Now, I know you are not all necessarily believers in the idea of evolution, or spontaneous evolution. This discussion has no place for debate on the veracity of Darwin's claims, nor of the existence or lack thereof of deities. This discussion requires the acceptance of presumptions, and the logical expounding of those presumptions.
This discussion will take the following assumptions as true for the sake of discussion. Anyone who wishes to refute these points, must take their discussions elsewhere. Anyone trying to turn this into a debate of religion or science outside of the suggested points, will be asked to leave the discussion, and I request that any administrator reading such flame-bait remove it.
For the same of game design theory, we are going to assume that the entire universe was created by a scientific process, and that a "designer" will have some interaction with certain bits of this process. So in actuality, this discussion will actually involve "guided evolution".
Facts for discussion:
1) The origins of life are spontaneous.
2) All life begins at a single-celled phase.
3) All life is made of carbon, and depends upon water as a medium.
4) All life breathes some sort of gas, either carbon dioxide, or oxygen.
Stages of progression:
For the sake of this discussion, we will assume that life must cross several hurdles to reach the end goal. In this discussion, the end goal of life, is to populate their galaxy.
These hurdles should include:
A) BODY
1) Spontaneous generation of single-celled life.
2) Progression to multi-celled life.
3) Advancement to a complex creature.
4) Ability to walk and live on land.
B) BRAIN
5) The ability to operate tools.
6) The ability to communicate complex ideas with fellow members of the species.
C) TECHNOLOGY
7) Harnessing of metal, or a metal-like substance.
8) Understanding of physics, chemistry, etc.
9) Development of spacecraft
10) Faster than light-speed travel
These are the immediate goals I can understand being necessary to progress as a species.
There are four phases to progression, development of the body, the brain, technology, and society.
I also would like to explore my reasoning for a few things:
1) Landwalking creatures may only become sentient enough to leave the planet. This is due to the fact that space exploration requires metal. Metal and carbons are only malleable in extreme temperatures, and as such, must be forged on land, as water would transfer the heat, and boil the creature attempting to mold the material.
2) Society must cooperate to become a space-faring empire. Warlike creatures would have to maintain control of their planets, and would expand slower than creatures of a hive-mind, or of a natural disposition to peace. However, aggressive creatures would naturally expand more aggressively, and be more adept at conquering. Peaceful creatures would work more slowly, but would not be distracted by insurrection and lack of strong infrastructure.
I would like to discuss alternate methods of evolution for creatures, and different advantageous or disadvantageous traits and forms for the progression of a species.
ID:151743
 Jun 13 2009, 9:02 pm
|
|
Jp, the first half of your post misses the entire point of the discussion.
I understand every bit of what you offer, as being valid, but you must understand that I am discussing the boundaries and limitations of a system. This system depends upon the first four rules. The system will not, and cannot possibly hope to duplicate all varieties of life within the universe, but merely a small scope of that life that is simple to represent through a videogame. Spontaneous generation refers to the method at which the game introduces the player to life. Tracking abiogenesis in the scope of this game is absolutely worthless to gameplay, therefore does not meet the scope of this discussion. Introducing life that is acellular would be vastly too complex for this system, and thus, is outside of the scope of this discussion. Life that does not respire would require acellular life, as all cells respire (either through aerobic, or anaerobic). See above. Also, complex life does not evolve from anaerobic respiration, seeing as aerobic respiration is 1900 times as efficient. Essentially, what I'm saying here, is that my system is only accounting for what players are more likely to choose to make. I don't think many players are going to choose to create a tree, and enjoy standing there, watching the leaves blow in the wind. The first four things are not the only things that life is capable of being, but merely, what my system will account for. As for your discussion of seafaring creatures building things above ground without being able to live there? Do tell. Expound upon that. If they require water, they will more than likely need some sort of device to keep them alive on the surface, and as such, would more than likely need metal do create this device. Barring any sort of strange microbe that arranges iron into bars for them, I highly doubt it's possible for a sea creature to manipulate metal. Now the second portion is what I wanted to see. A discussion of how life within these parameters could actually develop. Good show on that second bit. | |
Heating metal underwater doesn't necessitate the boiling of the marine creature heating the metal any more than heating metal on land necessitates burning a land creature alive.
Also, for the argument that they wouldn't be able to heat the metal on land: They don't necessarily need land, they just need it to be outside of the water. They could create floating apparatuses made out of seaweed, coral, or many other things that are at their disposal that could be operated from beneath the water. The device would simply float on top of the water, holding up whatever out-of-water device it needs to with some sort of mechanism that allows it to be utilized while underneath the water. With billions of years to perfect that apparatus, I see no reason why it wouldn't be plausible. | |
Billions is rather extreme, modern humans only appeared recently, and probably won't last for another million years.
| |
Play Spore =P
| |
Falacy wrote:
Play Spore =P That has less than nothing to do with what is being discussed here. -.-' | |
How not? The topic is ways to depict evolution. Spore has a hint of evolution in it, under all the crazy random unscientific things that make no sense at all.
| |
AJX wrote:
That has less than nothing to do with what is being discussed here. -.-' Everything hes saying here sounds like an almost exact translation from the game-play offered in Spore. | |
Theoretically, our evolution physically has nearly ceased. We have sped our societal and mental evolution, as well as our technological evolution.
If minor mutations and negative breeding trends don't make us weaker, and we manage to remove our dependencies on fossil fuels, there's absolutely no reason humans can't be around for the next few million years. | |
I've thought about this as well. You would need a few things:
- a combustible material. - a flame resistant material. - an airtight material. - a refreshing supply of oxygen. - a refreshing supply of nitrogen. - a material capable of holding the molten metal. This device would need to facilitate so many nearly-impossible things, that it just would not be developed without the usage of metal. The object would not only need to contain the proper balance of oxygen, and nitrogen, it would need to refresh the Co2 and other gasses into oxygen. Burning hydrogen would probably be the best fuel for it. Seeing as you have hydrogen and oxygen readily available in water, you would need a mechanism that would separate water into the two. However, you would need to mix the oxygen with about 70% nitrogen to keep the hydrogen from becoming too volatile, and the hydrogen would have to burn immediately upon exiting the hydrogen tank. Otherwise, this object would explode. The sheer volume of this gas necessary to even melt metal would be pretty cumbersome as well. Of course, burning hydrogen produces nitrogen oxide. Which means, we have all the gasses necessary, and our fuel and atmosphere settings are quite possible. The bladder for the hydrogen would have to have some sort of nozzle and a cutoff to keep the flame from entering the hydrogen storage. This nozzle could not be a flammable material. The metal would have to sit in a bowl of some sort that would trap the heat. Most stone would handle this. It would have to be suspended above the flame. The bowl would need holes and a mold to catch the molten metal. This is all somewhat possible, however, we've forgotten one thing. Metalworking often requires a finer touch than a cast object can deliver. Production of every object humans can make with metal would not be possible without direct interaction while still red-hot. The theory is possible, but we've overlooked one thing. Without a strong mind in engineering or chemistry, this is not possible. Would a culture that cannot cast metal come to a real understanding of chemistry? Especially considering an all-water environment. I believe the production of this object would take so much time and happenstance that the likelihood of it happening is almost zero. I do admit the possibility, however. | |
Because "play spore" doesn't further a discussion for the logical expounding of ideas. It may be relevant, but it doesn't help the discussion one bit.
| |
Ter13 wrote:
Because "play spore" doesn't further a discussion for the logical expounding of ideas. It may be relevant, but it doesn't help the discussion one bit. Since this was supposedly a discussion on evolution based game play (it is in the design philosophy section after all), spore would be the perfect solution to your questions. However it seems to just be turning into a discussion on un-realistic methods of evolution and expansion. Who cares exactly how and why something works in a video game? If I have to plan out the exact details of how my underwater creature is going to be able to do metal-work; I probably wouldn't even bother with it, unless it was designed into some sort of sensible mini-game. The fact is, I haven't seen a single post anywhere in this topic that had anything to do with the design philosophy of a game. Were you assuming design philosophy meant the design of the universe when you posted this? Also, it turns out human beings are capable of building things underwater, metal things, so I don't see why some species that evolved completely underwater to a comparable level of our own wouldn't be capable, if not competent at it. | |
Key phrase, remove our dependency on fossil fuels :P. By the time that happens, the climate will already start to screw us over.
| |
Ter13 wrote:
I've thought about this as well. You would need a few things: The object would not only need to contain the proper balance of oxygen, and nitrogen, it would need to refresh the Co2 and other gasses into oxygen. Burning hydrogen would probably be the best fuel for it. The sheer volume of this gas necessary to even melt metal would be pretty cumbersome as well. Of course, burning hydrogen produces nitrogen oxide. The bladder for the hydrogen would have to have some sort of nozzle and a cutoff to keep the flame from entering the hydrogen storage. This nozzle could not be a flammable material. ...wow. You are some kind of fool. Right away, burning massive amounts of hydrogen is out. Hydrogen burns very quickly and readily, but not very hot. That's out. But then, what's this nonsense about nitrogen? Nitrogen is an inert gas. Hydrogen + Oxygen = Nitrogen oxide??? You would need to supply a steady stream of nitrogen? Refresh CO2 into oxygen? That is all complete uninformed nonsense. Organic fires burned just fine for a long time in human history. There's no reason that organic matter dredged from the ocean, then dried, could not burn hot enough given that the atmosphere is rich in oxygen (which it would be, if the sea were rich with plant life) and that it could be directed at the burning matter by way of a bladder (which could also be manufactured under water). Just as humans can hold their breath and operate for some time under water, dedicated and trained humans especially so, there's no reason to be sure that these aquatic folks couldn't temporarily leave the water to hammer on a piece of metal if need be. Smiths survived in terrible hot, sooty, choking conditions to make primitive metal tools for their kinsmen; these aquatic people could do the same. It should be remembered that far before modern metal alloys were used, far more malleable metals such as lead and copper were widely employed in the creation of tools. There's no need to worry about flame-resistant materials -- the ocean we know is full of ceramic shells and rock sculptures, and even failing that you've got an essentially inexhaustible supply of water nearby there, so any material that needs to be kept from burning can be occasionally doused. Once the society does come into its own with regard to chemistry, they could construct underwater welding torches similar to the ones we have. Theirs would probably end up being far more useful, since more minds would be working on them and they would be a casual part of more workers' lives. Keep in mind that wood, tar, and cork, three workable and organic materials, make a water-tight barrel. Many indigenous human populations worked out systems for weaving by hand waterproof baskets out of grasses or reeds. Ancient roof-makers have been able to create leak-proof houses for generations before the age of modern building materials. You vastly underestimate what can be done without metal tools, I think. More time spent studying anthropology, chemistry, and biology (at a minimum) would do a lot to help your creative mind work out fantastic scenarios for alternate modes of civilization. | |
Falacy wrote:
Also, it turns out human beings are capable of building things underwater, metal things, so I don't see why some species that evolved completely underwater to a comparable level of our own wouldn't be capable, if not competent at it. Of course, refining metal from ore, and forging it, all generally require heat, which most easily comes from fire, which can not happen in water without advanced technology. Similiarly, circuits and such short-out when in water unless they are sealed, and sealing has to occur somewhere air-tight and extremely clean. You fail to understand that things like forging metal are not a spontaneous occurence in a species, but build upon previous knowledge. Simple metalcraft would be nigh-impossible underwater unless located near vents, which would lead to other problems. Even if an intelligent species were to evolve underwater, they would very likely, as I mentioned, not advance very far. Written records are most easily transported on things such as paper and papyrus, and things like the printing press would probably fail underwater, meaning that knowledge would not be easily dispersed (There's a reason that the englightment followed development of movable type). And, as mentioned above, things such as circuitry would be entirely impossible. | |
Ryan P wrote:
Just as humans can hold their breath and operate for some time under water, dedicated and trained humans especially so, there's no reason to be sure that these aquatic folks couldn't temporarily leave the water to hammer on a piece of metal if need be. Smiths survived in terrible hot, sooty, choking conditions to make primitive metal tools for their kinsmen; these aquatic people could do the same. Chocking, maybe, but breatheable, at least very nearby, and it was not a sudden leaping development from lack of metalsmiths to metalsmiths suddenly being there. They required precursors, precursors that couldn't exist in an underwater environment due to it lacking a way to create flame. You also seem to assume that intelligent life underwater would be capable of walking fine on dry land. Take note of how few animals there are in the sea that can support themselves on land. Those same ones are generally amphibious to an extend, capable of surviving both on land and in water for certain reasons. Also note that the two smartest groups of underwater animals, the cephalopods and the cetacea, are wholy incapable of surviving on land for extended periods of time. The latter can easily beach themselves, get stuck, and die, and the latter has no rigid bone structure to move around with, only able to support itself because of water. | |
Ter13 wrote:
Theoretically, our evolution physically has nearly ceased. No, it hasn't. This represents a severe misunderstanding of how evolution works. | |
Spore is a good example of procedural generation and other technologies, but it is not a good example of evolution. Perhaps you should understand what you're talking about before you make useless posts? I suppose that would generally go against your niche in these forums, that you've developed so well, though.
| |
Popisfizzy wrote:
Of course, refining metal from ore, and forging it, all generally require heat, which most easily comes from fire, which can not happen in water without advanced technology. Similiarly, circuits and such short-out when in water unless they are sealed, and sealing has to occur somewhere air-tight and extremely clean. You fail to understand that things like forging metal are not a spontaneous occurence in a species, but build upon previous knowledge. Simple metalcraft would be nigh-impossible underwater unless located near vents, which would lead to other problems. Even if an intelligent species were to evolve underwater, they would very likely, as I mentioned, not advance very far. Written records are most easily transported on things such as paper and papyrus, and things like the printing press would probably fail underwater, meaning that knowledge would not be easily dispersed (There's a reason that the englightment followed development of movable type). And, as mentioned above, things such as circuitry would be entirely impossible. You assume these things because that's how they work for us, how humans have developed them to work on land. The same technologies could be created by an intelligent life form that lived underwater. I'm sure humans could re-create any technology we currently have to be fully functional underwater if we had the need. Spore is a good example of procedural generation and other technologies, but it is not a good example of evolution. Perhaps you should understand what you're talking about before you make useless posts? I suppose that would generally go against your niche in these forums, that you've developed so well, though. From what he's said: - There are four phases to progression, development of the body, the brain, technology, and society. - Landwalking creatures may only become sentient enough to leave the planet. - Society must cooperate to become a space-faring empire. Warlike creatures would have to maintain control of their planets, and would expand slower than creatures of a hive-mind, or of a natural disposition to peace. However, aggressive creatures would naturally expand more aggressively, and be more adept at conquering. Peaceful creatures would work more slowly, but would not be distracted by insurrection and lack of strong infrastructure. All of those things happen almost exactly like that in Spore. It also turns out Spore isn't that far off from evolution. You start off as a cell, enhance or add crap to your creature as it becomes needed... pretty much how evolution works. In a ridiculously simplified, overly controlled manor. | |
Define 'spontaneous'. Single-celled organisms certainly didn't just pop out of nowhere. This talk.origins article talks a bit about abiogenesis (But from the perspective of why "oh it's so improbable" claims are bunkum)
You're assuming a lot about life that isn't necessarily true. All life starts single-celled? Why? What makes cells a universal concept? At least when it comes to carbon and water you've got the grounds that very few other elements have carbon's ability to make complex chains with itself (Silicon is about the only other one that can pull that trick off), and water is both extremely common and a very good solvent.
Don't see any reason to believe that all life respires, either.
I disagree. Intelligent sea life could develop techniques for making things aboveground without living aboveground, or even being able to.
EDIT: Just read your post in Computers & Technology, I think I know why this is in Design Philosophy now.