Biggest Science Fiction Disappointments!

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Everyone always forgets the other key component of evolution - natural selection. We're not "haphazard," as nothing about NS is haphazard or random. Mutations may be, but NS is not.

Natural selection is plenty haphazard. Need I say "asteroid impact"?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by JohnT
It felt that having Jar-Jar do that was a form of penance that Lucas offered because of his, Jar-Jar's, presence in TPM.

No, No, No, that's not it! They're setting up Jar-Jar to be Bobba Fett's first hit in the next movie. He's going to make a delicious splat when hit by Bobba's RPG. My sources say that Lucas will be employing special CGI programs to realistically recreate the big frog's gory death. It will make the flogging scene in Gibson's "Passion" look like "Polar Express" in comparison.

[Elok]

Screw RPGs. Jar Jar needs death by dark side lightning. Or to be impeached from the senate in disgrace, to return to Naboo and spend the rest of his life being sodomized by Boss Nass in the Emperor's Gungan Death Prison Camps.

[Vince278]

I see you've given this some thought.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Leverage points and some muscle equivelant to move them, i.e. fingers. Something to grip with, i.e. an opposable thumb - in combination it's a hand, which is why tentacles are less likely. The need to keep these appendages available to handle tools. Upright posture or more than four limbs with the front two permanently upright. It's hard for a six-limed animal to suddenly evolve the first two limbs upright, it's much easier for a four limbed creature to rotate upright and inherit back problems in later life.

Look to the phyla Arthropoda and Molluca. A large number of arthropods have developed specialized front limbs, among them mantises, crabs, lobsters, scorpians, pedipalps, and more than a few spiders. Among mollusca, octopi have demonstrated considerable intelligence and the ability to understand how to operate simple mechanisms. It's hard to say how intelligent they really are, as their very short lifespans are a strongly limiting factor (consider how well off would humans would be with a maximum life of two years).

I'm not saying that any of these creature are going to develop a civilization anytime soon, just that the body types they represent have potential as tool-using species.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Natural selection is plenty haphazard. Need I say "asteroid impact"?

The evolutionary changes occuring as a result of the asteroid impact would not be haphazard, which is the point. NS would ensure that only those beings (if any) suited to survive in a post-asteroid world--such as small, furry mammals--would do so. So the surviving beings wouldn't be "haphazard" at all, they'd be a result of NS.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I'm not saying that any of these creature are going to develop a civilization anytime soon, just that the body types they represent have potential as tool-using species.

Not quite.

All of these are severely limited to have any good potential. Some are too specialised. Most have exoskeletons and very primitive circulatory and respiratory systems. Except for the octopus, they're all very stupid.

As for the age factor, it's not a fluke that we have long lifespans - it is a positive trait that natural selection selects for. In fact, dominant species in various environs have long lives. A long life represents a much better use of energy and resources.

[LDiCesare]

UR, isn't long lifespan mostly correlated to weight rather than the (not clear for me) concept of dominance? Elephants, giant turtles have long like spans. These are generally big animals. Insects tend to have small lifespans and be quite small too.
Anyway, pincers, tentacles, etc. would still be acceptable as tool-wielding appendages, so there's no reason to restrict sapient life in sf to humanoids. A six or eight-legged being can very well have usable front limbs. The upright thing is moot if the being lives in water.
A nice alien could be an ant colony. It's got ants which serve as neurons and as appendages much more powerful than our fixed number of limbs.

[Jon Miller]

smaller dogs haev longer lifespans than bigger dogs though?
JM

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
UR, isn't long lifespan mostly correlated to weight rather than the (not clear for me) concept of dominance? Elephants, giant turtles have long like spans.

Humans have a very long lifespan but we don't weight that much.

After thinking abut this, the three seem to be related. Usually dominant species are big (Homo Sapiens being the only exception) because size is related to strength, and strength is extremely important to shove other things out of your way. Size determines what a critter can eat and what it can hunt (or avoid being hunted).

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Anyway, pincers, tentacles, etc. would still be acceptable as tool-wielding appendages, so there's no reason to restrict sapient life in sf to humanoids. A six or eight-legged being can very well have usable front limbs.

Pincers aren't very flexible - you can imitate one by using only one finger with your thumb. While you can make it up by using more limbs, the exoskeleton means no sensory receivers on the surface of the digits, in addition to the inherent rigidity. Tentacles have more potential, but you still need the endoskeleton for support.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
The upright thing is moot if the being lives in water.

That would make it difficult to start a fire

Originally posted by LDiCesare
A nice alien could be an ant colony. It's got ants which serve as neurons and as appendages much more powerful than our fixed number of limbs.

A hive mind is interesting, but only the hive itself is intelligent, the ants (bees, etc.) themselves are not.

[LDiCesare]

I know someone with only 2 fingers on his hand, effectively a pincer, and he manages quite well.
Humans are big. Walk around and look at how many creatures are bigger than you. Horses, cattle, bisons, bears. In Africa, a lot more. Dogs, cats, rodents, birds, bats, insects, reptiles... are most of the time smaller. I think that being big makes it harder to be hunted and thus makes long lifespans more likely.
You could also put things in the mouth and use mandibles and whatnot. Mouth has lots of captors that will let you sense things much better than the skin, and it's very easy to put things to the mouth. Having a tongue, pedipalp, elephant trunk or such to handle things is possible.
Consider the elephant: Its trunk has a lot of flexibility and in one species has a finger-like protrusion. You could perfectly have the nose be a nice appendage to manipulate things. There are moles whose nose looks like a star, so if you combine a mole and an elephant, you could get a 5-finger star-like trunk. Or something like that.

[GePap]

Humans are a large species, averaging 100 lb's- we are certainly in the top 5% of animal species in terms of size.
The Humanoid shape seems extremely useful for a sentient species- I am not saying that sentient speci3es must be humanoid, but to claim if we meet aliens they WONT be humanoid is as absurd as saying if we meet aliens they WILL be humanoid.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
Humans are a large species, averaging 100 lb's- we are certainly in the top 5% of animal species in terms of size.
The Humanoid shape seems extremely useful for a sentient species- I am not saying that sentient speci3es must be humanoid, but to claim if we meet aliens they WONT be humanoid is as absurd as saying if we meet aliens they WILL be humanoid.

Precisely. And, given the fact that we know an earthlike environment has produced a humanoid species (us), it's perfectly reasonable to believe the same environment on another planet could produce a similar sentient species. That's where NS comes in--evolutionary niches are filled.

[Ned]

All this talk about intelligent species and no talk of birds. They seem very well adapted for intelligence. Anyone who has observed his pet bird can see its obvious intelligence and its ability to manipulate its environment with a combination of beak and claw.

[The Mad Monk]

UR, you're missing my point. Of course none of those species as is would be capable of getting into a shooting war with us. I'm saying that an alien race that otherwise has the equivalent intelligence and circulatory systems (etc) could do worse than any of those body types. Claws can develop more finely, eventually develping "fingers" if the environment favors it; tentacles could similarly develop sub-appendages.

Arthropods, by and large, do have a sense of touch, by the way; tiny pores in the exoskeletons, hairs, and a few other systems supply the needed input.