What would have evolved if...?
Ever saw one of those "future world" things? On Discovery or Animal Planet or National Geographis or somewhere similar? Where bunch of people sit down to ponder what could our planet look like in, say, 10000 years, after somebody finally got an itchy finger near a red button (roaches rule seems to be the most common answer), or after the next ice age hits, or, alternatively, what might life look like on an entirely different planet, similar enough to our own but not quite?
I must have seen a dozen of these by now (including, perhaps, Avatar, but that's anotehr story entirely; in case you're wondering, yes, I did, in fact, like the movie) and the most I have to say about them is that they're relatively imaginative as far as speculations go but are overall just a nice opportunity for the special effects people to play around with their toys.
So thumbs up for the special effects, but as far as imaginative semi-scientific speculations go, these things are invariably so very, very limited. In other words, while they may be amusing sometimes, they have yet to offer something actually new.
Because we are limited by what we already know.
Imagine yourself, for example, a fish scientist from... I dunno? Early Devonian? Before the rise of the amphibians. And you're doing that sort of "future world" type of show. Your show would be full of various fantastic beings, all shapes and sizes you can possibly imagine, and yet, every single one of them would, most likely, have gills and fins, but definitely no legs, let alone lungs (say you were doing this without knowing about the lungfish), feathers or fur. Why? Because, simply enough, you don't know about these things. You've never seen them. They are an entirely new structures, never seen before. And as such, quite beyond the reach of your imagination.
Moving on through the evolution, imagine doing the same thing as an early amphibian scientist. Your "future world" would now have more variety - fish-like creatures in the seas, lush, rich flora on land and a bunch of very imaginative amphibious creatures stomping around amidst the buzz of insects, some of them big enough to eat you twice for breakfast. But no lizards, crocks, turtles or any such nonesense. Because you can concieve a thousand and one way for your amphibious features to adapt to varius new environments, but you cannot, definitely cannot, imagine reptile-like scales or mammalian fur, to say nothing of milk glands and similar organs.
And then imagine yourself an early dino scientist doing the same etc, etc... I think you get the point. New structures are exactly what their name implies - They're new! The never-before-seen new. Many, if not most things are jsut the new varieties of the same old theme, and eventually, entirely new structures will arise from them,but the thing is, you can't imagine them or their variations until you've actually seen somehting like that already.
And that's where all those "what would evolve next" shows stop and fail. Whatever we see is either insectoid, mammalian, amphibious, or whashahaveit, but a whole new clade is completely missing from the spotlight.
Of course, I, myself, have said nothing new here either - it's just a little somehting that pops into my mind every now and then, after which I catch myself trying to come up with something 'new' myself and, of course, fail just as miserably as so many before me have. But here's food for thought, or at least speculation, if you find such speculations interesting:
Life on land as we know it would have never evolved the way it did if the plants hadn't pioneered land-colonization. Without them, there is no soil, no acceptable level of oxigen, no climate worth speaking of.... in short, nothing on land whatsoever that would make a prehistoric lungfish ever want to "try it out" themselves.
Or is that really so?
Evolution made some amazing and astonishing leaps before, so perhaps it is not that out of mind to propose the following scenario: What if plants stuck to their water environment, but animals nonetheless did have a go at the surface life? What would that life look like?Coping with the insufficient amount of oxigen, lack of primary plant food, lack of climate...? Perhaps the animals would be "eating" rocks? Develop some way of gaining nutrition from, say, minerals? Find an alternative, animal-based way to create soil eventually? Problems are numerous, so take your time to pick and choose. And then try imagining what sorts of adaptations, new organs, old organs recycled etc would it take to live in a place like that?
Can you? I couldn't, though I am still trying. And in the unlikely case that you: a) find this sort of speculation even remotely interesting, b) have nothing better to do and c) actually come up with a good idea or three, do bounce them heere. It might even be fun.
I must have seen a dozen of these by now (including, perhaps, Avatar, but that's anotehr story entirely; in case you're wondering, yes, I did, in fact, like the movie) and the most I have to say about them is that they're relatively imaginative as far as speculations go but are overall just a nice opportunity for the special effects people to play around with their toys.
So thumbs up for the special effects, but as far as imaginative semi-scientific speculations go, these things are invariably so very, very limited. In other words, while they may be amusing sometimes, they have yet to offer something actually new.
Because we are limited by what we already know.
Imagine yourself, for example, a fish scientist from... I dunno? Early Devonian? Before the rise of the amphibians. And you're doing that sort of "future world" type of show. Your show would be full of various fantastic beings, all shapes and sizes you can possibly imagine, and yet, every single one of them would, most likely, have gills and fins, but definitely no legs, let alone lungs (say you were doing this without knowing about the lungfish), feathers or fur. Why? Because, simply enough, you don't know about these things. You've never seen them. They are an entirely new structures, never seen before. And as such, quite beyond the reach of your imagination.
Moving on through the evolution, imagine doing the same thing as an early amphibian scientist. Your "future world" would now have more variety - fish-like creatures in the seas, lush, rich flora on land and a bunch of very imaginative amphibious creatures stomping around amidst the buzz of insects, some of them big enough to eat you twice for breakfast. But no lizards, crocks, turtles or any such nonesense. Because you can concieve a thousand and one way for your amphibious features to adapt to varius new environments, but you cannot, definitely cannot, imagine reptile-like scales or mammalian fur, to say nothing of milk glands and similar organs.
And then imagine yourself an early dino scientist doing the same etc, etc... I think you get the point. New structures are exactly what their name implies - They're new! The never-before-seen new. Many, if not most things are jsut the new varieties of the same old theme, and eventually, entirely new structures will arise from them,but the thing is, you can't imagine them or their variations until you've actually seen somehting like that already.
And that's where all those "what would evolve next" shows stop and fail. Whatever we see is either insectoid, mammalian, amphibious, or whashahaveit, but a whole new clade is completely missing from the spotlight.
Of course, I, myself, have said nothing new here either - it's just a little somehting that pops into my mind every now and then, after which I catch myself trying to come up with something 'new' myself and, of course, fail just as miserably as so many before me have. But here's food for thought, or at least speculation, if you find such speculations interesting:
Life on land as we know it would have never evolved the way it did if the plants hadn't pioneered land-colonization. Without them, there is no soil, no acceptable level of oxigen, no climate worth speaking of.... in short, nothing on land whatsoever that would make a prehistoric lungfish ever want to "try it out" themselves.
Or is that really so?
Evolution made some amazing and astonishing leaps before, so perhaps it is not that out of mind to propose the following scenario: What if plants stuck to their water environment, but animals nonetheless did have a go at the surface life? What would that life look like?Coping with the insufficient amount of oxigen, lack of primary plant food, lack of climate...? Perhaps the animals would be "eating" rocks? Develop some way of gaining nutrition from, say, minerals? Find an alternative, animal-based way to create soil eventually? Problems are numerous, so take your time to pick and choose. And then try imagining what sorts of adaptations, new organs, old organs recycled etc would it take to live in a place like that?
Can you? I couldn't, though I am still trying. And in the unlikely case that you: a) find this sort of speculation even remotely interesting, b) have nothing better to do and c) actually come up with a good idea or three, do bounce them heere. It might even be fun.