Author Topic: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?  (Read 7387 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RoGeorgeTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6893
  • Country: ro
Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« on: August 27, 2023, 01:12:23 pm »
Life evolved many ways of sensing and signaling, from chemical, to sound, to light in the IR to UV spectrum, but no RF.

How so?

Offline Gyro

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10109
  • Country: gb
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2023, 03:03:46 pm »
Derrr, because there is no known way of biologically generating RF and there was nothing to listen to on the radio while they were evolving?
Best Regards, Chris
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, 807, AndersJ

Offline Kim Christensen

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1819
  • Country: ca
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2023, 04:01:46 pm »
Also, there was no need. Sound and light work "good enough" to eat, excrete, breed, avoid predators, etc...
 

Online DavidAlfa

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6322
  • Country: es
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2023, 04:04:44 pm »
Because probably there's no chemical reaction capable of generating low frequency RF.
Edit: Damn, Gyro had already said exactly this :D
« Last Edit: August 27, 2023, 04:44:09 pm by DavidAlfa »
Hantek DSO2x1x            Drive        FAQ          DON'T BUY HANTEK! (Aka HALF-MADE)
Stm32 Soldering FW      Forum      Github      Donate
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8827
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2023, 04:07:20 pm »
Natural selection is just that:  selecting which of already available options leads to success in breeding future progeny with that option selected.
Feathers evolved as a useful insulation mechanism before they were used in flight.
 

Offline Alex Eisenhut

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3530
  • Country: ca
  • Place text here.
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2023, 04:33:30 pm »
Derrr, because there is no known way of biologically generating RF and there was nothing to listen to on the radio while they were evolving?

Really? An electric eel discharging is probably generating some RF. Nervous systems generate RF and some animals apparently use that to hunt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampullae_of_Lorenzini

Electric, magnetic, whatever...
Hoarder of 8-bit Commodore relics and 1960s Tektronix 500-series stuff. Unconventional interior decorator.
 
The following users thanked this post: Smokey, tooki, RJSV

Offline Alex Eisenhut

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3530
  • Country: ca
  • Place text here.
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2023, 04:34:26 pm »
Fireflies make light, that's THz RF, right?  ^-^
Hoarder of 8-bit Commodore relics and 1960s Tektronix 500-series stuff. Unconventional interior decorator.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Online IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12477
  • Country: us
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2023, 04:46:31 pm »
As I understand it, creatures like electric eels can sense disturbances in the electric field they generate using receptors along the side of their body. So they can detect the presence of other things nearby. Not RF, but certainly electricity.
 

Offline RoGeorgeTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6893
  • Country: ro
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2023, 05:10:43 pm »
Derrr, because there is no known way of biologically generating RF and there was nothing to listen to on the radio while they were evolving?

Not only RF is missing, but also the much lower spectrum, e.g. VLF, which would be easier to produce biologically. 

There are high voltage electric eels, and sharks can sense incredibly small electric currents from a nearby swimmer.  From there, one animal might leave the sea and use such organs for radio.  The frequency doesn't has to be stable, could be just a current spike at first, similar with the spark gap transmitters.


While writing these, I thought maybe there was too little RF "illumination" underwater, where life evolved first.  Maybe the life on land is just too young for bio-radio.

By looking at this timeline of life evolution, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life only the last 1/10 of it has land life.  Maybe that's why we are nothing but "walking bags of sea water", indeed, because 90% of the evolution was in the sea water.

I guess life on land should eventually evolve some form of bio-radio.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2023, 05:15:08 pm by RoGeorge »
 

Offline Infraviolet

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1172
  • Country: gb
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2023, 06:14:21 pm »
The only reason RF is useful to us in because some portions of the spectrum are quiet and don't have lots of natural phenomena producing radio waves at those frequencies. If life had started to evolve RF capabilities then the whole spectrum would have been very busy, not only would it have been useless for mankind to hope to make long range communications with RF (if man had evolved under such a scenario), but all the species using the spectrum would make it useless to each other for any ranges which would be longer those which could already be sensed with visible light, IR and sound.

As for creatures evolving passive RF sensors to look for reflections off objects, well the spectrum is fairly quiet naturally so there wouldn't be enough RF background radiation present to be worth listening to in the hope of being able to detect such reflections.

That all said, this is an argument for why it would be a bad idea in the end for life to evolve RF transmitters, that doesn't mean evolution doesn't sometimes pursue adaptions which are great when the first creature has them but become useless when more get in on the game. Evolution doesn't plan ahead.
 

Offline Gyro

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10109
  • Country: gb
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2023, 06:18:21 pm »
Derrr, because there is no known way of biologically generating RF and there was nothing to listen to on the radio while they were evolving?

Really? An electric eel discharging is probably generating some RF. Nervous systems generate RF and some animals apparently use that to hunt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampullae_of_Lorenzini

Electric, magnetic, whatever...

Yes, there's a lot of electric field sensing used in water, even including sharks. The Electric Eel is a bit of an odd one - I still don't know how it doesn't fry its own head and tail, it must sting a bit! I doubt if its output rise time is fast enough to  count as RF though, it must still be triggered by the normal biological processes and speeds, but maybe there's some sort of avalanche process that occurs.

I think the OP could maybe have clarified the frequency range that he was thinking of.


Fireflies make light, that's THz RF, right?  ^-^

Ha, yes. optical frequencies are possible, but those come down to chemical mixing. I guess you could argue that the Bombardier beetle can generate pulses of slightly lower frequency when it ejects hot steam from its ass by the same means!  :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle
Best Regards, Chris
 

Online jpanhalt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3937
  • Country: us
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2023, 06:52:34 pm »
1) Evolution did produce it.  We are proof of that.
2) Electric eels produce very low frequency AC at up to 500 Hz.  Our muscle action potentials might be considered another example and brain eeg is another example.  There are biological processes to produce alternating electric currents.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2023, 06:54:14 pm by jpanhalt »
 

Offline djsb

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 980
  • Country: gb
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2023, 08:19:52 pm »
Maybe some animals can detect the low frequencies of volcanic activity. Maybe this is why they scarper quickly in the movies. Or is this just Holywood fiction?
David
Hertfordshire, UK
University Electronics Technician, London, PIC16/18, CCS PCM C, Arduino UNO, NANO,ESP32, KiCad V8+, Altium Designer 21.4.1, Alibre Design Expert 28 & FreeCAD beginner. LPKF S103,S62 PCB router Operator, Electronics instructor. Credited KiCad French to English translator
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8827
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2023, 11:10:23 pm »
Volcanic activity can make low-frequency mechanical/acoustic vibrations, which could be detected by a sensitive animal.
Electric eels generate high-voltage pulses, but I assume there is a strong DC component.
 

Online coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11155
  • Country: us
  • $
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2023, 11:41:01 pm »
because the matter that is available here for biolgoical functions is most likely to make the systems that evolved. Who is to say what can happen if say uranium was a essential micronutrient for left handed triple helix life?

I assume its kind of like what you can put together with the junk box that you have.

How about instead of lightning the catalyst is some kind of weird triboelectric crystals under water arcing away?
« Last Edit: August 27, 2023, 11:43:46 pm by coppercone2 »
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12411
  • Country: au
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2023, 11:52:40 pm »
I am wondering about this aspect:

How would the use of RF provide an evolutionary advantage?

Indeed .... the question begs:  What, exactly, do you mean by "RF"?
 

Online coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11155
  • Country: us
  • $
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2023, 12:05:57 am »
uh like a radar bat
 

Online vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7812
  • Country: au
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2023, 12:26:41 am »
Life evolved many ways of sensing and signaling, from chemical, to sound, to light in the IR to UV spectrum, but no RF.

How so?

The only consistently proven natural producer of RF is lightning.
Unfortunately, it doesn't happen continuously, so wouldn't be much use to lifeforms, which require their senses to work at all times.

Some creatures can detect electrostatic fields, but not RF fields.
 

Online jpanhalt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3937
  • Country: us
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2023, 12:27:18 am »
Maybe the premiss of this thread is out of date?  It seems the answer may be that we haven't looked for RF emissions?

https://today.ucsd.edu/story/can-organisms-sense-via_radio-frequency#:~:text=%E2%80%9CResearchers%20in%20Europe%20were%20able,Deheyn%2C%20the%20project's%20lead%20investigator.

I am a little familiar with bioluminescence.  Fireflies have been known for ages.  As we developed techniques to search deeper, we found that the ability to produce electronically excited states, regardless of whether light was emitted from the entity, is pretty widespread in the animal/protista kingdoms.  That was an observation of Prof. William D. McElroy, who I was privileged to have as a professor many years ago.  Coincidentally, he later became Chancellor at UCSD.
 
The following users thanked this post: RoGeorge

Offline T3sl4co1l

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 22436
  • Country: us
  • Expert, Analog Electronics, PCB Layout, EMC
    • Seven Transistor Labs
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2023, 02:31:25 am »
When and where would it evolve, and why?

To be "RF", we must mean frequencies far above the cutoff due to ionic diffusion.  This isn't a neural thing, this isn't a muscle contraction thing.  Eels are scrunchy batteries, not spark gaps.

It has to be pretty fundamental, an early-ish discovery; most mechanisms I can think of involve some kind of mechanical interaction, piezoelectricity of a specific crystal for example, combined with some highly nonlinear process for harmonic generation (e.g. spark breakdown, but less destructive and more consistent).

I mean, that's not even that far out, hydroxyapatite (the mineral of vertebrate bones) is piezoelectric, at least a little bit.  But it would have to be applied in some way to get a transient into it, and have a spark gap or avalanche breakdown effect around it, with enough electrical insulation not to spoil the effect while also maintaining adequate structure and perfusion to, you know, be a useful otherwise-ordinary part of the organism.

And then there has to be a simultaneous mutation that effects some kind of receiver.

And these structures will be small, like, multicellular organisms, whether invertebrate or otherwise.  So any relevant frequencies will be very high, or very close in.

And the most dramatic evolution all took place underwater, where there was plenty of optical transparency, but RF is wholly shorted out.

But even this is very unrealistic, very mechanistic, conventional minded; it's probably more likely that protein structures might evolve to create organic semiconductors already, and perhaps diodes (of various types, including the potential for negative resistance) and transistors could be created.  Powered by muscle contractions, piezoelectricity, proton pumps (or other ions, but protons are fastest of course), etc., perhaps signals could be created idiomatically -- by random chance, and with similar junctions between individuals, perhaps enough reciprocity could be present that the transceiver problem is solved.

But this still assumes that there is an environment conducive to RF transmission (so, basically terrestrial only), that such structures evolve despite (or at best in parallel with) competing solutions that are easier to develop; like small-molecule emission and reception (smell!), but also optics have the advantage that quantum effects like chemiluminescence can be discovered by random chance, and, light sensors have been a staple of most/all epipelagic and terrestrial life forms, probably since before predation evolved, even?

I guess there's kind of an interesting angle (and, equally well I suppose: reason to be skeptical of any such proposed story's potential accuracy, and space to be creative with what kinds of ideas might be possible) to "alternative history" evolution, that kind of parallels a lot of mythologies, like: there once was an age of fantastic beasts of all sorts, but things get more familiar, less miraculous, more banal, more standardized, as you approach the present.  Why don't you see elves and goblins anymore?  Same reason you don't see trilobites, or Dickensonia, anymore: they all "moved into the west".  Why don't they evolve again now?  Simple: there's no pressure to; there's no mechanism to make such radical changes, under pressure of everything else in the environment they have to fit in with.  The basic vertebrate body plan hasn't changed in over 300 million years or so, and it's just so foundational there's essentially no way for mutations to occur in those lowest-level genes without succumbing to miscarriage (or the oviparous equivalent).  In fact it's far easier to severely deform those structures to new uses, than to redo the fundamentals of the body plan (see horse legs and hooves for example, the wrist and hand being largely resorbed or fused in favor of the middle-finger bones for weight bearing).

Well, along such a timeline, I would suppose such a special structure would've had to evolve quite early, but there explicitly weren't the conditions necessary to permit its evolutionary testing/exploration.

Also worth mentioning, electron/ion exchange in bacterial mats, whether through biofilaments, or inorganic (ferrous?) or hybrid structures; but this is basically DC, and I'm not aware of any that are particularly conductive, nowhere what you'd need to make a resonant structure as such.  Alternately, evolution would have a field (ha!) day with resonant cavities and lenses and antennas, that would be quite cool to see across species -- but again, without a way to harness microwaves, nor a medium to carry them, such ideas will remain confined to ones' imagination.

Tim
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electronic design, from concept to prototype.
Bringing a project to life?  Send me a message!
 

Online coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11155
  • Country: us
  • $
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #20 on: August 28, 2023, 03:10:21 am »
also I think the planet would need to have massive amounts of metal, mountains or carbon fiber trees or something because right now RF is too easy to locate if something is emitting it. It seems not favorable to stealth on the planet we are on. and perhaps near some radio noisy star.
 

Offline retiredfeline

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 572
  • Country: au
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #21 on: August 28, 2023, 03:21:37 am »
Unlike light and sound which are pervasive, there is little RF in the natural world and not conveying useful everyday information, so radio waves from space don't count, so organisms would have no impetus to develop for it.
 

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9284
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #22 on: August 28, 2023, 03:47:30 am »
A better question to ask would be why biology hasn't evolved to be able to detect radioactivity at levels well below that which would cause significant damage. My guess is that there simply weren't enough cases where it would have improved survival for evolution to design that in.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12411
  • Country: au
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #23 on: August 28, 2023, 05:05:01 am »
A better question to ask would be why biology hasn't evolved to be able to detect radioactivity at levels well below that which would cause significant damage. My guess is that there simply weren't enough cases where it would have improved survival for evolution to design that in.

My thought is that detection isn't necessary.  Simply let radioactivity affect biology and see which mutations better cope with it.  Same goes for any other potentially malevolent environmental factor.
 

Offline T3sl4co1l

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 22436
  • Country: us
  • Expert, Analog Electronics, PCB Layout, EMC
    • Seven Transistor Labs
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #24 on: August 28, 2023, 05:47:24 am »
Detect in what way?  DNA damage from diverse sources is repaired by several mechanisms.  Upregulation of those might correlate with radiation, but also environmental factors like high heat and dehydration; D. radiodurans is just a soil microbe, by coincidence also a radiation extremeophile.  Or tardigrades, etc.  Whether any of these effects are worth raising from biochemical to conscious* level, probably not?

*In the sense of whatever counts for behavior, mobility, etc.

Regional radioactivity, of hazardous levels, that would be meaningful to avoid via sensory input, is largely a modern industrial creation; simpler life like bacteria or mold can adapt, and complex life can just roll the dice.

Tim
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electronic design, from concept to prototype.
Bringing a project to life?  Send me a message!
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf