Mass Extinctions

[RandomGuyOnCouch]

A reinterpretation of the fossil record suggests a new answer to one of evolution’s existential questions: whether global mass extinctions are just short-term diversions in life’s preordained course, or send life careening down wholly new paths.

Some scientists have suggested the former. Rates of species diversification — the speed at which groups adapt and fill open ecological niches — seemed to predict what’s flourished in the aftermath of past planetary cataclysms. But according to the calculations of Macquarie University paleobiologist John Alroy, that’s just not the case.

“Mass extinction fundamentally changes the dynamics. It changes the composition of the biosphere forever. You can’t simply predict the winners and losers from what groups have done before,” he said.

Does it seem suspicious that this was a serious issue to anyone else? How can one seriously consider evolution "preordained" and still maintain any kind of understanding of it?

[Trolldor]

Depending upon your view of the term 'preordained'.

There is a pattern (behaviour of particles etc.), but it is so complex that we are incapable of working it out, and so we label it 'random', and then there's the possibility of 'probable futures' as opposed to 'set paths', with each being likely but with different values of probability...

[Rum]

This looks like just another 'god of the gaps' notion to me. I.e., if there is not yet a fully rational understanding of a phenomenon, let's invoke his Bigness.

[Thinking Aloud]

The evolution of life is only "pre-ordained" to the viewer so full of himself that he considers himself the end-product of the process.

(Substitute she/her as appropriate.)

[Animavore]

I hate mass.

[Robert_S]

It seems that the person who wrote that piece has a rather shallow understanding of evolution.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I agree that you won't know who/what will emerge from a mass extinction, but I don't know that this is at all surprising. Probably a paper written because the dude needed to publish something, and moved along the peer review process because there was nothing seriously wrong with it. Papers like that are good for giving someone else a chance to say "Oh, yeah?" and add another paper to their credits.

[RandomGuyOnCouch]

Depending upon your view of the term 'preordained'.

There is a pattern (behaviour of particles etc.), but it is so complex that we are incapable of working it out, and so we label it 'random', and then there's the possibility of 'probable futures' as opposed to 'set paths', with each being likely but with different values of probability...

Are you suggesting that the universe remains Newtonian and deterministic even as our understanding of quantum mechanics expands?

[Robert_S]

I agree that you won't know who/what will emerge from a mass extinction, but I don't know that this is at all surprising. Probably a paper written because the dude needed to publish something, and moved along the peer review process because there was nothing seriously wrong with it. Papers like that are good for giving someone else a chance to say "Oh, yeah?" and add another paper to their credits.

Then why does Wired pick it up as if it's news? Is there so little happening in the tech world these days?

[Tero]

Plus there was only one flood. God only fucked up once, so what about these multiple events?

[Trolldor]

Depending upon your view of the term 'preordained'.

There is a pattern (behaviour of particles etc.), but it is so complex that we are incapable of working it out, and so we label it 'random', and then there's the possibility of 'probable futures' as opposed to 'set paths', with each being likely but with different values of probability...

Are you suggesting that the universe remains Newtonian and deterministic even as our understanding of quantum mechanics expands?

Actually, our understanding of Quantum so far asserts that we're determining history as we observe the present.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I agree that you won't know who/what will emerge from a mass extinction, but I don't know that this is at all surprising. Probably a paper written because the dude needed to publish something, and moved along the peer review process because there was nothing seriously wrong with it. Papers like that are good for giving someone else a chance to say "Oh, yeah?" and add another paper to their credits.

Then why does Wired pick it up as if it's news? Is there so little happening in the tech world these days?

Wired is "for profit", profit is made by "making news", news is "what people what to see", what people want to see is silly shit.

[Robert_S]

I agree that you won't know who/what will emerge from a mass extinction, but I don't know that this is at all surprising. Probably a paper written because the dude needed to publish something, and moved along the peer review process because there was nothing seriously wrong with it. Papers like that are good for giving someone else a chance to say "Oh, yeah?" and add another paper to their credits.

Then why does Wired pick it up as if it's news? Is there so little happening in the tech world these days?

Wired is "for profit", profit is made by "making news", news is "what people what to see", what people want to see is silly shit.

Oh... people. I forget about them sometimes. Never for long though. :sighsm:

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I agree that you won't know who/what will emerge from a mass extinction, but I don't know that this is at all surprising. Probably a paper written because the dude needed to publish something, and moved along the peer review process because there was nothing seriously wrong with it. Papers like that are good for giving someone else a chance to say "Oh, yeah?" and add another paper to their credits.

Then why does Wired pick it up as if it's news? Is there so little happening in the tech world these days?

Wired is "for profit", profit is made by "making news", news is "what people what to see", what people want to see is silly shit.

Oh... people. I forget about them sometimes. Never for long though. :sighsm:

If the people disappeared, leaving the humans behind, this place would be much nicer.

[hackenslash]

Depending upon your view of the term 'preordained'.

There is a pattern (behaviour of particles etc.), but it is so complex that we are incapable of working it out, and so we label it 'random', and then there's the possibility of 'probable futures' as opposed to 'set paths', with each being likely but with different values of probability...

Are you suggesting that the universe remains Newtonian and deterministic even as our understanding of quantum mechanics expands?

Actually, our understanding of Quantum so far asserts that we're determining history as we observe the present.

???