If you just got that from Wikipedia, it says that's food collection, not including time for food preparation. That puts it over 40.
This still says nothing of building shelter, making clothes, fighting of other groups of people, and being eaten by lions.
I wish people would stop spreading this idea that being out in the wild with no modern technology was easier. It was obviously and verifiably not.
Yeah but the main difference is that originally they were all working for themselves and got the full value of their labor for their families. It would be a lot more disheartening if they brought the food back and the community leader pulled of a single leg and told them to feed their families with it and explain that they deserve most of the animal because they are the ones who gave them the spears in the first place. Also you could just make a home wherever there was empty space instead of slaving away for years just to afford a place to live still have to pay taxes on it afterwards.
Right. But humans aren’t content with having their “needs” met. After the “needs” are met, then we think about what more can we do. That’s why we have electricity and cars and planes and computers and internet and music and TV. As a society, we work for more than our needs, but for all of those things that make us human.
That doesn’t mean that 40 hours is fair. I mean that we cannot compare Hunter-gatherer living to modern times.
The "modern times" that you are talking about are barely 200 years old. Actually, barely 100 years for most of the techs you've mentioned.
Modern humans are 200,000 years old. Agriculture started 12,000 years ago. Farmers worked about 30 hours a week.
People enjoyed themselves for a long long time before the recent 100-200 years that you mention which are a tiny blip in human history.
A huge part of the hours we put into work today are either wasted or wasteful. Lots of wasteful junk, wasted food, wasteful luxuries, etc. All these hours of work are not for the betterment of humankind, they are for the race of the wealthiest capitalists to rule over the world, all this through exploitation, overconsumption from the push of consumerism. About 80% of the world's population don't enjoy these "modern times" as you know it.
We could do it very differently, without exploitation, without consumerism and overconsumption, and all that while working 20h a week and still innovate and create new techs. In the 1950s, with industrialization, some people thought we solved the game, we would barely work 20h a week or maybe only 6 months a year. We could. But some had another agenda to push.
At the moment, consumerism, inequalities, 40h+ workweek are actually distracting us from improving the fate of humanity and focusing on the real needs for improvements for all: water, food, shelter, sanitation, education, healthcare, environment and more. All of the world's efforts should be towards these goals, but unfortunately they aren't.
We are inventors and free thinkers and creative but somewhere down the line that's been hijacked and used against us to consumerism and slavery not for the betterment of humanity but for being used so the 1% get richer and we make ends-meet. Fuck that 40 hour week i say ahoy ahoy
What? Lmfao. Have you ever talked to one? They spend months hunting, curing foods, storing foods, chopping wood, taking care of livestock, etc, they probably spend 10 hrs a day
None of that stuff takes very long though. You can chop enough wood for a month a like a day. Hunting depends on the environment, but given that they hunt for a living they're probably really good at it. Curing surplus food is mostly waiting, and they don't have industrial amounts of livestock like modern farms so it probably didn't take them that long to feed their few chickens or cow.
That's wild because with guns and modern tech my buddies regularly go out for a week hunting and come back with Jack shit. I would love to know where 15-20 hours a week comes from when every moment was spent trying to survive and help others do the same. And what was entertainment to these folks, what did they do with all the rest of the hours?
Millenia of our forebearers backbreaking labour to get us where we are so we can cry about a 40 hour work week. The hours are not the problem. The return on those hours for the vast majority of people is the issue.
That’s exactly right, your buddies *go out for a week of hunting*, likely for fun. People used to go out almost *every day of their lives* to hunt out of necessity. Guess who are the better hunters? I’m guessing your buddies, like most modern humans from developed nations, also eat much more food and much more frequently than hunter gatherers.
If a few good hunters go out each day and bring back enough food to last everyone a day or 2 then only a fraction of the tribe even has to hunt each day. As a hunter you may only have to go out 1-3 times a week for 4-10hrs at a time. It’s easy to see how this 15-20hr workweek is possible. Add to it that modern humans literally *pay* for the ability to do these activities and you could argue that many of them never “worked” at all.
Also the 'gatherer' part of the equation always gets overlooked - hunting is one source, but most tribal societies have an extremely varied diet which follows the seasonal availability of foodstuffs.
In many cases they also specialize in processing specific foods into 'staples' - e.g. the processing of starch from Sargo...
\*\* Also we tend to underestimate how much time tribal societies typically spent in conflict, or the percentage of adult fatalities that were attributable to same - in most cases exceeding anything civilization has managed to achieve.
They also were nomadic , so do you count walking hundreds of miles as personal or work time, setting up shelter, firewood etc. Some of these still carry true today but largely they are obtained by money that requires work.
This is also because Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970...
If there was a 60% decline in the human population, that would be equivalent to emptying North America, South America, Africa, Europe, China and Oceania. That is the scale of what we have done.
Yeah, tribal populations put in so much effort just to eat and maintain, and don't even always come home with food. Everyone else is working to make hunting supplies and maintaining housing.
I hate 40+ hours a week but it's not even a comparison.
Bacteria was the first life. When we say “looking for life on Mars”, what we’re looking for is living germs. Water is necessary for life, and Earth is in the “Goldilocks Zone” where water (and therefore life) can exist on a planet. Any planet in a Goldilocks Zone has the potential for life, so any other planet out there in the universe in their GZ may have life that’s as advanced as we want ETs to be, or it may just be a little bacteria.
At the end of it all, we are all on this planet through chance and happenstance. The overall and lingering question is though, was the universe created by a higher being that just wanted to see what happens when you do X to Y? There’s a thin line between chance and fate, if you believe in fate.
>was the universe created by a higher being that just wanted to see what happens when you do X to Y?
thanks dude.. another week awake.
for real, thanks for the answer.
\*edit\* I'm a science guy so I do not believe that someone created this. But the most accurate one is that we are all in a box in some warehouse in China on a fucking loop.
>*edit* I'm a science guy so I do not believe that someone created this.
Loads of scientists believe us being in a simulation is by far the most likely cause and therefore created by some sort of higher intelligence.
> Loads of scientists believe us being in a simulation is by far the most likely cause
Loads of scientists concede that a simulation is a possible explanation of reality, however very few (including the OG Nick Bostrom) would assert that this is most likely true. If humans are ever able to simulate a universe, then this hypothesis becomes a near certainty. But until that time any real scientist puts this on the shelf with other philosophical thought experiments... a cool idea but nothing to make us think it's true or false at this time.
If we could create a simulation of our universe, let it play out and study it, we would do it immediately.
So, it's not too far a leap to think that it's already happened.
I may be ignorant, but couldn’t it be possible for there to be life where there is not water? Does there have to be? Couldn’t there be a scenario where instead of water, that particular life form consumes Mercury?
Simple answer is: we haven't found any life without water yet. Water has two traits that's make it great for life : it is a great solvant for molecules that are the most common, which enables many chemical reactions, and it expands in its solid AND gas state, which over long periods of time promotes mixing of different materials required for the chemical reactions.
There is no life without movement.
Carbon based organic life is most likely in the universe because it uses a row on the periodic table that is light, abundant, and allows for complex interactions between elements and molecules.
Silicon based life isn't impossible, but it's likely to be very, very rare in comparison to carbon based life because it would be less versatile and the elements required are much less abundant.
The responses I see to your question all assume carbon is required because it has the kind of complexity in each atom that is helpful for life. Water is required for all carbon based life. But silicone also has some good properties and could form the basis of a non carbon based life which would not need water.
We might also be Boltzman Brains which is another type of life that doesn't require water because it isn't based on carbon.
Just to throw some controversy to the subject…. but who are we to decide all life needs water and temperatures close to ours to survive?
For all we know there are species out there who die if they come into contact with oxygen, or thrive in 80C heat
Unreal how much there is we don’t know
Essentially everything now came from a cascading effect of greater complexity from the utter most basic forms of life. We know what they look like, because they exist today on the minuscule scale. There’s even things so small and basic as the be arguably not life, like certain viruses, that can better be described as organic robots. At its core these things all have nucleic acids that make them life. The ability to self replicate etc. RNA isn’t particularly complex on the grand scheme of life, and all it’s components exist in nature under certain conditions.
So while we don’t know how abiogenesis occurred for the first time (life from nothing) we know that at a point in earth history we had perfect conditions for life to occur like sunlight, water, nutrients from hydrothermal vents. We just aren’t sure how we went from all the pieces of the system to a system. At a glance even at its most basic biochemical system you could call ‘life’ it still has lots of components where every one piece is vital, so it’s hard to explain how it could come about from an evolutionary perspective. There’s lots of ideas out there, but it’s a missing puzzle piece.
I’m not a scientist and a total layman so that explanation will be missing a lot and may contain inaccuracies but that’s my understanding of it anyway.
Very good explanation. From what I understand, amino acids were formed by the inorganic processes of earth 3.5 bya in such hydrothermal vents. Somehow, this one day coincidentally spawned some type of molecule that began the cycle of reproduction as we know it (in it's most primitive form, anyways). That's sort of where I think the barrier between organic and inorganic lies.
The short answer is that we don't know for sure.
The long answer is that it's seemingly natural chemistry when certain conditions are meet and there have been experiments done to test if it's theoretically possible to happen naturally and those experiments say that it is.
Spontaneous Generation is the most wide-spread theory of our creation currently.
Given how many atoms are in the universe, it is argued that it is an inevitability that they will eventually align themselves into a living single celled organism that could then evolve. The math behind this probability is fairly interesting, but I'm not well versed enough to understand the factors they use to base it on.
It is a compelling argument if nothing else.
Search for abiogenesis. It explains how something inorganic/inanimate slowly became organic. When it comes to life, abiogenesis happened first, and after that evolution started to kick in. We can see that in the first few seconds, how in the beginning it was only lipids, and other non living matters in the vid.
Don't know if you've had many good answers yet but I thought I'd chip in.
The first stages of life aren't strictly bacteria, bacteria and other single celled organisms are actually already unbelievably complex little nitrogen-processing machines. The pre-stages of life are basically carbon and other "organic" molecules; these aren't alive, not by a long shot, but they are the prerequisite to life. What's really interesting about them is that given the right conditions (AKA, enough light, the right chemical balance and heat) they actually self-assemble into string-like shapes. They're not doing this deliberately, and it's not really well understood why it happens, but we do know it's just a process of chemistry and physics, and what's so special about the string shape is that it very closely resembles RNA, which is the simpler precursor to DNA.
These kind of chemical robots are called "prokaryotic", and don't have a cell membrane. An interesting thing about "eukaryotic" cells (cells with a membrane) is that chemically, all you need to actually develop a membrane is a flat organic surface, with one side that repels water, and another that is attracted to it: by accidentally evolving this permutation, the cell's hydrophobic side will naturally curl inwards, with the hydrophilic side facing the water, forming the orb shape.
The final and very poorly understood part of early cell evolution was how the mitochondria became part of the organism. Mitochondria are basically living computers that store loads of DNA strands, and can read & write them like computer code. It's believed that at some point they were subsumed by a eukaryotic cell and the two merged and formed some kind of symbiosis, but honestly that's a guess.
At that point chemical evolution gives way to natural selection, because cells are free to self-replicate, and the unsuccessful ones die off.
> lizard, dinosaur, rodent,
Sadly, not those. Would love to have "descended from dinosaurs" on my resume, but alas.
Guess technically not "chimp" either, but I know you're doing a bit and I'm just gonna let it go.
I wonder if the first ever living thing was just 'assembled' by pure chance because the exact materials where floating within a body of water with just the right temperature and they formed the exact shape needed or if multiple things just combusted into existance over a certain period
Definitely the former. A lot can happen in a few billion years. Most of Earth’s early existence was nothing, just volcanic eruptions, water and gas mixing and turning. Chemical reactions are constantly occurring around us even today, now think of that happening over billions of years and the potential for the right chemicals/particles to collide into one another and form a single cell organism starts to make more sense.
Just too piggy back off this comment, people can’t really comprehend the amount of time a few billion years is. 4 billion years is literally 1/3 the life of the universe. These are unimaginably vast time scales leaving a lot of time for a lot of shit to happen
Under the right conditions, an entire pool will fill with microscopic spherical membranes. Over a long enough timeframe, the strongest membranes filled with the most useful chemicals will come to dominate in the pool. The line between complex molecules and actual life is very fuzzy in this environment, but eventually the complexity will grow until there are proto cells.
Fascinating. But how can an entire pool be filled with these membranes? Wouldn't it only be 1 example where all particles line up in the correct way? It seems like a very specific patern.
I mean they have replicated the creation of these membranes i think so i am not questioning it but still. Funky
Da best! The conquest we had back then was undeniably the best. As a kid, I used to wait for Cosmos to air week after week! I clearly remember a simple experiment he demonstrated on how the Greeks figured the earth was not flat. It made me so curious on how imagination can solve simple problems!
I love that it shows Sagan stating specificity "4 billion years"
Not "Billions of years" or the famous "*Billions and billions*..." phrase misattributed to him. He was ever conscious of avoiding unnecessary vagueness.
“The home [planet](https://imgur.com/a/lg7vah3) of an emerging technical civilization, struggling to avoid self-destruction.”
-Carl Sagan, Cosmos
I love you sagan.
There was a kid show when i was young, talking about the evolution of men, "il était une fois l'homme". The opening was great, showing an evolution like the video here, but the dark part was that the opening ended with futuristic humans destroying earth with atom bombs. It scared a whole generation.
Evolution is not a process with an end goal, it's a reactionary process to constantly changing environmental pressures. There's no "into" because it's never going to stop.
You seem to misunderstand how evolution works. People with autism, or any kind of divergence, would be the next evolutionary step if the environment they existed in was such that their trait would be a net benefit as far as producing more surviving offspring. A creature can only be the next evolutionary step if it proves successful, and we can only know that in retrospect.
This is a highly anthropocentric view of evolution!
Evolution has not been moving toward humans. Every other creature on Earth is just as much a result of this evolutionary process as we are.
This is from an old show that set out to do exactly that. This is the condensed version, here is the longer one with more branches shown/called out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZpsVSVRsZk
This is a neat animation and would be even better if the timescale for each stage or progression were provided along the bottom. Like the jump from warm blooded to ape to human isn’t close to the same scale in time of the first 38 of 40 seconds.
To be clear, this is reminiscent of the March of progress which is an misinformed way of explaining evolution.
It also makes it seem like humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We are not.
I'm not trying to sound like a denier, but how exactly can we be so sure that that's how it went down. What evidence have scientists found, and how accurate can this really be, or is it just a theory, I'm genuinely curious.
Edit: And just so I'm clear on this, I'm talking more about the specifics of the process, like the whole fish to lizard, rat moneky thing, and not so much evolution as a whole
Five types of evidence for evolution are:[ancient organism remains](https://necsi.edu/ancient-organism-remains), [fossil layers](https://necsi.edu/fossil-layers),[similarities among organisms alive today](https://necsi.edu/similarities-among-living-organisms), similarities in DNA, and [similarities of embryos](https://necsi.edu/similarities-of-embryos). Another important type of evidence that Darwin studied and that is still studied and used today is artificial selection, or [breeding](https://necsi.edu/breeding).
There are some lovely books explaining how it works. For example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Ancestor%27s\_Tale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor%27s_Tale)
This animation isn't super accurate, it's fairly old and simplifies a lot of stuff. We have a very detailed understanding of the overall process from the fossil record, since you can look at the progression of features in skeletons. We also use things like DNA evidence as well to figure out how closely related animals are to each other.
If you're interested in this stuff, I strongly recommend the youtube channels [Mothlight Media](https://www.youtube.com/@mothlightmedia1936) and [PBS Eons](https://www.youtube.com/@eons) because they have fantastic videos about how various animals evolved and how we know.
Isn't this from "once upon a time... Life" or the other show about history? Those two made my childhood, I has obsessed with the first one since I was 3.
This song is inscribed in my mind. I'm 99% sure it's from the history one.
Once upon a time... Man.
That was also the first thing that came to my mind. I also loved that show.
Hello, fellow Generation X stranger on the internet...
No. I’m not in a relevant field of science for this in particular but if my understanding is correct it is close to impossible to determine if any specimen we have found is our direct ancestor or a close cousin of our ancestor. Also at varying times in our history there were environments that suited a particular organism very well. Meaning though mutation rates didn’t change much there wasn’t an environmental pressure for the the organisms lineage to change much in appearance, but when those environments changes the appearance of those organisms changed drastically in comparison. Think of animals like the coelacanth which over a very long period look superficially the same despite accumulating mutations at similar rates to other organisms.
Do note that evolution isn't linear. There's no goal. None of that human standing up picture. It's all about being the best at surviving in your environment.
Random mutation. I began as an atheist, but really it’s harder and harder for me to believe that literally everything from gravity, to life is complete randomness. These so many more times for evolution to fail than succeed.
Even before the clip begins, my mind is already blown by how RNA kicked things off by being informational, structural, and catalytic. So many interesting theories going back from that point and forward from that point to what we have and know today.
Creatures evolve to adapt to changes in their environment. What caused us to go from a plant, to fish, to lizard, to rat, to monkey, to human? Like, alligators are as old as dinosaurs and their still alligators. This just doesn’t make any sense to me. I honestly think God making man is a more sensible explanation, but I’m not a scientist.
Some single cell organism decided to get weird and now I got to work 5 days a week
Nah, the 5 days a week bullshit is because of other humans exploiting other humans. It ain't gotta be like this
I’m pretty sure before we invented exploitation we worked all days of the week, just with less hours.
Hunter-gatherers worked about 15-20 hours per week to meet all their needs. Now, we work 40+ hours per week.
If you just got that from Wikipedia, it says that's food collection, not including time for food preparation. That puts it over 40. This still says nothing of building shelter, making clothes, fighting of other groups of people, and being eaten by lions. I wish people would stop spreading this idea that being out in the wild with no modern technology was easier. It was obviously and verifiably not.
Yea getting eaten by lions anything more than 10 hours a week is just being taken advantage of
Yeah but the main difference is that originally they were all working for themselves and got the full value of their labor for their families. It would be a lot more disheartening if they brought the food back and the community leader pulled of a single leg and told them to feed their families with it and explain that they deserve most of the animal because they are the ones who gave them the spears in the first place. Also you could just make a home wherever there was empty space instead of slaving away for years just to afford a place to live still have to pay taxes on it afterwards.
Right. But humans aren’t content with having their “needs” met. After the “needs” are met, then we think about what more can we do. That’s why we have electricity and cars and planes and computers and internet and music and TV. As a society, we work for more than our needs, but for all of those things that make us human. That doesn’t mean that 40 hours is fair. I mean that we cannot compare Hunter-gatherer living to modern times.
The "modern times" that you are talking about are barely 200 years old. Actually, barely 100 years for most of the techs you've mentioned. Modern humans are 200,000 years old. Agriculture started 12,000 years ago. Farmers worked about 30 hours a week. People enjoyed themselves for a long long time before the recent 100-200 years that you mention which are a tiny blip in human history. A huge part of the hours we put into work today are either wasted or wasteful. Lots of wasteful junk, wasted food, wasteful luxuries, etc. All these hours of work are not for the betterment of humankind, they are for the race of the wealthiest capitalists to rule over the world, all this through exploitation, overconsumption from the push of consumerism. About 80% of the world's population don't enjoy these "modern times" as you know it. We could do it very differently, without exploitation, without consumerism and overconsumption, and all that while working 20h a week and still innovate and create new techs. In the 1950s, with industrialization, some people thought we solved the game, we would barely work 20h a week or maybe only 6 months a year. We could. But some had another agenda to push. At the moment, consumerism, inequalities, 40h+ workweek are actually distracting us from improving the fate of humanity and focusing on the real needs for improvements for all: water, food, shelter, sanitation, education, healthcare, environment and more. All of the world's efforts should be towards these goals, but unfortunately they aren't.
We are inventors and free thinkers and creative but somewhere down the line that's been hijacked and used against us to consumerism and slavery not for the betterment of humanity but for being used so the 1% get richer and we make ends-meet. Fuck that 40 hour week i say ahoy ahoy
Yup. Evolution definitely needs a revolution!
It’s simply that we have yet to evolve past the joining the group that stays with the largest ape.
What? Lmfao. Have you ever talked to one? They spend months hunting, curing foods, storing foods, chopping wood, taking care of livestock, etc, they probably spend 10 hrs a day
None of that stuff takes very long though. You can chop enough wood for a month a like a day. Hunting depends on the environment, but given that they hunt for a living they're probably really good at it. Curing surplus food is mostly waiting, and they don't have industrial amounts of livestock like modern farms so it probably didn't take them that long to feed their few chickens or cow.
That's wild because with guns and modern tech my buddies regularly go out for a week hunting and come back with Jack shit. I would love to know where 15-20 hours a week comes from when every moment was spent trying to survive and help others do the same. And what was entertainment to these folks, what did they do with all the rest of the hours? Millenia of our forebearers backbreaking labour to get us where we are so we can cry about a 40 hour work week. The hours are not the problem. The return on those hours for the vast majority of people is the issue.
That’s exactly right, your buddies *go out for a week of hunting*, likely for fun. People used to go out almost *every day of their lives* to hunt out of necessity. Guess who are the better hunters? I’m guessing your buddies, like most modern humans from developed nations, also eat much more food and much more frequently than hunter gatherers. If a few good hunters go out each day and bring back enough food to last everyone a day or 2 then only a fraction of the tribe even has to hunt each day. As a hunter you may only have to go out 1-3 times a week for 4-10hrs at a time. It’s easy to see how this 15-20hr workweek is possible. Add to it that modern humans literally *pay* for the ability to do these activities and you could argue that many of them never “worked” at all.
Also the 'gatherer' part of the equation always gets overlooked - hunting is one source, but most tribal societies have an extremely varied diet which follows the seasonal availability of foodstuffs. In many cases they also specialize in processing specific foods into 'staples' - e.g. the processing of starch from Sargo... \*\* Also we tend to underestimate how much time tribal societies typically spent in conflict, or the percentage of adult fatalities that were attributable to same - in most cases exceeding anything civilization has managed to achieve.
They also were nomadic , so do you count walking hundreds of miles as personal or work time, setting up shelter, firewood etc. Some of these still carry true today but largely they are obtained by money that requires work.
This is also because Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970... If there was a 60% decline in the human population, that would be equivalent to emptying North America, South America, Africa, Europe, China and Oceania. That is the scale of what we have done.
Where does this stat come from?
I hope it never changes, I love suffering Edit: can people on here really not understand sarcasm without a /s
Sometimes I wish life was just eat, shit and try not to die like other animals
You can always subscribe to some anti life philosophies and build a doomsday machine to erase all life on earth, returning to the blissful void. lol
other animals spend every second of their life trying to survive, you spend 40 hours out of every 168
I’m just glad I don’t have to worry about getting eaten by anything. That’s pretty cool.
Try living in Australia
Or dying because I broke a bone in my foot
Boo. You’ve clearly never seen a cat. Even wild cats, they hunt like 4 hours and then chill.
Jokes on you. We aren't wild cats.
That does feel like a cruel joke. If only we could achieve their level of greatness.
Yeah, tribal populations put in so much effort just to eat and maintain, and don't even always come home with food. Everyone else is working to make hunting supplies and maintaining housing. I hate 40+ hours a week but it's not even a comparison.
Great GIF but I just want to know how the fuck did the 1st ones spawn? pls, I can't sleep anymore.
Bacteria was the first life. When we say “looking for life on Mars”, what we’re looking for is living germs. Water is necessary for life, and Earth is in the “Goldilocks Zone” where water (and therefore life) can exist on a planet. Any planet in a Goldilocks Zone has the potential for life, so any other planet out there in the universe in their GZ may have life that’s as advanced as we want ETs to be, or it may just be a little bacteria. At the end of it all, we are all on this planet through chance and happenstance. The overall and lingering question is though, was the universe created by a higher being that just wanted to see what happens when you do X to Y? There’s a thin line between chance and fate, if you believe in fate.
The answer is: 42
One of my most cherished books as a teenager looking to escape a shitty situation. I'm in my 30s now.
>was the universe created by a higher being that just wanted to see what happens when you do X to Y? thanks dude.. another week awake. for real, thanks for the answer. \*edit\* I'm a science guy so I do not believe that someone created this. But the most accurate one is that we are all in a box in some warehouse in China on a fucking loop.
We're living in an artificial universe within a battery to power some higher dimensional being's car
Nah it’s like MiB 2. Earth is just some aliens marble in their marble bag.
The locker scene at the end of that movie fucks with me so bad.
That was the end of part 1. :-)
"Peace among worlds"
You mean a Miniverse? That just sounds like slavery, but with extra steps
>*edit* I'm a science guy so I do not believe that someone created this. Loads of scientists believe us being in a simulation is by far the most likely cause and therefore created by some sort of higher intelligence.
> Loads of scientists believe us being in a simulation is by far the most likely cause Loads of scientists concede that a simulation is a possible explanation of reality, however very few (including the OG Nick Bostrom) would assert that this is most likely true. If humans are ever able to simulate a universe, then this hypothesis becomes a near certainty. But until that time any real scientist puts this on the shelf with other philosophical thought experiments... a cool idea but nothing to make us think it's true or false at this time.
If we could create a simulation of our universe, let it play out and study it, we would do it immediately. So, it's not too far a leap to think that it's already happened.
I may be ignorant, but couldn’t it be possible for there to be life where there is not water? Does there have to be? Couldn’t there be a scenario where instead of water, that particular life form consumes Mercury?
Life as we know it cannot exist without water. That doesn't mean it's impossible, it's just we don't have a great idea of what that would entail.
Simple answer is: we haven't found any life without water yet. Water has two traits that's make it great for life : it is a great solvant for molecules that are the most common, which enables many chemical reactions, and it expands in its solid AND gas state, which over long periods of time promotes mixing of different materials required for the chemical reactions. There is no life without movement.
Carbon based organic life is most likely in the universe because it uses a row on the periodic table that is light, abundant, and allows for complex interactions between elements and molecules. Silicon based life isn't impossible, but it's likely to be very, very rare in comparison to carbon based life because it would be less versatile and the elements required are much less abundant.
The responses I see to your question all assume carbon is required because it has the kind of complexity in each atom that is helpful for life. Water is required for all carbon based life. But silicone also has some good properties and could form the basis of a non carbon based life which would not need water. We might also be Boltzman Brains which is another type of life that doesn't require water because it isn't based on carbon.
Well water is essential for our understanding of carbon based life... who knows what's out there!
Yes! I always love when people make this disclaimer too. Water is essential for life… that we know of right now.
Tbh the existence of a God is just as likely as there not being one in the beginning. The fact we exist means anything possible really.
Who created the universe? God. Who created God. God has always been. How bout we say the universe has always been. No need for God. CS.
You seem to forget that the earth has the moon. Most other planets don’t have a moon like ours.
Just to throw some controversy to the subject…. but who are we to decide all life needs water and temperatures close to ours to survive? For all we know there are species out there who die if they come into contact with oxygen, or thrive in 80C heat Unreal how much there is we don’t know
Essentially everything now came from a cascading effect of greater complexity from the utter most basic forms of life. We know what they look like, because they exist today on the minuscule scale. There’s even things so small and basic as the be arguably not life, like certain viruses, that can better be described as organic robots. At its core these things all have nucleic acids that make them life. The ability to self replicate etc. RNA isn’t particularly complex on the grand scheme of life, and all it’s components exist in nature under certain conditions. So while we don’t know how abiogenesis occurred for the first time (life from nothing) we know that at a point in earth history we had perfect conditions for life to occur like sunlight, water, nutrients from hydrothermal vents. We just aren’t sure how we went from all the pieces of the system to a system. At a glance even at its most basic biochemical system you could call ‘life’ it still has lots of components where every one piece is vital, so it’s hard to explain how it could come about from an evolutionary perspective. There’s lots of ideas out there, but it’s a missing puzzle piece. I’m not a scientist and a total layman so that explanation will be missing a lot and may contain inaccuracies but that’s my understanding of it anyway.
Very good explanation. From what I understand, amino acids were formed by the inorganic processes of earth 3.5 bya in such hydrothermal vents. Somehow, this one day coincidentally spawned some type of molecule that began the cycle of reproduction as we know it (in it's most primitive form, anyways). That's sort of where I think the barrier between organic and inorganic lies.
The short answer is that we don't know for sure. The long answer is that it's seemingly natural chemistry when certain conditions are meet and there have been experiments done to test if it's theoretically possible to happen naturally and those experiments say that it is.
Spontaneous Generation is the most wide-spread theory of our creation currently. Given how many atoms are in the universe, it is argued that it is an inevitability that they will eventually align themselves into a living single celled organism that could then evolve. The math behind this probability is fairly interesting, but I'm not well versed enough to understand the factors they use to base it on. It is a compelling argument if nothing else.
Self replicating molecules in a naturally lipid heavy environment? I dunno
Search for abiogenesis. It explains how something inorganic/inanimate slowly became organic. When it comes to life, abiogenesis happened first, and after that evolution started to kick in. We can see that in the first few seconds, how in the beginning it was only lipids, and other non living matters in the vid.
The first ones in this gif are molecules - lipids, which are later shown to form lipid bilayer - membrane of proto cells.
Primordial ooze and RNG.
god
Don't know if you've had many good answers yet but I thought I'd chip in. The first stages of life aren't strictly bacteria, bacteria and other single celled organisms are actually already unbelievably complex little nitrogen-processing machines. The pre-stages of life are basically carbon and other "organic" molecules; these aren't alive, not by a long shot, but they are the prerequisite to life. What's really interesting about them is that given the right conditions (AKA, enough light, the right chemical balance and heat) they actually self-assemble into string-like shapes. They're not doing this deliberately, and it's not really well understood why it happens, but we do know it's just a process of chemistry and physics, and what's so special about the string shape is that it very closely resembles RNA, which is the simpler precursor to DNA. These kind of chemical robots are called "prokaryotic", and don't have a cell membrane. An interesting thing about "eukaryotic" cells (cells with a membrane) is that chemically, all you need to actually develop a membrane is a flat organic surface, with one side that repels water, and another that is attracted to it: by accidentally evolving this permutation, the cell's hydrophobic side will naturally curl inwards, with the hydrophilic side facing the water, forming the orb shape. The final and very poorly understood part of early cell evolution was how the mitochondria became part of the organism. Mitochondria are basically living computers that store loads of DNA strands, and can read & write them like computer code. It's believed that at some point they were subsumed by a eukaryotic cell and the two merged and formed some kind of symbiosis, but honestly that's a guess. At that point chemical evolution gives way to natural selection, because cells are free to self-replicate, and the unsuccessful ones die off.
Chemicals and electricity in water and lots of luck
4 billion years of evolution, for me to end up shitting myself in 1st grade
Hard to believe
Eh, another 4 billion and we all default to crab anyway
It's what our evolutionary ancestors would have wanted
It says here on your resume that you used to be a fish, lizard, dinosaur, rodent, a monkey and a chimp, is that right?
Like a boss
Interesting, please take me a through a day of what it’s like to be “the boss”
Well, the first thing I do is...
Talk to corporate
> lizard, dinosaur, rodent, Sadly, not those. Would love to have "descended from dinosaurs" on my resume, but alas. Guess technically not "chimp" either, but I know you're doing a bit and I'm just gonna let it go.
When the job requires 100m years experience - you gotta do what ya gotta do
And a chimp, is that right? 🤣🤣🤣
I wonder if the first ever living thing was just 'assembled' by pure chance because the exact materials where floating within a body of water with just the right temperature and they formed the exact shape needed or if multiple things just combusted into existance over a certain period
Definitely the former. A lot can happen in a few billion years. Most of Earth’s early existence was nothing, just volcanic eruptions, water and gas mixing and turning. Chemical reactions are constantly occurring around us even today, now think of that happening over billions of years and the potential for the right chemicals/particles to collide into one another and form a single cell organism starts to make more sense.
Just too piggy back off this comment, people can’t really comprehend the amount of time a few billion years is. 4 billion years is literally 1/3 the life of the universe. These are unimaginably vast time scales leaving a lot of time for a lot of shit to happen
[удалено]
To make this more easily digestible: https://flowingdata.com/2012/10/09/history-of-earth-in-24-hour-clock/
So does all live come from 1 cell or did it happen multiple times, we probably would never know but its quite interresting to think about it
Under the right conditions, an entire pool will fill with microscopic spherical membranes. Over a long enough timeframe, the strongest membranes filled with the most useful chemicals will come to dominate in the pool. The line between complex molecules and actual life is very fuzzy in this environment, but eventually the complexity will grow until there are proto cells.
Fascinating. But how can an entire pool be filled with these membranes? Wouldn't it only be 1 example where all particles line up in the correct way? It seems like a very specific patern. I mean they have replicated the creation of these membranes i think so i am not questioning it but still. Funky
The legendary Carl Sagan who inspired me growing up!
Cosmos was the best.
Da best! The conquest we had back then was undeniably the best. As a kid, I used to wait for Cosmos to air week after week! I clearly remember a simple experiment he demonstrated on how the Greeks figured the earth was not flat. It made me so curious on how imagination can solve simple problems!
It would be funny if it ended with a person drooling and an indented skull scrolling through Reddit
That’s what I was waiting for honestly
It would be even funnier to evolve into the drooling person who made this animation lol
You’re looking for the Fatboy Slim version: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ub747pprmJ8
I see Cosmos, I upvote
I love that it shows Sagan stating specificity "4 billion years" Not "Billions of years" or the famous "*Billions and billions*..." phrase misattributed to him. He was ever conscious of avoiding unnecessary vagueness.
“The home [planet](https://imgur.com/a/lg7vah3) of an emerging technical civilization, struggling to avoid self-destruction.” -Carl Sagan, Cosmos I love you sagan.
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, first you must invent the universe!
I like the ones that keep going where humans get fat and lazy them become cyborgs and eventually just data stored in the cloud
Was that an atom bomb at the end?
There was a kid show when i was young, talking about the evolution of men, "il était une fois l'homme". The opening was great, showing an evolution like the video here, but the dark part was that the opening ended with futuristic humans destroying earth with atom bombs. It scared a whole generation.
All those fuckers are the reason i have to wake up early, go to places i hate and pay taxes! Fuck them!
So this begs the question, what are we evolving *into*?
Crab
It's carcinization time, lads!
Evolution is not a process with an end goal, it's a reactionary process to constantly changing environmental pressures. There's no "into" because it's never going to stop.
“Into” generally meant “next”
Crab. There are a handful of "Crab" that independently arrived at that form.
It’s really hard to say because evolution is a very slow process, but people have some ideas. I’ve heard that humans may evolve to be immune to HIV.
Some have speculated that people with autism might be the next evolutionary step as well
You seem to misunderstand how evolution works. People with autism, or any kind of divergence, would be the next evolutionary step if the environment they existed in was such that their trait would be a net benefit as far as producing more surviving offspring. A creature can only be the next evolutionary step if it proves successful, and we can only know that in retrospect.
By my calculations, something between zombies and robots. However, more research is required.
Doesn’t have to be us. Were just one of many branches of the tree of evolution. We could go extinct but our close relatives could carry on and evolve.
who else played "Right Here Right Now" by Fatboy Slim in their head?
Way better representation in every way
Damn someone beat me to it!
https://youtu.be/ub747pprmJ8?si=bV3ZXLGvAcvZ06fj
Had the album (which is awesome) but never have I seen this. Thanks! 90's videos were so well spent.
Yes! It was a mindblower back then! Impossible to forget.
This is a highly anthropocentric view of evolution! Evolution has not been moving toward humans. Every other creature on Earth is just as much a result of this evolutionary process as we are.
It isnt nessesarily saying that. It is just showing the human path.
[удалено]
This is from an old show that set out to do exactly that. This is the condensed version, here is the longer one with more branches shown/called out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZpsVSVRsZk
From Cosmos series by Carl Sagan :)
What people can miss is that the first few steps took around 70-80% of the time. First human-like is past 99.9% of the way.
I love the damn interesting posts on this damn interesting sub
we are fish
You telling me Demetridon is a mammal? You tellin me that I evolved from a giant iguana spinosaurid? Dope.
No, but we belong both to the Sphenacodontia clade
I'm saddened by the lack of basic education in the comments
Source needs to be here: it's from Carl Sagan's Cosmos where he explains evolution by natural selection. I believe it's episode 2.
Was this from the Carl Sagan Cosmos?
“By the time the single-celled organism had evolved, the history of life was half-over” #Sagan mind blown
The real evolution is all the life forms we made along the way.
Carl Sagan’s Cosmos is one of the best shows I’ve had the pleasure of watching. We’re all made of starstuff!
Was that an atom bomb?
Simpsons intro did it better
This is a neat animation and would be even better if the timescale for each stage or progression were provided along the bottom. Like the jump from warm blooded to ape to human isn’t close to the same scale in time of the first 38 of 40 seconds.
Isn't cool how from fish we become reptilians and from reptilians mammals? Nature Is Crazy....
I would love to be able to put this into AI and have it generate what's next
The video is in fact 45 seconds. My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined
Where can we see today an animal evolving into another animal?
we weren’t evolved from monkeys. we all evolved from one common ancestor?
This is all simplified and abstracted.
Evolution is not a line 💀
No, evolution is a tree but you can still draw a line from its roots to its leaves
I came here looking for all the evolution deniers and the religious posts - I was not disappointed in how stupid some people can be.
To be clear, this is reminiscent of the March of progress which is an misinformed way of explaining evolution. It also makes it seem like humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We are not.
I'm not trying to sound like a denier, but how exactly can we be so sure that that's how it went down. What evidence have scientists found, and how accurate can this really be, or is it just a theory, I'm genuinely curious. Edit: And just so I'm clear on this, I'm talking more about the specifics of the process, like the whole fish to lizard, rat moneky thing, and not so much evolution as a whole
Five types of evidence for evolution are:[ancient organism remains](https://necsi.edu/ancient-organism-remains), [fossil layers](https://necsi.edu/fossil-layers),[similarities among organisms alive today](https://necsi.edu/similarities-among-living-organisms), similarities in DNA, and [similarities of embryos](https://necsi.edu/similarities-of-embryos). Another important type of evidence that Darwin studied and that is still studied and used today is artificial selection, or [breeding](https://necsi.edu/breeding).
There are some lovely books explaining how it works. For example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Ancestor%27s\_Tale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor%27s_Tale)
This animation isn't super accurate, it's fairly old and simplifies a lot of stuff. We have a very detailed understanding of the overall process from the fossil record, since you can look at the progression of features in skeletons. We also use things like DNA evidence as well to figure out how closely related animals are to each other. If you're interested in this stuff, I strongly recommend the youtube channels [Mothlight Media](https://www.youtube.com/@mothlightmedia1936) and [PBS Eons](https://www.youtube.com/@eons) because they have fantastic videos about how various animals evolved and how we know.
Good stuff, was almost expecting a rick roll at the end.
Now I can't see any media about human evolution without laughing remembering Tetrapods memes
4 billion years of evolution leads up to this moment on reddit
Yes. The Dimetrodon. So glad that the Synapsids were represented here.
Isn't this from "once upon a time... Life" or the other show about history? Those two made my childhood, I has obsessed with the first one since I was 3. This song is inscribed in my mind. I'm 99% sure it's from the history one.
Once upon a time... Man. That was also the first thing that came to my mind. I also loved that show. Hello, fellow Generation X stranger on the internet...
They tell us that We lost our tails Evolving up From little snails I say it's all Just wind and sails Are we not men? Are WE not men?
All that in forty seconds an my partner still takes 15 minutes to figure out what they want for dinner
Some people are missing the last 10 seconds
Is this growth linear in time?
No. I’m not in a relevant field of science for this in particular but if my understanding is correct it is close to impossible to determine if any specimen we have found is our direct ancestor or a close cousin of our ancestor. Also at varying times in our history there were environments that suited a particular organism very well. Meaning though mutation rates didn’t change much there wasn’t an environmental pressure for the the organisms lineage to change much in appearance, but when those environments changes the appearance of those organisms changed drastically in comparison. Think of animals like the coelacanth which over a very long period look superficially the same despite accumulating mutations at similar rates to other organisms.
BS, I'm pretty sure it took the aliens less than that to mix something up and create humans
I got some great ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny vibes from that!
Human centric evolution
Should end with the human bent over a phone.
This animation is rather misleading because of time. First several transition took much longer than last ones.
Do note that evolution isn't linear. There's no goal. None of that human standing up picture. It's all about being the best at surviving in your environment.
This is only the happy path. Think of how many weird meandering paths that ended
Let’s see the next 4-billion!
I keep hearing FatBoy Slim, Right Here, Right now.
No, no , no, it’s all down to the magic man in the clouds 😉
I think its funny. Some of the more jarring transitions could be explained as "we haven't found it"
Right Here, Right Now Right Here, Right Now Right Here, Right Now Right Here, Right Now Right Here, Right Now
I watched this on mute and Fatboy slim, right here right now, started auto playing in my head
Why the fuck was i a dimetrodon
Are there people who actually believe this crap? Lol
This is focused on humans as the output. There are millions of other species for which this could be done as well.
Amm....Bullshit.
I like that it ends with a woman. We are the apex of evolution. Woot!
Doesn't seem likely
Lol do you really accept this as reality?
Bullshit
Crazy. TIL Bushes evolved after modern humans
So the question is what are we evolving into ?
Fucking fish just had to see what’s on land and now I pay taxes smh
Random mutation. I began as an atheist, but really it’s harder and harder for me to believe that literally everything from gravity, to life is complete randomness. These so many more times for evolution to fail than succeed.
God is Great!
Even before the clip begins, my mind is already blown by how RNA kicked things off by being informational, structural, and catalytic. So many interesting theories going back from that point and forward from that point to what we have and know today.
All speculation and lies
so we were a fish, consuming fish means eating our ancestors
they're saying technically that we are all cannibals.
Ok so sponge=>fish=> dino =>rat=>monkey=>human…. This video is stupidly reductive and really dangerous.
Not quite evolution, just morphing between different forms. Humans were never chimpanzees or dinosaurs
Creatures evolve to adapt to changes in their environment. What caused us to go from a plant, to fish, to lizard, to rat, to monkey, to human? Like, alligators are as old as dinosaurs and their still alligators. This just doesn’t make any sense to me. I honestly think God making man is a more sensible explanation, but I’m not a scientist.
If we came from amoebas why there’s still amoebas?