• RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 hours ago

    So from the wiki

    The monophyly of Xenacoelomorpha soon became established, but its position as either a basal bilaterian clade or a deuterostome remained unresolved until 2016, when two new studies, with increased gene and taxon sampling, again placed Xenoturbella as the sister group of Acoelomorpha within Xenacoelomorpha, and placed Xenacoelomorpha as sister to Nephrozoa (Protostomia plus Deuterostomia), and therefore the basalmost bilaterian phylum<

    Seems like “where on the tree of life” is “the first bilaterals” which makes sense. They seem very worm-like in bodyplan. Shit from the Pre-Cambrian can look pretty alien and have shaky relationships to more derived species.

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 hours ago

    It eats.

    It is thus the primordial consumer.

    … kinda does bare a resemblance to what AM turns Ted into…

  • TurboQueer@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    12 hours ago

    It’s disturbing to me that so many people search for what something is used for or what’s the value or right to life a creature has. The point of life is to live. If you are successful you maybe make a child or split into a copy of yourself when you get enough food.

    Purpose is something you accept for yourself. Imposing it on others is diabolically evil when they don’t have a thing to do with your clade. And still, it would be the case that a person would look at an animal and say “what’s the point of you?”

    • NottaLottaOcelot@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I also find that to be a weird question to consider, as though something must have a purpose to be worthy of existence

      In that vein, what is the point of humans? To bring on the 6th mass extinction?

        • SlippiHUD@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I think try is the wrong world, pretty sure we’ve succeeded, the question now is “Does anything survive?”

      • Bibip@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        a fanciful answer i heard was that “humans are how the universe perceives itself,” and a person could be forgiven for thinking that the point of humans is to do science. closer to the ground, the point of humans seems to be to alter our surroundings to suit our society: kind of like ants. we build, we live, we reproduce, we spread. it’s not a good thing or a bad thing, it just is what it is.

    • Bibip@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      utility has several virtues, but i agree that it’s not the end-all/be-all. strictly speaking the “point” of any living thing is to pass it’s genes by reproduction, but in a complex and evolving world there are lots of animals that have a “point” in existing. oysters filter water, worms enrich soil, birds spread seeds, bees pollinate flowers, there are primary decomposers and secondary decomposers and tertiary decomposers and some birds build nests in trees and squirrels hide nuts and, you get the picture?

      then there are other animals that we have changed for their utility. cows, pigs, chickens, and sheep are delicious and they would not make up such a share of modern biomass if we didn’t industrialize their slaughter. in some cases the point of an animal is that we’re gonna eat it.

      if you’re an emotion-forward person you might think “oh, no, that’s terrible!” and you’re allowed to feel that way but usually things are the way they are for a bunch of reasons. feelings are great but food security is better. utility also has a role to play in conservation: we’re having a great time with industry but if the earth suffers catastrophic ecological collapse, the whole party stops.

  • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    12 hours ago

    The universe is a chain of cause and effect, and the only way to interpret “a reason” for something without introducing artificial human constructs of morality, is “what caused it?”. The process of evolution caused this.

    • stickyprimer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Kinda like a 2 stroke engine. The fuel and the exhaust all just mix.

      It’s gross, but I can’t see any reason this disqualifies it from being on the tree of life.

    • icelimit@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      12 hours ago

      If the hole doesn’t go through, it is only a pocket, typographically identical to a plate.

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Organs are a distinct structure made of multiple tissues. So if this thing is just a few layers of tissue, then you can make the argument that the whole creature is essentially a single-organ organism.

        Truth be told, I suspect there is a certain amount of hyperbole in the infographic.

  • db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    161
    ·
    19 hours ago

    No clear reason? It’s because the thing can successfully make more of itself before dying. That’s literally it.

    See also: ticks

  • Vegafjord eo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Exist for no reason? All life has a purpose, and that is to poop. The excrement speaks for itself.

    • sroos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      18 hours ago

      It also only has one hole, which, if you ask some topologists, is what humans have.

        • sroos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Well, there’s the one obvious one - mouth through to the anus, there may be more openings to that hole, but I don’t believe any of them go all the way through.

          • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            16 hours ago

            That changes the topology though. It does go all the way through a section which prevents it from reshaping into a straw/donut

            • sroos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              They go through the same hole as the mouth in the end, though. At least a part of them…

              I think I said in another comment that I’m not an actual expert on this matter. So there may well be more holes in this theory, and person.

              • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 hours ago

                They go through the same hole as the mouth in the end, though.

                Yes, but they’re distinct openings, which means we’re not topologically equivalent to a doughnut when you take them into account. Topological equivalence implies that you can transform one object into another without changing the number of openings. Classic example is a doughnut and a coffee mug (the handle of a coffee mug is the opening). A human would be equivalent to a doughnut with two holes poked through the side into the middle.

        • sroos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          17 hours ago

          If you really think about it, humans are just donuts without the frosting or the sprikles.

          We’re the rejects in the donut display.

  • endless_nameless@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I don’t think any natural thing exists for a reason. That’s reserved for things made or at least caused by sentient beings.