-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
Gravity problems
- Thread starter jnk5y
- Start date
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kribu:
<font color=yellow>Hmm, I don't know - it shouldn't be *that* much different from the non-flying species. A sentient being who can fly should find it easier to get food, build a shelter etc. So I am not quite convinced it's evolutionarily the same kind of impossibility as developing both telepathy and sentience.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
We don't know that telepathy and sentience are incompatible. So what if Nautilus Coil makes that argument? Yes, it makes sense, but that's not the same thing as a universal constant. If both predators and prey develop telepathy, the playing field is leveled. Sentience could become the advantage that decides the contest then, w/o sacrificing telepathy.
As for flight and intelligence, I think that less likely than the other pairing, b/c of the large resources required. Telepathy and sentience both require a large brain, so if one exists,much of the necessary resources are present to allow development of the other. Flight, OTOH, requires a light, muscular body w/ high metabolism, but not much brain. Adding a big enough brain also adds mass. The bigger the body, the harder it is to fly.
In Star Frontiers, there is a race called Yazirians, sort of a sentient monkey w/ membranous glider wings, who likely evolved in slightly lower gravity than Earth. I like them in that setting, but find their development unlikely. They are, however, the upper limit of what I'd think could evolve naturally.
Now if you postulate genetic engineering, who knows what you could come up with?
<font color=yellow>Hmm, I don't know - it shouldn't be *that* much different from the non-flying species. A sentient being who can fly should find it easier to get food, build a shelter etc. So I am not quite convinced it's evolutionarily the same kind of impossibility as developing both telepathy and sentience.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
We don't know that telepathy and sentience are incompatible. So what if Nautilus Coil makes that argument? Yes, it makes sense, but that's not the same thing as a universal constant. If both predators and prey develop telepathy, the playing field is leveled. Sentience could become the advantage that decides the contest then, w/o sacrificing telepathy.
As for flight and intelligence, I think that less likely than the other pairing, b/c of the large resources required. Telepathy and sentience both require a large brain, so if one exists,much of the necessary resources are present to allow development of the other. Flight, OTOH, requires a light, muscular body w/ high metabolism, but not much brain. Adding a big enough brain also adds mass. The bigger the body, the harder it is to fly.
In Star Frontiers, there is a race called Yazirians, sort of a sentient monkey w/ membranous glider wings, who likely evolved in slightly lower gravity than Earth. I like them in that setting, but find their development unlikely. They are, however, the upper limit of what I'd think could evolve naturally.
Now if you postulate genetic engineering, who knows what you could come up with?
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by hypatia:
<font color=yellow><snip>As far as no sci-fi writer using flying intelligent creatures, the "Dragonriders of Pern" series uses very intelligent (and telepathic) flying dragons.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
The dragons were genetically engineered from fire-lizards. Their intelligence and size were the inserted developments.
So this doesn't demonstrate a naturally evolved sentient flying species.
<font color=yellow><snip>As far as no sci-fi writer using flying intelligent creatures, the "Dragonriders of Pern" series uses very intelligent (and telepathic) flying dragons.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
The dragons were genetically engineered from fire-lizards. Their intelligence and size were the inserted developments.
So this doesn't demonstrate a naturally evolved sentient flying species.
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Nukemall:
<font color=yellow>Ah. I guess I'd only heard the one where the asteroid hit and it got awful cold, so all the 'cold' blooded animals died.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
Actually, some scientists now think that the dinosaurs (or at least some of 'em) may have been warm-blooded, like birds, or maybe an in-between state, with partial heat generation/regulation, as opposed to fully warm-cold blooded.
We may never know for sure, but it's interesting speculation.
<font color=yellow>Ah. I guess I'd only heard the one where the asteroid hit and it got awful cold, so all the 'cold' blooded animals died.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
Actually, some scientists now think that the dinosaurs (or at least some of 'em) may have been warm-blooded, like birds, or maybe an in-between state, with partial heat generation/regulation, as opposed to fully warm-cold blooded.
We may never know for sure, but it's interesting speculation.
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>The good old flying dinosaurs had a wing span wide enough, I'd say. Even if they didn't have the brain to match it.
<hr></blockquote>
But having wings may be why they didn't have a brain to match. Best guess on this seems to be that toolmaking - which requires dexterous and available forelimbs - and brain-building are related. They seem to have created an evolutionary feedback loop - better hands could make better tools, which meant the "good hands people" were more likely to survive. Better brains made better tools, too. Net result - the people with good hands and big brains had even higher reproductive success (being able to get more food and care for more young) and this persisted through each generation.
Apart from insects, all flying creatures developed wings from their forelimbs, by a design path that left them useless for manipulating objects. No hands, no tools. No tools, nothing to drive brain development. (Not to mention that true fliers like birds, and gliders like pterodons, had to keep their weight down, which also limited brain size.) Hence, no intelligent winged creatures.
The Human line (uniquely) adopted full-time bipedal motion, which gave us hands and thus tools - and ultimately intelligence. (So the argument goes. However there is an interesting theory that says it was the development and use of language - not any purely physical change - that led to self-conciousness and abstract intelligence.)
The other group that gave up walking on all fours were the flying creatures - but they converted their hands into wings rather than into tool-making devices.
At least on Earth, the only route to intelligence seems to have been ending up with an extra pair of limbs available. This would presumably also be the case on any other planet where bilateral symmetry is the order of the day. Even on a world where the basic body design features six or eight limbs, the only intelligent creatures would be the ones who turned at least two of them into tool-manipulators. Those creatures might turn two other limbs into wings, but I suspect they wouldn't. I would guess that tools and intelligence would improve their chances of surviving and reproducing enough that there would be no evolutionary pressure to adopt flight as well. (Similarly a creature that could already fly might not need to turn a "spare pair" into arms and hands, because flying itself was enough to keep its genes moving down through the ages.)
It also seems to me that on a planet where six or eight legs were really needed for locomotion, that giving up more than two of them to other purposes might cause problems.
Regards,
Joe
<hr></blockquote>
But having wings may be why they didn't have a brain to match. Best guess on this seems to be that toolmaking - which requires dexterous and available forelimbs - and brain-building are related. They seem to have created an evolutionary feedback loop - better hands could make better tools, which meant the "good hands people" were more likely to survive. Better brains made better tools, too. Net result - the people with good hands and big brains had even higher reproductive success (being able to get more food and care for more young) and this persisted through each generation.
Apart from insects, all flying creatures developed wings from their forelimbs, by a design path that left them useless for manipulating objects. No hands, no tools. No tools, nothing to drive brain development. (Not to mention that true fliers like birds, and gliders like pterodons, had to keep their weight down, which also limited brain size.) Hence, no intelligent winged creatures.
The Human line (uniquely) adopted full-time bipedal motion, which gave us hands and thus tools - and ultimately intelligence. (So the argument goes. However there is an interesting theory that says it was the development and use of language - not any purely physical change - that led to self-conciousness and abstract intelligence.)
The other group that gave up walking on all fours were the flying creatures - but they converted their hands into wings rather than into tool-making devices.
At least on Earth, the only route to intelligence seems to have been ending up with an extra pair of limbs available. This would presumably also be the case on any other planet where bilateral symmetry is the order of the day. Even on a world where the basic body design features six or eight limbs, the only intelligent creatures would be the ones who turned at least two of them into tool-manipulators. Those creatures might turn two other limbs into wings, but I suspect they wouldn't. I would guess that tools and intelligence would improve their chances of surviving and reproducing enough that there would be no evolutionary pressure to adopt flight as well. (Similarly a creature that could already fly might not need to turn a "spare pair" into arms and hands, because flying itself was enough to keep its genes moving down through the ages.)
It also seems to me that on a planet where six or eight legs were really needed for locomotion, that giving up more than two of them to other purposes might cause problems.
Regards,
Joe
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Ah. I guess I'd only heard the one where the asteroid hit and it got awful cold, so all the 'cold' blooded animals died.
<hr></blockquote>
Actually most species on Earth, including plants and warm-blooded animals, were wiped out at around the same time as the dinosaurs. It was one of those periodic mass extinctions that pretty much clear the tables. (At least one prior mass extinction had wiped out upwards of 90% of all species.)
The asteroid (or possibly comet) theory holds that the impact spewed huge amounts of pulverized matter into the atmosphere, from the initial explosion, and that it further set fire to hundreds of thousands of acres of forest. Between these two effects enough junk may have been suspended in the air for long enough to greatly reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth. This would kill most plants, which would lead to the death of plant-eating creatures, which in turn would lead to the death of meat-eaters who preyed on the plant-eaters. A domino effect. Only a relative handful of species survived on land or in the seas to repopulate the planet after the dust settled.
Regards,
Joe
<hr></blockquote>
Actually most species on Earth, including plants and warm-blooded animals, were wiped out at around the same time as the dinosaurs. It was one of those periodic mass extinctions that pretty much clear the tables. (At least one prior mass extinction had wiped out upwards of 90% of all species.)
The asteroid (or possibly comet) theory holds that the impact spewed huge amounts of pulverized matter into the atmosphere, from the initial explosion, and that it further set fire to hundreds of thousands of acres of forest. Between these two effects enough junk may have been suspended in the air for long enough to greatly reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth. This would kill most plants, which would lead to the death of plant-eating creatures, which in turn would lead to the death of meat-eaters who preyed on the plant-eaters. A domino effect. Only a relative handful of species survived on land or in the seas to repopulate the planet after the dust settled.
Regards,
Joe
Kribu
Administrator
I thought about mentioning the problem of "hands" but figured someone else would bring it up anyway. Seems I was right.
You mention insects - as we see from i.e. even the ordinary house fly, having wings and a pair of forelimbs that can be used as hands (flies pick stuff up etc with the forelimbs) don't cancel each other out. As for needing a large brain and hence a big body and huge wings to carry it - is there actually any requirement that the brain has to be inside the head?
Is it evolutionally impossible, not just on Earth but overall, to have for example the spinal cord take over some or most of the functions that our brain has? It would certainly distribute the weight more equally. And even if a large wing span is still required, who says that on some other world it would be a hindrance to evolution?
That pteradons and other flying dinosaurs became extinct together with all the other big lizards, here on Earth, shouldn't necessarily mean that it would happen like this everywhere. Is it so impossible that on some other planet, the circumstances might be somewhat different from ours, favouring sentient flying beings?
You mention insects - as we see from i.e. even the ordinary house fly, having wings and a pair of forelimbs that can be used as hands (flies pick stuff up etc with the forelimbs) don't cancel each other out. As for needing a large brain and hence a big body and huge wings to carry it - is there actually any requirement that the brain has to be inside the head?
Is it evolutionally impossible, not just on Earth but overall, to have for example the spinal cord take over some or most of the functions that our brain has? It would certainly distribute the weight more equally. And even if a large wing span is still required, who says that on some other world it would be a hindrance to evolution?
That pteradons and other flying dinosaurs became extinct together with all the other big lizards, here on Earth, shouldn't necessarily mean that it would happen like this everywhere. Is it so impossible that on some other planet, the circumstances might be somewhat different from ours, favouring sentient flying beings?
If increased intelligence toward sentience requires the use of extra limbs to 'build stuff' ... explain dolphins and whales? /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif
I agree with the reasoning, though. I just don't think that's nessarily the end-all of all possibilities of life on other worlds in completely different environments. In my mind, the arguements on life develop in two ways:
1) Life beginning is incredibly rare. Okay fine, but in a place as big as the Universe, life can still be rare and still be in large number overall - even if no one ever finds another planet with life. Considering that life formed at all on Earth when (and it really still is) such a harsh environment AND has survived for upwards of 4 billion years proves life is strong and can stand up to pressures.
2) If life could form once, it probably is quite common - relatively speaking. If life could form on Earth, what makes us so special and so different that it couldn't have formed many other places? Yes, we couldn't ask that if life hadn't formed here, but it's rather egocentric to think Earth is the only place 'just right' for life to form. The fact that life has formed at least once in the Universe proves life forming is possible.
So if there are other life forms out the Universe, they could be similar or could be very different from us. Even here on Earth we may (I believe so) have found non-organic life: the virus. Last I heard the debate was still out on that but I've never heard it called organic life, never including in any of the five phylums (sorry, not sure the correct plural of that) of known life.
And this only talks about biology - if you start arguing about the spirits of living creatures it can be hard to stop with just what seems 'likely' with our current theories.
Heck, I like to make arguements that fire is alive since it fulfills most of the junior high biology requirements for life. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif
Loadhan
I agree with the reasoning, though. I just don't think that's nessarily the end-all of all possibilities of life on other worlds in completely different environments. In my mind, the arguements on life develop in two ways:
1) Life beginning is incredibly rare. Okay fine, but in a place as big as the Universe, life can still be rare and still be in large number overall - even if no one ever finds another planet with life. Considering that life formed at all on Earth when (and it really still is) such a harsh environment AND has survived for upwards of 4 billion years proves life is strong and can stand up to pressures.
2) If life could form once, it probably is quite common - relatively speaking. If life could form on Earth, what makes us so special and so different that it couldn't have formed many other places? Yes, we couldn't ask that if life hadn't formed here, but it's rather egocentric to think Earth is the only place 'just right' for life to form. The fact that life has formed at least once in the Universe proves life forming is possible.
So if there are other life forms out the Universe, they could be similar or could be very different from us. Even here on Earth we may (I believe so) have found non-organic life: the virus. Last I heard the debate was still out on that but I've never heard it called organic life, never including in any of the five phylums (sorry, not sure the correct plural of that) of known life.
And this only talks about biology - if you start arguing about the spirits of living creatures it can be hard to stop with just what seems 'likely' with our current theories.
Heck, I like to make arguements that fire is alive since it fulfills most of the junior high biology requirements for life. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif
Loadhan
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
The comparison between Vorlons and squids/octopuses has some basis. They exhibit more intellect than most invertebrates - because they can manipulate objects with their limbs and benefit from such ability. I've heard stories of an octopus who climbed out of its aquarium to fetch fish from a nearby aquarium. Soon enough, another octopus too learned the trick. Humans were quite puzzled... /ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif
Parrots are an excellent example of intelligent birds. They recognize many fruits and nuts, learn where these grow, and when to collect them. Their brain is small but capable. The need to memorize and recognize influenced the evolution of parrots just like it influenced apes.
Why are dolphins/whales more intelligent than most mammals? Perhaps because water allows long-distance communication. They can organize and benefit from social organisation - living together and cooperating. Dolphins and predatory whales can hunt in packs. Others can defend against hunters or simply assist each other. Long-distance communication allows using those benefits.
Only one species on Earth had the blessing/curse of getting all factors right. Our ancestors had grown in forests, with the need to recognize things and open "difficult" fruits. They learned when the fruit were ripe, which trees produced more, and made tools to open spiked/hard shells. They were social and needed to know each other.
Not enough to yield sentience in the narrow sense. They grew self-aware, but lacked language, abstract thinking and serious technology. Only when the forests disappeared, presenting them with difficult odds, did they use tools for hunting/defense, start walking upright to see further and carry things, build complicated societies and develop language.
Given the right motivators, octopuses could become Vorlons. Given the right circumstances, dolphins might start using tools. Given the right conditions, parrots might find some compromise between wings and limbs, weight and brain size. With different neural systems, early insects could have easily become the Shadows.
It all depends on conditions. Yet some conditions occur rarely. Oceans tend to balance things. To give the final kick to sentience, you need dead serious pressure. Hence dolphins and octopuses are likely to remain as they are. Parrots are unlikely sentients. When food becomes scarce, they fly to another forest.
Of many life forms on Earth, forest insects and mammals were the best candidates. Insects missed their shot at becoming Shadows. Unless humanity drives itself extinct, we will take that course. Hopefully with minor but beneficial differences.
Of all potential sentients, only our ancestors were left sufficiently high and dry. They lived in an unstable land environment, were unable to fly away, but sure as hell liked to live. I prefer to imagine there were/are many like them/us. That some day we will meet them, or our descendants will meet theirs. Preferably with not entirely devastating results...
Parrots are an excellent example of intelligent birds. They recognize many fruits and nuts, learn where these grow, and when to collect them. Their brain is small but capable. The need to memorize and recognize influenced the evolution of parrots just like it influenced apes.
Why are dolphins/whales more intelligent than most mammals? Perhaps because water allows long-distance communication. They can organize and benefit from social organisation - living together and cooperating. Dolphins and predatory whales can hunt in packs. Others can defend against hunters or simply assist each other. Long-distance communication allows using those benefits.
Only one species on Earth had the blessing/curse of getting all factors right. Our ancestors had grown in forests, with the need to recognize things and open "difficult" fruits. They learned when the fruit were ripe, which trees produced more, and made tools to open spiked/hard shells. They were social and needed to know each other.
Not enough to yield sentience in the narrow sense. They grew self-aware, but lacked language, abstract thinking and serious technology. Only when the forests disappeared, presenting them with difficult odds, did they use tools for hunting/defense, start walking upright to see further and carry things, build complicated societies and develop language.
Given the right motivators, octopuses could become Vorlons. Given the right circumstances, dolphins might start using tools. Given the right conditions, parrots might find some compromise between wings and limbs, weight and brain size. With different neural systems, early insects could have easily become the Shadows.
It all depends on conditions. Yet some conditions occur rarely. Oceans tend to balance things. To give the final kick to sentience, you need dead serious pressure. Hence dolphins and octopuses are likely to remain as they are. Parrots are unlikely sentients. When food becomes scarce, they fly to another forest.
Of many life forms on Earth, forest insects and mammals were the best candidates. Insects missed their shot at becoming Shadows. Unless humanity drives itself extinct, we will take that course. Hopefully with minor but beneficial differences.
Of all potential sentients, only our ancestors were left sufficiently high and dry. They lived in an unstable land environment, were unable to fly away, but sure as hell liked to live. I prefer to imagine there were/are many like them/us. That some day we will meet them, or our descendants will meet theirs. Preferably with not entirely devastating results...
Jade Jaguar
Regular
Joe, you're quite right about language and tool makeing driving brain development. Recent research has shown that human brains utilize RNA at five times the speed of a chimps brain, this being the major neurological difference between us. Still, I consider them sentient. They are self-conscious, and they as well as many other animals exhibit some abstract problem solving skills. Also, many animals including chimps, use tools. As others have noted, many animals are rather intellegent. A few parrots can actually carry on a conversation, answer questions, express feelings , count, and pick out previously unseen objects by color or shape as directed. But there seems to be some neural physiology evolution needed to make things go further, or chimps would be advancing as primitive hominids did. If this mutation, or genetic change occured in an already intelligent bird, I think they could also develop ways of manipulating things, thus creating the sort of feedback loop early hominids had. I could speculate that birds might start using their feet as hands, and hanging by their wings. As to the question of the extra weight of a big brain in a flying bird, look at a pelican. If all that beak and sack were gone, and replaced by an equal weight of brain, it could still fly. Evolution is a marvelous thing. Given time, and the right circumstances almost anything is possible. I think intelligence is a separate thing from toolmakeing/technology, even if one can spur the other. I'll admit it's less likely, and would probably take longer in evolutionary terms, but I think a species could become very intellegent without developing technology, but not without some form of language. It's language that makes complex abstract thought possible. I think the atmosphere of a being's domain would probably be the biggest impediment to technology. Imagine intellegent squids trying to do electronics under water!
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jade Jaguar:
<font color=yellow>It's language that makes complex abstract thought possible. I think the atmosphere of a being's domain would probably be the biggest impediment to technology. Imagine intellegent squids trying to do electronics under water!</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote> If whales and dolphins are any proof, an excellent medium for communication can do wonders at helping to develop language, and intellect along with language. As for squids, they would not start with electronics. They would learn hydraulics before that.
<font color=yellow>It's language that makes complex abstract thought possible. I think the atmosphere of a being's domain would probably be the biggest impediment to technology. Imagine intellegent squids trying to do electronics under water!</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote> If whales and dolphins are any proof, an excellent medium for communication can do wonders at helping to develop language, and intellect along with language. As for squids, they would not start with electronics. They would learn hydraulics before that.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr> As for squids, they would not start with electronics. They would learn hydraulics before that.<hr></blockquote>
Or possibly underarm deorderant ... yes I know I'm ripping off the beginning of "The Resturaunt at the End of the Universe." /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif
Or possibly underarm deorderant ... yes I know I'm ripping off the beginning of "The Resturaunt at the End of the Universe." /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Oh sure, their first invention might be silly. But if something silly would not stop the evolutionary pressure, they would eventually come up with something useful.
Jade Jaguar
Regular
Lennier, I don't know if you meant to be flip or not, but you make a good point, which is similar to the one I was trying to make. I think intellegent beings could evolve from lower forms just about anywhere, but their atmosphere, and enviroment would shape their development. So most likely intellegent squids would start with hyrdaulics. And yes, I realize water is a good medium for communication, and that dolphins and whales can communicate as well as most any animals except humans. In the Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy, they got the message from space humans didn't. That is fiction, of course, but I agree with the implication that humans are not as knowledgeable, powerful, and superior to animals as we like to think. I once wrote a scifi short story based on the premise that UFOs were really from an underwater culture of beings. Even today, that strikes me as a remote possibility, since we know so little of the depths of the ocean. We've never even seen a living giant squid. I think that perhaps the major impediment to dolphins evolving into a greater, perhaps technological existence is that they seem to have it pretty easy. All thay do is play, eat, and have sex., with no real work. Most humans would be content with that.
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Being flip? <font color=green>:: confused ::</font color=green> Would that mean... like not being serious? If it does, this was not the case. Given that squids are already natural masters of such things (vacuum grip, water jet propulsion) technologies related to hydraulics might be the first they would explore.
Jade Jaguar
Regular
Flip is sort of semiserious, partly a jest, often stating the obvious in a silly way. Didn't really think you were.
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Most humans would eventually get bored with that.
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Which just goes to prove how short-sighted they can be.
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
It only proves our curiosity. We must find something new, very often something risky. It can lead to great achievements or quick demise. But in the long term, it is the only way. Because Earth will die, and the Sun will die too. The galaxy will end, even the Universe will, some day. Staying here and behaving all dolphinlike is not going to help.
By becoming sentient, we have taken the obligation to solve puzzles. The greatest of them being to find out... what is outside our frame of reference.
By becoming sentient, we have taken the obligation to solve puzzles. The greatest of them being to find out... what is outside our frame of reference.
