Thomas Riker during/after the Dominion War

[Swedish Borg]

Evolution works by compounding small changes over time, sometimes arriving at complex systems. There is a famous canard that evolution cannot explain eyesight because the human eye is so complex, it couldn't work except in its final form. However, it's been demonstrated numerous times that cells can be sensitive to being stricken by light, and that ability can become progressively more complex. Ds9 is obviously fiction, so we could just handwave the evolution of shape-shifting away, but I don't think it is difficult to imagine how it emerges. Individual organisms mutate and pass down the ability to alter tissues, perhaps as a response to injury or disease. As this ability becomes more sophisticated, it is employed in areas not related to healing, but starts to build into other areas of their existence, influencing intimacy and habitation.

I am sorry that's not how evolution works. Small changes don't accumulate unless each of these little changes confers an advantage in survival. Mutations happen randomly but they are only transmitted to the next generation if they contribute to the individual surviving.

Like for example if a species need to run fast in order to survive then the specimen whose legs will be more adapted to speed will be more likely to survive and their genes will be passed on to the next generation.

A species that spends most of its time in a puddle of goo, isn't likely to evolve in any direction except decay.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Small changes don't accumulate unless each of these little changes confers an advantage in survival

That's exactly how they happen. See my example: the human eye.

 

[Oddish]

That is why the theory of evolution is essentially irrefutable, but utterly inadequate in its ability to explain life: Darwinian evolution is a process fueled by death. Things can't evolve until they can die.

 

[Swedish Borg]

That is why the theory of evolution is essentially irrefutable, but utterly inadequate in its ability to explain life: Darwinian evolution is a process fueled by death. Things can't evolve until they can die.

Death is an important part of the process. One of the several reasons the Dinos went all extinct is that they lived too long. I once read that it took more than a hundred years to the diplodocus to get to its adult size. Remember that when they are born they're about the size of a small chicken!!! This means that either Jurassic park took a few generations to be built or that they found a way to greatly accelerate growth.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Tom Riker was either executed by the Dominion or escaped after when the Cardassians were in disarray.

Thete’s no reason to think the changelings couldn’t evolve naturally. Hell, energy beings evolved naturally.

I have bigger questions about conservation of mass.

 

[Oddish]

Death is an important part of the process. One of the several reasons the Dinos went all extinct is that they lived too long. I once read that it took more than a hundred years to the diplodocus to get to its adult size. Remember that when they are born they're about the size of a small chicken!!! This means that either Jurassic park took a few generations to be built or that they found a way to greatly accelerate growth.

There are three core aspects to the process:
1. Mutation. A random change in basic genotype, which results in a change in the organism.
2. Death. A harmful mutation causes or accelerates the death of the organism.
3. Reproduction. A beneficial mutation allows the organism to survive and pass on its DNA. If this happens often enough, the change intensifies and/or becomes permanent.

That's the process. Its greatest strength is that it's completely logical. Its greatest weakness is that it only functions with living things.

 

[Swedish Borg]

There are three core aspects to the process:
1. Mutation. A random change in basic genotype, which results in a change in the organism.
2. Death. A harmful mutation causes or accelerates the death of the organism.
3. Reproduction. A beneficial mutation allows the organism to survive and pass on its DNA. If this happens often enough, the change intensifies and/or becomes permanent.

That's the process. Its greatest strength is that it's completely logical. Its greatest weakness is that it only functions with living things.

The way I see it is that there are two main cases:

1) The environment is stable and has remained that way for many millions of years ----> That favors long-lived species who'll remain nearly identical for a long time.

2) The environment is changing, sometimes catastrophically so:---->That favors short-lived fast multiplying species who'll change at a fast pace.

Of course, we also have all the situations in between.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Not all evolution is through gene mutation. Sometimes (Actually more often for more complex life form) it's all about finding the most effective combination of existing genes.

Why do you think we need another person to reproduce instead of just being able to split in two? Cause when you reach a certain complexity threshold, single gene mutations are a way less reliable way to find the improvement. You want to take the genes that already exist and combine the most effective ones.

 

[valkyrie013]

To bad humans have screwed up evolution in that people who are weaker, smaller, etc. Continue to live and reproduce. Now not saying thats not okay, just that in talking about evolution those people wouldn't last long say if it was a hurd of antelope . they'd be the first to be eaten by lions.

Maybe Khan's eugenics was an old breading program like Dune and the benegeserit .. Good genes, light tweaking

 

[Swedish Borg]

Not all evolution is through gene mutation. Sometimes (Actually more often for more complex life form) it's all about finding the most effective combination of existing genes.

Why do you think we need another person to reproduce instead of just being able to split in two? Cause when you reach a certain complexity threshold, single gene mutations are a way less reliable way to find the improvement. You want to take the genes that already exist and combine the most effective ones.

I don't think that's the only reason. With asexual reproduction, you only have one ancestor per generation, while with sexual reproduction the number of ancestors doubles for each generation until it totals the specimens of the species, so instead of getting the mutations of one individual at a time, you get the accumulation of all the mutations of the species. At least those of the specimens that reproduce.

 

[Kira Nerys]

It would have been nice to have a mention of Thomas Riker at the end of ds9 to let the viewers know what happened him, even a passing comment would have been decent.

 

[kkt]

It would have been nice to have a mention of Thomas Riker at the end of ds9 to let the viewers know what happened him, even a passing comment would have been decent.

"Colonel, you have a phone call from a Thomas Riker."
(reaction shot)
"I'll take it in my quarters."

Two lines, maybe 5 seconds of screen time.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don't think that's the only reason. With asexual reproduction, you only have one ancestor per generation, while with sexual reproduction the number of ancestors doubles for each generation until it totals the specimens of the species, so instead of getting the mutations of one individual at a time, you get the accumulation of all the mutations of the species. At least those of the specimens that reproduce.

The most prominent explanation for sexual dimorphism is more that the added variety makes the species adaptable enough to survive adverse events.

But as you can see for yourself by writing and testing genetic algorithms, gene recombination is a pretty effective way to get to local maxima pretty fast.

 

[Crewman6]

Tom Riker is a criminal and a murderer and deserved his fate. All the talk that crops up now and then about how Tom wasn't "rescued" or how he should have shown up again is crap.

He's guilty. He got a (comparatively) light sentence for his crimes. He's done.

 

[dupersuper]

Tom Riker is a criminal and a murderer and deserved his fate.

He's certainly a criminal, but who did he murder?

 

[Crewman6]

He's certainly a criminal, but who did he murder?

The Cardassians on the ships he attacked.

 

[kkt]

Stole a Starfleet warship through fraud, stunned an officer in allied service with the Federation. Should get him years in prison, if he survives Cardassian prison.

 

[STEPhon IT]

More than likely, he didn't.

 

[kkt]

Yes, more than likely if the prison conditions didn't kill him an attack by the Klingons or Federation easily could have gotten him as an accidental casualty. But that doesn't a very interesting story...

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I feel that

Spoiler

the last episode of Lower Decks, wherein the topic of transporter clones was raised,

if Thomas Riker were still alive, we would know.