D-Volution ?

[Lenwen]

Do you guys think it is "Possible" that some of the Ancient "First" races actually "DE-Evolved" ?

From thier Past prior forms .. into other possible lifeforms ?

If so give an example of something that would be totally plausible

And thank you for your time .

[drewkitty ~..~]

To evolve just to means to change over time.
Not the change the the better over time the way evolutionists want everybody to believe.

So.... No, they didn't, it is impossible.
They might of genetically manipulated themselves in to a deadend like the Asgaurds from Stargate SG1 did.
Or they died out.
Or left the three galaxies.
Or they went into hiding.
Or a thousand other things, like because they genetically manipulated themselves in to a deadend, designed a new species that they could transfer there conciseness' into to escape the deadend, but lost what made them what they were in the process.

[MaxxSterling]

They didn't D-Evolve, it's just everything else became MDC and caught up! Cept humans of course... because we always suck.

[Rallan]

Do you guys think it is "Possible" that some of the Ancient "First" races actually "DE-Evolved" ?

From thier Past prior forms .. into other possible lifeforms ?

If so give an example of something that would be totally plausible

And thank you for your time .

Already been done. One of the early Phase World books had stats for a race of semi-intelligent killer apes that are exactly what you're talking about.

[KLM]

They didn't D-Evolve, it's just everything else became MDC and caught up! Cept humans of course... because we always suck.

A human being has blond hair, blue eyes...

..and speaks Altess without an accent.

----
...as for the topic: Killer Apes, DMB2. They could be an ancient race, cursed by another player in their league
as well as survivors stranded on a planet without their technology.

Adios
KLM

[GT]

Dem killer apes is rumored to be D-Evolved.

[glitterboy2098]

To evolve just to means to change over time.
Not the change the the better over time the way evolutionists want everybody to believe.

actually, it's mostly the anti-evolutionists who hold to the falsehood that evolution is towards something or makes you "better"

but your basically right."de-evolution" is impossible, because even if a species is suddenly exposed to new enviromental pressures (like say, the sudden and complete loss of all technological civilization), they genetic changes from the resultant natural selection would still be evolution, even if it does result in apparent return of previous traits. (for example, how populations of homo sapiens in cold climates tend to gain extensive hair over most of their body..a trait we mostly lost in the process of turning into homo sapiens.)

but it's hard to see how an intellegent race could loose that intellegence. intellegence, unlike strength or hair or teeth or claws, allows the species to alter their own enviroment, find solutions to problems beyond letting nature select for particular biology. once intellegence manifests, it's such a major survival advantage you'd have to basically invoke act of Deity or intentional breeding for lack of intellegence to see it vanish.

but the first race spreading out into the stars, then having their society collaspe completely, isolating the few colonies that could survive without outside support or extensive technical expertise*
the resulting isolation could result in several new phenotypes, if not species, after a few hundred thousand years. certainly by a few million.

the three galaxies could have seen multiple successive waves of colonization and collapse as the descendants of the first became isolated, changed, rebuild their technological society, and spead to the stars. each wave would result in new isolated groups developing when the society collapses, resulting in further changes and future waves.
not unlike Battlestar Galactica. "this has all happened before, and it will happen again"
in fact, i'd susect the basic premise of BSG would play out over and over again. society collapses. few surviving technological members band together in search of a suitable place to settle and ensure the survival of the race. cylons optional.


* Ken Burnside, creater of Attack Vector: Tactical, developed a rough guide as to why colonizing places like mars or space stations isn't a viable long-term option. he called the three generations rule. basically, each generation after the intial colonists will be increasingly apathetic about maintaining the infrastructure that supports them. the basic result of the rule is that the thid generation (not literally, but it's a rough guide) will usually let the infrastructure break down to the point it fails. not a problem on a habitable planet. big problem when you rely on artifical systems for life support.

[Rallan]

but it's hard to see how an intellegent race could loose that intellegence. intellegence, unlike strength or hair or teeth or claws, allows the species to alter their own enviroment, find solutions to problems beyond letting nature select for particular biology. once intellegence manifests, it's such a major survival advantage you'd have to basically invoke act of Deity or intentional breeding for lack of intellegence to see it vanish.

It'd be doable. You'd have to not merely take away the technology though, you'd also have to put them in an environment that's on the extreme edge of survivability, with hostile conditions and limited (probably even inadequate) food sources. Basically you're putting 'em in an environment where intelligence and empathy beyond a certain level aren't useful enough to be selected for, physical traits like strength and endurance are, and there's generally little enough nutrition going around that beyond a certain point smarts are gonna be trumped by efficiency.

The only thing where it gets silly with the Killer Apes in Phase World is that they seem to have followed exactly the same evolutionary path on dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of worlds which presumably all have very different environments. Not really something you'd notice unless you think about it, but it is kinda implausible.

[Lenwen]

Do you guys think it is "Possible" that some of the Ancient "First" races actually "DE-Evolved" ?

From thier Past prior forms .. into other possible lifeforms ?

If so give an example of something that would be totally plausible

And thank you for your time .

Already been done. One of the early Phase World books had stats for a race of semi-intelligent killer apes that are exactly what you're talking about.

Exactly why I am asking .. There is precident for it. And I was curious if those ancient civilizations were soo powerful and advanced why they did not save at least a fraction of thier sociaty .. threw this .. or perhaps another means ?

[glitterboy2098]

but it's hard to see how an intellegent race could loose that intellegence. intellegence, unlike strength or hair or teeth or claws, allows the species to alter their own enviroment, find solutions to problems beyond letting nature select for particular biology. once intellegence manifests, it's such a major survival advantage you'd have to basically invoke act of Deity or intentional breeding for lack of intellegence to see it vanish.

It'd be doable. You'd have to not merely take away the technology though, you'd also have to put them in an environment that's on the extreme edge of survivability, with hostile conditions and limited (probably even inadequate) food sources. Basically you're putting 'em in an environment where intelligence and empathy beyond a certain level aren't useful enough to be selected for, physical traits like strength and endurance are, and there's generally little enough nutrition going around that beyond a certain point smarts are gonna be trumped by efficiency.

The only thing where it gets silly with the Killer Apes in Phase World is that they seem to have followed exactly the same evolutionary path on dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of worlds which presumably all have very different environments. Not really something you'd notice unless you think about it, but it is kinda implausible.

actually, extreme enviroment, limited food and shelter are both things that would select for increased intelligence, not less. basically, the dumb members are weeded out from the genepool ,since intelligence allows the survivors to find food and shelter easier.

no, you'd need the opposite to see intelligence vanish naturally. an enviroment so congenial that no one needs to struggle at all. food so prevalent that you don't have to work. and so on. then intelligence would be superflourious, and not required to survive. thus it provides no survival benefit, and thus not spread through the genepool.

[glitterboy2098]

Exactly why I am asking .. There is precident for it. And I was curious if those ancient civilizations were soo powerful and advanced why they did not save at least a fraction of thier sociaty .. threw this .. or perhaps another means ?

perhaps they did. think about the timescale though. for all we know, the first lived billions of years before the current PW timeframe. even the oldest signs of human civilization here on earth are only a few hundred thousand years old. and most of those signs are faint, barely present things so weathered by time they can barely be recognized.
over millions or possibly billions of years there is enough time for not only the signs of the civilization to vanish, but for the survivors to rebuild, collapse, andsigns of them to vanish as well.

and this assumes that their planets survive. over such time spans, stars go red giant and consume planets, or nova and burn them to a cinder. even enough timefor the artifcats to erode away purely from halflives and quantum degredation.

actually, i can suggest a great scifi book which exploits and illustrates these problems. Star Trek: The Next Generation - The Buried Age by Christopher L. Bennett.

[Sgt Anjay]

There could be such a thing as devolving...it would be regressing back along the same evolutionary path your species took, literally. Not just decreasing intelligence or getting hairier, but actually regressing to species you evolved from. Not the sort of thing that would generally happen naturally, but this is Phase World: between magic, technology, and technology sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic, there are any number of ways something like that could occur.

[KLM]

Do you guys think it is "Possible" that some of the Ancient "First" races actually "DE-Evolved" ?

From thier Past prior forms .. into other possible lifeforms ?

One possible scenario is that a "degenerated" species is actually a "first stage" of an otherwise
intelligent species. Problem is, that in themselves they cannot transform into the "second stage".

(Which raises a few questions about their anatomy, but what the hell...)

Adios
KLM

[GT]

Its them Damned Dirty Apes I tell you!

[Aramanthus]

I agree with the most of the people here. Evolution is generally a one way street. Once you go up it you generally can't get back. I think GB2098 hit is on the head with plentiful food and no dangers could elict that sort of genetic change from a sentient lifeform.

[Qev]

Evolution Can't Go Backwards... barring a sufficient application of magic, of course.

[Rallan]

actually, extreme enviroment, limited food and shelter are both things that would select for increased intelligence, not less. basically, the dumb members are weeded out from the genepool ,since intelligence allows the survivors to find food and shelter easier.

No, it would weed out the incompetent members, not the dumb ones. The ones who lack the stamina for long hunts or the coordination for really efficient weapon use and toolmaking. The ones who don't have the mechanical aptitude to salvage broken machines, or (in later generations as they become more scarce) the aptitude for working in wood and stone and metal. The ones who aren't aggressive enough to fight for their place in a crude tribal society, or are too aggressive for everyone else to put up with.

Sure, a bit of smarts helps when it comes to learning new skills, planning hunts, and making tools, but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to manage that. The sudden collapse of civilization is gonna select for fith, healthy, competent outdoorsmen, jacks of all trades, and fast learners. Philosophy professors and MENSA members are gonna be right out of luck in the evolutionary lottery unless they've got practical skills they can bring to the table.

[glitterboy2098]

actually, extreme enviroment, limited food and shelter are both things that would select for increased intelligence, not less. basically, the dumb members are weeded out from the genepool ,since intelligence allows the survivors to find food and shelter easier.

No, it would weed out the incompetent members, not the dumb ones. The ones who lack the stamina for long hunts or the coordination for really efficient weapon use and toolmaking. The ones who don't have the mechanical aptitude to salvage broken machines, or (in later generations as they become more scarce) the aptitude for working in wood and stone and metal. The ones who aren't aggressive enough to fight for their place in a crude tribal society, or are too aggressive for everyone else to put up with.

yes it would weed out the dumb ones. because in an enviroment like that dumb = incompetent. extreme enviroments and limited resources select for in creased intellegence, because those with weaker intellegence have a harder time beating their competition for those resources and have a harder time surviving in the enviroment. it's the same basic process that turned a bunch of plains apes into modern Home sapiens. they lived in an enviroment where they were practically bottom of the food chain, had to strugle to survive on limited resources, in a ecosystem where predators were pretty much everywhere. all they had were brains, so those with better thinking ability survived, those who were too dumb died.
and btw, while aptitude doesn't go hand in hand with intellegence, aptitude + intellegence is a far more effective combination than either alone.

Sure, a bit of smarts helps when it comes to learning new skills, planning hunts, and making tools, but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to manage that. The sudden collapse of civilization is gonna select for fith, healthy, competent outdoorsmen, jacks of all trades, and fast learners. Philosophy professors and MENSA members are gonna be right out of luck in the evolutionary lottery unless they've got practical skills they can bring to the table.

you shouldn't equate intellegence with specific knowledge. those mensa members and professors your putting down are the product of modern society, not natural inclination. in the past, people with thier mental abilities gave us most our modern society, and those people would be completely ignorant by our standards.

and what makes a person a competent outdoorsman, a jack of all trades, or a fast learner? intellegence. fit is an automatic when looking at survival without modern conviences, but healthy is something that only intellegence can give, since those without it can't avoid the bad food, bad water, illnesses, or parasites that degrade health. higher intellegence means more success in staying healthy, which means they're more likely to breed, which spreads the genes for higher intyellegence wider in the population.

as i said, the only way you could get a mental regression is to make it so easy to survive that brains aren't needed.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Evolution only rewards survival.
You need an outside intelligence actively selecting for intelligence, for something to gain intelligence. Otherwise you get animals that are specifically adapted to an environment, and not a something something that adapts the environment.
That is if you believe that evolution is the way we cam about.

[Rallan]

Evolution only rewards survival.
You need an outside intelligence actively selecting for intelligence, for something to gain intelligence. Otherwise you get animals that are specifically adapted to an environment, and not a something something that adapts the environment.
That is if you believe that evolution is the way we cam about.

No, you need a species that lives in an environment where individuals who are more intelligent or empathetic than the norm have a distinct survival advantage and are more likely to survive and reproduce. A species where problem-solving skills can enhance your ability to find food or protect yourself from danger, for example, or where the ability to better understand the other individuals in your group can help get you more food and more mates by being higher up the social ladder.

[glitterboy2098]

exactly. intellegence is a survival trait. the ability to think allows you to adapt to the enviroment without physical changes to the body.
the only way you'd see something that already has intellegence loose said intellegence (barring artificial intervention) would be for it to be in an enviroment where survival is an automatic. where food is plentiful, and never rotten, underripe, toxic, or have parasites. where the weather cannot harm at all. where there are no predators, and no competition with other species for food, shelter, or survival.
in short, a 'garden of eden'..though i hate using religious referances for these kinds of debates.

[Rallan]

exactly. intellegence is a survival trait. the ability to think allows you to adapt to the enviroment without physical changes to the body.
the only way you'd see something that already has intellegence loose said intellegence (barring artificial intervention) would be for it to be in an enviroment where survival is an automatic. where food is plentiful, and never rotten, underripe, toxic, or have parasites. where the weather cannot harm at all. where there are no predators, and no competition with other species for food, shelter, or survival.
in short, a 'garden of eden'..though i hate using religious referances for these kinds of debates.

Or where the requirements of intelligence (higher energy needs, long childhood and/or complicated childbirth) outweigh the benefits. Some intelligence is a survival trait. The potential to be a rocket scientist or an international diplomat is overkill when pointy sticks are the pinnacle of technology and extended family tribes are the largest social unit. If an environment's so hostile to a species that all the individuals spend virtually all their time just doing what's required to survive, a smaller brain that's got adequate mental firepower for the daily routine is gonna be more of a survival trait than a larger, more energy-hungry brain capable of sophisticated abstract thought.

Not that I'm saying the Killer Apes in Phase World are remotely plausible of course, I'm just speaking against this silly notion that evolution will always select for high intelligence.

[glitterboy2098]

Or where the requirements of intelligence (higher energy needs, long childhood and/or complicated childbirth) outweigh the benefits.

actually, there isn't much differance between a human genius and a human idiot in terms of dietary needs, childhood length, or birth. remember, higher intellegence doesn't mean bigger brain. that fallacy was disproven long ago. and in regards to length of childhood, there have been many studies showing that smarter children actually mature faster, as they're able to grasp adult roles and requirements easier. this would actualyl be a survival aedvantage, because the offspring would require less energy from the group to survive, freeing up more energy and time for the group to obtain food and shelter, or to create the next generation. (reaching maturity faster means generations come closer together)

Some intelligence is a survival trait. The potential to be a rocket scientist or an international diplomat is overkill when pointy sticks are the pinnacle of technology and extended family tribes are the largest social unit.

again, you confuse constructed social roles with the concept of intellegence. what is a rocket scientist but a guy with a head for numbers and spatial relation ships? the same talents that make excellent hunters and inventors. what is a diplomat but a guy with a talent for intersocial relationships? the same talents that create tribal leaders, storytellers, and other roles that work as the social glue that keeps groups working smoothly.
higher intellgence usually comes with various aptitudes which are molded by the enviroment and society into useful fields. the same kind of minds that give us rockets and computers today were the kinds of minds that gave us the atalatl spear thrower, the bow and arrow, or agriculture.

If an environment's so hostile to a species that all the individuals spend virtually all their time just doing what's required to survive, a smaller brain that's got adequate mental firepower for the daily routine is gonna be more of a survival trait than a larger, more energy-hungry brain capable of sophisticated abstract thought.

until the smarter members figure out energy saving methods that allow them to survive better. by making better tools, developing better skills, ways of teaching others, ways of obtaining food, ways of living... intellegence is a force multiplier in the war to survive.

[Rallan]

again, you confuse constructed social roles with the concept of intellegence. what is a rocket scientist but a guy with a head for numbers and spatial relation ships? the same talents that make excellent hunters and inventors. what is a diplomat but a guy with a talent for intersocial relationships? the same talents that create tribal leaders, storytellers, and other roles that work as the social glue that keeps groups working smoothly.
higher intellgence usually comes with various aptitudes which are molded by the enviroment and society into useful fields. the same kind of minds that give us rockets and computers today were the kinds of minds that gave us the atalatl spear thrower, the bow and arrow, or agriculture.

I confuse them deliberately, since the general consensus seems to be that the main factor which spurred the development of higher intelligence in early hominids was social pressure. A larger social unit which whose members were better at coordinating and cooperating was better at surviving than a smaller or less cooperative group. And individuals who had the brainpower to be better at empathizing with the rest of their unit, who could grasp the basics of social dynamics and (once they developed enough) understand the wants and needs of other individuals, these were the guys who thrived the best in larger social groups. Logic, reason, abstract thought, that was all pretty much an added bonus we picked up on the side as a byproduct of developing enough of the ol' grey matter to understand complex social interactions.

Oh and you're wrong about brain size and intelligence. There's no real correlation between the two among ordinary human beings, but that's because our brains fall within a relatively small range of sizes. Virtually everyone falls reasonably close to the human average of around 1200 cubic centimetres, and a few percent either side of that is no big deal. I doubt you'll find anyone who'll claim that the "brain size doesn't matter" argument applies to our hominid ancestors back when their average brain size was 800 or 600 cubic centimetres (or even less if you go back to the austrolopithecines). The extra smarts we developed since then came at the expense of a vast increase in brain mass, with an accompanying increase in energy consumption and all sorts of problems with childbirth and juvenile development. It was a very expensive development from an evolutionary perspective, and it only paid off because for critters with that sort of behavior in that sort of environment, the survival advantages of larger brains outweighed the handicaps.

[sHaka]

Not the change the the better over time the way evolutionists want everybody to believe.

No evolutionist I've ever heard/read has spared the whip in stating the case that Evolution doesn't mean better.

That is if you believe that evolution is the way we cam about.

You make it sound like there's a reason to think any other way. The scientific evidence for human evolution is roughly on par with that of Earth's orbit of the Sun; a complete contrast to creationism and other human origin theories, which have about as much evidence as does the discotheque for space-faring crustaceans on the surface of Mercury, happy hour 8 till 9pm.

But this is an RPG world we're talking about, so there's no reason why things can't "De-evolve" if it makes for a fun session!

[Rallan]

Not the change the the better over time the way evolutionists want everybody to believe.

No evolutionist I've ever heard/read has spared the whip in stating the case that Evolution doesn't mean better.

Dude, paying attention to what science actually says has never been an important part of arguing against evolution

[drewkitty ~..~]

Dude, paying attention to what science actually says has never been an important part of arguing for evolution

[Rallan]

Dude, paying attention to what science actually says has never been an important part of arguing for evolution

Of course not. Everyone knows science supports the bible and evolution is a myth perpetuated by an evil secular humanist agenda which controls modern science.

[drewkitty ~..~]

All I did was say something equally as true as what you said. They ingnor things like that mutations destroy genetic information.

However, this is a game context, so in the Megaverse you can have the impossible happen w/o getting any SNat help.

[Qev]

Mutations, by definition, are changes in genetic information. Sometimes this change is the loss of information, sometimes this change is substitution. Entire swaths of genes can jump between chromosomes, or be inserted, or deleted. To say that all mutation involves destruction of genetic information is totally false.

And besides, even the loss of some genetic information is information in itself. As a distant analogy, take the sentence "I did not eat the last cookie." Now delete a word, say "not". The information content of the sentence has changed, but it's still a perfectly valid sentence.

[Rallan]

However, this is a game context, so in the Megaverse you can have the impossible happen w/o getting any SNat help.

Yeah there is that. Phase World is a muddled space opera setting built squarely on a foundation of tropes and archetypes that were established in the sci-fi novels and magazines of the 1930s-50. And if you've ever read much sci-fi from the good old days you'll know that evolution (and most of hte rest of science for that matter) does whatever the author feels is required for the plot