Entangled particles used for communication

[JamesF]

11 minutes ago, saac said:

I think the interesting point there Andrew is containment of the condition "no evolutionary pressure".  With evolution resulting from and then exploiting mistakes in the duplication process  I would argue that evolution is inevitable. Then follows predation which as you said would be an advantage.   It would be interesting to find out if there are any biomes where predation is not present; most likely extremophiles  I guess.

Jim 

Perhaps "evolutionary pressure" is tantamount to a tautology.  If there is pressure, evolution is the result?

James

[JamesF]

5 minutes ago, JamesF said:

Perhaps "evolutionary pressure" is tantamount to a tautology.  If there is pressure, evolution is the result?

James

I may have meant "oxymoron" rather than "tautology".  It's been a long day and at this point I'm not sure I'm even making sense to myself.

James

[saac]

6 minutes ago, JamesF said:

Perhaps "evolutionary pressure" is tantamount to a tautology.  If there is pressure, evolution is the result?

James

I think you may be right James. It's all chance , toss enough coins and it's inevitable a favourable combination will appear.  I think evolution and life are two sides of the same coin.

Jim 

[vlaiv]

Not sure that there has to be special pressure.

Components of evolution is what life is all about.

1. Reproduction - without it, when "units" of life "break down" in some way - either thru environmental impact or pure randomness and probability of quantum nature - life ceases to exist

2. Mutations - well that is inherent in randomness of quantum mechanics

3. Fitness function - again related to environment - we do need to live in this universe and this universe is dynamic so there will be changing environment - otherwise there would be no life (entropy and all that).

[andrew s]

44 minutes ago, saac said:

I think the interesting point there Andrew is containment of the condition "no evolutionary pressure".  With evolution resulting from and then exploiting mistakes in the duplication process  I would argue that evolution is inevitable. Then follows predation which as you said would be an advantage.   It would be interesting to find out if there are any biomes where predation is not present; most likely extremophiles  I guess.

Jim 

Genetic drift is quite common, where changes have no advantage in the current environment but suddenly become so when the environment changes.

My guess is there will always be constraints in an environment and some form of predation will evolve. 

Regards Andrew 

[Guest]

If predation means one species consuming another then wouldn't that mean that cows eating grass should be counted as predation?

[vlaiv]

8 minutes ago, woodblock said:

If predation means one species consuming another then wouldn't that mean that cows eating grass should be counted as predation?

Apparently it is exactly that:

20 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Predation (which in biology simply means the consumption of one life form by another, the energy moving up the food chain, so applies just as much to 'grass is eaten by cow' as it does to 'antelope is eaten by lion')  is a driver of evolution though.

although wiki article on predation gives slightly different definition:

Quote

Predation is a biological interaction where one organism, the predator, kills and eats another organism, its prey. It is one of a family of common feeding behaviours that includes parasitism and micropredation (which usually do not kill the host) and parasitoidism (which always does, eventually). It is distinct from scavenging on dead prey, though many predators also scavenge; it overlaps with herbivory, as seed predators and destructive frugivores are predators.

So, if a mosquito bits you and sucks your blood - it is not predation although it is consumption of a part of another living organism.

When we eat an apple - it is not predation, but when we eat wheat or corn - that is predation as those plants are effectively killed in the process of harvest? Maybe it is not predation as you don't have to kill the plant in order to consume parts of it?

What constitutes eating another organism? How much of it you have to eat in order for that to be called: eating another organism.

[Tiny Clanger]

11 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Apparently it is exactly that:

although wiki article on predation gives slightly different definition:

So, if a mosquito bits you and sucks your blood - it is not predation although it is consumption of a part of another living organism.

When we eat an apple - it is not predation, but when we eat wheat or corn - that is predation as those plants are effectively killed in the process of harvest? Maybe it is not predation as you don't have to kill the plant in order to consume parts of it?

What constitutes eating another organism? How much of it you have to eat in order for that to be called: eating another organism.

Taking words in common use and using them with a precise meaning in a scientific context is fraught with difficulties : force for instance ... is it a deliberate , intention to make someone or something do whatever ? Or a  collective noun for police or soldiers, or the physics definition, which is neither, but subtly similar to the first definition in some ways, which provides problems when talking about forces when teaching science.

In the context of the study of ecologies, food pyramids etc, predation is eating. I've no idea about harvesting vs. slaughter as subtle distinctions in energy relationships , I've tried in the past to get my head around the relatively simple stuff, which includes a whole extra set of relationships for the decay and consumption of carrion ,  and that is complex enough.  Symbiotic relationships (which come in varying degrees of mutual benefit, from the 'we need both of us to live', to the 'parasite kills host' , it's a whole other, fascinating subject on its own, I recommend you look it up ) are no doubt accounted for somewhere in the ecologist's understanding, but as I said, I'm no expert and don't claim more than an interested amateurs knowledge.

I do know that plants which produce fruit don't do it for no reason, again it takes energy and if it were not a useful survival trait it simply would not evolve naturally . Flowers are adverts to pollinating insects : they say 'land here, nectar available' and arrange it so pollen is brushed off on the bug and transferred to the next flower, enabling sexual reproduction. Fruit and berries are just tempting wrapping for seeds, to encourage animals to carry them elsewhere to grow away from the parent plant.

As the old joke goes, when you eat your bacon & eggs for breakfast , the chicken was involved, but the pig was committed .

 

[vlaiv]

3 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Taking words in common use and using them with a precise meaning in a scientific context is fraught with difficulties : force for instance ... is it a deliberate , intention to make someone or something do whatever ? Or a  collective noun for police or soldiers, or the physics definition, which is neither, but subtly similar to the first definition in some ways, which provides problems when talking about forces when teaching science.

Quite right.

Maybe this graph will help:

(most interesting part is distinction between grazing and browsing - which is, if one believes wiki - eating of low vegetation vs eating of high vegetation )

[Corncrake]

36 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

 if one believes wiki -

I dont think I do now ! I would have said grazing is the eating of grass and browsing is on other plants. But what do I know !

I wonder why the red micro-predation bit does not overlap the blue/white bit ? (of the Venn diagram ??)

Edited April 3, 2021 by Corncrake

[vlaiv]

Too complex - let's just for the sake of argument here adopt definition - "predator is something that is likely to eat you if you let it and often even without you letting it"

[Corncrake]

and just for fun :-

there is a topic "Live Feed Observing" in another section 🤣

(EEVA)

Edited April 3, 2021 by Corncrake

[andrew s]

39 minutes ago, Corncrake said:

and just for fun :-

there is a topic "Live Feed Observing" in another section 🤣

(EEVA)

So is a repeat of a live feed chewing the cud or an over long SGL thread? 

Regards Andrew 

[saac]

3 hours ago, andrew s said:

So is a repeat of a live feed chewing the cud or an over long SGL thread? 

Regards Andrew 

rumination , fun activity for cloudy nights !

Edited April 3, 2021 by saac

[saac]

On 02/04/2021 at 15:11, ollypenrice said:

One defining characteristic of terrestrial life is predation. It vastly increases (and affects the nature of) competition between species. I wonder if there might be alien ecosystems without predation? It would be nice if there were. I have this notion for a short story in which passing alien spacecraft fire off the odd missile at the predatory Earth in the way that 18th century navigators would blast off the odd disapproving cannonball in the direction of cannibal islands...

Olly

Like typical predators we have chased many rabbits down many holes here  but we haven't properly responded to Olly's original post!  Is it likely that alien ecosystems could arise without predation?  

 

Jim

Edited April 3, 2021 by saac

[vlaiv]

21 minutes ago, saac said:

Like typical predators we have chased many rabbits down many holes here  but we haven't properly responded to Olly's original post!  Is it likely that alien ecosystems could arise without predation?  

 

Jim

I'm happy to address said question as soon as I understand what predation really is.

[andrew s]

21 minutes ago, saac said:

Like typical predators we have chased many rabbits down many holes here  but we haven't properly responded to Olly's original post!  Is it likely that alien ecosystems could arise without predation?  

 

Jim

No, I think it very unlikely.  Regards Andrew 

[andrew s]

Just now, vlaiv said:

I'm happy to address said question as soon as I understand what predation really is.

Climb inside a cage with a lions or dive with sharks with a bleeding cut. Nothing like learning through experience.  Regards Andrew 

[saac]

I'm in the unlikely camp as well; I think it offers too much of an advantage even when energy is in plentiful supply. 

Jim 

[vlaiv]

4 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Climb inside a cage with a lions or dive with sharks with a bleeding cut. Nothing like learning through experience.  Regards Andrew 

But we have just seen that I can learn thru a zen moment like watching cows graze on pastures - or not?

I think that it is mandatory for life to evolve predators.

Chain is pretty straight forward I think and in each step - you gain higher quality energy source:

sun + inorganic -> organic (metabolism byproduct) -> organic / dead -> organic / live

[andrew s]

Interestingly,  its phosphorus that is most likely to limit the total biomass on earth. The Sun provides lots of low entropy  energy so it's not a limiting constraints. 

Regards Andrew 

[saac]

I showed a video in class the other week and learned that  we recycle the phosphorus from our waste.  It's removed at water treatment plants then  goes back into crop fertilizers . Pretty ingenious , the things you learn in school  

Jim

[JamesF]

1 hour ago, saac said:

I'm in the unlikely camp as well; I think it offers too much of an advantage even when energy is in plentiful supply.

Me too.  In fact I think it would quite possibly have to be a disadvantage for it not to evolve and survive.  Is cannibalism perhaps quite rare for that reason?  Predating on other species might be fine, but predating on your own may have the disadvantages of reducing the size of the gene pool, reducing the number of potential mates and reducing the opportunity for beneficial co-operative behaviour, never mind the possibility of being badly injured by an equally well-armed opponent?  (Of course it  may also have the advantage of reducing the number of potential competitors for prey.)

James

[Paul M]

1 hour ago, saac said:

we recycle the phosphorus from our waste.

From waste water? Although I'm in that industry my site doesn't do "P Removal" as it's lovingly known. A few years ago sites that are required to remove it were given a target that no known process could achieve at the time. I think the principal and the expenditure is there but the err, practice might still be "variable"!

It remains a feared determinand in environmental permits!

[saac]

25 minutes ago, Paul M said:

From waste water? Although I'm in that industry my site doesn't do "P Removal" as it's lovingly known. A few years ago sites that are required to remove it were given a target that no known process could achieve at the time. I think the principal and the expenditure is there but the err, practice might still be "variable"!

It remains a feared determinand in environmental permits!

Here's the video Paul, the whole thing is worth watching but the section on Struvite production starts around 41 minutes in.  If you do watch it's worth rewinding and watching the section on supercooled Helium - it exhibits some amazing properties when supercooled.  

Jim 

Super Elements