|
Extraterrestrial Questions
|
Posted By:
TheKing
May 30, 2005
|
Yeah, just a few quick questions and comments about the first world they
were describing on this show...which was a load of bullcrap, ahem.
If any of you didn't watch the show, then don't read this because you really
should watch it...they make up some pretty stupid creatures.
These are just quick things i put down about it while i was watching.
If those big flower things can survive by retracting their big flowers, why
doesn't the sunlight burn their bodies?
Why are all the creatures on the planet primitive, while earth has been
around for .5 billion years less and has more advanced organisms, assuming
that the rate of evolution is a constant throughout the universe, especially
on similar planets?
Why do all of the animals have some strange adaptation, eg: six legs?
Doesn't Earth prove as a prime example as to why there are no six
legged medium sized animals? On a similar planet, in a similar temperature
(in the 'median' strip) is the most similar to
the majority of Earth, yet there are no six legged animals on earth, in some
very similar conditions? Evolution may work in different ways, but on
similar planets, similar temperatures, similar distances from the sun,
similar atmospheres, similar starting dates...
Why did they spend so much time on speculation, when most of what you do
will probably turn out to be incorrect anyway?
Hysteria: Stupid organism, stupid idea. Looks like you've put ants in the
water and turned them orange. Why would a creature that
small be orange? not a safe color...are they the main water predators?
How do they survive outside the water for so long?
if the sunlight kills all of the carbon based life forms, how do the plants
survive? What happens to all the ultraviolet radiation trapped inside the
atmosphere?
Wouldn't that kill off most of the other animals anyway?
Why doesn't anything live in the icy side of the planet? We h ave some
similar temperatures here on earth with animals living in them...
wouldn't that large, permenant hurricane create a huge area of erosion where
it is positioned? wouldn't it erode anything in that area
and stop any other water from flowing to any other places?
How does the cycle of precipitation work? Wouldn't that area in complete
sunlight all the time (which is also the area which is constantly a
hurricane) have no water, due to constant evaporation
and lack of precipitation in the ultimate hot areas?
look at the deserts on earth, they used to be oceans, but then they
moved...and the water was evaporated/moved.
They showed a volcano, suggesting moving tectonic plates? If the continents
are constantly moving, wouldn't this give birth to millions of seafaring
organisms, due to the fact that these continents can either freeze, or be
barraged by the storm if they move outside the median zone?
If the animals on the planet are carbon based, the ultraviolet light would
kill them, the stuff that stayed inside the atmosphere anyway...
so if they're not carbon based, why do they need water to survive? If water
is the neccessary ingredient for life as we know it (carbon based) and this
planet has water (apparently) then wouldn't it have carbon based
lifeforms...which would be killed by the Ultraviolet Radiation?
Urgggh this show was such crap that i turned it off after this planet was
displayed.
|
Comments
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 08:43 PM
whoa...I'll have some of what that guy's smokin'...weeoo weeoo |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 09:16 PM
Keep in mind King that it is a work of "fiction." 😉 So I wouldn't go getting too worked up about any "supposed" problems you might find in their story.
Why are all the creatures on the planet primitive, while earth has been
around for .5 billion years less and has more advanced organisms, assuming
that the rate of evolution is a constant throughout the universe, especially
on similar planets?
No one has ever said that the rate of evolution is constant. In the early stages of theorization it was assumed that it was a "slow and steady" process but recent evidence points to it happening it spurts. As for why would it not have more advanced lifeforms if it's actually older than Earth... well the possibilities are endless. There are SO MANY variables to be taken into account that the possibilities for why this might be so are endless! For instance, if it were not for one asteroid impact, the Earth might still be dominated by dinosaurs. Possibly denying our species the chance and opportunity to experience our growth in brain size... thereby eliminating the homo sapien from Earths' history all together. |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 09:23 PM
Why did they spend so much time on speculation, when most of what you do
will probably turn out to be incorrect anyway?
Entertainment value... it's better to theorize and entertain than to sit around and "deny" the possibilities, correct? At least this way we can be, in a way, prepared for whatever strange things we might see out there! When we do find something, no matter how weird, different, or even similar it is, imagine what that realization will be like for those who think that we're the ONLY life in the universe!
Again though, keep in mind that it's just a show made for entertainment! Even Star Trek, after 214 spin-off shows, still managed to accidently let a scientific "slip" through the works! 😉 |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 10:39 PM
What bothered me was that the immobile Deathtrap creature let out loud cries. If it was immobile, why would it ever make noise? |
DFStuckey
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 12:00 AM
I tried to answer you in a short message, TheKing, but cobvering you points as well as you deserve would take 5829 words and my limit is 4000.
But to take one or two - Volcaones do not always guarentee tectonic activity; Mars has no sign of plates but some very big volcanoes. Venus has one area on the plateau/continent of Aphrodite Terra, but the Beta Regio area of Ishtar Terra is as wildly active as any you find on Earth. It is possible that we have plates on Earth because we have oceans, as evidence from large dams shows that water in large amounts increases the frequency and duration of earthquakes.
The bit about UV is wrong. UV is light, it doesn't pool on the ground like water,or build up like gamma radiation, so the bulk reflects into space. While it certainly kills all bacteria many other animals survive it well - and assuming no bacteria survive, other prtists from an existing biota would adapt to do their jobs.
Six legs? The pattern on Earth relates to the Permian droughts when a lot of shallow ares dried up. in those, many fish had up to seven pairs of bony fins and neede them to steer in murky shallows - free-water fish need two pairs or less. All those deep-water fish, relatively the same in type, recolonised the flooded shallows in the later periods, from them came amphibians. Shallow seas on other planets would easily create six-legged forms, at least.
Not all deserts used to be sea beds - The Sahara and the Red Desert of Australia were forests, the former supplying wood until about the time of the first Pharoahs. Soil depletion, fire, changed water tables and climate shifts finished them off.
And as for Citizen Premier, how do you cope when you meet a person in a wheelchair who has no companion to speak for them? Immobility does not equal muteness. And immobile organisms on Earth use only scent and visual communications true; But Earth is like America - Just because it's done one way there, doesn't mean it has to be done the same way everyhere else.
I might comment further if not busy. |
David B.
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 | 02:25 PM
I've not seen the programme in question, but...
If it was immobile, why would it ever make noise?
Why wouldn't it? If it's an immobile preadator, imitating other animals' prey or mates as a auditory lure is not a bad strategy. And if you can now make sound, attracting a mate with it becomes a possibility. Male barnacles for example use an extraordinarily long penis to seek out a mate (in this case using by chemical cues), and male Natterjack toads compete with each other to have the loudest mating call, and hence attract the most females, without budging their lazy arses an inch. Switch the singing competition from the 'male' Deathtraps to the 'female's, and you could end up with immobile females calling as loud as they can to attract as many male members as possible from the local vicinity.
A real ol' sing-schlong, if you will!
Being sessile needn't preclude an organism from having a voice, or even a mating call. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 | 05:35 PM
Yes, but the fact remains that immobile creatures--that are naturally immobile, not crippled--have no need to make sound, especially if that sound they make might scare potential prey away. Think about it, why would a clam or a venus fly trap ever make noise? And how the heck would an immobile creature attract a mate? A mates penis, maybe, but that would be done best chemically, don't ya think? There is no possible reason. They goofed. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 | 06:28 PM
Surely it would depend on what they are luring. If we treat a fisherman as an 'immobile preadator' (in that they don't usually dive into the water and chase after the fish), then they frequently use sound based lures with malice aforethought. Many fishing lures 'rattle' in the water to specifically attract attention to themselves, this is the acoustic equivalent to an anglerfish's light.
As for attracting a mate (speaking from personal experience), whatever works is good. There are as many examples of terrestrial animals using sound as using chemicals. If there were sessile examples of both in our animal kingdom, one would have 'ears' on it's dong, the other a 'nose'. I doubt either could actually be ruled out as evolutionarily impossible.
First; chemicals sex-signals certainly have their advantages, they can be highly effective in minute quantities and over great distances (maybe as far as a mile in some moths), but if you can't go there in person then what help is greater range?
Second; sound (as in toads) is more directional, a lot less effected by air-currents, and a lot harder to produce in quantity and over time. Wait, is that last one even an advantage? Well, it depends. If you are looking for a fit and healthy mate, bellowing like a rutting deer (literally) for hours on end is probably reasonably indicative of someone's strength and stamina.
Third; in matters of sexual selection, you should not expect logic to enter into it much (that's probably true of sex in general, IMHO). Peacocks' tails have no evolutionary advantage other than they attract peahens. Male guppies are coloured to resemble fruit for no other reason than because it attracts females. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 | 06:38 PM
Oh, and the immobile bristle worm solves the problem of finding a mate by breaking off its own arse-end and growing another. These rears then seek each other out independant of the rest of their bodies.
Perhaps we should start a petition to have them renamed 'Bobbit's worm'. |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 | 07:59 AM
I didn't watch it cause I knew it would be a load of crap..... |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 | 03:52 PM
Hysteria: Stupid organism, stupid idea. Looks like you've put ants in the water and turned them orange. Why would a creature that small be orange? not a safe color...
Sorry, I'm lost here. Why isn't orange a safe colour? Were there supposed to be humans on this imaginary planet or what?
❓ |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
