• Does planetary evolution favor human-like life?

    From a425couple@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 16 20:01:53 2025
    XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

    from
    https://phys.org/news/2025-02-planetary-evolution-favor-human-life.html

    Does planetary evolution favor human-like life? Study ups odds we're not
    alone
    by Pennsylvania State University

    A new model upends the decades-old "hard steps" theory that intelligent
    life was an incredibly improbable event and suggests that maybe it
    wasn't all that hard or improbable. The team of researchers said the new interpretation of humanity's origin increases the probability of
    intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Credit: NASA
    Humanity may not be extraordinary but rather the natural evolutionary
    outcome for our planet and likely others, according to a new model for
    how intelligent life developed on Earth.

    The model, which upends the decades-old "hard steps" theory that
    intelligent life was an incredibly improbable event, suggests that maybe
    it wasn't all that hard or improbable. A team of researchers at Penn
    State, who led the work, said the new interpretation of humanity's
    origin increases the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the
    universe.

    "This is a significant shift in how we think about the history of life,"
    said Jennifer Macalady, professor of geosciences at Penn State and
    co-author on the paper, which was published Feb. 14 in the journal
    Science Advances.

    "It suggests that the evolution of complex life may be less about luck
    and more about the interplay between life and its environment, opening
    up exciting new avenues of research in our quest to understand our
    origins and our place in the universe."

    Initially developed by theoretical physicist Brandon Carter in 1983, the
    "hard steps" model argues that our evolutionary origin was highly
    unlikely due to the time it took for humans to evolve on Earth relative
    to the total lifespan of the sun—and therefore the likelihood of
    human-like beings beyond Earth is extremely low.

    In the new study, a team of researchers that included astrophysicists
    and geobiologists argued that Earth's environment was initially
    inhospitable to many forms of life, and that key evolutionary steps only
    became possible when the global environment reached a "permissive" state.

    For example, complex animal life requires a certain level of oxygen in
    the atmosphere, so the oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere through photosynthesizing microbes and bacteria was a natural evolutionary step
    for the planet, which created a window of opportunity for more recent
    life forms to develop, explained Dan Mills, postdoctoral researcher at
    The University of Munich and lead author on the paper.

    "We're arguing that intelligent life may not require a series of lucky
    breaks to exist," said Mills, who worked in Macalady's astrobiology lab
    at Penn State as an undergraduate researcher.

    "Humans didn't evolve 'early' or 'late' in Earth's history, but 'on
    time," when the conditions were in place. Perhaps it's only a matter of
    time, and maybe other planets are able to achieve these conditions more
    rapidly than Earth did, while other planets might take even longer."

    The central prediction of the "hard steps" theory states that very few,
    if any, other civilizations exist throughout the universe, because steps
    such as the origin of life, the development of complex cells and the
    emergence of human intelligence are improbable based on Carter's
    interpretation of the sun's total lifespan being 10 billion years, and
    the Earth's age of around 5 billion years.

    In the new study, the researchers proposed that the timing of human
    origins can be explained by the sequential opening of "windows of
    habitability" over Earth's history, driven by changes in nutrient
    availability, sea surface temperature, ocean salinity levels and the
    amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

    Discover the latest in science, tech, and space with over 100,000
    subscribers who rely on Phys.org for daily insights. Sign up for our
    free newsletter and get updates on breakthroughs, innovations, and
    research that matter—daily or weekly.

    e-mail
    Given all the interplaying factors, they said, the Earth has only
    recently become hospitable to humanity—it's simply the natural result of those conditions at work.

    "We're taking the view that rather than base our predictions on the
    lifespan of the sun, we should use a geological time scale, because
    that's how long it takes for the atmosphere and landscape to change,"
    said Jason Wright, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State
    and co-author on the paper.

    "These are normal timescales on the Earth. If life evolves with the
    planet, then it will evolve on a planetary time scale at a planetary pace."

    Wright explained that part of the reason that the "hard steps" model has prevailed for so long is that it originated from his own discipline of astrophysics, which is the default field used to understand the
    formation of planets and celestial systems.

    The team's paper is a collaboration between physicists and
    geobiologists, each learning from each other's fields to develop a
    nuanced picture of how life evolves on a planet like Earth.

    "This paper is the most generous act of interdisciplinary work," said
    Macalady, who also directs Penn State's Astrobiology Research Center.
    "Our fields were far apart, and we put them on the same page to get at
    this question of how we got here and are we alone? There was a gulf, and
    we built a bridge."

    The researchers said they plan to test their alternative model,
    including questioning the unique status of the proposed evolutionary
    "hard steps." The recommended research projects are outlined in the
    current paper and include such work as searching the atmospheres of
    planets outside our solar system for biosignatures, like the presence of oxygen.

    The team also proposed testing the requirements for proposed "hard
    steps" to determine how hard they actually are by studying uni- and multicellular forms of life under specific environmental conditions such
    as lower oxygen and temperature levels.

    Beyond the proposed projects, the team suggested the research community
    should investigate whether innovations —such as the origin of life,
    oxygenic photosynthesis, eukaryotic cells, animal multicellularity and
    Homo sapiens—are truly singular events in Earth's history. Could similar innovations have evolved independently in the past, but evidence that
    they happened was lost due to extinction or other factors?

    "This new perspective suggests that the emergence of intelligent life
    might not be such a long shot after all," Wright said.

    "Instead of a series of improbable events, evolution may be more of a predictable process, unfolding as global conditions allow. Our framework applies not only to Earth, but also other planets, increasing the
    possibility that life similar to ours could exist elsewhere."

    The other co-author on the paper is Adam Frank of the University of
    Rochester.

    More information: Daniel Mills, A reassessment of the "hard-steps" model
    for the evolution of intelligent life, Science Advances (2025). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.ads5698. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ads5698

    Journal information: Science Advances

    Provided by Pennsylvania State University

    Explore further

    Can the 'hard steps' in the evolutionary history of human intelligence
    be recast with geological thresholds?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stephen Harding@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Tue Feb 18 07:23:02 2025
    XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

    On 2/17/25 11:46 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
    "a425couple"  wrote in message news:SwysP.65882$r3gb.28020@fx39.iad...
    Does planetary evolution favor human-like life? Study ups odds we're not

    I believe humans have a fortunate combination of abilities that other creatures may share singularly but not in our combination, though their sight, smell, hearing, speed, strength may be better. Our body form may
    be only one of many capable of this.

    Communication is vital, and not unique to us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_animal

    Except for the thumb apes have hands similar to ours. The time-proven
    tools we make to improve our grasp, pliers and tweezers etc, are similar
    to claws. https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/human-origins/understanding- our-past/living-primates/the-grasping-hand

    A creature with six or more limbs can have two free to manipulate
    objects, insects and crabs for example. Our two legged balancing walk
    isn't essential or even optimal, just inherited from ancient forms with
    four limbs.

    Fossils from the Cambrian period show what might have survived except
    for predators and random extinction events. https://www.thoughtco.com/strangest-animals-of-the-cambrian-period-4125717

    Some modern species are nearly that old. https://www.livescience.com/animals/living-fossils-creatures-that-look- the-same-now-as-they-did-millions-of-years-ago

    The Nautilus eye is a primitive missing link to the highly developed
    modern eye. It's not true that the eye is too complex to have evolved, intermediate stages survive today. Another science denial claim busted. https://archives.evergreen.edu/webpages/curricular/2011-2012/m2o1112/ web/cephalopods.html

    How many times has one wished for a third hand when doing some sort of manipulation task (say like soldering a couple wires together)? They
    even sell tools called "third hands". Humanity might have been very
    well served by having three or four arms/hands!

    I've always felt there is some sort of feedback loop (besides survival
    of the fittest) that makes evolution more focused than random chance and
    "let's try this" methodology.

    Of course one thing that is difficult for people to get their minds
    around is the very long time duration of evolution, although sometimes
    it can be surprisingly rapid.


    SMH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a425couple@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Wed Feb 19 15:17:43 2025
    XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

    On 2/18/25 05:42, Jim Wilkins wrote:
    "Stephen Harding" wrote in message news:vp1u36$1mkfg$1@dont-email.me...

    On 2/17/25 11:46 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
    ...
    How many times has one wished for a third hand when doing some sort of manipulation task (say like soldering a couple wires together)? --

    Of course one thing that is difficult for people to get their minds
    around is the very long time duration of evolution, although sometimes
    it can be surprisingly rapid.

    SMH
    ----------------------------------------

    There aren't a lot of cases to study, most life is well adapted.
    T
    Well adapted, Yes.
    But not easily categorized or explained, or put on
    any chart or continuum.

    I suspect something with a good brain in a crab- or lobster-like body might be capable of creating high technology. ---
    The octopus demonstrates that marine invertebrates can be intelligent. https://www.daisycrocket.com/octopus-intelligence/

    Your above reminds me of the very fertile brain of Arthur C. Clarke
    and his "The Songs of Distant Earth". Earth and Sol are doomed and
    humanity sends out colony ships. One sets up on a water planet
    (similar to Hawaii or Ceylon), and the humans are beginning to come in
    contact with an intelligent underwater species that has been gradually
    evolving there. What will the future bring?.

    https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tTP1TcwKi80MDNg9BIrzs9LL1bIT1NIySwuScwrUUhNLCrJAAC97guK&q=songs+of+distant+earth&rlz=1CAKOCV_enUS1128&oq=Songs+of+distant+earth&gs_lcrp=
    EgZjaHJvbWUqCggCEC4Y1AIYgAQyCggAEAAY4wIYgAQyCggBEC4Y1AIYgAQyCggCEC4Y1AIYgAQyCggDEC4Y1AIYgAQyBwgEEAAYgAQyCAgFEAAYFhgeMggIBhAAGBYYHjIICAcQABgWGB4yCAgIEAAYFhgeMggICRAAGBYYHtIBCjE1OTg2ajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    And, after mentioning Clarke, in a variety of his books and short
    sorties his mind came up with a huge number of interesting
    species that COULD evolve in a variety of challenging locations.
    (Mercury, Venus, Saturn ----.

    Intelligence, especially when we try to compare it
    across species, is very hard to measure, or in any way compare.

    I'd urge you to consider "The Parrot's Lament: And Other True Tales
    of Animal Intrigue, Intelligence, and Ingenuity" August 1, 2000
    by Eugene Linden Currently you can get it at many libraries,
    or delivered to your door for under $6.00.

    One primate species can be so inventive at ----, but totally
    unable to go further. And then another is amazing at
    something totally different.
    Also under water animals, and even birds.

    Which brings to mind what Jared M. Diamond (in "Guns, Germs,
    and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" 1999
    discusses about domesticated species.
    Either they can, or they can not be! Yes, we might think
    that we "ought" to be able to use zebras or llamas as
    domesticated work animals ----.
    But close, DOES NOT COUNT.










    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stephen Harding@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Fri Feb 21 08:32:10 2025
    XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

    On 2/20/25 9:35 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
    "Jim Wilkins"  wrote in message news:vp6e73$2n232$1@dont-email.me...

    She (dog) understood pointing very well, as in go "sniff!" what I'm
    pointing to, like a burrow she hadn't noticed.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/dogs-understand-gestures- well-toddlers-flna1c9458078

    "Dogs possess a 2-year-old child's capacity to understand human pointing gestures, with dogs requiring next to zero learning time to figure out
    the visual communication, according to two recent studies."

    "Since chimpanzees and other non-human primates often flunk pointing
    gesture tests, the studies suggest dogs may understand humans better
    than even our closest living animal relatives do."

    I hung a bird feeder from a clothesline off the raised deck behind the
    house to keep squirrels and raccoons off it. On laundry days I moved the feeder back into the woods to keep birds from perching on the line and fouling the laundry.

    While I was hanging clothes a nuthatch perched on the nearest branch and shook and rattled its wings to get my attention, obviously looking for
    the missing feeder and knowing I was associated with it. I pointed
    toward it and the bird immediately raced off in that direction. I call
    that a good indication of problem-solving intelligence.

    Once wild rabbits learn I'm not a threat they will come quite close to
    feed or watch me work, maybe to protect themselves from hawks. It's
    unclear if they understand the pointing gesture when I'm walking toward
    them but will turn short of them. Some will let me get pretty close,
    5-10 feet. They recognize my voice and will stop running when I speak if
    I my approach startled them, I can be as invisible (tree-like pant legs)
    to them as they are to me if they are moving and I see them first and
    freeze. I spoke as one walked by and it jumped, ran a few yards, stopped
    to glance back and gave me a disgusted oh-it's-only-you look before it continued walking. I don't consider them to show much intelligence
    compared to dogs and birds.

    Humans and dogs have evolved together for so long that dogs have built
    in wiring that enables them to actually manipulate humans (to some degree).

    It was evolutionarily beneficial to understand humans as well as possible.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stephen Harding@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Sat Feb 22 08:01:45 2025
    XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein

    On 2/21/25 11:08 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
    "Stephen Harding"  wrote in message news:vp9v8r$3dj6e$1@dont-email.me...

    Humans and dogs have evolved together for so long that dogs have built
    in wiring that enables them to actually manipulate humans (to some degree).

    It was evolutionarily beneficial to understand humans as well as possible.

    ----------------------------------------------
    Dogs are very good at evaluating and manipulating each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy

    This Soviet experiment suggests that dogs expressed and amplified canine traits that were unfavorable in the wild though not enough to be lost. https://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2010/06/14/monday-pets-the- russian-fox-st

    https://fieldethos.com/bubba-the-tiger/

    My sister took in a rescued dog that tried to be the boss. It's (no
    longer he/she) slowly learned to follow orders.

    A friend had a black Lab that liked to nip at my legs when I visited. He didn't bite, just showed he could have. Finally I reached under his jaw
    and squeezed his lips between his teeth, making him realize that I could defend myself against his main weapon. Immediately he accepted me as superior, stopped challenging and obeyed whatever I wanted him to do. I
    took him out for a walk in the woods as a test, out of sight to not
    embarrass his owner who hadn't trained him. The Lab was more instantly obedient than my Golden, who had a mind of her own and sometimes needed persuasion or negotiation to a compromise.

    Lysenkoism's goal was to create a proletarian New Soviet Man amenable to communism, essentially a docile serf/slave class like the horse in
    Animal Farm. Lenin had been forced to concede that the normal run of
    humanity isn't, and leftist pride couldn't accept being proven wrong. Naturally the "elite" that promoted and lived off running communism
    wouldn't lower themselves to the hard work necessary to support a
    society. So it is with socialist professors who train students to
    willingly support them. We have a dominance hierarchy too.

    That Soviet experiment with foxes was very interesting. I think PBS had
    a bit about it on their Nature program concerning dogs and domestication.

    My Irish Setter will still get up on my bed at the pillows at night just
    to test if he can take over the bed or not. I send him to the foot of
    the bed but he'll try again in a few days or weeks to "take over the pack".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)