Author Topic: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?  (Read 7702 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #25 on: August 28, 2023, 10:12:34 am »
Life evolved many ways of sensing and signaling, from chemical, to sound, to light in the IR to UV spectrum, but no RF.

It has evolved.

The many people that "are" sensitive to WiFi etc are indicating that their genes should be removed from the gene pool. Or maybe I'm too optimistic.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 
The following users thanked this post: AVGresponding

Online jpanhalt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4005
  • Country: us
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #26 on: August 28, 2023, 10:45:21 am »
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

Radiobacter durans (aka Micrococcus radiodurans) , a very old name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans), is quite resistant to radiation.

One of the things I have wondered about (albeit very briefly) is why organisms do not take advantage of heavier elements like lead, which can be very useful in organic synthesis. Perhaps, it wasn't prevalent in early planets in sufficient quantity to be used as life evolved?  See: https://science.nasa.gov/origin-elements (chart attached).  [/coppercone_moment)  ;)

John
 

Online coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11341
  • Country: us
  • $
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #27 on: August 28, 2023, 11:20:47 am »
I don't think its dispersed too well, it tended to sink down deep during planetary formation I imagine.

merging neutron stars make quite a big RF field. and also spritz some weird elements around. maybe that is where you find that kind of life

try something like erroding uranium mountains that constantly sprinkle uranium dust into shallow pools of life creating water, so its like raining uranium or whatever there. what a terrible planet that would be.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2023, 11:26:53 am by coppercone2 »
 

Offline snarkysparky

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 419
  • Country: us
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2023, 12:26:00 pm »
RF is to quick for biological processes to do phase detection on RF signals.   It becomes a scaler, hot or not.   which nearly all biology already uses. 
 

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15800
  • Country: fr
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #29 on: August 28, 2023, 07:39:07 pm »
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.

Well, yes. It's hard to tell wether natural radioactivity on Earth hasn't actually triggered some very useful mutations along the way, but it probably has.
 

Offline vad

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 518
  • Country: us
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #30 on: August 29, 2023, 01:17:48 am »
Here is my dilettante’s perspective on this matter:

The typical process of evolution involves genetic mutations that randomly alter the genome, occasionally introducing new physiological capabilities that confer an evolutionary advantage to the genome. These changes usually occur on a small scale and can progress over numerous generations. For example, hundreds of millions of years ago, multicellular organisms developed rudimentary neural systems that aided in controlled movement. Subsequently, certain mutations led to the emergence of photosensitive receptors, which added optical sensors to these neural systems. Initially, these receptors and neural networks were minute and quite primitive, but after millions of generations, they evolved into the complex eyes and visual cortex we see today.

The pivotal term I wish to emphasize is "minute". Radiofrequency (RF) necessitates sensors that are many orders of magnitude larger, ideally around half a wavelength. The likelihood of substantial structures spanning meters emerging from random mutations in small, primitive organisms is significantly lower, presumably by many orders of magnitude, than the likelihood of sensors for UV, visible light, and microwave frequencies developing.

To rephrase, this concerns the relationship between wavelength and cell dimensions. The greater the length, the more intricate the mutation that must take place to generate a sensor suitable for that particular wavelength.
 

Offline Tomorokoshi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1212
  • Country: us
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2023, 04:23:43 am »
Obviously, because it's just too expensive to get certified to the RED.
 
The following users thanked this post: SiliconWizard

Offline Circlotron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3366
  • Country: au
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2023, 05:31:21 am »
Here is my dilettante’s perspective on this matter:

The typical process of evolution involves genetic mutations that randomly alter the genome, occasionally introducing new physiological capabilities that confer an evolutionary advantage to the genome. These changes usually occur on a small scale and can progress over numerous generations. For example, hundreds of millions of years ago, multicellular organisms developed rudimentary neural systems that aided in controlled movement. Subsequently, certain mutations led to the emergence of photosensitive receptors, which added optical sensors to these neural systems. Initially, these receptors and neural networks were minute and quite primitive, but after millions of generations, they evolved into the complex eyes and visual cortex we see today.

The pivotal term I wish to emphasize is "minute". Radiofrequency (RF) necessitates sensors that are many orders of magnitude larger, ideally around half a wavelength. The likelihood of substantial structures spanning meters emerging from random mutations in small, primitive organisms is significantly lower, presumably by many orders of magnitude, than the likelihood of sensors for UV, visible light, and microwave frequencies developing.

To rephrase, this concerns the relationship between wavelength and cell dimensions. The greater the length, the more intricate the mutation that must take place to generate a sensor suitable for that particular wavelength.
That line of reasoning would seem to indicate that we should be more likely to have sensors for UV and X-ray and so on. But we don't.
 

Offline IdahoMan

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2023, 05:55:27 am »
A: Because life didn't evolve.
 

Offline EPAIII

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1165
  • Country: us
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2023, 09:59:07 am »
Not the best answer. We have eyes, but we do not generate light. In fact very few species do. No, we use the light that is provided by the sun. And there also is RF being provided by the sun, other stars, and other celestial objects. So no, our inability to generate RF is not the reason.

Perhaps it has more to do with the size of RF receiving devices vs those which can receive light. Light is electromagnetic waves, just like the RF we are talking about. But the wavelength is a lot shorter so the receiving equipment can be a lot smaller. And, according to Einstein, photons of light are more energetic than those of RF so a single photon of light can produce a larger signal.

Why not UV or X-rays? Well, again look to the sun. Sure it produces those wavelengths. But It produces far more visible light. The planet was bathed in visible light and that is what we evolved to utilize. And I wouldn't be all that surprised if some life forms could or even still can "see" UV. I don't know about X-rays.

Just a quick search; apparently some people CAN see UV light.

https://www.google.com/search?channel=fen&client=firefox-b-1-d&q=seeing+uv+light

OK, another quick search and you can add X-rays to the list of viewable radiation:

https://www.google.com/search?q=can+any+animals+see+x+rays&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=560955759&channel=fen&sxsrf=AB5stBjxPRN8OFpt83zQnbUuEf7s8ErpMg%3A1693303662255&ei=bsPtZKmVD-axqtsPu6uIgAw&oq=can+any+amimals+see+x-rays&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGmNhbiBhbnkgYW1pbWFscyBzZWUgeC1yYXlzKgIIADIGEAAYHhgNMggQABiKBRiGAzIIEAAYigUYhgNImoUBULAKWNBhcAJ4AZABAJgB6wGgAcISqgEGNi4xMy4xuAEByAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICBRAAGKIEwgIIEAAYiQUYogTCAggQABgFGB4YDcICChAAGAUYHhgNGA_CAggQABgIGB4YDcICBhAAGAcYHsICBBAAGB7CAggQABgHGB4YD8ICCBAAGAgYBxgewgIIECEYoAEYwwTiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Yes, it seems to me that the reason must be at the receiving end, not the generating end. And human beings and their eyes are not the be-all and end-all of existence.



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?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2023, 10:12:33 am by EPAIII »
Paul A.  -   SE Texas
And if you look REAL close at an analog signal,
You will find that it has discrete steps.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2023, 10:29:48 am »
It's interesting to postulate a world in which animals did use RF.  Say the electric eel could create a small arc, this would potentially be useful as a wideband transmitter, and could summon other eels if they had some capability to receive the signal.  That could perhaps be an accidental evolution, as a diode-like response is possible with dissimilar metals in some cases.  In terms of more complicated means of communication like voice, I don't see how that could be practical.  It would require modulation of a carrier frequency, and I can't think of any biological process that would be capable of evolving that, it's essentially a biological transistor.  Nerve cells aren't capable of analogue modulation AFAIK.

Another question I heard once was why the wheel doesn't appear in nature given its almost superior nature in every way to the leg for locomotion.  Well, a true bearing is not possible in biology because there is no way to supply oxygen to the tissue through the bearing.   All you see in biology are ball joints which allow only partial rotation.  It could possibly develop as a component that later separates from its oxygen supply (like a nail breaking off) but it would be quite a leap to be able to then use that for locomotion, given there's no intermediately step that is apparent that conveys a selection advantage.  Also, any such tissue would be liable to needing replacement from time to time, as it wore down.  It is not clear how that would be possible with an independent component.
 

Offline tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8218
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2023, 11:28:09 am »
Light is RF, it's just a specific spectrum. In a parallel world we could have eyes that work in the gamma rays spectrum, and think about how weird it would be to see in the light spectrum.
"Imagine it, you wouldn't be able to see through things, it would be so strange." said the giant talking squid while driving to his work in the factory, making squid pants.
 

Offline vad

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 518
  • Country: us
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #37 on: August 29, 2023, 11:28:41 am »
That line of reasoning would seem to indicate that we should be more likely to have sensors for UV and X-ray and so on. But we don't.
There are animals with UV vision.
 

Offline Circlotron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3366
  • Country: au
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #38 on: August 29, 2023, 11:40:10 am »
Well, a true bearing is not possible in biology because there is no way to supply oxygen to the tissue through the bearing.   All you see in biology are ball joints which allow only partial rotation.  It could possibly develop as a component that later separates from its oxygen supply (like a nail breaking off) but it would be quite a leap to be able to then use that for locomotion, given there's no intermediately step that is apparent that conveys a selection advantage.
Flagella have a bearing of sorts. Good enough to support 6000-17000 rpm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66

Offline vad

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 518
  • Country: us
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #39 on: August 29, 2023, 11:41:46 am »
That line of reasoning would seem to indicate that we should be more likely to have sensors for UV and X-ray and so on. But we don't.
… Also, it is a logical fallacy. If two arguments, A and B, are false for different reasons, explaining why A is false might not give you a clue about the reasoning for argument B.

For example, bears cannot both breathe underwater and fly. Explaining why bears cannot live underwater will not explain why they cannot fly.
 

Online Psi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10385
  • Country: nz
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #40 on: August 29, 2023, 11:45:59 am »
That line of reasoning would seem to indicate that we should be more likely to have sensors for UV and X-ray and so on. But we don't.
There are animals with UV vision.

Humans too.  Within people that have tetrachromacy (4 cones in the eye instead of 3) there's a sub type where they can see into the UV.
 
« Last Edit: August 29, 2023, 11:48:20 am by Psi »
Greek letter 'Psi' (not Pounds per Square Inch)
 

Offline jonovid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1546
  • Country: au
    • JONOVID
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #41 on: August 29, 2023, 05:11:52 pm »
evolution by natural selection is scientific theory, not a fact.
we was made by the creator of the universe.
science struggles with increasing the odds of natural selection in a lab.
the best scientists can do is cut and paste bits of biology with frankenstein like results. :scared:
the kinds are the limit of selective breeding. dog genetics are different from cat genetics so incompatible. so are two different biological kinds.
 experiments adding metal to a biological organism is the stuff of alchemy.   cyborgs are an unnatural freak show.  :palm:
« Last Edit: August 29, 2023, 05:45:55 pm by jonovid »
Hobbyist with a basic knowledge of electronics
 

Online coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11341
  • Country: us
  • $
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #42 on: August 29, 2023, 08:16:59 pm »
also this thread fails to acknowledge the mognolian death worm. i read some where they generate lightning
 

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7276
  • Country: ca
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2023, 08:44:06 pm »
And who created the creator?  :o
Facebook-free life and Rigol-free shack.
 
The following users thanked this post: mikerj, Kim Christensen

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2023, 09:47:57 pm »
evolution by natural selection is scientific theory, not a fact.

In science, "theory" is as good as fact.  You are confusing the common vernacular "theory" with the scientific term.  A theory in science is a set of well-supported hypotheses which can be rigorously tested, and importantly, are independently falsifiable.  Natural selection by evolution has been observed in the wild, can be simulated with computers and robustly explains the history of life we observe via the fossil record.

No one can say for certain whether there is a god or not, by the very nature, god is untestable and is not falsifiable, at least in the many forms taken in religious belief.  However, we can say with certainty, that no scientific field has ever uncovered specific evidence pointing to a god or gods creating life on Earth.

It's fine to have a personal belief in a deity if it makes you feel better, but please don't claim that natural selection is not a robust theory because it is one of the most robust theories in all of biology.
 
The following users thanked this post: mikerj, Kim Christensen

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9003
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2023, 10:13:17 pm »
"Just a theory" is a common, yet mistaken, misunderstanding of scientific processes.
Similarly, in common English there is not much difference between "force", "power", and "energy", yet scientists and engineers must use the words carefully.
(Punctuation and grammar help, as well.)
 

Online jpanhalt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4005
  • Country: us
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2023, 10:15:11 pm »
Something to think about:
Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-does-it-mean-be-species-genetics-changing-answer-180963380/#:~:text=Based%20on%20a%201980%20book,DNA%20to%20be%20considered%20separate.
Quote
Based on a 1980 book by biologists Niles Eldredge and Joel Cracraft, under the definition of a phylogenetic species, animal species now can differ by just 2 percent of their DNA to be considered separate.

Source: https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps#:~:text=If%20human%20and%20chimp%20DNA,equals%20about%2035%20million%20differences.
Quote
If human and chimp DNA is 98.8 percent the same, why are we so different? Numbers tell part of the story. Each human cell contains roughly three billion base pairs, or bits of information. Just 1.2 percent of that equals about 35 million differences.


I am not an atheist, but there is nothing in believing in a power we cannot understand that conflicts with evolution.  Those who say so are relying on texts written by humans. Much was deleted and not included from ancient texts in modern Christian texts. (Disclosure:  I am not familiar with non-Abrahamic religions)
 

Offline Circlotron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3366
  • Country: au
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #47 on: August 29, 2023, 10:35:38 pm »
And who created the creator?  :o
This is beyond my understanding. That proves it didn’t happen.
 

Offline xrunner

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7836
  • Country: us
  • hp>Agilent>Keysight>???
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #48 on: August 29, 2023, 10:45:43 pm »
evolution by natural selection is scientific theory, not a fact.

Uh no ... evolution is a fact.  ::)

This is factually shown in the geological record. It happened. But theories and facts are two different things and one does not become the other. Theories do not become facts over time because they get "better". Facts are what we find in the real world, such as evolution, gravity, elements, electromagnetic forces, and so on. Theories are what scientists use to explain various properties of the facts that we find.

I see people making this mistake my whole life.  :palm:
I told my friends I could teach them to be funny, but they all just laughed at me.
 
The following users thanked this post: mikerj

Offline Kim Christensen

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1819
  • Country: ca
Re: Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
« Reply #49 on: August 29, 2023, 11:48:32 pm »
And who created the creator?  :o
This is beyond my understanding. That proves it didn’t happen.

The old argument that "there must be a creator" because "something cannot come from nothing" is circular reasoning. ie: A non-answer that may as well be discarded.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2023, 11:53:44 pm by Kim Christensen »
 
The following users thanked this post: mikerj


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf