Thanks, plants.
Planks.

What a stupid article.

Dear Plants,

Please disregard Subby. We've seen The Happening, and we don't want that happening.

Everyone Else

Apparently science has its heretics as well.

I often wondered what Atheists would do if science discovered proof of the existence of God. How would you guys incorporate it into your worldview?

nmemkha: Apparently science has its heretics as well.

I often wondered what Atheists would do if science discovered proof of the existence of God. How would you guys incorporate it into your worldview?

That's easy, they would accept the fact and refine their world view.

Athiests tend to base their world view on the facts that they have. Most people who still believe in God tend to shape the facts to their world view.

nmemkha: Apparently science has its heretics as well.

I often wondered what Atheists would do if science discovered proof of the existence of God. How would you guys incorporate it into your worldview?


Atheism is *not* the rejection of god, it's the rejection of theism. So the answer is yes.

Anyway, what in the hell are you talking about?

doglover: Article "Hypothesis: My pet crackpot theory. Here it is. It must be right, this is a periodical. "

Anyone with a brain "Um, Mars."

Article "Well, that's my entire theory gone."



Huh? The article is not a "crackpot theory." It's called Biogeology

Inigo: Thanks, plants.
Planks.

Bless, plants.

Blants.

But if we do, the chance that the surface of that planet will look like ours is very small

Really? You mean we the continents won't be shaped exactly the same ways?

I bet next you'll tell me that any possible life we'd find won't exactly mimic that on Earth.

Down with plants!

ArcadianRefugee: But if we do, the chance that the surface of that planet will look like ours is very small

Really? You mean we the continents won't be shaped exactly the same ways?

I bet next you'll tell me that any possible life we'd find won't exactly mimic that on Earth.


Because biology influences geology and climate, the geology and climate could be potentially as diverse as the alien life -- making it radically different from our world in more than just superficial ways.

It's a pretty interesting point.

nmemkha: I often wondered what Atheists would do if science discovered proof of the existence of God. How would you guys incorporate it into your worldview?

If there's actual, irrefutable scientific proof of the existence of any kind of God, I'm pretty sure most rational people will accept that. However, if there's actual scientific proof, most theological writings will be rendered void because "belief" will no longer be open to interpretation. Have fun with all the religious extremists in your scenario.

Inigo: Thanks, plants.
Planks.

FTA: Thanks to Plants, We Will Never Find a Planet Like Earth

...because it's completely impossible that any other planet could have plant or plant-like life on it?

"Even if there are a number of planets that could support tectonics, running water and the chemical cycles that are essential for life as we know it, it seems unlikely that any of them would look like Earth." Because even if plants do sprout, they will evolve differently, crafting a different surface on the orb they call home.


If the conditions are fairly similar (no crazy chemistry, or high pressures or extreme temperatures) then I see no reason to believe that another planet with life wouldn't have something very, very plant like. We would find alien species there, but I'm betting the basic functions would be very similar. Flowering plants, things which are treelike, etc. We won't find an oak tree like on Earth, but we'll find something which fills the same niche and operates very similarly... removes CO2, creates Oxygen, needs water, draws nutrients from alien soil through its roots, etc.

The same physics apply there as apply here. I'd bet good money alien life living on a planet with somewhat similar conditions would have a Krebs cycle, just like ours. And that life would have similar effects on that alien planet that ours does to Earth.

as a botanist i have to say. yah but god 6,000 years old.

mongbiohazard: "Even if there are a number of planets that could support tectonics, running water and the chemical cycles that are essential for life as we know it, it seems unlikely that any of them would look like Earth." Because even if plants do sprout, they will evolve differently, crafting a different surface on the orb they call home.


If the conditions are fairly similar (no crazy chemistry, or high pressures or extreme temperatures) then I see no reason to believe that another planet with life wouldn't have something very, very plant like. We would find alien species there, but I'm betting the basic functions would be very similar. Flowering plants, things which are treelike, etc. We won't find an oak tree like on Earth, but we'll find something which fills the same niche and operates very similarly... removes CO2, creates Oxygen, needs water, draws nutrients from alien soil through its roots, etc.

The same physics apply there as apply here. I'd bet good money alien life living on a planet with somewhat similar conditions would have a Krebs cycle, just like ours. And that life would have similar effects on that alien planet that ours does to Earth.



You're making *a lot* of assumptions. If you could wind the clock back and watch what happens over and over again, the chance you'd get 'flowering plants' is pretty remote -- or even anything that looks like them. What exactly happened to go from life primarily metabolizing hydrogen to one that metabolizes sun light and carbon dioxide? It could be a fluke for all we know. And if you look at early multicelular life, it's bizarre to say the least -- what circumstances lead to some disappearing forever and others evolving into plants *millions* of years later? All you have to do is change one viable and the whole enterprise goes off in a radically different direction.

mongbiohazard: If the conditions are fairly similar (no crazy chemistry, or high pressures or extreme temperatures) then I see no reason to believe that another planet with life wouldn't have something very, very plant like. We would find alien species there, but I'm betting the basic functions would be very similar. Flowering plants, things which are treelike, etc. We won't find an oak tree like on Earth, but we'll find something which fills the same niche and operates very similarly... removes CO2, creates Oxygen, needs water, draws nutrients from alien soil through its roots, etc.

yes. but this is pure quercus-y!

nmemkha: Apparently science has its heretics as well.

I often wondered what Atheists would do if science discovered proof of the existence of God. How would you guys incorporate it into your worldview?


As an atheist for most of my life (since I was 13) I'd absolutely love it.

I'd have reason to believe that a comforting fantasy was more than just a fantasy. If that evidence included evidence of which particular faith was the correct one then I'd happily join and start reading the Bhagavad Gītā, or the Koran or study Buddhism or whatever the evidence indicated. If not then I'd find a Unitarian church and join up. I think most atheists would react similarly, since it's precisely the utter lack of evidence that makes faith in any particular primitive ancient superstition to be currently laughable.

I have two questions which I think are more interesting for you.
1. How do you think most religious people would react to evidence that there is no god?
2. How do you think most religious people would react to evidence that there is truth to a religion........ but not theirs? Let's say... the proof was found that Shintoism was real - or just that the evidence of a supernatural being/beings was incompatible with current Earth religions.

nmemkha: Apparently science has its heretics as well.

I often wondered what Atheists would do if science discovered proof of the existence of God. How would you guys incorporate it into your worldview?

Easy. They would know he was real and act accordingly. Acknowledging something is factual has nothing to do with going to church and vice versa. Most sane Christians don't take the story of creation literally. Only the pudding heads do.

mongbiohazard: nmemkha: Apparently science has its heretics as well.

I often wondered what Atheists would do if science discovered proof of the existence of God. How would you guys incorporate it into your worldview?


As an atheist for most of my life (since I was 13) I'd absolutely love it.

I'd have reason to believe that a comforting fantasy was more than just a fantasy. If that evidence included evidence of which particular faith was the correct one then I'd happily join and start reading the Bhagavad Gītā, or the Koran or study Buddhism or whatever the evidence indicated. If not then I'd find a Unitarian church and join up. I think most atheists would react similarly, since it's precisely the utter lack of evidence that makes faith in any particular primitive ancient superstition to be currently laughable.

I have two questions which I think are more interesting for you.
1. How do you think most religious people would react to evidence that there is no god?
2. How do you think most religious people would react to evidence that there is truth to a religion........ but not theirs? Let's say... the proof was found that Shintoism was real - or just that the evidence of a supernatural being/beings was incompatible with current Earth religions.

Ok, you said it better than me. What this guy said.

mongbiohazard: "Even if there are a number of planets that could support tectonics, running water and the chemical cycles that are essential for life as we know it, it seems unlikely that any of them would look like Earth." Because even if plants do sprout, they will evolve differently, crafting a different surface on the orb they call home.


If the conditions are fairly similar (no crazy chemistry, or high pressures or extreme temperatures) then I see no reason to believe that another planet with life wouldn't have something very, very plant like. We would find alien species there, but I'm betting the basic functions would be very similar. Flowering plants, things which are treelike, etc. We won't find an oak tree like on Earth, but we'll find something which fills the same niche and operates very similarly... removes CO2, creates Oxygen, needs water, draws nutrients from alien soil through its roots, etc.

The same physics apply there as apply here. I'd bet good money alien life living on a planet with somewhat similar conditions would have a Krebs cycle, just like ours. And that life would have similar effects on that alien planet that ours does to Earth.

While I agree that it's quite likely something like plants would evolve on any planet with life and earth-like conditions, there's not really much reason to believe it will be much like modern angiosperms. At other points in earth's history the planet has been dominated by plants that are as different (or more so) from modern plants as dinosaurs are from mammals. Look up the lycopods from the Carboniferous; while they were vascular plants, they had a completely different life history and they flourished in a completely different landscape. There's no reason to believe that the evolution of vascular plants is any more predetermined than the placental animals.

Geologists are just now starting to get a handle on the effects that plants have had on the deposition of sediments through earth's history. Applying these concepts to a deep-time view of geomorphological development is reasonable and interesting. To me.

nmemkha:
I often wondered what Atheists would do if science discovered proof of the existence of God. How would you guys incorporate it into your worldview?

Without any real problems. If a working theory or as you say hard proof of the existence of a 'God' (a or indeed the depending on if it has a pantheon of friends) appeared and was peer reviewed and found good. It would, if anything, increase my curiosity about the universe: 'it' made us and everything else... how exactly? I would also have some strongly worded and brutally honest questions for said creature to answer vis a vi plauges, natural disasters and assorted other shiat.

You would not find Atheists committing suicide over their being proof of a/the God's existence; unlike some sects of religious people when/if alien life is discovered.

Erix: While I agree that it's quite likely something like plants would evolve on any planet with life and earth-like conditions, there's not really much reason to believe it will be much like modern angiosperms. At other points in earth's history the planet has been dominated by plants that are as different (or more so) from modern plants as dinosaurs are from mammals. Look up the lycopods from the Carboniferous; while they were vascular plants, they had a completely different life history and they flourished in a completely different landscape. There's no reason to believe that the evolution of vascular plants is any more predetermined than the placental animals.


True, but keep in mind that an alien planet will have millions of years of history - just like ours. There's no reason to believe that one type of "plant" will evolve and then... that's that... no more evolution, and we'll find the same plants there today that it started with shortly after life developed.

I have no doubt that the organisms on an alien world would have their own extinctions and diversifications. That we'd find analogues for more than one type of plant there, just as we do here today. Lycopods evolved during the Silurian period, sure... but they still exist today alongside the other types of plants. I think it's likely we'd see something similar on an alien world. Primitive ancient holdouts alongside more advanced types of alien plants, filling many (if not all or even more than) of the niches we have here on Earth.


Erix: Geologists are just now starting to get a handle on the effects that plants have had on the deposition of sediments through earth's history. Applying these concepts to a deep-time view of geomorphological development is reasonable and interesting. To me.

Oh, not just to you. It's amazing to me that the presence of life is actually necessary for so many minerals that we have to exist in the first place.

Erix: While I agree that it's quite likely something like plants would evolve on any planet with life and earth-like conditions,

What kind of earth like conditions? To me it's putting the horse before the cart. The ancestors of chloroplasts were hydrogen metabolizing bacteria. You can't just take for granted that early bacterial life would evolve to metabolize sun light, much less take for grated they'd then evolve a symbiotic relationship with eukaryotes -- even if you want to assume eukaryotes are a forgone conclusion themselves -- which of course they're not. All that has to happen, and whole lot more, before you get anything like a "plant."

Thanks a lot, Plants!



Logan, Carmen, Robert, & Jordan

DarnoKonrad: Erix: While I agree that it's quite likely something like plants would evolve on any planet with life and earth-like conditions,

What kind of earth like conditions? To me it's putting the horse before the cart. The ancestors of chloroplasts were hydrogen metabolizing bacteria. You can't just take for granted that early bacterial life would evolve to metabolize sun light, much less take for grated they'd then evolve a symbiotic relationship with eukaryotes -- even if you want to assume eukaryotes are a forgone conclusion themselves -- which of course they're not. All that has to happen, and whole lot more, before you get anything like a "plant."

I mean a wet rocky planet with abundant carbon and other heavy elements, in a similar position around a similar star. Basically I'm just ruling out truly exotic forms of life like we'd expect in Jovian moons or the upper layers of a gas giant or whatever else you can imagine.

Assuming that early life would evolve to metabolize sunlight doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. It evolved far back in the tree of life, probably at least 3.2 to 3.5 Ga. While it seems to have evolved only once, this is relatively quick development of a novel metabolism. It seems pretty likely to me that photosynthesis evolved from pigments that were originally developed to protect against UV radiation. It also seems unlikely to me that life would manage to avoid tapping one of the most widely available forms of energy, even if it began with a chemoautotrophic metabolism as appears likely for terrestrial life.

As far as endosymbiosis goes, it looks now like it has evolved many many times independently on earth, so I'm going to have to say that it isn't that unlikely to happen. I know that I'm basing it on terrestrial life, but that's what we've got, so I'm going to stick to it.

I'll check back later on this thread; I love this kind of stuff, but I really shouldn't be spending time on this right now..

I was watching Cosmos, Season 1, Episode 5 (new window), just last night and Sagan goes over this process in the context of terra forming Mars. Pretty fascinating stuff.

DeathByGeekSquad : Please disregard Subby. We've seen The Happening

We've seen What's Happening.

Ralph represents all that which is good, and pure - Ralph is a head... of lettuce

You worship a HEAD OF LETTUCE?

Erix: DarnoKonrad: Erix: While I agree that it's quite likely something like plants would evolve on any planet with life and earth-like conditions,

What kind of earth like conditions? To me it's putting the horse before the cart. The ancestors of chloroplasts were hydrogen metabolizing bacteria. You can't just take for granted that early bacterial life would evolve to metabolize sun light, much less take for grated they'd then evolve a symbiotic relationship with eukaryotes -- even if you want to assume eukaryotes are a forgone conclusion themselves -- which of course they're not. All that has to happen, and whole lot more, before you get anything like a "plant."

I mean a wet rocky planet with abundant carbon and other heavy elements, in a similar position around a similar star. Basically I'm just ruling out truly exotic forms of life like we'd expect in Jovian moons or the upper layers of a gas giant or whatever else you can imagine.

Assuming that early life would evolve to metabolize sunlight doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. It evolved far back in the tree of life, probably at least 3.2 to 3.5 Ga. While it seems to have evolved only once, this is relatively quick development of a novel metabolism. It seems pretty likely to me that photosynthesis evolved from pigments that were originally developed to protect against UV radiation. It also seems unlikely to me that life would manage to avoid tapping one of the most widely available forms of energy, even if it began with a chemoautotrophic metabolism as appears likely for terrestrial life.

As far as endosymbiosis goes, it looks now like it has evolved many many times independently on earth, so I'm going to have to say that it isn't that unlikely to happen. I know that I'm basing it on terrestrial life, but that's what we've got, so I'm going to stick to it.

I'll check back later on this thread; I love this kind of stuff, but I really shouldn't be spending time on this right now..


I agree with all that, but it's an argument against the inevitability of plants. We don't have parallel evolution of 'plant like things' from multiple instances of endosymbiosis. We just have one: plants.

Even "macroscopic photosynthesizing structures" is pushing the limits of assumption considering life hummed along just fine for 3 billion years without them.

HansoSparxx: nmemkha: I often wondered what Atheists would do if science discovered proof of the existence of God. How would you guys incorporate it into your worldview?

That's easy, they would accept the fact and refine their world view.

Tru dat.



Any questions?

Marky Mark ain't gonna like this.

DarnoKonrad: I agree with all that, but it's an argument against the inevitability of plants. We don't have parallel evolution of 'plant like things' from multiple instances of endosymbiosis. We just have one: plants.

Even "macroscopic photosynthesizing structures" is pushing the limits of assumption considering life hummed along just fine for 3 billion years without them.

I'd argue that we do in fact have parallel evolution of 'plant like things', at least when you consider algae. Kelp and even filamentous algae are pretty plant-like, even if they are largely restricted to the water. While they didn't evolve from multiple instances of endosymbiosis, they are rather distantly related. I don't think it's endosymbiosis that's the limiting factor, but multicellularity. Once plants were able to get on land in the Ordovician, which I'll admit was apparently a tough thing to do, they were able to evolve an enormous increase complexity within a few tens of millions of years, and develop full blown forests by the middle of the Devonian. The incumbency effect is quite strong, and I could see it resisting a secondary colonization of land by other plant-like organisms even more strongly than occurred with animals.

And even though plants as we know them didn't develop until around 3 billion years after the first photosynthesizers, multicellular filamentous algae are recognized in around half that time. I think a lot of the delay in colonizing land was due to difficulties in adapting to a freshwater, intermittently dry, high UV environment.

I guess what I'm saying is not that the development of complex land plants is inevitable under broadly similar conditions, but it's apparently as likely as the development of complex animal life, since both took about the same amount of time. So while it's entirely possible the first planets we find with life will only have microbes (maybe even likely) I think that once any sort of complex life begins, it will quickly move to things we'd call "plants" and "animals".

Forgive the likely disorganized post, but I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment.