A fossilized mosquito preserved for 46,000,000 years was discovered with blood still inside its abdomen a rare snapshot of ancient life frozen in time

Article: https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/1015/46-million-year-old-mosquito-filled-with-blood-is-a-scientific-first

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

You may not like it, but this is what peak evolution looks like.

Meme aside, crabs are slightly different, since they are a case of convergent evolution. The reason mosquitoes, crocodiles and sharks basically look entirely unchanged is because there has been little to no selective pressure for those species, since their survival and propagation strategy remains incredibly effective. If there's nothing random mutations could do to make individuals of a species (or a subgroup thereof) more likely to survive long enough to breed, then natural selection won't have anything to sink its teeth into. If no other competitor comes along to outcompete those species, nor some devastating plague or other disaster which makes their strategy unviable, they will remain unchanged, and we get the coelacanth, horseshoe crab or, yes, the mosquito.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I really like how the evolution of intelligence is phrased here: https://ma-lab-berkeley.github.io/deep-representation-learning-book/Ch1.html

A necessary condition for the emergence of life on Earth … is the environment is largely predictable. Life has developed mechanisms that allow it to learn what is predictable …, encode this information, and use it for survival. Generally speaking, we call this … intelligence. ... In early stages of life, intelligence is mainly developed through two types of learning mechanisms: phylogenetic and ontogenetic

Phylogenetic intelligence refers to learning through the evolution of species. Species inherit and survive mainly based on memory and knowledge encoded in the DNA or genes of their parents. ... Learning is carried out through a “trial-and-error” mechanism based on random mutation of genes, and species evolve based on natural selection—survival of the fittest. … However, such a “trial-and-error” process can be extremely slow, costly, and unpredictable.

Ontogenetic intelligence refers to the learning mechanisms that allow an individual to learn through its own senses, memories, and predictions within its specific environment, and to improve and adapt its behaviors. Ontogenetic learning became possible after the emergence of the nervous system about 550–600 million years ago (in worm-like organisms) ... With a sensory and nervous system, an individual can continuously form and improve its own memory about the world, in addition to what is inherited from DNA or genes. This capability significantly enhanced individual survival and contributed to the Cambrian explosion of life forms about 530 million years ago ... Compared to phylogenetic learning, ontogenetic learning is more efficient and predictable, and can be realized within an individual’s resource limits.

Both types of learning rely on feedback from the external environment—penalties (death) or rewards (food)—applied to a species’ or an individual’s actions. ... Furthermore, from plants to fish, birds, and mammals, more advanced species increasingly rely on ontogenetic learning: they remain with and learn from their parents for longer periods after birth, because individuals of the same species must survive in very diverse environments.

Since the emergence of Homo sapiens about 2.5 million years ago, a new, higher form of intelligence has emerged that evolves more efficiently and economically. Human societies developed languages—first spoken, later written. … Language enables individuals to communicate and share useful information, allowing a human community to behave as a single intelligent organism that learns faster and retains more knowledge than any individual. Written texts thus play a role analogous to DNA and genes, enabling societies to accumulate and transmit knowledge across generations. We may refer to this type of intelligence as societal intelligence, distinguishing it from the phylogenetic intelligence of species and the ontogenetic intelligence of individuals. This knowledge accumulation underpins (ancient) civilizations.

About two to three thousand years ago, human intelligence took another major leap, enabling philosophers and mathematicians to develop knowledge that goes far beyond organizing empirical observations. The development of abstract concepts and symbols, such as numbers, time, space, logic, and geometry, gave rise to an entirely new and rigorous language of mathematics. In addition, the development of the ability to generate hypotheses and verify their correctness through logical deduction or experimentation laid the foundation for modern science. For the first time, humans could proactively and systematically discover and develop new knowledge. This further significantly improved the efficiency of acquiring knowledge about the unknown. We will call this advanced form of intelligence “scientific intelligence” due to its necessity for deductive and scientific discovery.

This line of reasoning puts something rather interesting into perspective. If in the past life could develop (via evolution) new forms of intelligence, of which they could not have possibly perceived of before, then who’s to say it won’t happen again? Perhaps humans could evolve and obtain, yet another, higher form of intelligence which we cannot possibly perceive of now.

Our scientific method draws a blank when it comes to justifying phenomenology and consciousness. Perhaps a higher form of intelligence would more naturally yield insights on how different structures of information processing yield different macro behavioral characteristics which could justify the mind and why it feels anything at all. … or something.

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I, too, find that perspective compelling, but I think it's worth pointing out that societal intelligence, as defined there, isn't unique to humans. Mycelial networks allow communication, learning and reactivity among entirely different species within a forest. Eusocial insects like the hymenopterans have their own unique languages. Whales communicate among their pods and across oceans to pass on information and teachings. I'm not saying that a tree knows what a beetle is, but there's something deeper than mere genetics at play when unrelated species communicate the presence of parasites through a mycelial network, and each tree begins to produce insecticide toxins, even those which have never been infested by a beetle. We too-often discount the many languages which are already spoken on this planet, simply because they are less intelligible to us, or seem more simplistic than Infinite Jest.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 2 points 19 hours ago

Yeah, really interesting point and I appreciate all the examples you included—I will have to read more on those. I’ve similarly been intrigued by the common belief that dogs “mark their territory.” It downplays the significance of using urine as a language. What seems more accurate, IMO, is that dogs use urine as a mode of asynchronous chemical communication. With the Jacobson’s organ, they can get all kinds of details by sniffing a lamppost. Is this a high traffic area, are the other dogs healthy, male or female, any potential mates, rough age, rough time (based on how old the urine smells), … it’s a spectrum of information.

Sometimes I wonder if my dog might recognize others, without ever having physically met them, because he’s been communicating with them via the fire hydrant for years. Not sure how likely that would be, but it’s certainly crossed my mind.