Does evolution inevitably lead to annihilation of species?

[Squareinthecircle]

Today we see threats of nuclear war, experimental medication being dispensed and er, strongly recommended by government purportedly to combat what looks to be a released virus that men made. We are seemingly at the precipice of potential extinction at every turn. Advancements allowed for these activities, in science, math, etc- and humans.

Maybe the corona virus was leaked on purpose, maybe not, but the official line is that it was an accident. Since the common man is not privy to the details of their "gain of function" particulars we are right to mistrust and fear.

I started to consider the idea that the eventual destination of evolution might be annihilation of the species. Whether this adds clarity or muddies the waters some there are reports that there is strong evidence of a past nuclear war on Mars of all places.

This idea explains the Fermi Paradox as well.

[OceanBreeze]

I was ready to write this off as yet another crackpot post, until I started to look into it a bit and found that it contains at least a grain of truth.

It is entirely possible that a self-sustaining natural nuclear fission reactor caused a massive nuclear explosion on Mars in the distant past.

I only say this is a possibility because there is evidence that a much smaller event happened here on Earth about 2 billion years ago.

Don’t take my word for it; “On 25 September 1972 the CEA announced their finding that self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions had occurred on Earth about 2 billion years ago.”

The CEA is the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA).

Source: Wikipedia

Make of it what you will; (I’m not sure what to make of it)

[Squareinthecircle]

On 11/29/2024 at 4:39 AM, OceanBreeze said:

I was ready to write this off as yet another crackpot post, until I started to look into it a bit and found that it contains at least a grain of truth.

 

It is entirely possible that a self-sustaining natural nuclear fission reactor caused a massive nuclear explosion on Mars in the distant past.

 

I only say this is a possibility because there is evidence that a much smaller event happened here on Earth about 2 billion years ago.

 

Don’t take my word for it; “On 25 September 1972 the CEA announced their finding that self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions had occurred on Earth about 2 billion years ago.”

 

The CEA is the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA).

 

Source: Wikipedia

 

Make of it what you will; (I’m not sure what to make of it)

 

Yes I've seen that- who knows what to think.  Thanks for taking me seriously, but what about the bulk of the theory?  

[OceanBreeze]

19 hours ago, Squareinthecircle said:

  Thanks for taking me seriously, but what about the bulk of the theory?  

I agree with the basic idea that we need to become more sophisticated,  enlightened, and compassionate to our fellow humans as we become more technologically advanced. Just as you don’t give a child a loaded gun to play with, we need to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people who harbor feelings of superstition, fear and ignorance towards  others. Unfortunately, our biological and technical evolution has not eradicated those outdated religious beliefs and other human ideologies that lead to such harmful feelings towards others.

I’m afraid you did muddy the waters when you wrote “there are reports that there is strong evidence of a past nuclear war on Mars of all places.” Your post would have been much better received without adding that!

 

[Halc]

On 11/26/2024 at 7:47 PM, Squareinthecircle said:

Today we see threats of nuclear war, experimental medication being dispensed and er, strongly recommended by government purportedly to combat what looks to be a released virus that men made. We are seemingly at the precipice of potential extinction at every turn. Advancements allowed for these activities, in science, math, etc- and humans.

Maybe the corona virus was leaked on purpose, maybe not, but the official line is that it was an accident. Since the common man is not privy to the details of their "gain of function" particulars we are right to mistrust and fear.

I started to consider the idea that the eventual destination of evolution might be annihilation of the species. Whether this adds clarity or muddies the waters some there are reports that there is strong evidence of a past nuclear war on Mars of all places.

This idea explains the Fermi Paradox as well.

The Fermi paradox articles call this the 'great filter', some test that a technological species must pass in order to not get filtered out. It does not look well for humans. Problem is, our current civilization depends on technological continuity to maintain itself. War is one way that ends, but so is the simple exhaustion of non-renewable resources. Once gone, that's it. We cannot advance again and the species reverts to just an animal with an expensive brain that might be more of a hindrance than a help. One has to eat an awful lot of food that other animals don't need, in order to feed the expensive toy.

On 11/29/2024 at 7:39 AM, OceanBreeze said:

It is entirely possible that a self-sustaining natural nuclear fission reactor caused a massive nuclear explosion on Mars in the distant past.

Despite the frequent depiction in fiction ('Aliens' come to mind), nuclear reactors cannot explode. At worst they melt down, arguably a worse fate than a bomb, but not one that is quite as fun to depict on the big screen.

 

16 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

I agree with the basic idea that we need to become more sophisticated,  enlightened, and compassionate to our fellow humans as we become more technologically advanced.

The species needs to act for the benefit of the species instead of the individual. I know of almost nobody capable of that. Our core moral code even forbids it. We're quite doomed to fail the Fermi test.

I notice that several people might point out the problem (as I am doing here), but nobody posits a solution (including me).

Edited December 18, 2024 by Halc

[OceanBreeze]

5 hours ago, Halc said:

Despite the frequent depiction in fiction ('Aliens' come to mind), nuclear reactors cannot explode. At worst they melt down, arguably a worse fate than a bomb, but not one that is quite as fun to depict on the big screen.

Yes, as we know, the conditions required for a nuclear explosion involve a rapid, uncontrolled chain reaction in a compact mass of fissile material under high pressure. Knowing this, when a reactor is built, it is designed to prevent creating those conditions. Specifically, the reactor cores are designed so they do not build up the high pressure needed for a nuclear explosion.

What is being discussed here is a hypothesis for a naturally occurring (not man made) nuclear fissile reactor on Mars. According to the source paper:

The Martian Large, Natural, Paleo-Nuclear Reactor Hypothesis:

“In Mare Acidalium, a large ore body of incompatible elements formed with concentrated uranium, thorium and potassium at kilometer depth, probably from an asteroidal impact. Due to the lack of plate tectonics, the ore body was not disrupted over Mars history but supported nuclear fission reactions based on a thermal mode. This process began 1billion years ago when 235U was three percent and may have been triggered by a deep intrusion of groundwater into the ore body due to loss of geothermal heat on Mars. The body was of high concentration of uranium and thorium oxides. After many millions of years in operation the paleo-reactor managed to begin breeding fuel in the form of 233U and 239Pu faster than it was burned up. Much radioactive potassium was also created by the neutron flux during this period of thermal neutron operation. At some point the ore body suffered a “prompt critical” and the water boiled out making the neutron spectrum harder and a runaway chain reaction on the 233U and 239Pu ensued. Because of the size of the ore body, and its burial at kilometer depth, the reaction was inertially confined or “tamped” so that explosive disassembly was delayed until a high degree of fission burn-up was achieved. The resulting energy release was catastrophic and resulted in an explosive disassembly of the ore body as a dust and ash cloud similar to a large asteroid impact.”

It is a hypothesis only. “The occurrence of such a large natural reactor may explain some puzzling aspects of Mars data, such as the superabundance of K and Th on the surface and the large inventory of radiogenic isotopes in Mars atmosphere.”

Make of this what you will, I am not convinced either way. I do find it interesting.

[Halc]

18 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

“In Mare Acidalium, a large ore body of incompatible elements formed with concentrated uranium, thorium and potassium at kilometer depth, probably from an asteroidal impact. Due to the lack of plate tectonics, the ore body was not disrupted over Mars history but supported nuclear fission reactions based on a thermal mode. This process began 1billion years ago when 235U was three percent and may have been triggered by a deep intrusion of groundwater into the ore body due to loss of geothermal heat on Mars. The body was of high concentration of uranium and thorium oxides. After many millions of years in operation the paleo-reactor managed to begin breeding fuel in the form of 233U and 239Pu faster than it was burned up. Much radioactive potassium was also created by the neutron flux during this period of thermal neutron operation. At some point the ore body suffered a “prompt critical” and the water boiled out making the neutron spectrum harder and a runaway chain reaction on the 233U and 239Pu ensued. Because of the size of the ore body, and its burial at kilometer depth, the reaction was inertially confined or “tamped” so that explosive disassembly was delayed until a high degree of fission burn-up was achieved. The resulting energy release was catastrophic and resulted in an explosive disassembly of the ore body as a dust and ash cloud similar to a large asteroid impact.”

That's really cool.  I am hardly qualified to comment, but when has that stopped me?

Whacked hard enough to drive the ore down a km, but soft enough to not splatter the stuff all over.  Hard sell, that one.

The fission takes place on Mars but not the asteroid pre-impact. Seems unlikely since the concentration should be higher before impact.  But the ore sits there for a super long time until water does something to what, pull it together?  Water does do stuff like that, so maybe. 

Now it needs to be a bomb, which apparently is triggered by critical mass, and the subsequent boiling off of water. That's not going to happen in a short time since the water has nowhere to go quickly.  Geyser maybe, with the overall pressure holding in the rest.  Without the water, it goes all bomb on us, much slower than our weapons, but far more pressure keeping it there while it goes on. Eventually the pressure breaks the surface and you get this crater, a lot like Mt St Helens depressurizing in 1980.  Where is that?  How much does Martian weather erase craters like that?  All they have is wind driven dust. So what, it fills in?  Look for a deep sand hole?

Just vocalizing my naive thoughts. I admit none of it seems to kill the idea. My strongest skepticism is at the top, before all the alchemy takes place.

 

Since we're going off topic (sort of), it turns out they recently found the world's oldest fossilized forest, right by me (bicycle ride away), one old enough to push back the date of the earliest real trees.  What they mostly have is a cluster of root systems, really big ones, like with a 15 meter footprint.

Edited December 20, 2024 by Halc

[Squareinthecircle]

On 12/18/2024 at 3:48 PM, Halc said:

The Fermi paradox articles call this the 'great filter', some test that a technological species must pass in order to not get filtered out. It does not look well for humans. Problem is, our current civilization depends on technological continuity to maintain itself. War is one way that ends, but so is the simple exhaustion of non-renewable resources. Once gone, that's it. We cannot advance again and the species reverts to just an animal with an expensive brain that might be more of a hindrance than a help. One has to eat an awful lot of food that other animals don't need, in order to feed the expensive toy.

Despite the frequent depiction in fiction ('Aliens' come to mind), nuclear reactors cannot explode. At worst they melt down, arguably a worse fate than a bomb, but not one that is quite as fun to depict on the big screen.

 

The species needs to act for the benefit of the species instead of the individual. I know of almost nobody capable of that. Our core moral code even forbids it. We're quite doomed to fail the Fermi test.

I notice that several people might point out the problem (as I am doing here), but nobody posits a solution (including me).

Nice.  I haven't studied the Paradox much but guess I should get to it.  

Surviving the "filter"- I can think of futures worse than not making it.

[Squareinthecircle]

On 12/19/2024 at 4:23 PM, Halc said:

That's really cool.  I am hardly qualified to comment, but when has that stopped me?

Whacked hard enough to drive the ore down a km, but soft enough to not splatter the stuff all over.  Hard sell, that one.

The fission takes place on Mars but not the asteroid pre-impact. Seems unlikely since the concentration should be higher before impact.  But the ore sits there for a super long time until water does something to what, pull it together?  Water does do stuff like that, so maybe. 

Now it needs to be a bomb, which apparently is triggered by critical mass, and the subsequent boiling off of water. That's not going to happen in a short time since the water has nowhere to go quickly.  Geyser maybe, with the overall pressure holding in the rest.  Without the water, it goes all bomb on us, much slower than our weapons, but far more pressure keeping it there while it goes on. Eventually the pressure breaks the surface and you get this crater, a lot like Mt St Helens depressurizing in 1980.  Where is that?  How much does Martian weather erase craters like that?  All they have is wind driven dust. So what, it fills in?  Look for a deep sand hole?

Just vocalizing my naive thoughts. I admit none of it seems to kill the idea. My strongest skepticism is at the top, before all the alchemy takes place.

 

Since we're going off topic (sort of), it turns out they recently found the world's oldest fossilized forest, right by me (bicycle ride away), one old enough to push back the date of the earliest real trees.  What they mostly have is a cluster of root systems, really big ones, like with a 15 meter footprint.

Roots?  Sounds like what they did to the Brazilian Rosewood tree relatively recently- and now they're even digging those up to use.  These ancient ones likely ended up with a different fate I hope anyway.  But yeah it's cyclic. 

[Squareinthecircle]

On 12/17/2024 at 10:52 PM, OceanBreeze said:

I agree with the basic idea that we need to become more sophisticated,  enlightened, and compassionate to our fellow humans as we become more technologically advanced. Just as you don’t give a child a loaded gun to play with, we need to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people who harbor feelings of superstition, fear and ignorance towards  others. Unfortunately, our biological and technical evolution has not eradicated those outdated religious beliefs and other human ideologies that lead to such harmful feelings towards others.

 

I’m afraid you did muddy the waters when you wrote “there are reports that there is strong evidence of a past nuclear war on Mars of all places.” Your post would have been much better received without adding that!

 

 

 

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/cia-rdp96-00788r001900760001-9.pdf

[Moontanman]

On 12/17/2024 at 6:28 AM, Squareinthecircle said:

Yes I've seen that- who knows what to think.  Thanks for taking me seriously, but what about the bulk of the theory?  

The bulk of your "theory" (more like baseless assertions) shows you don't have a clue as to what biological evolution is much less how it works. Evolution has no goals, it has no direction, no apex, all it means is that organisms that are good enough to successfully reproduce do so and those that are not do not... that is it. You have no solution to anything other than your own imagined problems. 

[Squareinthecircle]

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

The bulk of your "theory" (more like baseless assertions) shows you don't have a clue as to what biological evolution is much less how it works. Evolution has no goals, it has no direction, no apex, all it means is that organisms that are good enough to successfully reproduce do so and those that are not do not... that is it. You have no solution to anything other than your own imagined problems. 

It's more a question than an assertion so I don't require proof or even evidence. It was pointed out that the idea is touched upon already in the Fermi Paradox.  Not sure why it's necessary to be rude. 

[OceanBreeze]

On 11/27/2024 at 7:47 AM, Squareinthecircle said:

Today we see threats of nuclear war, experimental medication being dispensed and er, strongly recommended by government purportedly to combat what looks to be a released virus that men made. We are seemingly at the precipice of potential extinction at every turn. Advancements allowed for these activities, in science, math, etc- and humans.

Maybe the corona virus was leaked on purpose, maybe not, but the official line is that it was an accident. Since the common man is not privy to the details of their "gain of function" particulars we are right to mistrust and fear.

I started to consider the idea that the eventual destination of evolution might be annihilation of the species.

I agree with Moontanman that the mechanism of natural selection selects certain traits based on the ecological and environmental niche that an organism lives in, and this process happens without goals or direction. Those organisms that are fortunate to possess those traits that happen to be beneficial, are better adapted to survive and reproduce.  

However, I think it is pragmatic to realize that many things have changed since Charles Darwin wrote his book, “On the Origin of Species”. There is no doubt Darwin’s ideas are still basically correct; humans still adapt to their environment through natural selection. However, there is also no doubt that humans  have developed the means to modify our environment, adding an additional layer of complexity to the evolutionary process.

Move over Charles Darwin and make some room for evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins’ concept of "extended phenotype", attempts to explain how and why organisms, including humans, shape their own environment through their behavior and the choices that they make.

Presently we have taken the concept of “extended phenotype” even further with our ability to make intentional manipulations of DNA’s genetic code.

If we accept that genetic engineering is a product of human technology, how can we not accept human technology is now a part of the "extended phenotype"of humans?

Bottom line, in my opinion, human evolution can no longer be simply described according to the ideas of Charles Darwin; our evolution is not driven only by natural selection. Humans are engaged in activities that may eventually give us sufficient control over the evolutionary process that it will have a direction and lead to some goal; unfortunately, it may lead to an “own goal” although I don’t feel that such an outcome is inevitable.

[Squareinthecircle]

On 12/28/2024 at 2:45 AM, OceanBreeze said:

I agree with Moontanman that the mechanism of natural selection selects certain traits based on the ecological and environmental niche that an organism lives in, and this process happens without goals or direction. Those organisms that are fortunate to possess those traits that happen to be beneficial, are better adapted to survive and reproduce.  

 

This keeps being mentioned but is not applicable to my suggestion.  I never claimed that evolution is a conscious being that chooses annihilation, my question is if all evolutionary roads lead to extinction of the species in question.  It appears intelligence + self awareness + greed= done.

[Vmedvil]

56 minutes ago, Squareinthecircle said:

This keeps being mentioned but is not applicable to my suggestion.  I never claimed that evolution is a conscious being that chooses annihilation, my question is if all evolutionary roads lead to extinction of the species in question.  It appears intelligence + self awareness + greed= done.

I do think evolution does ultimately lead to extinction if they do not become spacefaring then simply they become extinct. The fate of 99% of species on Earth was extinction in the past with 1% reproducing enough and continuing the exist, under the logic that 99% become extinct of species and 1% survive we can realize that the ultimate fate of "most species" is extinction thus if we survive as humans to go to space then we are the 1% of species that survive the evolutionary process of natural selection as a self aware species. Personally, I think that the "great filter" is weapons of mass destruction and there usage to destroy the self aware species in warfare against themselves, which I actually agree with you squareinthecircle.

"According to scientific estimates, over 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct, meaning the vast majority of species that have evolved throughout history have eventually gone extinct. 

 

Key points about extinction in evolution:

 

• High extinction rate:

  The vast majority of species that ever existed have gone extinct, with only a small fraction surviving to the present day. 

   
• Natural process:

   

  Extinction is a natural part of evolution, occurring when species can no longer adapt to changing environmental conditions or face too much competition. 

   
• Mass extinctions:

   

  While extinction happens continuously, there have been several catastrophic events in Earth's history called "mass extinctions" where a large percentage of species died out relatively quickly"

   

  Link =  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

   

   

Edited December 30, 2024 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

On 12/28/2024 at 5:45 AM, OceanBreeze said:

Move over Charles Darwin and make some room for evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins’ concept of "extended phenotype", attempts to explain how and why organisms, including humans, shape their own environment through their behavior and the choices that they make.

 

Presently we have taken the concept of “extended phenotype” even further with our ability to make intentional manipulations of DNA’s genetic code.

 

If we accept that genetic engineering is a product of human technology, how can we not accept human technology is now a part of the "extended phenotype"of humans?

 

Bottom line, in my opinion, human evolution can no longer be simply described according to the ideas of Charles Darwin; our evolution is not driven only by natural selection. Humans are engaged in activities that may eventually give us sufficient control over the evolutionary process that it will have a direction and lead to some goal; unfortunately, it may lead to an “own goal” although I don’t feel that such an outcome is inevitable.

 

I agree with you oceanbreeze, genetic engineering is not under the control of natural selection and would classify as the "Extended Phenotype". Genetic Engineering and gene therapy are not described by Darwin's evolutionary theory by natural selection as Darwin couldn't have known this technology would develop hundreds of years after his death. Genetic Engineering is a sort of "unnatural selection" by humans and not governed by the natural selection of evolution and natural genetic mutation.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

On 12/25/2024 at 1:18 PM, Moontanman said:

The bulk of your "theory" (more like baseless assertions) shows you don't have a clue as to what biological evolution is much less how it works. Evolution has no goals, it has no direction, no apex, all it means is that organisms that are good enough to successfully reproduce do so and those that are not do not... that is it. You have no solution to anything other than your own imagined problems. 

I agree with this as well, evolution is under the control of genetic mutation in where the better mutation allows the organism to reproduce better and survive. Natural selection is not a self aware being it has no goals or purpose but we do find it generally leads to extinction more often than survival for most species from the influence of natural selection.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Vmedvil