Darwin, Equilibrium, and Filling Up the Planet

Discuss Francis Tapon's 2007 CDT Yo-Yo hike or specific issues about the CDT.
Post Reply
User avatar
FrancisTapon
Site Admin
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:35 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Darwin, Equilibrium, and Filling Up the Planet

Post by FrancisTapon » Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:07 pm

Francis, you wrote in your last blog "Life is everywhere it can be in the universe."

This is the notion of 'filling up'. I don't know if you have ever read the Origin of Species, I had to read two chapters last year and would like to read it all one day but it really helped crystalise some of my views on evolution and the extent to which natural selection works. People say it is a really dull read but I really enjoyed it.
I read the whole book, and was surprised that it wasn't boring! HIs predictions were so accurate on so many levels; it's truly amazing given the little evidence he had to work with. You can listen to it on an MP3 player, by getting the free audio at librivox.org.

We have a lot more filling to do - is this the goal of nature? Will we ever be completely full? When we are, what will happen then? Will we reach equilibrium? Will things still shift and one species finally dominate (unlikely)?
Those are all great questions, some of which I tried to answer in my blog. Here are some more thoughts:

Filling up is the goal of every living thing, but not necessarily of nature, since nature comprises lifeless things like rocks, volcanoes, and the weather.

It's hard to ever be completely full on a planet whose weather and geology is constantly changing. Some planet may have such consistent weather (like Europa, Jupiter's moon) that it might fill up and stay stable for millions of years. However, even in such an environment mutations must occur since the DNA copying process is not flawless. Those mutations will give advantages to a few, which, in turn, will disrupt the temporary balance in the ecosystem, eventually leading to a new equilibrium.

All equilibriums are temporary. This is a message that all environmentalists need to understand so they don't feel so bad about all the changes that are occurring around us. As long as mutations occur, life and eco systems are never in balance for long. If weather and geology change, then the balance is even more fleeting.

That's why it's silly when environmentalists argue that humans have disrupted the balance in nature, like Al Gore argues in his Earth in Balance book.

Many environmentalists claim they believe in Darwin and evolution, but they behave as if the Earth is static. They get upset if an ecosystem changes sometime in their lifetime. They use terms like "invasive species" and "native species" as if the native ones have been there forever, when they invaded that ecosystem at some point. It's just that the environmentalist wasn't around back then, so he laments the "loss of habitat." Environmentalists rarely call all the plants that we cultivate "invasive species," because those are "non native" species that we like.

Environmentalists cry over the extinction of species, when 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived are extinct. They claim that what humans are doing is different than change in the past because this time it's happening so fast and nature can't keep up. However, they ignore the overnight devasting changes brought by super-volcanoes or massive asteroid explosions - both types of events are far more devastating than all the combined "evils" of humanity.

Environmetalists act like our environmental destruction is unprecedented and that the Earth won't be able to deal with it, yet our impact is nothing to other crazy events that preceeded our existence, and somehow we're still here. Indeed, some of those devasting blows helped bring us about.

I'm not suggesting that all environmentalists are idiots or that I disagree with their objectives. I just wish their had a broader perspective sometimes and focused on what matters most (e.g., overpopulation and our sprawling way of life).

I saw a CNN program where they went to Yellowstone National Park and said that the re-introduction of the wolves has made the Yellowstone ecosystem "more healthy" and "brought it back in balance." Before the re-introduction of the wolf, CNN said there were "too many elk" because there wasn't a natural predator to keep them in check. Who are we to decide what is "too many"? The brutal winters of Yellowstone (and the encroachment of humans) keeps the elk's population in check even if the wolves are gone. Indeed, if we got rid of humans in a 1,000 km radius around Yellowstone and let the wolves back, the elk population would be HIGHER than its current numbers! Sure, the wolves lower the elk population, but not as much as other factors.

One hiker on the CDT complained that the African Mustard plant has been introduced in an ecosystem and now that it is "out of control" because "there's nothing that keeps it in check" and that now it's "everywhere."

I said, "Really? So point it out to me."

"Oh, it's not here in New Mexico."

"Then that means something is keeping the African Mustard in check. Otherwise, we'd be walking on top of it right now. And yet it's not even in this state," I pointed out.

Finally, one species will never dominate for long, especially with mutations, plate tectonics, and climate change constantly changing the rules of the game.
Our planet is like a giant football game where the rules of game are constantly changing, so every season there are new winners and losers. Other planets may be less dynamic and let one species reign on the top for longer than this planet, but ultimately all kings will be de-throned.

It's possible that there are planets where the genetic copying process is truly 100% flawless and that climate/geology is 100% constant for billions of years.

Although every living thing on Earth uses DNA, it's possible that alien life has a different copying mechanism, call it xDNA. It's possible that xDNA NEVER makes a copying error.

Alternatively, it's possible that the copying environment doesn't induce mutations.
Our atmosphere, for example, lets enough DNA damaging UV rays to filter through, inducing mutations. Other planets might have a tougher shield that protects their xDNA from mutations, delaying or eliminating the mutation process.

Whew! That was a long answer to a simple question! :roll:

I welcome comments on it.
- Francis Tapon
http://FrancisTapon.com

xjenx
Trusted Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:59 am

Post by xjenx » Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:43 pm

As long as mutations occur, life and eco systems are never in balance for long.
No, although it was noted by Galton and others that there is regression to the mean and phenotypes do all cluster around means. There is certainly some stablity.

Personally I quite like tigers and polar bears and although it might be 'natural' that they are getting weeded out I'd quite like to keep them and would happily support 'unatural' breeding and reintroduction programs. My life is short and I'd rather be selfish and enjoy a hugely biodiverse global species population than a world full of humans, rats and cockroaches :)
It's possible that there are planets where the genetic copying process is truly 100% flawless and that climate/geology is 100% constant for billions of years.
I would say this is quite unlikely. Variation keeps the biotic environment stable. If a new pest appears in the environment some genotypes within one species will be more beneficial than a slightly different genotype in the same species. This keeps us strong and insures the survival of the species/genes/whatever.

For a planet to have a 100% constant copying mechanism it would of have to have been present in the common ansestor as all species would have to go by this rule. It would be impossible for only one species to have 100% flawless mechanisms because they would end up behind the times and would get weeded out. In essence flawless copying mechanisms are dysgenic.


Jen

User avatar
FrancisTapon
Site Admin
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:35 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Imagining an Unchanging World

Post by FrancisTapon » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:07 pm

xjenx wrote:As long as mutations occur, life and eco systems are never in balance for long.

No, although it was noted by Galton and others that there is regression to the mean and phenotypes do all cluster around means. There is certainly some stablity.
Agreed. I should have spelled out what I meant by "long." I was thinking in thousands of years. I agree there is "stability" for dozens, hundreds, and even a few thousand years. Indeed, that very stability is the reason so many people refine "nature" as whatever the environment was like when they were born. They believe that it should never change and should be stable. Many environments, in a human lifetime, hardly change at all.

When I wrote that "life and eco systems are never in balance for long," I meant within a few thousands years (if not sooner), the balance gets shifted. Hence, the term punctuated evolution.
Personally I quite like tigers and polar bears and although it might be 'natural' that they are getting weeded out I'd quite like to keep them and would happily support 'unatural' breeding and reintroduction programs. My life is short and I'd rather be selfish and enjoy a hugely biodiverse global species population than a world full of humans, rats and cockroaches :)
Agreed. The best way to save tigers and bears is to tax human reproduction and tax living in a buildling that is less than 5-10 stories high. Such taxes would decrease the human footprint dramatically and give these (and other) species more space to thrive.
I would say this is quite unlikely. Variation keeps the biotic environment stable. If a new pest appears in the environment some genotypes within one species will be more beneficial than a slightly different genotype in the same species. This keeps us strong and insures the survival of the species/genes/whatever.

For a planet to have a 100% constant copying mechanism it would of have to have been present in the common ansestor as all species would have to go by this rule. It would be impossible for only one species to have 100% flawless mechanisms because they would end up behind the times and would get weeded out. In essence flawless copying mechanisms are dysgenic.
I agree that flawless copying is unlikely. I'm just saying it's possible.

You're defeating the 100% stable environment possibility theory by saying "if a new pest appears...."

Of course, if the copying were perfect, mutation were non-existent, and geologic/climate pressures were constant and unchanging, then a new pest wouldn't appear! Unless it came from outer space, which is possible.

Imagining such a stable environment and perfect copying is hard, so that's why I agree that it's quite unlikely. I was simply trying to imagine a scenario when one species gets to the top of the ecosystem and stays there forever and fills out the planet with its genes.

On Earth, the closest species to achieve that was probably the Cyanobacteria.
- Francis Tapon
http://FrancisTapon.com

User avatar
FrancisTapon
Site Admin
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:35 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Need a New Perspective on Life? Try this

Post by FrancisTapon » Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:13 pm

I enjoyed this video that starts with comparing the various planets in our solar system and then compares our sun to bigger stars.

It's a fun perspective check if you happen to be having a bad day.

I did such mental exercises throughout my CDT hike to keep my brain sane. It also helped me think of different ways of looking at the environmental debates.
- Francis Tapon
http://FrancisTapon.com

Post Reply