Evolution + Synthetic Life

[Tinker]

[Apollonius]

If you are talking about genes, then yes, you are correct.

They are talking about species, and then yes, you get into something of a category conundrum. One of the simplest, though not entirely true, definititions of species is that they don't interbreed. But since in this case we're talking about individuals living at different times, that's not even theoretically possible. So yes, we set a somewhat arbitrary date for one species to become another.

Still, I found the graph self-expanatory. Eventually what was a mutation or very unusual gene, can become common, first as something hidden or "recessive", but then rather suddenly, as it reaches a certain threshhold, general.

[Tinker]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/scien ... .html?_r=1

New fossil may be a human antecedent.

[Apollonius]

[Endovelico]

[Tinker]

Ha. Seems to suggest some sort of galactic husbandry of mammals as a kingdom.

[Apollonius]

Fred Hoyle, inventor of the term 'Big Bang', and infamous for his 'Steady State' hypothesis, was the guy that got me thinking most about this subject.


In 1983 he published a book called The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution.


Some important ideas in that book have stood the test of very well. Beyond the notion of 'panspermia', which Hoyle was a proponent of, the real breakthrough was understanding the role that 'disease' plays in evolution. Hoyle was amongst the first to recognize that viruses can alter our evolution.

Things have gotten even more radical since then. Epigenetics has opened up a whole neo-Lamarckian revolution.

[Colonel Sun]