C3PO on the Moon?

Sylvia Else wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
"Fred J. wrote in message
...
Sylvia wrote:

Life on Earth seems to think four limbs and two eyes are the best
solution over the widest range of circumstances. From dinosaurs
to humans, it's a persistant pattern across different species, time
and environments. Life quickly found the optimum and locked
it in, it would appear.

All land vertebrates, and that includes dinosaurs and humans, almost
certainly have the same common ancestor, so the existence of four limbs
in all land vertebrates can be put down to a single evolutionary
sequence. Descendants of the creature that evolved have been pretty much
stuck with the pattern since, because there's no evolutionary step that
would lead towards having more limbs that would itself be beneficial.

Arthropods on land are very successfull. Arthropod eyes are so
different from vertebrate eyes that it can be hard to judge if they have
two or thousands. Insects have six limbs. Spiders have eight. Lice
have (is it ten?). Centipedes and millipeds have a lot of limbs.

So far the optimum sounds like bilateral symetry.

Among molluscs who are successful on land, snails and slugs have a
variable number of eyes and it's ambiguous if their base should be
called a limb at all. Oops, there goes the bilateral symetry even among
successful land animals.

Some land veterbrates may be losing their forelimbs. The NZ Kiwi might
well evolve not to have them (its wings) - if it doesn't become extinct
first, which seems entirely likely.

Snakes and some species of lizard have no limbs.

People that sadly think life is only a fluke of chance, more an accident
than anyting else, haven't noticed that randomness or mutations
allow life to fully explore the possibility space, so that selection
can more effectively take place.

Random events, or mutations, are a one of two primary driving forces
for evolution, the other is persistant order, for example four limbs
and two eyes. When the two are in an equilibrium with each other
so that neither dominates the whole, the system spontaneously
starts hill-climbing or evolving towards higher order.

Evolution is a directed path, not a random walk
towards ever higher order.

It's far from directed. Each change is random. If a change is
benefifical, in the sense of increasing reproductive success, it's
retained. If it is detrimental (and most changes are), then it is dropped.

The word "directed" is problematic. Because unsuccessful mutations are
culled very effectively the directions of change are not random.
Because the current environment effects evolution the change is a
feedback loop based on other current species. The change is
self-organizing without any need for a global controller. Lack of a
global director makes the change not directed. Presence of local
feedback loops that cull most mutations makes the changed some variation
on the word directed - sorta self-directed.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Snakes and some species of lizard have no limbs.

Well, at least some snakes retain vestigial limbs right?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...derquest_x.htm

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

David Spain wrote:


I'll bet if you just started a conversation with Milla Jovovitch she'd fall asleep.

Yah, you betcha...

Not when I send my trained eagle to steal away her young daughter, so
that I can rescue the little tyke and impress Milla while I just
"happen" to be logging in the vicinity of her house:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lflJ6ZVKgo
It is either that or shoot President Reagan, and that's going to require
a lot of digging to accomplish. ;-)

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

David Spain wrote:


I'll bet if you just started a conversation with Milla Jovovitch she'd fall asleep.

Yah, you betcha...

Not when I send my trained eagle to steal away her young daughter, so that I
can rescue the little tyke and impress Milla while I just "happen" to be
logging in the vicinity of her house:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lflJ6ZVKgo

Umm, only one small flaw I see in your plan. I dunno how much free timber is available
in and around LA/Hollywood. Maybe them thar trees next to that ceeement pond?

It is either that or shoot President Reagan, and that's going to require a lot
of digging to accomplish. ;-)

And just how certain are you that there's anyone there? Some people say the
lid to the tomb was rolled away and .... Well, hmm, best I don't go there...

;-)

Dave

"Pat Flannery" skrev i meddelelsen
...

Not when I send my trained eagle to steal away her young daughter, so that
I can rescue the little tyke and impress Milla while I just "happen" to be
logging in the vicinity of her house:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lflJ6ZVKgo
It is either that or shoot President Reagan, and that's going to require a
lot of digging to accomplish. ;-)

John Hinckley, Jr. tried that. Didn't work for him. :-)

Jon Lennart Beck.

David Spain wrote:
Not when I send my trained eagle to steal away her young daughter, so that I
can rescue the little tyke and impress Milla while I just "happen" to be
logging in the vicinity of her house:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lflJ6ZVKgo

Umm, only one small flaw I see in your plan. I dunno how much free timber is available
in and around LA/Hollywood. Maybe them thar trees next to that ceeement pond?


First I hire the Acme Tree Delivery And Removal Service Company to
"happen" to be driving past her house when the eagle swoops down. In
fact,the eagle could have a nest in the tree that was going to be
delivered that somehow went unnoticed at the tree farm...in much the
same way that Milla didn't notice that extensible gripper claw coming in
through the doggy door on the side of her house and pulling baby Ever
Gabo through it into the front yard just before the eagle descended from
the tree.


It is either that or shoot President Reagan, and that's going to require a lot
of digging to accomplish. ;-)

And just how certain are you that there's anyone there? Some people say the
lid to the tomb was rolled away and ....


That actually happened down in Haiti when an enraged crowd went to
desecrate the tomb of Papa Doc Duvalier after the downfall of his son,
Baby Doc.
The tomb was empty, and the crowd took one look at that situation and
fled the scene as fast as their feet would carry them. :-D

Pat

Raven wrote:

John Hinckley, Jr. tried that. Didn't work for him. :-)


And this guy's attempt to impress Bjork by sending her a bomb that would
spray her with acid didn't work either:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Ricardo_Lopez
You see, his approach was all wrong.*
Now if Bjork's son, Sigri, were out on a boat off Iceland one day when
it was attacked by a giant squid... and someone just happened to be
there to save him from the aquatic monster, she could not help but be
impressed with that person, could she?
That's why I'm already gathering red rubber fire hoses for tentacles,
baby moon car hubcaps for eyes, some big barrels for the flotation of
the body, and a hell of a lot of red foam rubber to recreate the evil
Kraken's body, as well as learning to ride a killer whale while dressed
as Prince Namor, Ruler Of Atlantis.
Nothing as mundane as an eagle attack will ever impress Bjork, with her
innately radical fashion sense...nor give me a small chance of
indulging my secret fantasy of covering her in warm cod liver oil
applied with the wing of a dead swan...or maybe even a live one.

* Something more along the lines of a bomb that scattered flower
blossoms all over the place and then released live hummingbirds might
have met with her favor, but it's hard to say.

Pat

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
m...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

:

Life on Earth seems to think four limbs and two eyes are the best
solution over the widest range of circumstances.

Not really. If you start to look non-vertebrates,


Invertebrate robots?
But when I say 'settles' I mean the preferred pattern found
at the highest levels of order/complexity or hierarchy.


you start to see a much wider range of numbers

Starfish aside, even these are almost always
an even number.

over a very large range of environments. By biomass and species count I
believe they'd out number the "4 good, 2 good" concept you're esposouing.

Microbes out number people, but the patterns at the top are
the ones that have the greatest effects on the whole and
are the best 'solutions'.




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

Not really. If you start to look non-vertebrates, you start to see a
much wider range of numbers over a very large range of environments. By
biomass and species count I believe they'd out number the "4 good, 2 good"
concept you're esposouing.

The difficult one is bipedalism, as it's very unstable...walking is a series
of controlled falls that are arrested halfway through.
Tripedalism is stable, but very difficult to figure out as for how it's
supposed to move.


My parrot uses only her rear legs and beak when walking and
especially balancing at a stop. So the best way might be to move
like my bird does, which is to walk mostly as a bi-ped, but
with the spine horizontal and a bit front heavy, so the beak
taps the ground once in a while while moving along. Always
walking downhill! Coming to a rest on all three.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
On 7/02/2010 4:08 AM, Jonathan wrote:
"Fred J. wrote in message
...
Sylvia wrote:

:On 6/02/2010 6:44 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
: NASA's "Project M" tele-operated Moon robot video:
: http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/0...jscs-proj.html
: NASA says this can be done in 1,000 days from the word "go".
: Is there any good reason it needs to be this anthropomorphic?
: I can see the head, torso, and arms...but having it actually walk
around
: on legs rather than using wheels? The legs would have to be automated
: somehow because of the time lag in communicating with it to prevent it
: from falling over.
:
:Legs have certain advantages, but I'd have thought four (or more!) would
:be better.
:

Life on Earth seems to think four limbs and two eyes are the best
solution over the widest range of circumstances. From dinosaurs
to humans, it's a persistant pattern across different species, time
and environments. Life quickly found the optimum and locked
it in, it would appear.

All land vertebrates, and that includes dinosaurs and humans, almost certainly
have the same common ancestor,


That's not the connection, it's their level of complexity as compared
to...lessor...evolved creations. The creatures typically found at the
top of the chain have settled into some well-worn grooves.


so the existence of four limbs in all land vertebrates can be put down to a
single evolutionary sequence.

Your view of evolution is very linear, the higher level properties
are emergent, which means they are the result of a fully filled niche
or well developed ecosystem. The best solutions, emergent, are the
result of the whole, not the lone mutation or some missing link.

The commonality producing these patterns is the high level of
complexity, or highly evolved, ecosystems.

Descendants of the creature that evolved have been pretty much stuck with the
pattern since, because there's no evolutionary step that would lead towards
having more limbs that would itself be beneficial.


The only step that would favor far different solutions would be steps back
towards simpler and more archaic life forms.



Some land veterbrates may be losing their forelimbs. The NZ Kiwi might well
evolve not to have them (its wings) - if it doesn't become extinct first,
which seems entirely likely.


People that sadly think life is only a fluke of chance, more an accident
than anyting else, haven't noticed that randomness or mutations
allow life to fully explore the possibility space, so that selection
can more effectively take place.

Random events, or mutations, are a one of two primary driving forces
for evolution, the other is persistant order, for example four limbs
and two eyes. When the two are in an equilibrium with each other
so that neither dominates the whole, the system spontaneously
starts hill-climbing or evolving towards higher order.

Evolution is a directed path, not a random walk
towards ever higher order.




It's far from directed. Each change is random. If a change is benefifical, in
the sense of increasing reproductive success, it's retained. If it is
detrimental (and most changes are), then it is dropped.


This point about the role of randomness is very difficult to get across
to a classical reductionist linear mindset. Randomness generates
spontaneous order in two broad ways.

First is with initial conditions.
A totally random (boolean) network, if randomly disturbed, will tend
to generate spontaneous cyclic behavior or motion. This is true for
the simple reason that a system with zero, or completely random, order
if disturbed must result in a non-zero, or higher, level of order.
This is a direct result of the Second Law, which constantly
breaks things down into...random...collections of parts.
Creating the complexity needed for cyclic order, or self organiztion
to emerge.

And a second tendency is that a fitness peak follows gereralized
inverse square behavior. Meaning larger gravity and fitness peaks
will gererate larger basins of attraction. So any random path
through a gravity or fitness landscape is more likely to
....randomly...fall into the larger basin and peak. Steadily\increasing
order over time.

Randomness intiates cyclic order at the component level, and it produces
subcritical behavior, or direction, in the whole, which is behavior like gravity
that tends to clump together into a simpler form over time.

Randomness is not an obstacle to evolution at all, it provides the intital
impetus
and a constant push towards higher order. Randomness is half the equation
....for..the evolution of the physical and living worlds.

The newer non-linear complexity mathematics provides a far more
meaningful and comforting view of reality and the future
As a path towards an ever more wondrous future is easily seen.
While allowing the lessons and strengths of nature to become
daily tools.


Jonathan




Sylvia.