager needs that insure their success.

   replyreport
3. 72

   mrpopoposted 13 years ago

   I think they're the least evolved. Isn't that why they're the most adaptive?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      They are highly evolved and adaptive.
      They are "simple" and can mutate to adapt to a change in environment very quickly. Every time they must adapt, their genetics adjust to allow the bactera or archaea to survive.
      Their evolution has been empirically proved.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, I don't even know what is meant by "more evolved" or "less evolved" to be honest.
         
         Can anyone clarify that for me

         replyreport
         1. 82

            psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think is really means anything.  Anything adapted to its niche is "evolved".

            replyreport
            1. 72

               mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               That's true. But what if its niche is the entire planet? Would that make bacteria more evolved?
               
               I guess that's true for us too, as humans.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I think any given species of bacteria has a niche, which is not the whole planet.  Counting them as a group would equate to counting all insects and animals as a group and possibly lumping them in with plants too....

                  replyreport
                  1. 72

                     mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     You read my mind

                     replyreport
            2. 61

               qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               A life forms ability to adapt to its environment is the processes of "natural selection" in full function.
               As environment changes, the unadaptive die off.
               The successful are those which can adapt rapidly to environmental changes.
               Those changes are the result of an organisms biochemistry adjusting to new environments.
               The more able an organism is to make those adjustments the greater is its ability to "survive."
               The simple fact that bacteria and archaea will outsurvive us is indicative of it being more "highly" evolved, in it's "simple" form, than man.
               Understand this tho, bacteria and archaea are very complex little organisms.
               The "goal" of all life is: "survival!"

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I would argue that the goal of life from an evolutionary point of view is reproduction.  Oops,I failed "life"

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Biologically speaking, the basic tenet of the study is that the "goal" of ALL life is survival.
                     Procreation is but a facet of that goal.
                     "Life" cannot exist without "survival."

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Survival cannot be accomplished without life.  Sounds like a never-ending cycle to me.

                        replyreport