Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Moon, Pandora, from the film "Avatar"
Topic Started: Dec 20 2009, 02:13 PM (8,065 Views)
Yorick
Member Avatar
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)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Empyreon
Member Avatar
Are you plausible?

Quote:
 
But what I get angry with is when people state that something like a Na'vi is actually an accurate representation of a sophont species.


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'? :rolleyes:

Quote:
 
Yes, but the odds of that happening are so low that it is almost certain that it won't happen anywhere else in the entire Universe.


Then one of the messages I draw from the movie is 'life can be surprising'.

Quote:
 
A medium-sized carnivorous animal from Nemo Ramjet's Snaiad.


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.

Quote:
 
I'm beginning to think that the "Humans only" is more due to the usual paradigm of "it must be done that way" then any real-world occurence.


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.

Quote:
 
Like I stated earlier, it's not the Na'vi I have a problem with, it's the fact that people seem to believe that aliens like that are plausible.


You have a problem with the fact that people disagree with you?

Quote:
 
Does anyone think it could have worked without the romance, hence removing the need for the human like characters?


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.

Quote:
 
Humans should have been like Dwarven Warriors in the film.


They probably were; dwarves with guns. But to a thanator they are snacks with guns. :)

Quote:
 
Insanely strong aliens are a cliche in sci-fi. The Prawns are an example of this.


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.

Quote:
 
The flyers used a combination of the thicker atmosphere (higher pressure, obviously) and the gravity.


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.

Quote:
 
Surface pressure is 0.9 atmospheres, but atmospheric density is 1.2 that of Earth (not sure what is going on here- perhaps there is some cool physics trick here that I don't know about.).


That is a fancy trick. What's your source, btw?

Quote:
 
The main problem I have with the Na'vi is the tail. Assuming they evolved from a Prolemuris, or something similar, then why did they re-evolve the tail, which Prolemuris doesn't have?


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.

Quote:
 
All other Pandoran animals shown in the movie have four eyes.


...except the prolemuris...

Quote:
 
But the four eyes wouldn't be so bad looking to a movie goer.


Posted Image
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus!

COM Contributions


food for thought
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Venatosaurus
Member Avatar
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 ;)



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ATEK Azul
Member Avatar
Transhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
What's wrong with Jumba?
I am dyslexic, please ignore the typo's!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Empyreon
Member Avatar
Are you plausible?

Quote:
 
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,


Ah, there it is.

Quote:
 
What's wrong with Jumba?


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Holben
Member Avatar
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."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Quote:
 
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'?


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.

Quote:
 
What we have here is an example of a planet presented as ecologically and evolutionarily viable,


Ecologically, maybe. Evolutionarily, perhaps not. The creatures often seem to have too many "unique adaptations" that would be hard to evolve.

Quote:
 
and instead of figuring out explanations for why it works we point out every flaw and dismiss it as poorly done


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.

Quote:
 
Rather than wasting time and energy on that, why don't we make our own aliens that are more 'accurate' and 'right'?


But isn't that what we do in speculative biology?

Quote:
 
'Angry'?


Annoyed, if you prefer. Or maybe irked. :lol:

Quote:
 
Then one of the messages I draw from the movie is 'life can be surprising'.


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".

Quote:
 
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.


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. ;)

Quote:
 
You have a problem with the fact that people disagree with you?


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.

Quote:
 
Hollywood loves to make us the underdog one way or another.


Indeed, but there might be a grain of truth to that- we're the weakest of the great apes, afterall.

Quote:
 
A noticeable effect of the outside air rushing in is visible from time to time.


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.

Quote:
 
That is a fancy trick. What's your source, btw?


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

Quote:
 
But the four eyes wouldn't be so bad looking to a movie goer.


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Empyreon
Member Avatar
Are you plausible?

Quote:
 
Because they're implausible. Not impossible, but implausible.


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?

Quote:
 
The creatures often seem to have too many "unique adaptations" that would be hard to evolve.


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.

Quote:
 
Surprising enough to recreate the entire Earth? (as I believe is what your answer is referring to). Never.


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?

Quote:
 
But isn't that what we do in speculative biology?


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?

Quote:
 
I have a problem with people disagreeing with me and being incorrect.


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?

Quote:
 
Ideally you would filter out undesirable gases from the air and keep the habitats under a slight positive pressure, to prevent contamination.


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.

Quote:
 
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.


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Quote:
 
What model should be used to measure an alien's accuracy? What models exist?


Anything different enough from humans.

Quote:
 
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.


Perhaps.

I'm mostly talking about the respiratory adaptations and such; they just seem too hard to evolve like that.

Quote:
 
If we're not interested in exploring how this may have come about then why does this thread exist?


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.

Quote:
 
If we find it implausible, inaccurate, wrong, or just uninteresting, then time can be better spent elsewhere, can't it?


Indeed. For some time the concept for a sophont has been floating in my mind, perhaps it's time to put it on paper.

Quote:
 
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?


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?

Quote:
 
Are you out to convert others to your 'correct' point of view?


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.

Quote:
 
pandoran air being heavier than terran air, thus rushing in to displace the lighter gases.


Sounds sketchy. Perhaps... wind? :P

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.

Quote:
 
Another good point. Eyes are evolutionarily expensive, so having more than are necessary is a bit of a waste.


Tell that to spiders. :P (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.

Quote:
 
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?


"Eyes in the back of the head" so to speak, to watch out for threats? Seems helpful.

Quote:
 
Or perhaps the extra eyes don't cause enough of a reproductive disadvantage to bring about the change?


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Empyreon
Member Avatar
Are you plausible?

Quote:
 
Anything different enough from humans.


And what is that? What is the pinnacle of 'inhuman' in terms of biology? Squid? Starfish? Dinosaurs? Amoebae? Trees?

Quote:
 
I'm mostly talking about the respiratory adaptations and such; they just seem too hard to evolve like that.


What respiratory adaptations are you talking about? Shoulder-nostrils?

Quote:
 
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.


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..."

Quote:
 
For some time the concept for a sophont has been floating in my mind, perhaps it's time to put it on paper.


I'm eager to see it! :)

Quote:
 
Does that mean I have to respect the points of view of creationists and pseudoscientists?


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...

Quote:
 
Why wouldn't our number of eyes be a "bit of a waste" then? One is enough, barring depth perception.


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Quote:
 
And what is that? What is the pinnacle of 'inhuman' in terms of biology? Squid? Starfish? Dinosaurs? Amoebae? Trees?


Prawns? :P

People should stop trying to center sophont biology around humans. It's like centering small herbivore biology around hypsolophodonts.

Quote:
 
What respiratory adaptations are you talking about? Shoulder-nostrils?


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.

Quote:
 
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..."


Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. ;)

Quote:
 
I'm eager to see it!


Well, that may take some time. I don't get paid for speculating and creativity doesn't come easily. :P

Quote:
 
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.


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.

Quote:
 
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.


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Holben
Member Avatar
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."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Empyreon
Member Avatar
Are you plausible?

Quote:
 
Prawns?


About as humanoid as anything else out there, in my book. :)

Quote:
 
Yes, the shoulder/neck nostrils.


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.

Quote:
 
Well, that may take some time. I don't get paid for speculating and creativity doesn't come easily. :P


We're in the same boat there...

Quote:
 
If you let the four eyes overlap would you still call it stereo vision? :)


Surround-sight? Quadra-optic?
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus!

COM Contributions


food for thought
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Holben
Member Avatar
Rumbo a la Victoria

:lol:

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."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Quote:
 
About as humanoid as anything else out there, in my book.


They were humanoid not humanesque... they had an exoskeleton and tentacles for mouthparts...

Not to mention the chest-hands and neck-gills.

Quote:
 
What's so unlikely about shoulder nostrils?


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.

Quote:
 
I thought of the same thing in my own project and thought it was a cleverly unique feature.


My project also has shoulder-nostrils of sorts. But I am sure the evolutionary origin of them differs. :P

Quote:
 
Surround-sight? Quadra-optic?


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Empyreon
Member Avatar
Are you plausible?

Quote:
 
They were humanoid not humanesque...


So the least human thing that comes to mind is still humanoid?

Quote:
 
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.


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Habitable Zone · Next Topic »
Add Reply