Sci-Fi Evolution in Nature?

[cadbrowser]

It's been a long time since I've posted on here, so I will apologize in advance if I have put this in the wrong Topic (wasn't sure if it needed to go into the Sci-Fi one for sure).

I have decided to undertake a massive project with writing my own RPG. Now, I'm not going to post any links to the data or give any specifics with regards to the content as I do not want this to sound like a cheap advertisement or anything or a spam posting. The only tidbit that I will share is that the RPG I'm writing has NO magic whatsoever in it.

My main reason for this chosen subject matter is to discuss the plausibility of some of the Science Fiction creatures possibly evolving by means of natural selection. Given a post-apocoplytic even where most of humanity is removed and based on this link that nature would quickly eliminate most, if not all of the traces of civilization within a few hundred years.

I would like some ideas as to what you all would think would happen to the various animals and such from an evolutionary standpoint. I think I remember a discussion where a scientest of some sort (apologies for not giving proper reference) postulated that insects would get very big again.

Also, from an evolutionary standpoint; would conditions be right that could afford a mutated human to develop powered flight in much the same way a bat has?

Edit #1: Also wanted to mention of my surprise in looking to nature at how many organism can "zombifie" another animial for reproduction. Link

Thank you in advance for any ideas and criticism.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'd recommend looking up the Animal Planet series The Future Is Wild. Honestly, when it comes right down to it, it is very difficult to make any judgements about future evolution that isn't just pure conjecture.

Also, from an evolutionary standpoint; would conditions be right that could afford a mutated human to develop powered flight in much the same way a bat has?

No.

I think you are operating under a fundamental (and common) misunderstanding of what evolution IS and DOES. Evolution does not have a "goal." In all actuality, evolution is simply a blanket term for a wide variety of various natural processes that, over the course of many generations, change certain heritable characteristics (at every level of biological organization ... cellular, organismic, population, species, etc.). Simply put, it doesn't allow for science fiction type spontaneous mutations. If you want to go the direction of "mutants with wings," feel free to go for it. That kind of story can be fun. But I wouldn't bother at all trying to ground it in science, because it simply isn't feasible, and failure to do so will simply distract from the story.

[Akhlut]

My main reason for this chosen subject matter is to discuss the plausibility of some of the Science Fiction creatures possibly evolving by means of natural selection. Given a post-apocoplytic even where most of humanity is removed and based on this link that nature would quickly eliminate most, if not all of the traces of civilization within a few hundred years.

Yeah, most of the signposts of human civilization would be toast. What would last are very solid stone buildings (most of which are already ancient, though stuff like Medieval cathedrals and the like would be around too), statues made from metals that don't corrode easily (bronze, copper, and gold, primarily), and some assorted plastic crap that doesn't photodegrade (bakelite, maybe?).

I would like some ideas as to what you all would think would happen to the various animals and such from an evolutionary standpoint.

It...depends. What sort of timeframe are we talking about here? A million years from now will have a lot fewer differences than 10 million, 50 million, or 100 million years from now.

If you're looking at shorter term, just remember that you'll probably be more accurate if you don't predict too many large changes. However, if you're looking for semi-plausible but entirely possible, you have a lot more wiggle-room.

Also, keep what Ziggy Stardust said in mind: there is no overarching goal that evolution is looking for. Evolution occurs because all organisms (plants, fungi, bacteria, animals, etc.) have variation within a species, and some of those variants survive better than others. Those variations are pushed by selection pressures and come up with newer variations that survive better. There is no goal, just a bunch of slightly different organisms that don't die as quickly as their conspecific kin and thus produce more offspring.

Also, a few general principles: re-purposing old stuff is relatively easy, losing stuff is relatively easy, and making old stuff bigger or smaller is relatively easy. Regaining lost stuff is hard, if not impossible, and growing entirely new stuff is relatively hard. Doubling existing stuff and making new stuff out of it can happen, but it is rare.

Also, from an evolutionary standpoint; would conditions be right that could afford a mutated human to develop powered flight in much the same way a bat has?

Humans developing powered flight on their own is possible, whether or not it is plausible is another story altogether. Firstly, that subset of humans would have to take to the trees and become gliders first, so you'd have to find some sort of selection pressure for that, first. Large predators that love eating humans would be good for that.

I would also expect for a few other things to happen: firstly, flight is expensive, as are large brains. If humans stay roughly human-sized, I'd strongly expect brains to diminish in size; if they shrink, they can keep a proportionately large brain (because flight gets cheaper too, as one gets smaller, especially with relatively large wings and a preference for gliding, much like seagulls or vultures).

Edit #1: Also wanted to mention of my surprise in looking to nature at how many organism can "zombifie" another animial for reproduction. Link

Thank you in advance for any ideas and criticism.

Just remember that most of the animals that see their brains come under total control of a parasite have very small brains in the first place. Larger, more intelligent animals (fish and rats, for instance), see much more minor behavioral changes (for fish, they just thrash about for a few seconds toward the surface of the water a few times a day; for rats, they become less risk-averse around cats). If you want human zombies through parasites, it's going to be much more difficult to come about.

[cadbrowser]

I'd recommend looking up the Animal Planet series The Future Is Wild. Honestly, when it comes right down to it, it is very difficult to make any judgements about future evolution that isn't just pure conjecture.

Also, from an evolutionary standpoint; would conditions be right that could afford a mutated human to develop powered flight in much the same way a bat has?

No.

I think you are operating under a fundamental (and common) misunderstanding of what evolution IS and DOES. Evolution does not have a "goal." In all actuality, evolution is simply a blanket term for a wide variety of various natural processes that, over the course of many generations, change certain heritable characteristics (at every level of biological organization ... cellular, organismic, population, species, etc.). Simply put, it doesn't allow for science fiction type spontaneous mutations. If you want to go the direction of "mutants with wings," feel free to go for it. That kind of story can be fun. But I wouldn't bother at all trying to ground it in science, because it simply isn't feasible, and failure to do so will simply distract from the story.

Thank you for the recommendation (sp?) in the link...I will try to check it out. Course I am not ruling out "conjecture" either. In fact I wouldn't mind some...simply because I think it'd be fun.

No, I'm not confusing what evolution "is" or "does". I know it doesn't have a goal. I think you are seriously limiting the variation of environmental factors that could allow for radical mutations for species survival, like the apparent reptile to avian evolutionary path.

Humans developing powered flight on their own is possible, whether or not it is plausible is another story altogether. Firstly, that subset of humans would have to take to the trees and become gliders first, so you'd have to find some sort of selection pressure for that, first. Large predators that love eating humans would be good for that.

I would also expect for a few other things to happen: firstly, flight is expensive, as are large brains. If humans stay roughly human-sized, I'd strongly expect brains to diminish in size; if they shrink, they can keep a proportionately large brain (because flight gets cheaper too, as one gets smaller, especially with relatively large wings and a preference for gliding, much like seagulls or vultures).

Not looking for plausibility just for possibility based on opinions of fellow peers. Afterall, some of the best sci-fi stuff is best based (IMHO) on plausibility...where there is "some" level of scientific basis, even on a miniscule level.

Hmmm, I have other similar ideas for selective pressures. And yes, I agree with the expensiveness of brain/flight. So I would also imagine smaller brains. If their muscle mass is kept lean and tendons develop for the repetitive "flapping" as birds have compiled with lighter bone structure, then they would become lighter-weight without loosing their height. Otherwise I would just have a glider type humanoid variant.

If you want human zombies through parasites, it's going to be much more difficult to come about.

Astute observation. Thank you. I see what you are saying with relation to how brain size can limit what control a parasite has over it's hosts. Ok...I'll keep that in mind.

I have a friend that is working with me on this project say that since there is nanotechnology, that we could really create some funky and wild animals if they escaped and recombined genetic code. Any ideas/thoughts on this concept.

Also keep in mind, I'm not looking to scientifically validate any different animals or species...but I do somewhat want to inferr some ideas as to the possibility of whatever may happen.

If you're looking at shorter term, just remember that you'll probably be more accurate if you don't predict too many large changes. However, if you're looking for semi-plausible but entirely possible, you have a lot more wiggle-room.

The idea is yes, it'll be short and most species will be the same; however for the convention and playability of the story itself, I have to include some crazy possibilites since I'm not invoking magic, parallel universes, extra dimensions, or extra planes of existence. I'm invoking natural means as well as artificial means (genetic manipulation).

[Lagmonster]

This would be a good time to point out that developing flight isn't something humans would ever do, because we build airplanes and guns. You'd have to strip humans of a lot of brainpower, stick them on a low-gravity dustbowl with nothing they could even concieve of turning into tools, and then give them a damn good reason to get off the ground.

[cadbrowser]

This would be a good time to point out that developing flight isn't something humans would ever do, because we build airplanes and guns. You'd have to strip humans of a lot of brainpower, stick them on a low-gravity dustbowl with nothing they could even concieve of turning into tools, and then give them a damn good reason to get off the ground.

Uhhh...wouldn't "reducing" their brain size invariably strip their brainpower as a course of causality? This would negate their tool producing abilities to nothing more than bone/stick tools for pully ants out of the ground (hmmm, something that ACTUALLY happens in nature!). No need for reduced gravity if their anatomy affords flight due to lighter frame (similar in concept to a BAT...which is a mammal that flies).

I think surviving and continued species existance would be a good reason? Maybe...perhaps?

Those that adapt to their environment survive or go extinct...yes? Isn't that a result of the mechanisms in evolution?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hmmm, I have other similar ideas for selective pressures. And yes, I agree with the expensiveness of brain/flight. So I would also imagine smaller brains. If their muscle mass is kept lean and tendons develop for the repetitive "flapping" as birds have compiled with lighter bone structure, then they would become lighter-weight without loosing their height. Otherwise I would just have a glider type humanoid variant.

Flying humans isn't as simple as they start living in trees and begin gliding. Even if we assume that the selective pressures are right that would not only force an arboreal lifestyle, how do they begin gliding? What selective pressures are acting on the species, and what traits are being selected for, that would allow this to happen? How good can a human possibly be at gliding? The only way it is physically possible for modern humans is using very special materials in very specific conditions ... how well does human skin work mechanically for this purpose? How will this change the way our arms and legs our structured, never mind our muscle and skeletal systems?

Keep in mind these are pretty massive changes to our biology, here. You can't just stretch skin out from our arms to our legs and call it a day. Now, if we are talking about wings, we are talking about even more radical changes to our biology. Wings can't just burst out of our backs, how could they? That means our arms would have to become the wings, which requires a complete rearrangement of the way our entire upper body is structured. Remember, you can't just scale up a bat and say that'll work, there are basic physics that make it a much more difficult question for our bodies to fly relative to a bird or a bat. The pectoral muscles alone of the average bird or bad make up almost a third of their body weight, sometimes more. How do you balance the need to lose weight with the need to add all of this muscle mass?

In terms of weight, just reducing bone mass (which means, also, removing or diminishing the supporting trabeculae) isn't going to be enough. Bones only make up ~15% of your body mass. Even if you reduce your bone mass by 80%, which is a bold figure, total body mass is only affected around 12%. Our internal organs need to not only be rearranged, but COMPLETELY restructured, as well. What about our lungs and hearts? Do you think they are fit for the massive workload required by flight? Or to pump blood over our wings, which would necessarily be huge? (The largest flying bird known, Argentavis, probably weighed about as much as a human, and required a wingspan of 8m, or around 75 square feet of wing. And Argentavis was most likely had a similar lifestyle to Andean condors, which is not the ecological niche humans would be filling).

In short, it's not IMPOSSIBLE, in the strictest sense of the word. However, the changes required to our basic physiology are not trivial. In fact, they are so significant, it would require incredibly massive amounts of time, and would require the new organism to not resemble a human in the LEAST. There's a reason that all animals that separately evolved flight look relatively similar ... the physical constraints are enormous.

EDIT:

Uhhh...wouldn't "reducing" their brain size invariably strip their brainpower as a course of causality? This would negate their tool producing abilities to nothing more than bone/stick tools for pully ants out of the ground (hmmm, something that ACTUALLY happens in nature!). No need for reduced gravity if their anatomy affords flight due to lighter frame (similar in concept to a BAT...which is a mammal that flies).

Why is their brain size being reduced? What pressures in the environment are selecting for humans with smaller brains? Does smaller = dumber? If so, why are we smarter than whales or elephants? How is our frame getting lighter? What selective pressures allow our frame to get lighter to help us survive? Remember, evolution DOESN'T HAVE A GOAL.

You can't say, "well, it would be helpful in 50 million years if we can fly, so let's start losing weight now." There has to be a very substantial reason why body mass is decreasing in the interim.

[Akhlut]

Not looking for plausibility just for possibility based on opinions of fellow peers. Afterall, some of the best sci-fi stuff is best based (IMHO) on plausibility...where there is "some" level of scientific basis, even on a miniscule level.

Fair enough; I was kind of figuring that, since this is a game, after all.

Hmmm, I have other similar ideas for selective pressures. And yes, I agree with the expensiveness of brain/flight. So I would also imagine smaller brains. If their muscle mass is kept lean and tendons develop for the repetitive "flapping" as birds have compiled with lighter bone structure, then they would become lighter-weight without loosing their height. Otherwise I would just have a glider type humanoid variant.

You might do some research on pterosaurs and their flight mechanisms; there were a lot more very large pterosaurs as opposed to bats (the largest of which we know of are only a few pounds, whereas we know of 300+ pound pterosaurs, such as Quetzalcoatlus). I'd imagine that if one were to see a flying human-derived species, it'd look something like an intermediary of pterosaurs and bats.

I have a friend that is working with me on this project say that since there is nanotechnology, that we could really create some funky and wild animals if they escaped and recombined genetic code. Any ideas/thoughts on this concept.

Keep in mind that there is nothing like a "elephant trunk" gene that can be spliced into a giraffe, for instance. Something that is more plausible would be the addition of genes that alter body chemistry in some way. For instance, it is possible for some company to add a protein that is poisonous to insects but harmless to mammals to livestock to prevent bot-flies from implanting their eggs on the host (eggs which hatch into maggots which can eat the flesh of the living animal, for instance). You can't go splicing whole organism parts wholesale onto another organism, but you can add proteins or alter development in some way (such as extra limbs, or making mammals able to regenerate limbs like salamanders or lizards). So, no crab claws on tigers, but you can make a tiger regrow a foot like a salamander can regrow its foot.

Also keep in mind, I'm not looking to scientifically validate any different animals or species...but I do somewhat want to inferr some ideas as to the possibility of whatever may happen.

To be fair, one can see evolution of some very unusual organisms; things may be unlikely, but they can still occur, whereas there is some stuff that just can't happen (for instance, you can't give giraffes elephant trunks by splicing together elephant DNA and giraffe DNA; you can, however, probably make it easier for a giraffe to digest plants by giving it the enzymes for cellulose digestion from bacteria).

The idea is yes, it'll be short and most species will be the same; however for the convention and playability of the story itself, I have to include some crazy possibilites since I'm not invoking magic, parallel universes, extra dimensions, or extra planes of existence. I'm invoking natural means as well as artificial means (genetic manipulation).

That can still give you some leeway. Traditional fantasy races, for instance, wouldn't be too hard to develop through natural/unnatural selection. Just for example's sake, dwarves can come about through simple arctic adaptations over a long time period (limb shortening, increased torso volume, increased body hair, propensity for living underground, etc.).

This would be a good time to point out that developing flight isn't something humans would ever do, because we build airplanes and guns. You'd have to strip humans of a lot of brainpower, stick them on a low-gravity dustbowl with nothing they could even concieve of turning into tools, and then give them a damn good reason to get off the ground.

In a post-apocalyptic landscape that has reduced humanity to hunter-gatherer nomadism, enough large predators that have protection against spears and arrows can force humans into trees, which could produce gliding, which could end in flight. A bit convoluted? Yes, but that's how bats came about, and possibly how birds came about (at least as far as the move from trees to gliding to flight goes). Unlikely? Yeah, but certainly not impossible. Our huge brains are expensive as hell, and a reduction in brain size and power is just as likely of an adaptive response as anything else, if it confers a survival boost that being smart doesn't necessarily provide. A reduction in brain size to something that is still smart would drastically reduce consumption needs and thus could quite conceivably increase survivability. Moving into trees is generally a good idea in very heavily forest areas, as nuts, fruits, insects, and birds are plentiful high up in trees and large predators are generally quite deficient. Gliding might take a while to develop, but its definitely a useful survival strategy, having independently evolved at least 8 times (flying squirrels, colugos (which are, I'll note, fairly close relatives to primates), bats, birds, pterosaurs, insects, lizards, and snakes).

So, is it likely? Not necessarily. Is is possible? Hell yes.

[Akhlut]

Why is their brain size being reduced? What pressures in the environment are selecting for humans with smaller brains?

Having huge brains is expensive. There's a reason why very smart animals tend to be limited to Homininae and a few random cetaceans and elephants.

Does smaller = dumber?

Depends on which parts are smaller.

If so, why are we smarter than whales or elephants?

Because we have more capacity allocated to stuff that isn't deciphering echolocation or controlling a trunk.

How is our frame getting lighter?

At least for gliding, humans don't really need to get lighter. Wingsuits do just find for helping humans glide, while the basic primate body plan is great for gliding already (hence why a sister taxon to primates, the colugos, are the best adapted gliders among animals). The development of a sophisticated patagium would take time, but it is possible and this is for a game where he explicitly just wants something that can occur, not something necessarily likely to occur.

Anyway, after acquiring gliding, getting to flight will put the necessary pressures on an organism to develop a lighter frame, larger wings, and the other necessary adaptations. There's no reason for this proto-Aleshomo to get a less dense body prior to getting all the adaptations for gliding first. It would be after gliding that they would lose density, not before. Your own arguments about needing a light frame wouldn't apply prior to a gliding stage anyway.

[cadbrowser]

Ziggy

You have given me a lot to process and I sincerely appreciate it. But, I disagree with you...it is my story, I can say whatever I wish. Just like with the comic books, (I forget who said it) "It works because I say it does." Yet, with the illustrator I have hired I will keep in mind what you have pointed out to me.

There's a reason that all animals that separately evolved flight look relatively similar ... the physical constraints are enormous.

Yes, I understand that and have integrated that line of reasoning with the look of the finished product. In fact, the illustrator just wanted to throw wings on it (like an angel) and I immediately shot that down. I may not be able to rationalize this creature from a strictly evolutionary stand point; but I can take the ideas based in a hightly convoluted idea of evolution and play with them for the fun and playability of said game.

Does smaller = dumber? If so, why are we smarter than whales or elephants? How is our frame getting lighter? What selective pressures allow our frame to get lighter to help us survive? Remember, evolution DOESN'T HAVE A GOAL.

It would appear that I insinuated that now doesn't it. UGH! Thank you for pointing that out to me as well. I have definately pointed out that I KNOW that evolution doesn't have a goal. Where am I saying that it does?

Akhlut

You might do some research on pterosaurs and their flight mechanisms; there were a lot more very large pterosaurs as opposed to bats (the largest of which we know of are only a few pounds, whereas we know of 300+ pound pterosaurs, such as Quetzalcoatlus). I'd imagine that if one were to see a flying human-derived species, it'd look something like an intermediary of pterosaurs and bats.

Oooh...I hadn't thought of that. It is somewhat batlike in form I'll admit. But I'll look into the ptersaurs as well.

You can't go splicing whole organism parts wholesale onto another organism.

Yes, I'm very well aware of this fact...and I wouldn't violate that.

Traditional fantasy races, for instance, wouldn't be too hard to develop through natural/unnatural selection. Just for example's sake, dwarves can come about through simple arctic adaptations over a long time period (limb shortening, increased torso volume, increased body hair, propensity for living underground, etc.).

Exactly what I am utilizing in my RPG. Authough as I'd pointed out earlier there will be some radical "fun" stuff as well.

[Ziggy Stardust]

At least for gliding, humans don't really need to get lighter. Wingsuits do just find for helping humans glide,

Wingsuits aren't made from human skin, they are made from special materials. Can human skin perform the same purpose?

while the basic primate body plan is great for gliding already (hence why a sister taxon to primates, the colugos, are the best adapted gliders among animals).

The colugo body plan is NOTHING like a human's body plan. In fact, it more closely resembles that of a bat (there are some that still claim that colugos and bats share a common ancestor linking primates with chiroptids ... however, I believe that theory has been rendered moot by genetic evidence). Also, for their size, colugos are extraordinarily light-weight. Further more, they also exhibit a number of very specific adaptations for climbing that humans lack.

Anyway, after acquiring gliding, getting to flight will put the necessary pressures on an organism to develop a lighter frame, larger wings, and the other necessary adaptations.

Why? You are still treating evolution as if it has a specific goal. Evolution is not TRYING to get to flight.

There's no reason for this proto-Aleshomo to get a less dense body prior to getting all the adaptations for gliding first. It would be after gliding that they would lose density, not before. Your own arguments about needing a light frame wouldn't apply prior to a gliding stage anyway.

My arguments were more about needing a light frame, they were about massive physiological and structural changes that would need to be undertaken, including regaining traits that our line likely lost when we branched off of early primates.

-------------------------------------

You have given me a lot to process and I sincerely appreciate it. But, I disagree with you...it is my story, I can say whatever I wish.

Oh, yes, feel free to do whatever you want. I actually really like implausible sci-fi stories with flying mutants and the such. I am just being Devil's advocate, here.

I may not be able to rationalize this creature from a strictly evolutionary stand point; but I can take the ideas based in a hightly convoluted idea of evolution and play with them for the fun and playability of said game.

Fair enough. I just feel like it might be easier for you to go with the ideas that you like, as opposed to trying to shoehorn science into them. In my experience, it can be distracting if you are trying to rationalize your universe as opposed to just letting it be. But this is just personal preference, and that's not to say there's anything wrong with doing it otherwise.

I have definately pointed out that I KNOW that evolution doesn't have a goal. Where am I saying that it does?

I know, it was just a reminder. It is extraordinarily difficult not to think about evolution leading to specific traits, especially in a circumstance like this. My point is you can't just say "well, if I want them to fly, I will just have them lose weight, over time, and have their arms grow out," because there has to be a long line of selective pressures that account for this. Why would their heads be getting smaller, when our intelligence is our single greatest survival tool? That kind of thing.

Honestly, due to the time spans necessary for humans to develop the necessary traits, you can just as easily (and with far more speculative plausibility) have another species evolve that fits the same general niche in your story. For example, it is far less of a stretch for some existing species of gliding mammal (colugos) to develop true flight or arboreal primates (gibbons, lemurs, what have you) to transition to gliding, since their body structures are far closer to that needed, and thus require fewer "Well, I know this is unlikely, but I'm just going to say it happened anyway" choices. Or to have giant bats, or something (there are already very large species of carnivorous bat that do, and have, existed).

Of course, once again, it's entirely up to you, I'm just spittballing.

[Akhlut]

Wingsuits aren't made from human skin, they are made from special materials. Can human skin perform the same purpose?

Not presently, but if the selection pressures were right...

The colugo body plan is NOTHING like a human's body plan. In fact, it more closely resembles that of a bat (there are some that still claim that colugos and bats share a common ancestor linking primates with chiroptids ... however, I believe that theory has been rendered moot by genetic evidence). Also, for their size, colugos are extraordinarily light-weight. Further more, they also exhibit a number of very specific adaptations for climbing that humans lack.

Mea culpa, I should have phrased that the primate body plan has potential for being converted into a very well-adapted gliding body (unlike, say, the general ungulate body plan).

Why? You are still treating evolution as if it has a specific goal. Evolution is not TRYING to get to flight.

In this instance, we know what the end product of the evolution is (flying humanoid), so the selection pressures would have brought us there.

As for specifics: hell if I know. However, in this instance, gliding would probably lead to flying if the main objects that the gliders glide between (trees, for instance) started to disappear. With less areas to glide to, pressures would be for either the loss of gliding or more toward flight, whichever resulted in more offspring being born. Greatly extensive gliding adaptations would likely push more toward flight if the loss of forests was fairly quick on a geologic/evolutionary scale, as it is much easier to repurpose gliding for flight than for locomotion in savannas.

Plus, while evolution itself has no goal (and thus making actual predictions meaningless), when discussing a matter like this where a person has an goal for a species, then that changes things insofar as then one can start making statements about what the course from A to B likely took. In this instance, we know we're starting off with humans and ending up with a flying creature. In an actual post-apocalyptic world, I would say that I'd be less surprised if we saw tool-using bears arise and take over earth before we ever saw humans take to the skies under their own power with bat/pterosaur-like wings, but we're working within a framework and of a "known" occurrence and trying to extrapolate what happened in the middle. I'm just trying to say that since this occurred within the game's universe, it would likely occur in one of a few ways and leave us with something that is utterly alien to regular human eyes.

My arguments were more about needing a light frame, they were about massive physiological and structural changes that would need to be undertaken, including regaining traits that our line likely lost when we branched off of early primates.

For several traits that affect gliding/flight, the changes would be relatively minor to overcome; the lengthening of phalanges, re-orientation of the big toe (for climbing and gripping in trees; possible fine motor control as the hands become more useful for gliding/flight than for fine motor control), growth of interdigital skin (that's exceedingly simple; just deactivate the alleles for apoptosis of interdigital skin during fetal development), and growth of new skin.

And while there would need to be some very large anatomical changes, being lighter might not even be a necessary condition, as the pterosaurs aptly demonstrate with such behemoths as Quetzalcoatlus.

[madd0ct0r]

any other weird species planned Cadbrowser?

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm just trying to say that since this occurred within the game's universe, it would likely occur in one of a few ways and leave us with something that is utterly alien to regular human eyes.

I agree, I was just playing Devil's advocate in all of this. I've had a long day so I don't really feel like going on, though. I just think that by being almost unnecessarily rigorous with this type of idea, you end up getting better ideas out of some of the conclusions you may come to.

[cadbrowser]

any other weird species planned Cadbrowser?

LOL, oh yes. Quite wierd and several. The Nius for one (japanese for cow, if memory serves me correctly).

A few predatory plants.

A few parasitic organisms...one that forms a mutualistic symbiotic relationship with my "Gaia" worshiping race (kind of like Elves in a sense of their size/frame).

Several alien races that escaped a science vessel from another planet while doing "research" on Earth.

A vampire like race (NOT undead...just like drinking blood and eating human flesh - they raise the Nius on their farms).

Daywalker race that is from the vampire like race with no sun light effects.

Lycan type race that works with the Daywalkers to protect the Vampire city.

Sentient Robots

Bion - (short for Bionic) Basically any race that has been implanted with cybernetics.

Plus more.

[cadbrowser]

I'm just trying to say that since this occurred within the game's universe, it would likely occur in one of a few ways and leave us with something that is utterly alien to regular human eyes.

I agree, I was just playing Devil's advocate in all of this. I've had a long day so I don't really feel like going on, though. I just think that by being almost unnecessarily rigorous with this type of idea, you end up getting better ideas out of some of the conclusions you may come to.

I hear ya...and I appreciate it. I'm not sure if I can agree with you on that last part tho. I wanted to somewhat differentiate and it seems that instead of just "making it happen" I feel more creative by going through the "unnecessarily rigorous process".

[Ziggy Stardust]

The Nius for one (japanese for cow, if memory serves me correctly).

The Japanese word for cow is 'ushi' 牛. 'Gyu' is also used, but I believe that refers more to 'beef' or 'cow as food' rather than 'as animal.' Nius doesn't sound like a Japanese word to me.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oops, accidentally posted twice ...

A few predatory plants.

Here are some neat articles about various clever adaptations used by real plants, that I am sure you can find a way to incorporate. While most of these aren't predatory adaptations, they are things plants are capable of that most people don't realize, and can make for some cool scenarios in an RPG.

Tomato caterpillar defense
Tobacco chemical defense
Willow pheromone communication
Predatory dodder vine
More on the dodder vine
Triggerplants

Just the idea that plants can effectively communicate across a population is interesting in itself. The dodder vine and triggerplant show how effective they can be at "hunting."

As for the vampire stuff, do a little google searching on hematophagy. That's the technical term for an animal that feeds on blood, and there are a lot of neat ones out there.

[cadbrowser]

The Nius for one (japanese for cow, if memory serves me correctly).

The Japanese word for cow is 'ushi' 牛. 'Gyu' is also used, but I believe that refers more to 'beef' or 'cow as food' rather than 'as animal.' Nius doesn't sound like a Japanese word to me.

Well hell...I guess memory failed me! ARRRGH. Now I can't find it. Crap.

[cadbrowser]

Oops, accidentally posted twice ...

A few predatory plants.

Here are some neat articles about various clever adaptations used by real plants, that I am sure you can find a way to incorporate. While most of these aren't predatory adaptations, they are things plants are capable of that most people don't realize, and can make for some cool scenarios in an RPG.

Tomato caterpillar defense
Tobacco chemical defense
Willow pheromone communication
Predatory dodder vine
More on the dodder vine
Triggerplants

Just the idea that plants can effectively communicate across a population is interesting in itself. The dodder vine and triggerplant show how effective they can be at "hunting."

As for the vampire stuff, do a little google searching on hematophagy. That's the technical term for an animal that feeds on blood, and there are a lot of neat ones out there.

OMG Ziggy! Those are amazing. Reading them now. Thanks!

Due to my love of Vampiric lore, I have done a lot of research on hematophagy. I agree...some amazing stuff out there.

I totally want to bring in a zombie variant; but it's just been done too many times and I am not sure of a unique idea (besides mimicing parasitic behaviour).

I only did Lycans (didn't call them that) because I have too many people that wanted to be one...lol So...shrugs...I did it...lol

[Ziggy Stardust]

I totally want to bring in a zombie variant; but it's just been done too many times and I am not sure of a unique idea (besides mimicing parasitic behaviour).

Zombies are tough. Not that much material to work with that hasn't been done a dozen times already. As you said, parasitic behavior is the most likely scenario.

The pupae Glyptapanteles wasp are able to parasitically control the behavior of caterpillars (spiny-headed worms do the same thing with pill bugs, and a type of roundworm called Myrmeconema neotropicum does it to ants). There are hundreds of species of fungus that essentially turn insects into zombies. In fact, there already IS some evidence that the parasite Toxoplasma can effect the personality and temperaments of the host (and this is in HUMANS); the symptoms of Toxoplasma are relatively benign unless your immune system is compromised... you could make up a similar parasite whose symptoms are closer to that of Creutzfeldt-Jakob. So a fungus or parasite of some sort is a strong possibility.

Or, to go back to the plants, acacia trees have symbiotic relationships with ants, and use combinations of chemicals (one, a highly addictive alkaloid the ants crave, and the other a powerful poison/repellant) to control their behavior. A similar system could be established with humans, or some other animal, instead of ants, where the plant uses chemicals to control the local population for its benefit. If the chemical is something strong like datura stramomium, and if you combine this with a plant that is carnivorous but immobile (like a giant pitcher plant), you could have a scenario where a colony of these plants controls all of the organisms in the area to essentially attack prey and put it in the pitchers for digestion, or some such. Heck, you could even have the plant be hematophagous or something, so its thralled "zombies" bring the prey to the plant then tear it apart and let the blood drip onto it.

[cadbrowser]

In D&D they are somewhat of a pushover, in my opinion. Plus they are too "undead" for me.

Here is what I've got started as a zombie type (mind the stuff after the "*"...those are notes to myself to finish up some ideas):

Okupant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parasitic organism that is introduced into a host (*how?*). The host remains unaffected until the pupae are ready to hatch from the host. The host brain is then rewired to send out a pheremone (*research how pheremones are released*) that brings upon attacks (usually from its own species) where upon the host is ripped apart allowing the parasite to escape and burrow into the ground to pupate.

Mutated to include infection in humans.

From an observation it was mistaken that a pack turned on its weakest member as a function of fitness.

___

So in essense they turn into a zombie, and then temporarily cause zombification of nearby members of a pack or social element. I thought this would be kinda scary to help rip a person apart; come out of the trance, try to figure out what just happend only to realize you and your other "friends" have blood and pieces of the deceased body parts on you.

[Simon_Jester]

My main reason for this chosen subject matter is to discuss the plausibility of some of the Science Fiction creatures possibly evolving by means of natural selection. Given a post-apocoplytic even where most of humanity is removed and based on this link that nature would quickly eliminate most, if not all of the traces of civilization within a few hundred years.

Yeah, most of the signposts of human civilization would be toast. What would last are very solid stone buildings (most of which are already ancient, though stuff like Medieval cathedrals and the like would be around too), statues made from metals that don't corrode easily (bronze, copper, and gold, primarily), and some assorted plastic crap that doesn't photodegrade (bakelite, maybe?).

You wouldn't lose the traces of civilization.

Go to the ruins of a major city and it will be mind-blowingly obvious that someone constructed a lot of buildings there. It's just that most of the buildings will have collapsed or at least be unfit for human habitation. The most cost-effective way to get ahold of things like iron might well be to have gangs of workers bust up concrete to get at the rebar, or tear up the rusted-out hulks of automobiles and use them as high grade 'iron ore.'

So it depends on what you mean by "traces."

[Akhlut]

My main reason for this chosen subject matter is to discuss the plausibility of some of the Science Fiction creatures possibly evolving by means of natural selection. Given a post-apocoplytic even where most of humanity is removed and based on this link that nature would quickly eliminate most, if not all of the traces of civilization within a few hundred years.

Yeah, most of the signposts of human civilization would be toast. What would last are very solid stone buildings (most of which are already ancient, though stuff like Medieval cathedrals and the like would be around too), statues made from metals that don't corrode easily (bronze, copper, and gold, primarily), and some assorted plastic crap that doesn't photodegrade (bakelite, maybe?).

You wouldn't lose the traces of civilization.

Go to the ruins of a major city and it will be mind-blowingly obvious that someone constructed a lot of buildings there. It's just that most of the buildings will have collapsed or at least be unfit for human habitation. The most cost-effective way to get ahold of things like iron might well be to have gangs of workers bust up concrete to get at the rebar, or tear up the rusted-out hulks of automobiles and use them as high grade 'iron ore.'

So it depends on what you mean by "traces."

In the near future? Yes. In the amount of time it takes for a human to evolve into a flying animal similar to a bat or pterosaur? Not so much. After a million plus years, most plastics will have degraded into, at best, tiny particulate matter floating in the ocean, most stone structures will have weathered away into dust (minus, say, the Crazy Horse statue and Mt. Rushmore), nearly all of our metals will have fallen back into oxidized states, and the only real artifacts would be some well-hidden things like a few bakelite telephones in ancient landfills, gold, platinum, and sterling silver jewelry, and a few other assorted odds and ends (maybe ceramics?).

[Simon_Jester]

OK, true. After a million years, the only evidence you could find would be, say... hm. What would be apparent to someone doing surveys with fairly sophisticated equipment?

Cities would appear as big hills with very metal-rich layers. If you dug to the right depth you'd find suspicious ribbons of asphalt that got buried under a layer of dirt. Certain very large cuts for highways and canals might show up, because what other geological process blasts a hundred-meter notch out of a ridgeline like that?