The Pub Discussion Board

Get your favorite beverage, sit back, and join in the discussion

You are not logged in.

#26 2017-11-20 04:00:33

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

IF I were to continue in Dugerra in a serial fashion like the WAY series, it would not be with David as main character.  Any further writing with him will be in short story form only.  Eight books of him is, quite frankly, enough.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#27 2017-11-21 05:39:20

Sdragon
Inebriated
From: USA
Registered: 2016-09-09
Posts: 38
Website

Re: CASS

i can understand and respect that, i only said that because of the way you brought Dugerra to life. I must admit something to you though Mr. Storm, your stories are very close to becoming rated as a controlled substance for me because of how addicting your tales have become. i know life can get in the way, she can be a bitch like that. so all i will say at this point is that i am ever looking forward to the next installment of any story you wish to continue, been looking forward to CASS for a while now too.

Offline

 

#28 2018-01-04 21:44:43

colwise1974
Tipsy
Registered: 2016-12-30
Posts: 1

Re: CASS

great start to a story storm.  Hope you have plans to add further chapters

(posted from Chapter 3)

Offline

 

#29 2018-01-04 23:13:34

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

One of these days.  Maybe I'll tackle this one when the Woodward series is over.  I have to work on SOMETHING... 

Although I fear this one isn't very popular.

3dsad

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#30 2018-01-06 20:09:18

howard
Inebriated
Registered: 2016-12-01
Posts: 20

Re: CASS

Excellent story so far, lots of potential. Of course making the aliens feel alien rather than simply other human worlds might not be too easy.

(posted from Chapter 3)

Offline

 

#31 2018-01-06 21:48:03

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

There's a reason for that:  Human beings cover such a wide range of cultural/emotional/intellectual states that it is virtually impossible for us to create something that is TRULY alien to the human experience, that we could still reasonably interact with.  Likewise, living conditions for any "class M" (to use a Star Trek term) planet are going to cause creatures to gravitate toward certain basic body shapes.  Now, the outer cosmetics are certainly going to be different, but no alien is going to be six feet tall with an exoskeleton, or the size of Godzilla and cold-blooded.  Those things are just physically impossible and/or evolutionarily disadvantageous.  Oh, sure, a slight variance in gravity can change height and "bulkiness".  Slightly colder or warmer weather will affect skin tone, fat retention, and some other factors... and which basic critter actually won out in that planet's race to sentience will determine what their space-farers look like, but for the most part, you're going to find that space-traveling aliens are probably bipedal, four-limbed creatures of some kind.  (Five-limbed if you want to count any possibility of a tail...)  Of course, it also stands to reason that various races of that being will exist on their planet, too.  (Not all humans look the same, after all...)

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#32 2018-01-07 02:22:22

howard
Inebriated
Registered: 2016-12-01
Posts: 20

Re: CASS

Eric Storm wrote:

but for the most part, you're going to find that space-traveling aliens are probably bipedal, four-limbed creatures of some kind.  (Five-limbed if you want to count any possibility of a tail...)
Eric Storm

I would have thought that the main requirement would be at least two reasonably dextrous hands with at least one opposable thumb on each and a reasonable size brain.
It would seem reasonable for a centaur-like race to develop space travel, or even a griffin-like creature (with arms and wings), or perhaps even Vishnu-like (Durga-like might be going a bit far though :-). I could accept that less than two legs might be limiting but see no reason why three or four should be a problem. Also more than two eyes could be advantageous (like Brahma). Tails could be quite useful in zero-G for primary locomotion around a ship.

Offline

 

#33 2018-01-07 09:22:19

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

Having both arms AND wings is more or less physically impossible without completely reworking the skeleton.  What you would have to do is essentially have two chests, one above the other.  One for the arms, and then the other for the wings.  Also, it should be pointed out that wings large enough to bring a 150 lb. creature into flight would be ENORMOUS.  There was an extinct bird that weighed in around 150 lbs.  It had a wingspan of TWENTY FEET.  Now you tack on some very non-aerodynamic parts, like arms and the extra chest to support them, and those wings will have to be even larger.

Likewise, not sure what you mean by a "centaur-like race".  There would be absolutely no reason in nature to develop such a hybrid.  You could have an equestrian species with arms, but its upper half wouldn't look remotely human.  While I cannot rule this out based on my own scientific knowledge, what I can point out is that, so far as I know, no warm-blooded creature on Earth has ever attempted more than 4 limbs and a tail.  There has to be a reason for that.  One reason I CAN point to is the neural complexity of controlling the two extra limbs: it takes up brain capacity that could better be served in the problem-solving department.  Likewise with more than two eyes.  An entire section of our brain is devoted to processing just the two visual inputs we've already got.  Can you imagine how much bigger that section gets if you have twice as many inputs, and you're trying to incorporate them all into a single image?  Yes, I'm well aware that insects and spiders seem to manage, but they do NOT process those images the way we do.  They look for specific, instinct-defined things.  They are not "thinking" about what they see.  If they see something that they don't know what it is, they treat it like everything else that doesn't fit their current "mission".  Humans, on the other hand, and any other self-aware creatures, are going to be focused on figuring out what they're seeing, because it's important for survival.

The problem with multiple arms (a la Vishnu) is similar: Too much processing power required... also a whole other set of pectoral muscles... in fact, what the hell would you actually attach the second set of arms to?  You would need two shoulders... you'd have to split the deltoid muscle somehow to control both arms, if they were one-behind-the-other, or you'd have to have some very strange skeletal structure if they were one-below-the-other...  In religion, mythology, or fiction, these concerns are often overlooked, but the fact is that such bodily constructions have far more negatives than positives.  That's WHY it hasn't happened here.  Reptiles, mammals, marsupials, amphibians... all of them have four limbs, with the possibility of a tail.  There has to be a reason for that, based on the evolutionary cost-versus-benefit of multitudinous limbs.  Likewise, no vertebrate has more than two eyes (that I'm aware of).

The only things that break these basic design rules are invertebrates with exoskeletons.  Relatively small, exceedingly stupid creatures.  It leads me to believe that, the more brain power that is put toward problem-solving, the less brain power one can devote to body manipulation, and so if you want to be smart, you have to dump a couple limbs and a few eyes.

Now, you could postulate that this is because all the critters are on the same planet, thus same environment... but that's all the science we actually have to go on.  Start doing anything else, and it's no longer science fiction, it's just fantasy.  Bad enough that the story takes liberties with the whole "faster than light" thing (though my personal opinion on that has always been that Einstein didn't get the whole picture, anyway...)  Playing fast and loose with the possibilities of biology isn't really where I want to focus the story.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#34 2018-01-07 19:53:15

howard
Inebriated
Registered: 2016-12-01
Posts: 20

Re: CASS

Eric Storm wrote:

Having both arms AND wings is more or less physically impossible without completely reworking the skeleton.

Accepted. But we wouldn't be REWORKING the skeleton, we would be working with a completely different starting point.
Evolution only changes a little at a time. Aren't we all descended from a four-legged reptile that crawled out of a swamp many millions of years ago?
What if that reptile had been six-legged with webbing on the legs/feet for swimming because evolution found that six swimming limbs made you more dextrous in water and so could evade the four limbed/finned swimmers better. Then most animal life on the planet would probably have six limbs and we would all believe that was the only sensible way to do it!

Eric Storm wrote:

What you would have to do is essentially have two chests, one above the other.  One for the arms, and then the other for the wings.

If the arms articulate forwards and the wings articulate backwards then they could both attach to a single enlarged shoulder.

Eric Storm wrote:

Also, it should be pointed out that wings large enough to bring a 150 lb. creature into flight would be ENORMOUS.  There was an extinct bird that weighed in around 150 lbs.  It had a wingspan of TWENTY FEET.  Now you tack on some very non-aerodynamic parts, like arms and the extra chest to support them, and those wings will have to be even larger.

Very true but who said that our creature has to be 150lb? To have similar brain capacity AND similar strength to a human then it is probably a reasonable target for a creature based on the same sort of cells that life on Earth has. But does it have to have similar strength (only if it has lions chasing it across the savannah) and who's to say that a completely different cell structure wouldn't result in smaller creatures. I am trying to imagine how things might have been if EVERYTHING evolved differently to Earth because I see no reason why intelligent life, or even cellular life have to start the same everywhere. Sure, we know that the conditions ON EARTH lead to the formation of amino acids but is it not POSSIBLE that different conditions might exist on other planets.

Eric Storm wrote:

Likewise, not sure what you mean by a "centaur-like race".  There would be absolutely no reason in nature to develop such a hybrid.  You could have an equestrian species with arms, but its upper half wouldn't look remotely human.

A reason would exist if its ancestors has six limbs. It would be reasonable to convert two limbs into hands for the same reasons life on Earth did. By Centaur-like I only meant four legs and two arms, I certainly would not expect it to look remotely human.

Eric Storm wrote:

While I cannot rule this out based on my own scientific knowledge, what I can point out is that, so far as I know, no warm-blooded creature on Earth has ever attempted more than 4 limbs and a tail.  There has to be a reason for that.

Yes there is - our original ancestor only had four limbs.

Eric Storm wrote:

One reason I CAN point to is the neural complexity of controlling the two extra limbs: it takes up brain capacity that could better be served in the problem-solving department.  Likewise with more than two eyes.  An entire section of our brain is devoted to processing just the two visual inputs we've already got.  Can you imagine how much bigger that section gets if you have twice as many inputs, and you're trying to incorporate them all into a single image?

Good point, agreed entirely. Our brain is centered mostly in the head, but we do have some brain power all the way down the brain-stem that handles some of the lower-level functions. If an aquatic creature had six swimming limbs as I postulated earlier and at the time needed only simple 'insect-like' visual processing then perhaps the brain might be more distributed along whatever it has for a spine. If so then one possible evolutionary path after leaving the swamp might be for three separate areas of the elongated brain to swell - one for locomotion, one for visual processing and later on the third might form to better use the newly developing hands.

Eric Storm wrote:

The problem with multiple arms (a la Vishnu) a whole other set of pectoral muscles... in fact, what the hell would you actually attach the second set of arms to?  You would need two shoulders...

Agreed. If our aquatic ancestors swam mostly by limb power rather than spinal flex (yes its less efficient I know but evolution is like that - if it ain't broke don't fix it!) then their spines might well be relatively inflexible. Perhaps even exoskeleton based - it matters little. Even a giant crab with a good brain and hands could get something done!

Eric Storm wrote:

Now, you could postulate that this is because all the critters are on the same planet, thus same environment... but that's all the science we actually have to go on.  Start doing anything else, and it's no longer science fiction, it's just fantasy.

I disagree. Unless science has a good basis to declare that intelligent land-based life will always evolve from a four-limbed ancestor I consider it reasonable to consider that life on other planets could evolve along completely different lines than here. But then I still find the notion that all life everywhere has to be carbon-based equally unscientific. Just because it didn't happen here doesn't mean it can't.

Eric Storm wrote:

Bad enough that the story takes liberties with the whole "faster than light" thing (though my personal opinion on that has always been that Einstein didn't get the whole picture, anyway...)

Agreed entirely. Without FTL we are unlikely to ever resolve discussions like this one. Even Alpha Centauri is  4.35 light years away and if we have to work within Einsteins ideas of the universe then if we could gradually accelerate to e/2 and back to stop I guess it would take 20 years to get there. And then we find that that particular system hasn't evolved life so we have to go somewhere else. Public support for such missions would be significantly lacking.

Eric Storm wrote:

Playing fast and loose with the possibilities of biology isn't really where I want to focus the story. Eric Storm

Fair enough, it's your story. At least they won't have to worry about the Gorcha being much weirder than the Alien vs. Predator fellas. :-)

Howard

Offline

 

#35 2018-01-07 21:18:10

Centaur
Inebriated
From: Memphis, TN
Registered: 2006-12-08
Posts: 27

Re: CASS

howard wrote:

If the arms articulate forwards and the wings articulate backwards then they could both attach to a single enlarged shoulder.

the Human center of gravity is a bit lower on the body. winged humans wouldn't beable to fly well if the wings were placed on the shoulder blades. thats why many of the depictions of dragons(western style) have the wings lower on the back with a longer neck for front and rear balance. Another reason a bird can fly with the wings being more or less proportional to the body, is the skeletal system is mainly hollow to make them lighter.

Offline

 

#36 2018-01-08 00:09:51

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

I was going to answer you point for point, but decided to go a different route, so...

Let's cover a few basics:

1.  There are only two forms of life postulated to exist:  Carbon-based, and silicon-based.  This is not because that's all we see on Earth.  It is because the rules of chemistry say that these two elements are the only ones that combine readily enough with a large enough number of other elements, forming stable compounds, to support life function.

2.    Our 'early ancestor' was not a four-limbed reptile.  It was a one-celled organism with no limbs at all.  Evolution and natural selection started at THAT point, not at the point something crawled out of the sea/marsh/muck.  As noted, even fish have only four limbs and a tail.  As fish are precursors to that land-traveling reptile, the decision was made long before land animals came to be.  The fact is that, at some point in the evolution into multi-organed creature, something decided that four limbs was "what worked".  That can only be because the trade-offs for and against worked out that way, because the precursor creature had no bias toward a specific number of limbs.  We know that other numbers of limbs WERE tried: squids, octopodes... but they did NOT "take over", but instead filled in specific niches for which they were suited.  That speaks volumes.

3.    There is, to my knowledge, no scientific hypothesis for how carbon-based life could exist without amino acids and proteins. 

4.    The issue with arms and wings on the same creature is not one of articulation, it is one of musculature.  The pectoral muscles on a bird are huge in comparison to its body, and they are that way so that they can provide enough power to the wings to actually get the bird off the ground.  While doing this job, those muscles would not be able to independently move the arms.  Similarly with the deltoid muscles in the shoulder.  If you want the being to be able to use its arms during flight, then it needs an entire set of independent muscles to do that... and you need an independent section of skeleton to attach them to.  If your being does NOT use his arms during flight, then what's the benefit of having them?  Simply put hands at the wrist joint of the wing.  (Or, more accurately, add four fingers and a thumb to the "hand" that's already there.)

5.    Evolution doesn't work on just one creature at a time.  Your "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!" analogy doesn't apply.  Chances are that evolution wouldn't, in fact, change the stiff-spined animal into a flexible-spined animal.  However, some other creature that chose a flexible spine to begin with would out-compete the stiff-spined creature, driving it to extinction because it wasn't getting any food.

6.    Sentient, intelligent creatures require a certain body size.  Why?  Because they require a certain brain size, and that brain requires a certain amount of bodily function to support it.  Yes, there are some very, very smart bird species, which only weigh like 5 or 6 lbs.  They can solve some fairly complex puzzles...  For a bird.  For any ten-year-old human, they are boring, simple puzzles.  To get to the level of complexity of a space-faring species, a certain body size is simply required.  As such, things like arthropods are ruled out.  An arthropod cannot grow beyond a certain size due to its mechanism of breathing, which is highly inefficient.  Now, I hear you say, what if we just give them lungs?  Problem:  Exoskeletons really don't flex.  Breathing with lungs requires a fairly significant flexion of the outer surface of the body.  Also, once you introduce a centralized breathing system, you have to introduce some method to transport that oxygen around the creature.  Those new "oxygen vessels" have to be held in place somehow so that they can be sure to provide oxygen to each part of the creature.  Now it needs an internal structure to hold those in place with... and so now it effectively has TWO skeletons, making it even heavier and taking up space it needs for other things...

7.    There is a reason for a centralized brain.  While I'm not certain, I would imagine that the most important reason would be speed.  The more neurons you involve in any communication, the slower that communication becomes.  If you have spread out the different functions of the brain along a brain tree (or whatever it would get called), you've lengthened the time it takes to go from perception through decision to action.  That kind of slow-down would make you slower than your centralized-brain competition, potentially meaning you miss out on dinner.

8.    There are, in my view, three kinds of science fiction:
    Hard Science Fiction:  This is the Arthur C. Clarke variety.  You use only known science, and you write your fiction based on that.
    Soft Science Fiction:    You take known science, plus current hypotheses and theories, and you push them slightly beyond where science can actually take them at this time.
    Mushy Science Fiction:    You take known science, throw in whatever pieces of additional "science" you need to make your story work, whether they have any basis in current science or not, and tell your story based on that, trying to at least be consistent with your own science.
    Fantasy (ie, Not Science Fiction At All):    You decide you don't like the current version of science, so you ignore it and do whatever the hell you want.  Consistency is optional.

    I'm aiming to put CASS in the "soft" category.  The things you're talking about fall firmly into the "mushy" category, if not outright fantasy.
   
Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#37 2018-01-09 08:19:19

Crusader
Wasted
From: Madison, WI
Registered: 2007-07-19
Posts: 155

Re: CASS

Eric Storm wrote:

...but for the most part, you're going to find that space-traveling aliens are probably bipedal, four-limbed creatures of some kind.  (Five-limbed if you want to count any possibility of a tail...)  Of course, it also stands to reason that various races of that being will exist on their planet, too.  (Not all humans look the same, after all...)

Eric Storm

Ahhh poor Andalites, you can't exist. T_T

Offline

 

#38 2018-01-09 08:44:06

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

You're right, they couldn't.  There's no way they'd be able to take in enough oxygen through their nose to do something as simple as running.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#39 2018-01-09 23:42:04

Augur
Wasted
Registered: 2012-08-23
Posts: 104

Re: CASS

Depends on the concentration of atmospheric oxygen on their home planet. Quite a lot is possible in a high oxygen concentration environment. Like 2 m. sized insects and such. A centaur like creature wouldn´t be such a big deal. As for the rest of your theories, animals have 4 limbs due to our evolution pathway. From the first amphibians we have evolved to have four main limbs. It´s not so much brain resources required by additional limbs (although that certainly could be a factor), but rather the fact that we have evolved in this pathway. We also have bilateral symmetry due to the same fact. If an intelligent species had evolved from an organism with pentamerism (5 fold simmetry), or radial simmetry, or some other similar fundamental trait, then that species would almost assuredly be defined by those fundamental traits.

Offline

 

#40 2018-01-10 03:57:58

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

*sigh*  So... why did the amphibian have four limbs?

Answer: because the fish he came from had four limbs.

Question:  Why did the fish have four limbs?

Answer: ... ... ...

The problem with both of your arguments is that you are using as a reference point something that has already settled on a set number of limbs.  And yes, anything that follows on from that is very likely to maintain that pattern through to extinction.  But your argument ignores the real point, which is "why was four limbs chosen to start with?"  You cannot answer this question by discussing something that already has four limbs.  You have to examine the transition from no limbs, to four limbs.  Why stop at four?  Why not stop at two, or six?  There was a REASON for that.  I don't know what it was.  I don't know if anyone could actually give you a solid answer for why, but the point is that somehow, evolution said, "Four is the right number of limbs to have... And I'll let you have a tail thingy, too, just for shits and giggles."  The pattern was established with fish, not amphibians, not reptiles, certainly not mammals.

So until you can convince me that nature is going to choose some other number of limbs on some other planet with similar (by which I mean water-sustaining) conditions, I'm not buying it.  There has to be a good, solid reason that the only things with more than four limbs and a tail, also have exoskeletons (or no skeletons at all...)

As to your Andalite, I'm still not convinced that, even in a high-oxygen atmosphere, he would be able to draw in enough air through those small slits to power him through heavy exertion.  People don't use their nose to breathe when they exercise for just that reason: it's a good way to pass out.  I still believe he'd need a much larger aperture to draw in air.  Keep in mind that, if he lived in a higher-oxygen atmosphere, his body would be used to that, and would have evolved to be used to it "at rest".  Thus, when he exerted himself, he would likely need just as much more air as we do to maintain his systems.  If his body evolved to use the oxygen concentration while exerting itself, they would probably feel ill when at rest, due to having too much oxygen available.  (Hyperventilation causes this problem in humans: too much oxygen, not enough carbon dioxide, you feel like you can't breathe.)

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#41 2018-01-10 07:42:11

howard
Inebriated
Registered: 2016-12-01
Posts: 20

Re: CASS

Eric Storm wrote:

The problem with both of your arguments is that you are using as a reference point something that has already settled on a set number of limbs.  And yes, anything that follows on from that is very likely to maintain that pattern through to extinction.  But your argument ignores the real point, which is "why was four limbs chosen to start with?"  You cannot answer this question by discussing something that already has four limbs.  You have to examine the transition from no limbs, to four limbs.  Why stop at four?  Why not stop at two, or six?  There was a REASON for that.  I don't know what it was.  I don't know if anyone could actually give you a solid answer for why, but the point is that somehow, evolution said, "Four is the right number of limbs to have.

I will confess that I assume the answer to be, to all intents and purposes: A dice roll. We try four and it worked so don't bother trying more (apart from the poor centipedes). Is it not POSSIBLE that on a re-run of the evolution program it might choose six and find that works too. Evolution is not a sentient being that figures out what to do, it is just an unreliable cloning program that makes occasional mistakes, some of which turn out to be good mistakes.

Offline

 

#42 2018-01-10 08:21:13

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

The problem is that you're assuming that four was the only number tried.  That is almost definitely incorrect.  Four was the number that WON, not the number that got picked out of the hat.

Now, I grant you, four is the number that won for creatures which started in a watery environment first.  But I honestly cannot conceive of how it could be otherwise.  Water provides so many benefits and protections to new life that it boggles my mind that it might start somewhere other than a liquid environment, given all of the odds against life forming in the first place.

Is it POSSIBLE for another number to win?  I suppose, but I'm not sure what set of circumstances would set that up.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#43 2018-01-10 14:29:04

Augur
Wasted
Registered: 2012-08-23
Posts: 104

Re: CASS

No, the reason is that the four limbs resulted from a duplication in one limb pair (at least that's the current interpretation). This is a somewhat rare occurrence and it would have to be immediately advantageous in some way and not have any serious disadvantages for the new population, otherwise at the very least it's an energy drain. If the environment had some evolutionary pressure that favoured having more limbs at the moment, or moments when such a limb duplication occurred then a new phylum could have evolved from that particular mutation. Also the more advanced the creature the more difficult for such a duplication to occur and not have deleterious effects (for example human vertebrae are ALL different to some degree, a duplication would be quite difficult as compatibility issues would probabbly arise. And that's just one of many factors).

As for evolution pressures forming one or another form, there is an interesting article which analyzes the mechanisms behind the evolution of the form of the human limbs. It actually shows that changing circumstances (changing evolutionary pressures) during the evolution process can and do influence the final result in ways that no one set of evolutionary pressure factors could.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/8/3400.full 

As for the andalites, remember the meganeura:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura
Insects breathe by diffusion of oxygen through the tracheoles. There is no active breathing apparatus that pumps air inside as mammals do. 40% atmospheric level of oxygen VS 21% can do A LOT. Of course the centaurlike being  "Andalite" should probably have lungs that are a bit larger than in normal humans to compensate. Organ distribution in such a being would also be an interesting conundrum.  It would also probabbly look a bit different with no narrowing of the human part of the torso and so on (there are many possible options, depending on the initial environmental assumptions). Still the nasal or oral cavities themselves COULD be enough to supply the air/oxygen needed by such a being, as long as the oxygen levels aren't too low, or if his hemoglobin equivalent were to be more efficient than the one evolved on Earth mammals.

Offline

 

#44 2018-01-10 18:58:05

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

And the passive breathing system of insects is theorized to be exactly what is restricting their size.  The bigger the insect gets, the more trachea it needs, and soon you reach a point where the insect is nothing but trachea.  Yes, a higher oxygen concentration reduces this need, but only just so far.  Because the system must always distribute the oxygen from skin-level inward, the further inward you have to go, the worse the situation gets.  Such large creatures as the Andalite would certainly be problematic with that kind of system.

And yes, it is CONCEIVABLE that the nasal cavity would be sufficient, but as I said, it means that the creature evolved into its "during exertion" state, rather than its "at rest" state, and this seems a bit odd to have happen.

And we haven't even discussed how the being manages to actually digest food with its feet...especially since that process is most easily accomplished when the nutrients in question are surrounded by enzymes and such to help break the material down...

As to the article you referenced, I read the abstract, which was as far as I needed to go to realize that no normal human being could possibly understand the rest of it.  I think I got the basic gist of it.  Of course, from a not-quite-a-scientist's point of view, the reason humans ended up looking different is rather simple:  We're bipedal.  And we're bipedal because we started to carry tools, and being bipedal makes that much easier to do.  Natural selection seems to be able - at least to my satisfaction - to explain why our legs got longer and our arms got shorter as we spent more time carrying things and walking on two legs.

And I agree that, if the entire set of evolutionary pressures had favored creatures with more or fewer limbs, we'd have ended up with more or fewer limbs.  But no one is presenting any notion of what pressures would DO that.  That's why I'm basically saying, if you live on a world that's pretty similar to this one (water, oceans, more-or-less same temperature range), chances are your creatures are probably going to look similar.  Not the same, no.  And some events were dictated by random chance, so end results could be vastly different, but I still think they'd probably have four limbs and a tail.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#45 2018-01-10 22:54:32

Augur
Wasted
Registered: 2012-08-23
Posts: 104

Re: CASS

Yes and no. The bigger the insect the longer the tracheae, but also less effective as oxygen needs to travel by difussion. That's why in eras when the oxygen concentration in Earths atmosphere was greater, insects may have grown larger. Anyway the point was precisely that in higher oxygen concentration environments the being wouldn't need to exert itself so much. In other words it could be breathing normally.

I didn't notice that tidbit of information, although flies for example have tastebuds on their feet. It would be a rather alien biology to somehow being able to digest with your feet too, but it's possible. Still, not very likely WHILE running. 3dsmile 

As for the article, yes it's a little bit technical, so not a light read per se, although the concepts themselves aren't too esoteric to understand. The idea it conveys and I wanted to point out in this discussion is that evolution pressure factors may change in time and regarding humans there were different pressure factors at different times/stages of our evolution and we wouldn't have the set of limbs we have with just one pressure factor (let's say bipedalism), or all factors at the same time. It took those specific pressure factors happening at a certain time, then other factors added to, or replacing the first ones, etc., to get the form and proportions of limbs we actually have.
Why this is important? Because it shows how complicated evolution actually is as the usual understanding of most people even when it's correct (most of the times it isn't), is very simplistic. So complex changes are possible with time that no one set of pressure factors would be able to achieve.

On Earth we have gotten different phylum evolving with different number of appendages. Vertebrates have four limbs (sometimes a fifth in way of a tail). There are molluscs with eight limbs, some diferentiated like in sepias, some not like octopii. Insects have evolved to have six limbs, while arachnids (mites, spiders, scorpions and such) have evolved to have also eight legs. Not so difficult to imagine many more combinations in an alien ecosystem.

Chordates (to which all vertebrates belong) aren't the only phylum (class of animals) in existence. Nor are they exclusive inventors of intelligence (octopii are pretty intelligent. Who knows if given time and the right evolutionary pressure if they could actually evolve to a point of creating their own technical civilization. They actually have the the manipulative quality of limbs for that, something cetaceans with all their intelligence actually lack).

In short it's not likely at all that an alien intelligent species would be a vertebrate. It may have a similar, or analogous structure (internal skeleton), or it may have a different body structure altogether, even one we can't really imagine at the moment. So there are no reasons to think an alien intelligent species may have a certain number of limbs, or a tail, or several, or whatever. 

Still my point about the andalites was only regarding the possibility of them getting enough oxygen through those nostrils to sustain them (possible physiologically if given the right environmental conditions). The body structure itself it's not only unlikely, but borders on the impossibility.

Last edited by Augur (2018-01-10 23:07:04)

Offline

 

#46 2018-01-11 00:51:21

Centaur
Inebriated
From: Memphis, TN
Registered: 2006-12-08
Posts: 27

Re: CASS

I have to throw my two cents in. we all have tails, it's called a tail bone at the base of the spine. whats left is reminisce of when we had longer tails.

My dad always wondered why evolution removed most of our tails. a good tail could be so useful.

There's  my two cents. If your lucky they might be face up.

Offline

 

#47 2018-01-11 02:02:29

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5742
Website

Re: CASS

I think we've all had our say on this.  Rather than keep rehashing it, running the risk of it getting ugly, I'm just going to bow out at this point.  Ultimately, it's all just opinion until someone gets some evidence of what aliens look like, so...

*shrugs*

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Online

 

#48 2018-01-11 02:55:53

Augur
Wasted
Registered: 2012-08-23
Posts: 104

Re: CASS

Agreed.

Offline

 

#49 2018-01-11 07:53:31

howard
Inebriated
Registered: 2016-12-01
Posts: 20

Re: CASS

Centaur wrote:

I have to throw my two cents in. we all have tails, it's called a tail bone at the base of the spine. whats left is reminisce of when we had longer tails.

My dad always wondered why evolution removed most of our tails. a good tail could be so useful.

Just consider what it would be  like on the underground/metro in the rush-hour...
Where would the tail come out? Below the waist-line I assume. Awkward for clothing - we'd need lace-up underwear...
Just lowering the tone of this previously serious conversation :-)

Offline

 

#50 2018-01-11 19:24:43

Crusader
Wasted
From: Madison, WI
Registered: 2007-07-19
Posts: 155

Re: CASS

howard wrote:

Centaur wrote:

I have to throw my two cents in. we all have tails, it's called a tail bone at the base of the spine. whats left is reminisce of when we had longer tails.

My dad always wondered why evolution removed most of our tails. a good tail could be so useful.

Just consider what it would be  like on the underground/metro in the rush-hour...
Where would the tail come out? Below the waist-line I assume. Awkward for clothing - we'd need lace-up underwear...
Just lowering the tone of this previously serious conversation :-)

Cant monkeys wrap the tail around themselves belt like? Would keep it out of the way for the metro...
You could have a third hole in your undergarments/pants. Slip your tail in just like your legs.

Im more conserened about how it would look, we dont have fur, so the image that comes to mind is a shaved rat tail. Ewwww.

Last edited by Crusader (2018-01-11 19:27:19)

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson