Fish may have evolved to live on land more than 30 times

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
26,446
Location
UK
I remember being a diatom, then life got complicated. I blame radiation, Ray, wattayasay, hey, let's all evolve into 3 million species and see what happens. *
 
30 times ?Wow .:unsure:
 
Last edited:
It's quite interesting to see that we tend to feel more comfortable with the idea that things and events should be unique for them to be 'true(er)': common ancestor, one true god, just one intelligent species, only planet with life on it, etc.
You read articles like this and end up thinking that multiplicity makes much more sense. I wonder if there could be more than one Mitochondrial Eve too!
Thanks for sharing :)
 
Bee I think you've hit it on the head. Not just about how life evolved, but about how life happens. How many times do we sit down and think "gee, wouldn't it be great if I only had to write this award winning internationally best selling novel once, instead of slogging through all these tedious rewrites, and rejection letters, and under-performing sales?"

I know I'm guilty of expecting perfection from myself first go round, not even wanting to sit through my own montage... Haha.
No.
It's never happened.

Good things take time and many starts, not all of them as false as they might appear in the short run.
 
Very interesting idea you brought up there, Hope: one big lucky strike as opposed to years (or centuries, or millenia!) of hard work.

It's fascinating to think there could have been multiple origins of life, although by the look of things, every form of life sharing the same genetic code and due to some biochemistry stuff that I won't even pretend I understand, only one of those succeeded. Alternative biochemistry makes for a very nice Sci-Fi theme anyway :D

Let's throw in a Frank Herbert quote: "The singular multiplicity of this universe draws my deepest attention. It is a thing of ultimate beauty"
 
I think the evidence for a single origin is incredibly strong. But to my mind that only increases the wonder that we could end up with so much diversity of life, including multiple transitions from water to land, all from a single origin.
 
I am probably ignorant of some important piece of information which negates my thought, but wouldn't adaptation cover multiple origin thingys?

People in different regions of the planet, with access to different grain, meat foodstuffs each come up with a way to package one food inside theother. I doubt there was a culinary meating between these people's, but believe that all felt that adapting food for travel was a good idea. That each people came up with the most palatable and feasible method for this adaptation.

I understand that the connection between steambuns and hotpockets is not completely comparable to the origins of life on this sphere... but it roughly covers my thought that all these originating lifes had to adapt to things that likely steered them in directions that brought them closer and perhaps even made them more compatible with each other. Fusion cuisine = cross breads?
 
Victorian historians believed that all world history had been a natural progression from uncivilised barbarians towards their perfect society. In such a climate, it was also inconceivable that the ultimate aim of evolution was not to create Man, the ultimate creature made in God's image. Hence they had diagrams with Man at the top. Now that we known that none of that is true, there is no ultimate goal of either history or evolution. So, it isn't really that surprising that parallel evolution occurred wherever the habitat produced an ecological niche to be exploited. 30 times seems a lot but fish have been around a long time, so it sounds about right.

It does however ask the question the Hopewrites is making - how many times did life start and fail before the right formulae was hit upon? It could have been hundreds of thousands. In such circumstances, the appearance of life itself is slightly less fantastic.
 
More or less fantastic, it brings to my attention the hard work DNA has gone through to get me where I am.
A bit easier to accept my faults (shortsighted, small bones, weak teeth, dyslexia...) when I think of the many times life tried to succeed, the many environmental changes it adapted for, or the myriad of possibilities before it... I just think "Wow. Being me is more awesome than I realised. Good job life ."
 
23316494.jpg
 
You will never get two different species interbreeding; that is, I think, the fundamental criterion for determining that they are different species. Parallel evolution is very common, where two completely different and unrelated species have evolved into the same or similar niche. However, though their behaviour and even appearance might end up similar their DNA will not and chances of the DNA becoming sufficiently similar to permit interbreeding are probably statistically vanishingly small.
 
You will never get two different species interbreeding; that is, I think, the fundamental criterion for determining that they are different species. Parallel evolution is very common, where two completely different and unrelated species have evolved into the same or similar niche. However, though their behaviour and even appearance might end up similar their DNA will not and chances of the DNA becoming sufficiently similar to permit interbreeding are probably statistically vanishingly small.

Tell that to Mr Spock.:whistle::p
 
I think I recall reading in 'The Science of the Discworld' that earth's history is so massive that there may well have been another species as intelligent as us somewhere along the way and we just haven't found any traces of it. Or have I got that completely wrong?
 
...there may well have been another species as intelligent as us somewhere along the way and we just haven't found any traces of it...
They must have been much cleaner than us then - no pollution or waste. Seriously, there would be bones and buildings. However, 'The Science of the Discworld' would not be a book I could easily disagree with given the astrophysics behind the four elephants and giant turtle.
 
They must have been much cleaner than us then - no pollution or waste. Seriously, there would be bones and buildings. However, 'The Science of the Discworld' would not be a book I could easily disagree with given the astrophysics behind the four elephants and giant turtle.

I've seen this theory around, and as I recall, in most iterations the theory includes a very, very long span of time between that ancient life/civilization, and us -- time enough, for instance, for the geological processes of the Earth to tear apart and/or bury most relics.
Do I buy it? No. I can certainly appreciate, and look with interest at, the speculation that life might have come about on more than one occasion, and that fish might have come to land more than one time (certainly those speculations are true to the entire theory of evolution).
But for life to have gotten as far as making a previous civilization? That's harder to swallow. (That said, as a good fan of sf and f, I love it!)

(Who can say whether such a previous life form had bones at all? Maybe they were similar to jellyfish?)(And intelligent jellyfish would generally be unable to manipulate hard matter enough to build temples, etc. So they lived in burrows in the ocean floor, and left no buildings... It could happen!)

(And, just for entertainment value, I will note that a moment ago, looking at the list of recent postings on the home page, I noted that the mention of Dave's last post was curtailed to "Fish may have evolved to live on..." -- and, my mind, being beyond my control, finished that with "...cheeseburgers." Well, that's just how I am...)

(another) Dave
 
Single originating event and common descent from it is more likely than many independent ones.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top