| Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web. While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous. Join our community today! |
| The Moon, Pandora, from the film "Avatar" | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 20 2009, 02:13 PM (8,065 Views) | |
| Yorick | Dec 20 2009, 02:13 PM Post #1 |
|
Adult
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I took someone's suggestion and created another topic to speculate on the moon's inhabitants' evolution. So...speculate! |
|
"I believe, that whatever doesn't kill you, simply makes you...stranger" -The Dark Knight (2008) | |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Empyreon | Jan 8 2010, 03:45 PM Post #196 |
|
Are you plausible?
![]()
|
You get... angry? What about them is inaccurate? Sure, we've all come to a consensus that the Na'vi are pretty unlikely, but how is it not 'accurate'? What we have here is an example of a planet presented as ecologically and evolutionarily viable, and instead of figuring out explanations for why it works we point out every flaw and dismiss it as poorly done. Rather than wasting time and energy on that, why don't we make our own aliens that are more 'accurate' and 'right'? 'Angry'? ![]()
Then one of the messages I draw from the movie is 'life can be surprising'.
I've looked at Snaiad, and it's very well done, but I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with all the animals to recognize them by name. Forgive my ignorance.
I agree 100%. With a bit of background in film and theater I understand and accept that art has certain conventions it follows, and that changes are often subtle and take time to be widely accepted. So when I watch a movie I employ suspension of disbelief (a concept that seems to be a bit controversial 'round these parts) because I know that I'm not the only intended audience. Perhaps one day a movie will be release that is geared specifically for the narrow demographic of audience that we are. In the meantime we're going to have to understand that compromises are often made for the sake of business and, yes, art.
You have a problem with the fact that people disagree with you?
I think it could have, but perhaps the rest of my thoughts on the matter would be better suited for the thread about the movie itself, and not specifically the planet's biology.
They probably were; dwarves with guns. But to a thanator they are snacks with guns. ![]()
Indeed. Na'vi, prawns, vulcans, klingons, wookiees; pretty much anything out there is bigger and stronger than us. Hollywood loves to make us the underdog one way or another.
I'd say there's evidence for that very higher pressure in the footage where we see the two atmospheres interacting (hatches opening, breaches in windows, etc.). A noticeable effect of the outside air rushing in is visible from time to time.
That is a fancy trick. What's your source, btw?
Because they probably didn't evolve directly from the prolemuris, but the two species could share some common ancestor that did have a tail. The prolemuris lost the tail, and the Na'vi lost the extra arms.
...except the prolemuris...
|
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
![]() |
|
| Venatosaurus | Jan 8 2010, 04:01 PM Post #197 |
|
HAUS OF SPEC
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually the Prolemurids to have tails, if you watch this clip 1:10 minutes into it, you'll see they all have long tails, like the Na'vi, http://www.pandorapedia.com/doku.php
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ATEK Azul | Jan 8 2010, 04:13 PM Post #198 |
|
Transhuman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What's wrong with Jumba? |
| I am dyslexic, please ignore the typo's! | |
![]() |
|
| Empyreon | Jan 8 2010, 05:00 PM Post #199 |
|
Are you plausible?
![]()
|
Ah, there it is.
Nothing's wrong with him. I was just putting up an example of an alien with four eyes that didn't raise any red flags among movie goers (as far as I know). |
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
![]() |
|
| Holben | Jan 9 2010, 05:48 AM Post #200 |
![]()
Rumbo a la Victoria
![]()
|
Ok... If the four eyes were part of a kingdom from which most animals derived, that might be understandable, if you get what i'm saying... |
|
Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea. "It is the old wound my king. It has never healed." | |
![]() |
|
| T.Neo | Jan 9 2010, 03:54 PM Post #201 |
![]()
Translunar injection: TLI
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Because they're implausible. Not impossible, but implausible. Evolution is random and we're only one result of it... the chances are there of something else like us but they're negligible.
Ecologically, maybe. Evolutionarily, perhaps not. The creatures often seem to have too many "unique adaptations" that would be hard to evolve.
Pandora certainly isn't poorly done. It has flaws (as everything does) but it isn't poorly done. And "figuring out explanations" works out to a point- there are Star Wars geeks out there who try to "figure out explanations" to physically impossible craft.
But isn't that what we do in speculative biology?
Annoyed, if you prefer. Or maybe irked.
Surprising enough to recreate the entire Earth? (as I believe is what your answer is referring to). Never. It's like saying that "life can be surprising enough to create flying pigs out of soup in four days flat".
Or someone could make a movie with a plot suitable to the presence of realistic aliens. And why limit art? I've seen some very weird art... art is only limited by your imagination. ![]()
No. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, I have a problem with people disagreeing with me and being incorrect. Creationists spring to mind.
Indeed, but there might be a grain of truth to that- we're the weakest of the great apes, afterall.
Wouldn't make sense to bother reducing the pressure inside the habitats like that. A bit more pressure doesn't hurt, especially if you let the people acclimatise slowly first. Ideally you would filter out undesirable gases from the air and keep the habitats under a slight positive pressure, to prevent contamination.
Well, Titan does it, due to the insanely cold temperatures on the surface. But it doesn't make sense for a marginally warmer Pandora. My source was: http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Pandora
Perhaps not. But one thing that seems to be common in four-eyed aliens in science fiction (including Jumba) is that they essentially have a pair of "primary" and "secondary" eyes, almost as if the secondary eyes are just add-ons. Pleakley (Jumba's sidekick) has only one eye, and still seems to be somewhat relatable. |
| A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork. | |
![]() |
|
| Empyreon | Jan 9 2010, 04:39 PM Post #202 |
|
Are you plausible?
![]()
|
But you used the term 'inaccurate' implying that there is some 'accurate' model to which it can be compared. What model should be used to measure an alien's accuracy? What models exist?
Perhaps, but an equally cursory view of Earth life (especially if it's only one biome, as in the movie) may lead to a similar conclusion. We don't have a complete evolutionary history of the planet to determine whether it's accurate or not.
Once again a word comes up that points to impossibility. 'Never'? We've agreed that the probability is astronomical, but within the context of the Avatar movie we found life on another world and the aliens look like this. If we're not interested in exploring how this may have come about then why does this thread exist?
So why argue whether something is right or wrong, accurate or not? What aren't we speculating, if not about this, than about other more plausible projects? Once again, the project presented to us in this thread is the biology of James Cameron's Avatar. If we find it implausible, inaccurate, wrong, or just uninteresting, then time can be better spent elsewhere, can't it?
Again I ask why. You're fortunate to have an explanation that you feel comfortable calling the truth, but I guarantee others disagree. Why do you have a problem with that? Are you out to convert others to your 'correct' point of view?
Good point. Perhaps the atmospheric effects apparent in the film comes from the pandoran air being heavier than terran air, thus rushing in to displace the lighter gases.
Another good point. Eyes are evolutionarily expensive, so having more than are necessary is a bit of a waste. So what is it that makes an extra set (even if it's a smaller, less complex set) of eyes useful enough for pandoran life to not reduce it to just two? Or perhaps the extra eyes don't cause enough of a reproductive disadvantage to bring about the change? |
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
![]() |
|
| T.Neo | Jan 9 2010, 05:18 PM Post #203 |
![]()
Translunar injection: TLI
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Anything different enough from humans.
Perhaps. I'm mostly talking about the respiratory adaptations and such; they just seem too hard to evolve like that.
I was responding to what I had thought was your response to my thought experiment of postulating Earth beind recreated somewhere else in the universe by random natural forces. Although the possibility is there, it's so small as to never happen in the universe.
Indeed. For some time the concept for a sophont has been floating in my mind, perhaps it's time to put it on paper.
So you're essentially saying that one can't have a problem with someone even if what they propose is wrong? Does that mean I have to respect the points of view of creationists and pseudoscientists?
No more then you're trying to convert me to your point of view. And yes, it is my point of view that my point of view (pun intended :P) is correct. Otherwise there really wouldn't be a reason to have said point of view.
Sounds sketchy. Perhaps... wind? ![]() Btw the positive pressure wouldn't have to be a lot... just a bit, so that toxins in the atmosphere wouldn't get in through leaks.
Tell that to spiders. (although most of their eyes are low-quality ocelli). Why wouldn't our number of eyes be a "bit of a waste" then? One is enough, barring depth perception.
"Eyes in the back of the head" so to speak, to watch out for threats? Seems helpful.
I'd personally go with this explanation. Also remember that eyes are pretty integral things; losing them would have to entail some kind of specialisation. |
| A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork. | |
![]() |
|
| Empyreon | Jan 9 2010, 08:58 PM Post #204 |
|
Are you plausible?
![]()
|
And what is that? What is the pinnacle of 'inhuman' in terms of biology? Squid? Starfish? Dinosaurs? Amoebae? Trees?
What respiratory adaptations are you talking about? Shoulder-nostrils?
And yet, within the context of the movie, there it is. I believe the main schism between our positions lies in the fact that I am looking at it from an 'in-universe' perspective (i.e. Pandora is for all intents and purposes real and this is a discussion of the biology thereon), whereas you are analyzing it as a work of fiction (Avatar is another example of terracentric movie making). From my point of view, statisticians are marveling at the fact that, to reuse the analogy, lightning has struck twice. From your point of view, as I see it (and correct me if I'm wrong), statisticians are munching on popcorn and saying, "Hollywood's done it again..."
I'm eager to see it! ![]()
Essentially, yes. You don't have to agree, promote, or in any way align yourself with their views (which I also believe are erroneous), but as fellow members of humanity who have done nothing more to you than disagree, they do deserve your respect. You're entirely free to think they are wrong, and they're entirely free to hold to their beliefs you disagree with. There should be nothing you have a problem with here. But perhaps the rest of this thought is better suited for another topic...
Depth perception is exactly why two aren't a waste (many carnivores use it), so is the ability to look in two directions at once, providing a broad field of view (herbivores use this). If we had no need for it, one eye would be plenty. Binocular vision is a useful trait, as evidenced by terrestrial life. I believe it was Carl Sagan who stated that the benefit of three eyes was nothing compared to the benefits received from having two, so a third eye has limited improvement. Tetrocular vision (as evidenced by pandoran flyers) could have many uses that make it worth the evolutionary cost. "Eyes in the back of your head", as you pointed out. One thing I was considering is a certain degree of binocular vision on either side of the head, since the flyers may want to focus on prey to either side of them without turning their airfoiled heads. But the idea that there's just no evolutionary pressure to get rid of them is equally valid, IMO. As you pointed out, T. Neo, sometimes it costs just as much to lose as to gain. |
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
![]() |
|
| T.Neo | Jan 10 2010, 07:16 AM Post #205 |
![]()
Translunar injection: TLI
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Prawns? People should stop trying to center sophont biology around humans. It's like centering small herbivore biology around hypsolophodonts.
Yes, the shoulder/neck nostrils. Alterations like that would be pretty hard to evolve. At least the differentiation between the creatures is nowhere near as bad as Darwin IV, whose organisms were too alien for their own planet.
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head.
Well, that may take some time. I don't get paid for speculating and creativity doesn't come easily. ![]()
Indeed, I have to agree with you. It falls apart when they try to hassle people they disagree with, but that debate is, as you said, better suited to another topic.
Sidwards-viewing is also useful if you want to evade predators (such as the leonopyterex). If you situated four eyes equally around, you would be able to see in every direction, with a degree of depth perception in each. Edited by T.Neo, Jan 10 2010, 07:23 AM.
|
| A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork. | |
![]() |
|
| Holben | Jan 10 2010, 01:04 PM Post #206 |
![]()
Rumbo a la Victoria
![]()
|
If you let the four eyes overlap would you still call it stereo vision? ![]() It seems the jungles are dark near the floor, so the more light taken in the better. This may also explain the slightly reflective eyes. |
|
Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea. "It is the old wound my king. It has never healed." | |
![]() |
|
| Empyreon | Jan 11 2010, 11:57 AM Post #207 |
|
Are you plausible?
![]()
|
About as humanoid as anything else out there, in my book. ![]()
What's so unlikely about shoulder nostrils? I thought of the same thing in my own project and thought it was a cleverly unique feature.
We're in the same boat there...
Surround-sight? Quadra-optic? |
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
![]() |
|
| Holben | Jan 11 2010, 01:08 PM Post #208 |
![]()
Rumbo a la Victoria
![]()
|
![]() Slugs' spiracles are where their necks should be. It's also closer to amniotes' lungs. |
|
Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea. "It is the old wound my king. It has never healed." | |
![]() |
|
| T.Neo | Jan 11 2010, 01:33 PM Post #209 |
![]()
Translunar injection: TLI
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They were humanoid not humanesque... they had an exoskeleton and tentacles for mouthparts... Not to mention the chest-hands and neck-gills.
Absolutely nothing. What is unlikely is one organism (for example the Na'vi) not having them and another organism having them. It's far too hard to just discard a whole portion of the respiratory tract.
My project also has shoulder-nostrils of sorts. But I am sure the evolutionary origin of them differs. ![]()
Multistereo vision? |
| A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork. | |
![]() |
|
| Empyreon | Jan 11 2010, 02:23 PM Post #210 |
|
Are you plausible?
![]()
|
So the least human thing that comes to mind is still humanoid?
Once again it's apparent that we agree on the unlikelihood of pandoran life, but our approaches (and therefore interest in this thread) differ too much to really continue. I guess I'll enjoy my avatar apologetics on my own time. Enjoy, everyone... |
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Habitable Zone · Next Topic » |
















9:33 AM Jul 11