Ancient organic compounds found on Mars

[Ttaskmaster]

I use 'cliche' to mean a statement or idea often repeated.

So more leitmotif than actual cliche, then... even though the use of terms like leitmotif in a context like this is rather cliche!!

In the case of Origin it was a cliche he didn't use, but everyone else does(as I said it was added to the second edition, the publishers saw it as a marketing handle). But it actually distracts from the original.

Fifth edition, actually, by Darwin himself.
Darwin also used it earlier in 1868:

"This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term "natural selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity... "

What does 'survival of the fittest' even mean?

Darwin says it means, "better designed for an immediate, local environment".

For example.. The meteorite impact that lead to the destruction of the dinosaurs cause a massive climate change in a very short period of time, so short and so severe that the majority of dinosaurs could not adapt to the changed environment quickly enough - so they died out.

So all I need to do is find a planet that hasn't been hit by any big rocks, and that could theoretically still have dinosaurs living on?
Could this be where I begin my Planet Of The Dinosaurs theme park franchise?
Cool - I'mma buy myself a telescope and get started this very weekend!!

[Ttaskmaster]

I think if humans switched for a while to that viewpoint, they would view everything alive in a different way.

IF is the decider, though - Because even if humans in general did go all tree-huggy "We're all one", there will always be the few (or even the one) who takes advantage of that and stabs everyone else in the back to get what they want..... and THAT is a prime example of survival of the fittest.

[johnroe]

You seem to have a complex. I'm confused as to where I've mentioned anything about logical analogies, or where you think I've started calling you a liar. In other threads I've pointed out your complete and utter failure to provide any evidence to corroborate your claims or support your opinions, despite repeated requests. But if you feel awkward and like that shows you to be a liar, then I'm afraid that is very much your problem and something you are bringing to this. Please don't project your own feelings onto me and insinuate I've made claims about you when I have not.

If you mean cliche to mean a statement or idea often repeated then your use of it in several posts is incorrect with itself. Also posters asking repeatedly for an answer is not a cliche, nor is saying your opinion doesn't make sense. They are simply pressing you for an answer.

Sorry about that, I must remember to put 'in general sense' when referring to people saying I lie. I think you called me a 'conspiracy theorist'. All the analogies you made, weren't relevant, something about stop lights or taxes, I don't know, but it doesn't compute. If you ask me anything in a reasonable way, I'll answer you. But really when it comes to some questions, just check it for yourselves. If you find alternative info show me. I can usually reference, well definitely every book I quote, and every reference on the web. I'm basing everything on absorbing data.

[johnroe]

T>Like I said I read it years ago, as I heard the story the publisher put it in the 2nd. Stories eh! Does it really matter. What I'm saying is the cliche is the exact opposite of what the book is about, but political spin has been around as long as politics. Pre 1945; life, animals, humans were viewed as at different levels in hierarchies, but if you just shift your perspective. I've also absorbed a lot of French theorists, it's really as I said before about a reinvention of the human model of relations. I think that's what Darwin saw, the interconnected relations between all life, from symbiotic to cannibalistic. I'd need to go back and look at some of this stuff to explain.

[Corky34]

Also, can I just check, as you use the word a lot, by what you interpret the word "cliche" to mean, as I'm not following a number of the posts in which you use it, and I'm wondering if perhaps you mean something else.

I was thinking that also, I'm guessing (s)he's interpreted it to mean something different than the rest of the world as (s)he seems to think any phrase or opinion (s)he doesn't agree with is overused and betrays a lack of original thought.

You know considering Corky keeps giving me grief over not using proper debating techniques on a forum(about tech parts)...

Erm, no i don't, i keep pulling you up on your use of logical fallacies in support of your opinion, it's got nothing to do with 'proper' debating techniques, it's your pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure.

EDIT: And it's fallacies not analogies.

[Butcher]

I was thinking that also, I'm guessing (s)he's interpreted it to mean something different than the rest of the world as (s)he seems to think any phrase or opinion (s)he doesn't agree with is overused and betrays a lack of original thought.

Sums up John...

[johnroe]

I've never seen such desperate attempts to discredit everything someone says, by a so called bunch of experts. And now not content with the usual boring nonsense, they are telling me how to speak. I mean 'cliche' and I mean 'illogical analogies'. But I'm wondering why they are so desperate, it obviously has nothing to do with the thread, or the flow of conversation. They have absolutely nothing to say on the topic, and even when you Corky manage a few sentences about the topic, that's it and then back to the attacks. The problem is you act like a pack, but I just see a herd. Interesting!

[peterb]

peterb> But it wasn't in the original. I think if you look at the whole of life on the planet as one entity, it has adapted to make the best use of that environment(ie: the planet). What the cliche suggests is that the most 'fit', the most competitive and able will survive(which is what Shaftsbury intended).

Competing for resources is an abstract concept (as opposed to the sentient sense of being competitive). All living things compete for resources - some may be adapted to compete better than others - such as humans because of (for example) our ability to create tools. (A trait not just confined to humans, other animals have been observed using simple tools)

Okay I do have some out there ideas occasionally, but logic alone isn't enough, you need creative thinking. Although I've never convinced anyone of this, what I get from the book is all life on Earth is one entity, but just split into many diverse forms. I think if humans switched for a while to that viewpoint, they would view everything alive in a different way. Which is how I think Darwin saw life.

Well, if thinking like that helps you make sense of the world, thats fine, and while it may be true that all life evolved from one creative event, its more likely that life itself evolved from the fortutitous creation of amino acids, which fortuitously came together to create simple life. There are many plausible theories - from seeding from space, creation by close proximity of chemicals under pressure (ice) or lightening discharges. So its just as likely that life evolved in different places on the planet, and that may have had different forms. The evidence for that is in bacteria that live n conditions that would not be expected to survive in hostile conditions, such as bacteria that live near the acid outlets of undersea volcanit vents that do not require oxygen to support their life. (chemoautotrophic bacteria that use sulphur compounds to provide energy in a process called chemosynthesis)

Here's short film which looks at the massive range of insects on the planet, It's called While Darwin Sleeps>

Most insects have a very short lifespan so the chances of favourable mutations are high, enabling them to respond to changing environments, so it isnt really surprising that they should evolve many different forms to colonise different environments, or that predators would evolve to take advantage of other insects. Humans have evolved to be omnivorous so we can predate on both vegetable and animal sources. The energy obtained fro meat is higher per unit mass than plant sources (as herbivores have done the energy concentration. The use of fire to cook food makes it more digestible, so even more energy can be extracted and it is thought that that enabled the development of larger brains/greater intelligence in omnivores.

[Corky34]

I've never seen such desperate attempts to discredit everything someone says, by a so called bunch of experts.

Experts? What experts, there ain't none of them around hear, and besides it's not the experts it's how you interpret them.

And now not content with the usual boring nonsense, they are telling me how to speak. I mean 'cliche' and I mean 'illogical analogies'. But I'm wondering why they are so desperate, it obviously has nothing to do with the thread, or the flow of conversation. They have absolutely nothing to say on the topic, and even when you Corky manage a few sentences about the topic, that's it and then back to the attacks. The problem is you act like a pack, but I just see a herd. Interesting!

There's no such thing as 'illogical analogies' there's false analogies and arguments from analogies but there ain't no 'illogical analogies', that's something you've just made up.

Also you can't mean cliché as every time you've accused someone of using a cliché they've neither lacked in original thought or have expressed a thought or opinion that is overused, arguably it's you who's lacking in original thought and expressing thought and opinions that are overused every time you claim someone is using a cliché.

And yes this has nothing to do with the topic but you were the one to bring my name into it so i think it only fair that i point out, yet again, that you're being fallacious, if you don't like it you know what you can do.

[johnroe]

Corky if I want to call their analogies illogical, I will do. It's the perfect description. Yes how ironic of me to ridicule forum cliches, don't you understand why oh erudite one! I see cliches as just lazy thinking and in this respect I was referring to 'survival of the fittest'. I realise now that you have no intention of contributing anything. I'll wait until you get back on topic.

[johnroe]

Competing for resources is an abstract concept (as opposed to the sentient sense of being competitive). All living things compete for resources - some may be adapted to compete better than others - such as humans because of (for example) our ability to create tools. (A trait not just confined to humans, other animals have been observed using simple tools)


Well, if thinking like that helps you make sense of the world, thats fine, and while it may be true that all life evolved from one creative event, its more likely that life itself evolved from the fortutitous creation of amino acids, which fortuitously came together to create simple life. There are many plausible theories - from seeding from space, creation by close proximity of chemicals under pressure (ice) or lightening discharges. So its just as likely that life evolved in different places on the planet, and that may have had different forms. The evidence for that is in bacteria that live n conditions that would not be expected to survive in hostile conditions, such as bacteria that live near the acid outlets of undersea volcanit vents that do not require oxygen to support their life. (chemoautotrophic bacteria that use sulphur compounds to provide energy in a process called chemosynthesis)



Most insects have a very short lifespan so the chances of favourable mutations are high, enabling them to respond to changing environments, so it isnt really surprising that they should evolve many different forms to colonise different environments, or that predators would evolve to take advantage of other insects. Humans have evolved to be omnivorous so we can predate on both vegetable and animal sources. The energy obtained fro meat is higher per unit mass than plant sources (as herbivores have done the energy concentration. The use of fire to cook food makes it more digestible, so even more energy can be extracted and it is thought that that enabled the development of larger brains/greater intelligence in omnivores.

I'm not sure it's just resources. I think life adapts to any environment. So lichens living on rocks are perfectly adapted, but living in a different time scale to us. So each type of life that succeeds is perfectly adapted to it's niche. I agree tools is a game changer, although unless we do manage to solve problems as quick as we create them, it may be our undoing.

I think you misunderstood me there, but this is pretty much the same conclusion I came to. The first organisms had to create an atmosphere. I think life may have started at various parts of the Earth, but it may have started and been killed off a many times before working. There's something about this randomness that doesn't quite fit though, it's too tenuous. There is intelligence at cellular level, but some of the way animals have adapted is astonishing as well. Toads that can become dormant(I think it's toads, some crocs as well), or fish that can survive immense pressure and cold

When I say 'cannibalise' I mean if life is to survive on a previously barren planet, then the history of life on Earth is perpetual cannibalism of all species on other species, did David Attenborough use that line.

[Corky34]

Corky if I want to call their analogies illogical, I will do. It's the perfect description. Yes how ironic of me to ridicule forum cliches, don't you understand why oh erudite one! I see cliches as just lazy thinking and in this respect I was referring to 'survival of the fittest'. I realise now that you have no intention of contributing anything. I'll wait until you get back on topic.

Let me guess, you interpreted them as such.

[ik9000]

Sorry about that, I must remember to put 'in general sense' when referring to people saying I lie. I think you called me a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Again you think wrong. Do you actually try looking up any facts before posting? Stop making comments about me that simply are not true. Or I defy you, find me the post where I say that. I'm waiting for either proof or an apology.

All the analogies you made, weren't relevant, something about stop lights or taxes, I don't know, but it doesn't compute.

Analogies are relevant - it's just you who can't grasp reasoning IMO. And I have shown you alternative info repeatedly. You then cease to respond to the question and start going off in a different direction.

If you ask me anything in a reasonable way, I'll answer you.

Then why the long list of unanswered questions in the grenfell cladding thread? You've not answered those at all despite repeated and very reasonable requests to do so.

There seems to be a significant disconnect between how you perceive people's posts and everyone else does. Are you on the autistic spectrum by any chance? You remind me a lot of one my friends at university when he first arrived.

But really when it comes to some questions, just check it for yourselves. If you find alternative info show me. I can usually reference, well definitely every book I quote, and every reference on the web. I'm basing everything on absorbing data.

The only data you are absorbing is your own biased, self-endorsing, mis-interpretation of what you deem worthy to consider. Anything else you just choose to filter out. And you haven't quoted any reference book material people can actually look up for themselves. Not once.

Out of interest do you have a degree? Have you had to write a thesis? Have you had to properly reference anything in your life?

[ik9000]

The problem is you act like a pack, but I just see a herd. Interesting!

No, the problem is we are finding common problems in your rather unique approach to reasoning, forming opinions, and stubborn refusal to demonstrate sound evidence to support those opinions. In my case, I find you eager to throw slurs and smears about me, mocking my professional experience, saying I've made derogatory remarks about you where I haven't, and then getting on your high-horse to claim everyone else is ganging up on you when all I can see people doing is trying to understand how on earth you can be so convinced of an utterly untenable position. It baffles me, and is either an ingenious piece of trolling, a sypmtom of some kind of asbergers/autism, or else, well... as the fruit displays the nature of the tree, so the words display the character of the man.

[ik9000]

Corky if I want to call their analogies illogical, I will do.

Seriously? This is a case in point of why people are challenging you!

It's the perfect description.

No. No it isn't. It really, really is not.

Yes how ironic of me to ridicule forum cliches, don't you understand why oh erudite one!

No. Starting at, "1) it's not a cliche" and moving on from there.

I see cliches as just lazy thinking and in this respect I was referring to 'survival of the fittest'.

ok, well most people would tend to go with the actual definition of cliche, since we tend to use words for what they actually mean, rather than assigning them an alternative meaning like some bad stag-do drinking game tedium. It kind of helps society to get by if we can all agree what something does and doesn't mean and then use it that way in a consistent manner.

Lazy thinking does not equal survival of the fittest if, with your "superior thinking" (that being the opposite of lazy thinking you're assigning to others), you cannot communicate properly with those you interdepend on for your own coexistance, and ultimately survival. Hence my very valid questions on how you interpret road rules, or safety instructions, or legal obligations. You seem so keen to say it's your interpretation of things that matters, but actually that does not work in practice.

I realise now that you have no intention of contributing anything. I'll wait until you get back on topic.

There we go, the classic dodge. Quasi insult above, then saying "I won't reply". Why? Because you know you can't justify your own position. I've seen this several times in life where someone knows they're on thin ice, but are just too proud and stubborn to admit it.

[peterb]

I'm not sure it's just resources. I think life adapts to any environment. So lichens living on rocks are perfectly adapted, but living in a different time scale to us. So each type of life that succeeds is perfectly adapted to it's niche. I agree tools is a game changer, although unless we do manage to solve problems as quick as we create them, it may be our undoing.

Everything is a resource, whether it is space to live, or the chemicals need to support life, or the thermal surroundings so that not all energy consumed up in keeping (or not) the organism's internal temperature sufficiently high that the internal metabi=olic process can continue. Cold blooded animals have different coping mechanisms such as dormancy wen the metabolic processes slow down in the cold. Some mammals cope with seasonal cold by storing up food reserves internally to keep them going through hibernation when metabolic processes also slow down.

The first organisms had to create an atmosphere. I think life may have started at various parts of the Earth, but it may have started and been killed off a many times before working. There's something about this randomness that doesn't quite fit though, it's too tenuous. There is intelligence at cellular level, but some of the way animals have adapted is astonishing as well. Toads that can become dormant(I think it's toads, some crocs as well), or fish that can survive immense pressure and cold

No, the first organisms emerged in the atmosphere that existed - they may not have been using oxidation to power themselves, but extreted oxygen as a by product, which then made an atmosphere for more efficient aerobic organisms. It is known that the oxyen conent of the atmosphere has been higher than 21% in the past, allowing the evolution of larger larger insects, but they died out as oxygen levels fell to the the current percentage.

When I say 'cannibalise' I mean if life is to survive on a previously barren planet, then the history of life on Earth is perpetual cannibalism of all species on other species, did David Attenborough use that line.

Cannabilism is a strange word to use - so I don't know in what context he used it - it normally means one species predating on its own kind. Extinction is probably a better term, and extinction is part of evolution, whether it is due to a change in habitat, or the growth of a predatory species. Extinction may well be the fate of our own species, but humans are very adaptable and using natural resources to our own advantage. however it could be argued that the human population is too big for long term sustainability, and a natural event could certainly cull our numbers and could trigger a major evolutionary step in our development as we adapt to new conditions. Those that are the fittest (ie best suited) to those conditions will survive.