alex_greene
Guest
@Kafka: Chaos wept, what have you started here? 
After the Ancients...
- Thread starter kafka
- Start date
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
alex_greene said:@Kafka: Chaos wept, what have you started here?
Ho Ho Ho. :lol: So far, it looks like an interesting civilized discussion on the feasability of a traveller trope, with reference to actual science. Now, as long as people don't go ballistic over pet theories or pet peeves, it should be fine. And so far, it is.
I know my comments are long, but it's a complex issue -and I really don't feel comfortable trying to just stand on authority and expect everyone to believe me.
Hope that eases your fears a bit.
captainjack23 said:
You're not reading what I'm saying. I'm not talking about interbreeding.
If you seriously believe that putting two populations of proto-hominids with a common base in wildly different (if not totally alien and hostile) environments - even under different stars - would result in exactly the same or even similar hominids 300,000 years later then you really have no idea how evolution works. All the different environmental factors and evolutionary pressures will make a difference right from the start, and will stack up and cause each population to diverge and end up very different to eachother after 300,000 years. But they sure as well won't be any kind of "homo sapiens" as found on Earth.
They'll still be broadly hominid of course, and may well be able to interbreed too - but I would expect to see much more noticeable and significant physical differences than what is portrayed in the OTU.
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
You two seem to be arguing two slightly different issues.
EDG, you seem to be concerned with the physical appearance of Humaniti and how they shouldn't look so similar.
Captain, you seem to be concentrating on interfertility.
Couldn't you both be right? (Shocking idea, I know)
Couldn't there be more genetic drift than has been previously been shown in Traveller AND still have interfertility? Maybe the Vilani and Solomani are not 100% interfertile. Maybe only 15% of fetuses are actually viable (1in6 chance). That would be enough to allow some interbreeding that could be improved with science.
It might also explain a situation like Sylea. THREE different groups of humans on one planet. After the Long Night, there were STILL three different groups, plus lots of mixed Humaniti.
I can live with that compromise. Make the Zhos and Vilani DIFFERENT, but still Homo Sapiens. Genetic drift but still (partially) interfertile.
EDG, you seem to be concerned with the physical appearance of Humaniti and how they shouldn't look so similar.
Captain, you seem to be concentrating on interfertility.
Couldn't you both be right? (Shocking idea, I know)
Couldn't there be more genetic drift than has been previously been shown in Traveller AND still have interfertility? Maybe the Vilani and Solomani are not 100% interfertile. Maybe only 15% of fetuses are actually viable (1in6 chance). That would be enough to allow some interbreeding that could be improved with science.
It might also explain a situation like Sylea. THREE different groups of humans on one planet. After the Long Night, there were STILL three different groups, plus lots of mixed Humaniti.
I can live with that compromise. Make the Zhos and Vilani DIFFERENT, but still Homo Sapiens. Genetic drift but still (partially) interfertile.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
EDG said:
You can be as insulting as you like, and as opinionated as you want, but the fact is, you're wrong, and from what I can see, you're trying to pass off bad science, or personal opinion, as fact. I do have an idea of how evolution works, much as you have an idea about how planets evolve. I'm more than willing to discuss our disagreements, but first, stop trying to imply that I am a fraud or a liar, and second, read the posts.
And before you start insisting that you never called me a fraud or liar, or that I'm taking it wrong, consider what would your response be if I said that you had no idea about planetary evolution. Calling you ignorant of your professional field is an insult, as much as calling you an incomptent is. Plus, it's rude. Okay ? Matt asked us to play nice, so either drop it, or play nice.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
Richard,
Absolutely. I'm just suggesting that there were two good strategies for the ancients: one, take a larger diverse population, or a smaller selected and screened population. Both work. The diverse one could be expected to diverge, but the slected one would not (low frequency of differeing genes =less variation, less variation = less drift towards funny looking hominids).
So, given that there are both funny looking and non funny looking humans in the OTU, obviously different approaches were taken.
Its just that presenting evolutionary genetics or speciation as an unavoidable law of nature is wrong. Plus, the focus on "funny looking" is very subjective, as it's all in what you want to pay attention to: There are tiny humans, huge humans funny colored humans, extra armed humans (okay, they were engineered) carnivore humans, dwarven humans, elven humans, jet black humans (not melanin produced -new skin pigment entirely), IIRC blue humans, etc etc. If the Vilanii and Zhods are examples of the low variance kinds, the rest are examples of the opposite end. And most of the variance is probably due to Ancient manipulation as additions, rather than drift.
Its not that big a discrepency; its just a mildly unusual solution to the problem of differential evolution.
I'm not insulting you at all, so stop over-reacting.
You just seem to be ignoring or discarding all the other possible influences that can affect a species' evolution over 300,000 years. If you're such an expert on the subject, you can't possibly believe that an incompatible biosphere, or thinner or thicker atmosphere, or taints in the atmosphere, or more/less hostile environment, or competing lifeforms, or a sun that peaks in different wavelengths of light, or living on a tidelocked planet, or any combination or all of the above couldn't affect the evolution of proto-hominids so that they'd evolve differently to baseline homo sapiens on Earth.
Like I said, I'm not talking about interbreeding, and never have. I'm talking about physical differences caused by different environments that the hominids evolve in over 300,000 years in isolation from eachother, that's all.
You just seem to be ignoring or discarding all the other possible influences that can affect a species' evolution over 300,000 years. If you're such an expert on the subject, you can't possibly believe that an incompatible biosphere, or thinner or thicker atmosphere, or taints in the atmosphere, or more/less hostile environment, or competing lifeforms, or a sun that peaks in different wavelengths of light, or living on a tidelocked planet, or any combination or all of the above couldn't affect the evolution of proto-hominids so that they'd evolve differently to baseline homo sapiens on Earth.
Like I said, I'm not talking about interbreeding, and never have. I'm talking about physical differences caused by different environments that the hominids evolve in over 300,000 years in isolation from eachother, that's all.
Klaus Kipling
Mongoose
Actually, all these juicy nuggets give us license to retcon the ancients, or at least part of the story.
After all, the tale we have is unknowable to any person living in the 6th millenium CE. If their story is similar (well, it is), then it is just the pat, "Time Team" version. The evidence: scattered populations of hominids who must have all originated on the same world; an ancient and widespread and powerful civilisation, that, as far as can be said (the ruins that can be dated), was violently destroyed about 300,000 years ago - ergo, these Ancients transplanted primitive man across hundreds of light years of space.
However, we know that homo sapiens did not evolve in its present form until about 200,000-150,000 years ago (does the 3I know this ...?); what's more, we know that there was a bottle neck around 75,000 years ago where the human population was reduced to about 5,000-10,000 individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Now, it really is stretching it that hominid samples taken 225,000 years before that would share exactly the same genome as the small, isolated number of survivors (who were probably all African) of that extinction event.
It is far more likely, therefore, that the Vilani, Zhodani, Darrians, etc, were transplanted after this event, taken from the small population of survivors, that is if they are to be as homogenous with the Solomani as presented in the books.
So that points to another set of ancients, who were active after 75,000BC, and the ones who died (if they did) 300,000 years ago may have had nothing to do with spreading humaniti all over the place.
Just a few thoughts, anyhow...
After all, the tale we have is unknowable to any person living in the 6th millenium CE. If their story is similar (well, it is), then it is just the pat, "Time Team" version. The evidence: scattered populations of hominids who must have all originated on the same world; an ancient and widespread and powerful civilisation, that, as far as can be said (the ruins that can be dated), was violently destroyed about 300,000 years ago - ergo, these Ancients transplanted primitive man across hundreds of light years of space.
However, we know that homo sapiens did not evolve in its present form until about 200,000-150,000 years ago (does the 3I know this ...?); what's more, we know that there was a bottle neck around 75,000 years ago where the human population was reduced to about 5,000-10,000 individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Now, it really is stretching it that hominid samples taken 225,000 years before that would share exactly the same genome as the small, isolated number of survivors (who were probably all African) of that extinction event.
It is far more likely, therefore, that the Vilani, Zhodani, Darrians, etc, were transplanted after this event, taken from the small population of survivors, that is if they are to be as homogenous with the Solomani as presented in the books.
So that points to another set of ancients, who were active after 75,000BC, and the ones who died (if they did) 300,000 years ago may have had nothing to do with spreading humaniti all over the place.
Just a few thoughts, anyhow...
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
EDG said:
Well, to discuss this rationally, I am talking about both interbreeding and genetic change, and so were you; but fine. Discussing genetic change in terms of gross physical morphology is cool, too. At least the interfertility issue is off the table. See my earlier discussion about race as it relates to the "funny looking" issue and genetic variability for my basic position on humans being "funny looking".
If you want to continue this, I have two questions that would be helpful for you to answer: one, what exactly is your expectation of what a reasonable amount of change is (extra eyes ? Arms ? new skin colors ? Wings ?), and two, how many of the (lots and lots of) OTU races other than the Vilanii and Zhodanii don't show enough. Consider the florians, Answerin, Genosee, Darians, Suerrat ? If they don't ring a bell,you can look up many of these in GURPS IW, as I know you own that one, and I pronise I wont won't claim it's non-canon.
Plus, if you can explain why modeling the Zhods and Vilanii as a selected limited breeding group on basically earthlike worlds would neccessarily make them look even funnier than they do, I'll be interested to hear it. (without making my ignorence of evolution the centerpiece, if you don't mind)
alex_greene
Guest
Oh Gods, I can hear the strains of the 1970s theme to Glen A Larson's Battlestar Galactica all of a sudden ...
captainjack23 said:
Of course not, nothing that drastic. More like extra sensitivity to different wavelengths of light (depending on the star), different physical adaptations based on environment (if the atmosphere is thicker or thinner - i.e. has higher or loweroxygen pressure - then that would affect evolution significantly), bigger/smaller/more or less efficient lungs, tthings like that. It all depends on the local environment, the point is though that different things are going to be evolutionarily advantageous in those different environments than they are on Earth.
I'll have to look up those other races, I don't have access to them here.
They don't "look funny" at all though - they look exactly like modern homo sapiens does on Earth. And I don't believe for a second that they'd have exactly the same evolutionary changes over 300,000 years as hominids on Earth did, because well... they didn't evolve in the same environment, with the same sort of competitors or pressures. Maybe they'd have a more pronounced brow, or thicker bone structure, or some other holdover from their erectus/protohomosapiens origins didn't get evolved away as it did on Earth but got retained instead.
Really, what I'm balking at is the idea that these races are all so "human", as in so similar to homo sapiens (maybe taller, shorter, or wider, but otherwise the same). They shouldn't be - they should all be "hominid" because they all branched off from something that wasn't actually modern homo sapiens 300,000 years ago.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
EDG said:
Phew ! That's good to hear. Thank you for that, and the warning about overreacting ! :wink:
As to the rest, I'll just say this. The humans we are discussing don't come from wildly different biospheres, period. They come from basically earthlike planets. Note also that I've also discussed this issue: the phrase to look for is "in basically earthlike environments".
If you want to point to somthing being ignored, or at least not known about (much more polite) it is the fact that there are lots of "funny looking" human species, and even the Not so funny looking ones" have some notable differences:
The weirdest environment of the three actually being discussed produced the Darians -who are weird looking, and humans require genetic alterations to interbreed (IIRC).
The vilani have blood and digestive enzyme differences, as well as (I think) different allergen proteins; all consistent with a non-nutritive biolsphere.
The Zhodani are tall with less teeth, and have odd hair/skin combinations, I believe; Zod prime (my name) is a lighter but earthlike planet. And maybe the ancient who picked them disliked their initial dentition. Dunno.
Again, there's the Suerat and the Genosee. Earthlike worlds and funny looking. Ape men and walking fireplugs. And the florians: completely dimorphic.
Look it up if you don't believe me.
See, its a probability that evolutionary changes will occur, not a certainty. And arguing from the part to the whole is a poor technique : "this race is too human, despite all the others that are not; so the thinking is flawed"
captainjack23 said:
Really? Vland's biosphere isn't even compatible with human biology. Vland is a bigger world, orbiting a F V star that emits significantly more UV than Sol does, and their year (and hence seasons) is longer. That's "earthlike" pretty much only in the sense that it's habitable.
The Zhodani homeworld is also a lot smaller than Earth (therefore has lower gravity), and much dryer too, and also has a Thin atmosphere so there's lower O2 pressure, and orbits a cooler orange K0 V star that emits more IR than Sol. Again, a very different environment to Earth's.
It's not just about biospheres, it's about the physical environments, and at least in those two cases the physical environments they are evolving in are VERY different to Earth's, despite being broadly habitable. And from the moment they are places in those environments, the hominids will start to evolve in different directions because of those different environmental pressures. I'm not talking about silly things like different eye colour or different numbers of teeth (which are essentially random mutations that could crop up anywhere), I'm talking about specific evolutionary responses to the environment - stronger hearts for pumping blood better in higher gravity (or weaker hearts in lower gravity), bigger or smaller lungs to handle different oxygen levels, kidneys and livers to adapt to local toxins, etc.
Paint it however you want, but even if you just consider it a "probability", it's so high given those very different environments that it may as well be guaranteed that some changes will occur. If the higher gravity of Vland means that those with weaker hearts have shorter lifespans because their hearts are more stressed, then evolution will tend to favour those with stronger hearts. So in the end, one would expect modern Vilani to have stronger hearts on average than Terran humans (and certainly than Zhodani).
EDG said:
Well, is - or rather, should - this really (be) a scientific question?
Isn't "how technology does not change humanity" a central plot element of Traveller? (At least that's how I understood it) How going to space or even be transplanted to other worlds does not change us?
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
EDG said:
And their homeworlds. that would help.
A lot of you concern seems to be based on what one would expect from radically different environments than what the basic human races developed on. I think you'll find that as would be expected, some earthlike worlds produced changed morphologies, and others less so. Its the idea that divergence is a probabliity, not a certainty.
Um....they don't to anything other than a casual observervation. That's pretty basic to the whole dispersed human examples descriptions. . And they have biochemical differences, too. See earlier notes. really, look it up. The whole thing is worked out in much more detail than you seem to have been exposed to. The aliens modules, and the Gurps books are a good start -even MegaT has this info.
and if you can get the DGP stuff, even better.
(In a related post)
EDG said:
Well, does vland have a thicker atmosphere ? That'd help with the UV. Regardless, why doyou think we know if native vilanii have (for example) more resistant corneas ? We don't. And even if they did, I cant tell at a glance.
The food is a non issue. Tthey deal with it via technology, and always have; plus, even then, they have different digestion enzymes, blood types and allergens. As would be expected.
All of the changes you paint are invisible to casual inspection, unless you have revealed yourself as the last son of Krypton.
I'd point out that they also don't neccessarily bar cross fertilization, but, you insist you were not talking about that.
So what are you saying ? That they look alike to an observer (clothed, or unclothed ?) and they shouldn;t ? or, that they are genetically identical and they shouldn't be ? Since we are not talking about cross fertility, that can't be the issue.
If your point is that the is that they should look radically different then none of the differences you suggest are relevent; I don't know if a guy is tall becuase he has big lungs, or if another guy has a strong heart.....
However, If your criticism is that "they are claimed to be genetically and biologically identical, and that's bogus", I'd have to ask:"yes its bogus, but where does that come from ? "
Plenty of sourses stress the biological differences that exist, despite the physical similarity. I think you are reading more into this than is there;
Do Zhodani have differring dietary needs or different corneal constructs that are within the range of human variation ? Who knows ?. It certainly isn't denied. The same with Vilanii hearts. And respiration. Where exactly does the idea that they are "human identical" at deep genetic levels come from ? If I've missed it, I'd love to know so I can stop making an ass out of myself -but until I do see it.......
Honestly, the external morphology is way less a source of genetic adaptation than is the basic biochemistry and internal organ systems. Shave a chimp, especially a bonobo, and they're not more funny looking than a suerat; or a neanderthal.
Again, maybe they do; certainly many of them do. The vilani and the zhods show minimal external changes in gross morphology, I agree; We disagree about how important this is.
Most of what you describe, though, is more due to the effects of technology on human development - the main difference with archaic and modern HSS is that the moderns have a lighter, more gracile skeleton -this is attributed to developing technology essentially domesticating humans, NOT environmental pressure; the same structural changes occur when animals are domesticated.
But again, why the assumption that they have the same exact genetic changes ?
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
walkir said:
You know, thats an excellent thought. Although, I'd look at it as suggest the idea that technology has made us what we are, and possibly keeps us that way.
Certainly a central traveller trope is that humans are still humans, even in the future and with lots of shiny cool toys.
Good point.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Balk all you like, but , as noted before you're misstating the argument.
You seem to misunderstand the distinction between Anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens and their predessessor, Archaic Homo sapiens sapiens. These human types are NOT the same as a proto hominid, or an erectus, both of which terms you've used in discussing the issue. Astronomically brown dwarves are not the same as white dwarves despite sharing part of their name; to continue the metaphor, neither are protostars. More reading on hominid ancestry will clear this up.
The claim, as far as I know has never been that erectus was the root stock.
The modern form may or may not have the right age -although there is evidence to suggest that they do. Even if not, their immediate precursor, archaic HSS, is not all that different, as indicated just by the taxanomic notation: it doesn't have a different subspecies designation (sapiens); plus, since it produced modern humans, for traveller purposes, either could have been the root stock.
OTU point: It's also suggested that the divergence of modern HSS is also not an accident, and was another Ancient manipulated variation. Read more about the differences in human lineage at 300k BC. It'll help. Erectus may have overlapped AHSS, and we know A giganticus did. But, they are not what is being suggested.
Finally, you seem to either misunderstand or overstate the whole human ancient thing. (discussed above)
Still, the bottom line, I guess is that you don't like the story, and since it's a fictional construct, there's no need for me to try and change your mind, beyond suggesting that your argument is inconsistent with the trope that you want to critique, and spreads misinformation (both about traveller and evolution) . But life goes on.
I'm surprised and a bit disappointed that you aren't interested in the possibility that my training in genetic science diesn't have a bearing on your argument, but hey. It's not your field, and you don't know me from the man in the moon. So, whatever.
I'll happily answer any other questions or comment on other posts, but I think you and I have reached an impasse, at least until you can look stuff up. This is not being condescending, just acknowleging that there really isn;t much point in me spending time discussing this with you if you're not wiling to consider my basic input without corroboration. Which is fine, if, again, disappointing.
Hmmm....Maybe I should take my own suggestion and spend some time reading basic planetary science articles.
