.
Hi Rusty Shackleford!

Thanks for your elaboration. Very interesting! Very wide-ranging!

As to my 'flying fish' example, I agree to some extent that no evidence exists of any such 'extension' into true flight in the past. However, I also allow for the possibility that any such were IMMEDIATE FAILURES in any long term (because of the transistional need to return to the water for breeding etc), so there COULD have been isolated/occassional evolutionary 'excursions' from fish-gliding to 'membrane-wing/foil based flight capability....but not sufficient/persistent enough to show up in the fossil record.

Evidence how FEW Archaeopterix-type fossils there are...even though THEY came MUCH LATER and WERE sufficient/persistent to survive/evolve further into long term...and STILL show up only RARELY in the fossil record.

So just because we have no record of such flying-fish based flight-forms, it is not logically/positively established either way, hehehe.

Then too, such flying-fish 'gliding over water only' type evolution to flying-types OVER LAND, would, IF they did at all, have happened MUCH MUCH EARLIER in the evolutionary process/stages, much earlier than the evolution from fish to land animals and dynosaurs and THEN dyno-transition 'birds'.

So, who knows what 'prototypes' remain forever 'lost' in the mists/processes of those earliest times, hehehe! What a fantaqstic collection all of those 'lost' evolutionary experiments would make if we could but retrieve them all, heh!

Cheers RS, all!

RC.
.

This post has been edited by RealityCheck on Nov 18 2007, 11:11 PM

Not to harp on a point, but I was just reminded of another important fish fact. Consider this an addendum to my earlier post about amphibious fish.

Many, many species of fish breath air and do not or are not capable of obtaining the oxygen they need from the water. There is a whole host of adaptations ranging from skin breathing to lungs. Some species still use their gills, but cannot obtain efficient enough respiration through them and so must gulp air from the atmosphere.

A small amount of information to add I know, but I felt it important to the case that some fish already have adaptations that are useful for life on land.

I really sincerely truely hate to say this.

Well Duh!!! Paucity of fecal matter Mr. Holmes.

Most fiction is fictiticous.
And most stories described as short stories are fictiticious. I think I described it a short story.

I guess no one can tell me the name of it. I would love to read it again.

Chances are the very same chances that has our Planet running amok with infestations of cancerous life forms..

Species evolve and therefore the chances of intelligence is highly likely, in fact this planet may even end up with two or more intelligent species before the star it orbits uses its resources up.. As for all intelligent species being human - Our first discovery of an intelligent life form in the following centuries will be our best indicator as to what species evolves the fastest, my guess would the species would need to be very close to our physique and mobility

The chance that other life forms and even intelligent ones existing is very likely, that's if the laws of physics in other galaxies adheres to the laws of the Black-Hole we are being exerted into..

Many marine life forms are extremely intelligent, and perhaps even more evolved than our level of intelligence, its just that we dont convey our reality the same way as they do, so we dont know exactly how evolved they are..

Until then Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

OK..

Lets not get religious or behave as Christians would..

Err~Um
Please go back to my first post in response to your remark where I was led to believe by your conveyance of the sheer joy the story gave you, and note how the story is being treated as a fictitious story by both of us..

And consider why my earlier posts may have not made sense to you but now that you are with some hindsight of what has transpired over our last few Posts it may make a little more sense..

I know what I done was positively evil to other readers who are disadvantaged, but I had to prove a point of the fine line of who is evolved more and who is one or two generations behind...

Anyway - I Hope you are satisfied with your results..

I never read books that are fictitious, so I cant tell you what the books title is.. Sorry about that..

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

look, English is my second Language and im only 16. give me a break. and anyway, just cause i might not be the best speller does not change my argument or its relevance.

WolfWithTheRedRoses Posted on 12//2/07 at 1:54 AM

It may not change your argument or its relevance, but if you want your posts to be taken seriously, use spell check. Besides, it will improve your grasp of the English language.

THE QUANTUM GOSPEL
(apologies if I break the "flow" of the discussion, but I thought the below post relevant to this thread...)

Isee writes on the "Cognitive Physics Thread"
=================================
The Observer POV is a source of confusion.

I never thought physicists would fight over theories, but they do.

If Newtonian physic is usefull and proven to worked then it is part of my reality.
If Relativity physic is usefull and proven to worked then it is part of my reality.
If Quantum physic is usefull and proven to worked then it is part of my reality.

Hmm..... I keep using String for my argument. I did not put E8 in my logic but it is within the Quantum Gravity level.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=287300
=================================

Dear Isee,

You write...

"I did not put E8 in my logic but it is within the Quantum Gravity level."

It is not inconsistent with what you also wrote regarding Newtonian Physics versus Relativity versus Quantum.

Incidentally, it is my view that you are not at all alone in being *confused* by observer point of view, but here is perhaps one way of framing it. In a prior post I referenced Rashomon and the differing POV's of those who witness a murder. Another allegorical equivalent are the Four Gospels of Christian "mythology." Four Gospels, each telling the same story of one man's life in differing manner and yet, as any devout Christian will steadfastly maintain, all are "true."

What is this if not "Big t" "Little t"?

T t

Truth
truth

Each Gospel is one writer's "truth," but the "Truth" is in the totality and requires the observer POV, the "fifth eye" so to speak, to interpret and recognize that totality. That said, the "Truth" one discerns will always be RELATIVE to one's frame of reference. Think about that in relation to why Jesus the man, spoke in parables and allegories. He was giving shape to what one might term the "crystal," or perhaps better stated the "quasicrystal" of Man and Woman and all manner of lifeform.

=============================================
RELATED ABSTRACT: The E8 lattice and quasicrystals: geometry, number theory and quasicrystals
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/26/8/009
=============================================

Each POV, meaning each observer of life who is also a participant, views this "crystal" from an unique perspective based upon one's specific knowledge-base and life experiences.

To know that the entirety is there, however, what Jung might have called the "Final" rather than the "Causal" perspective requires a "Quantum Leap" of what the religious might term "faith," the artist "imagination" and the businessman "vision."

Best,
Raphie

===============
RELATED POSTS
===============
OBSERVER POV, WOLFGANG ISER & RASHOMON
Dear Isee, Let me suggest that you add in OBSERVER POV. The past can be thought of as a series of "Data Points" in geographical strata-like formation through time wherein the issue of INTERPRETATION (i.e the "gray") becomes key. What happened 10 zillion years ago? We don't know, but can make educated guesses. Similarly, history is told by those who tell the most convincing stories, not by those who are necessarily "correct;" and in Rashomon fashion (Rashomon was a Kurosawa film about four people with conflicting accounts about a murder) two observers to the same event may come away with two completely different interpretations, or, in the case of Rashomon, four different interpretations.
MORE: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=287051

ABOUT SYNCRETISM
Syncretism consists of the attempt to reconcile disparate or contradictory beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought. The term may refer to attempts to merge and analogize several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, and thus assert an underlying unity allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths...
MORE: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=287889

EVOLUTION OF NUMBERS, LEONARDO DA PISA & THE DISUNITY OF MATHEMATICS
Back in the day, or so they say, Fibonacci used to take on the abacists in the then contemporary version of Kasparov against Deep Blue and would "smoke" them in a runaway. The Arabic Number system won out in the end and replaced all those D's and X's and M's because the system he introduced simply made more sense. In the post-post modern age, however, the issue is not one of "replacement," but far more one of "extension" and "syncretic blending" in what I fondly refer to as our "Babelized" or "Humpty-Dumptified" world culture and what Sir Michael Atiyah might term as mathematical "disunity"
MORE: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=287899

ON SYNCHRONICITY From the thread...
----------------------------------------------
An Exceptionally Simple Theory Of Everything?, a new paper by Garrett Lisi
----------------------------------------------
Yes, Majkl. Synchronicity, coined by Carl Jung, is certainly one of the implications of Garrett Lisi's theory and it is a step towards unification of mind and matter, animate and inanimate, continuum and bit string. A bit more dramatically stated with an eastern overtone:

The elephant of many parts is coming into the light.

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Dec 3 2007, 05:58 AM