Comic Discussion > ALICE GROVE
Alice Grove MCDT March 2015
jwhouk:
My wild-ass guess for the week: that "shadow" was actually Alice. She apparently has some nanotech tricks up her own overall-covered sleeves.
And I do think we're in a world that was FUBAR'ed by scientists - like, say, a guy who owns his own space station.
mikmaxs:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 19 Mar 2015, 12:50 ---Firstly, because they are ground-dwelling and can't fly at all; one development would demand the other.
--- End quote ---
So did they become huge birds and then stop flying, or did they stop flying and then start to grow huge? Either way, the evolutionary line is confusing.
--- Quote ---Secondly, because it would still be nice to see a stampede or an on-rushing flash-flood before it arrives.
--- End quote ---
A stampede in the forest that we've seen? The thick, dense forest that you can't see very far through except on the path to town? Wouldn't good hearing be more useful in an environment where your visibility is naturally limited?
--- Quote ---Bzzt. Wrong. There is a difference between digging up and tearing loose. Birds can't chew and crushing beaks make it unlikely they could cut it up using their beaks like scissors, so they'd have to rip the food into small bits before swallowing.
--- End quote ---
Okay, then why do they have crushing beaks? It actively makes it difficult for them to eat some of their food. The anthropology on this bird would have to be split down the middle: They are half developed to eat roots and tubers, but half developed to eat seeds and nuts. Those are opposite directions of evolution. It'd be like a predator developing a lot of strength and bite power to hunt down big, slow prey, but also developing extreme speed to hunt down small, quick prey at the same time. It doesn't work, because those two things don't go together.
--- Quote ---Yes, even in a forest. Fruits, nuts and other plant materials are relatively energy-poor. They'll use up all the food in any given area very, very quickly so they have to keep moving.
--- End quote ---
Again, this creates a contradiction: If they live on energy-poor foods, then how can they be so huge? The extra energy it would take up to travel across miles to get food would be hugely problematic once you consider how much they must weight and how much energy they'd have to put into that travel. It's like a fully loaded Boeing 747 in LA flying to New York to get fuel, then flying home to LA, then having to go back to New York to get fuel because you burned it all flying back to LA. If it is evolved to cover a lot of ground to gather food, then the rest of its body should be stripped down to keep from burning too much excess energy in that travel.
The different evolutionary paths on this creature just don't line up, because they all contradict each other in one way or another.
Neko_Ali:
They're not big boned! They're just fluffy!
fluffy fluffy fluffy
Zebediah:
--- Quote from: mikmaxs on 19 Mar 2015, 13:14 ---The different evolutionary paths on this creature just don't line up, because they all contradict each other in one way or another.
--- End quote ---
Which is why the "genetically modified" argument holds up. It's the simplest explanation.
BenRG:
--- Quote from: mikmaxs on 19 Mar 2015, 13:14 ---
--- Quote from: BenRG on 19 Mar 2015, 12:50 ---Firstly, because they are ground-dwelling and can't fly at all; one development would demand the other.
--- End quote ---
So did they become huge birds and then stop flying, or did they stop flying and then start to grow huge? Either way, the evolutionary line is confusing.
--- End quote ---
The size and long necks were likely a food-driven adaptation - to reach high-hanging nuts, shoots and fruits. The loss of flight was consequential BUT the long neck and large size counter-balanced it, giving them a survival advantage.
--- Quote from: mikmaxs on 19 Mar 2015, 13:14 ---
--- Quote from: BenRG on 19 Mar 2015, 12:50 ---Secondly, because it would still be nice to see a stampede or an on-rushing flash-flood before it arrives.
--- End quote ---
A stampede in the forest that we've seen? The thick, dense forest that you can't see very far through except on the path to town? Wouldn't good hearing be more useful in an environment where your visibility is naturally limited?
--- End quote ---
This is assuming that their habitat is exclusively jungle. Remember that there are also open plains and hilly grasslands near the town. In any case height (and thus the ability to see over undergrowth at nearby and more distant hazards remains an advantage, even in the forest.
--- Quote from: mikmaxs on 19 Mar 2015, 13:14 ---
--- Quote from: BenRG on 19 Mar 2015, 12:50 ---Bzzt. Wrong. There is a difference between digging up and tearing loose. Birds can't chew and crushing beaks make it unlikely they could cut it up using their beaks like scissors, so they'd have to rip the food into small bits before swallowing.
--- End quote ---
Okay, then why do they have crushing beaks? It actively makes it difficult for them to eat some of their food. The anthropology on this bird would have to be split down the middle: They are half developed to eat roots and tubers, but half developed to eat seeds and nuts. Those are opposite directions of evolution. It'd be like a predator developing a lot of strength and bite power to hunt down big, slow prey, but also developing extreme speed to hunt down small, quick prey at the same time. It doesn't work, because those two things don't go together.
--- End quote ---
Wrong again. This adaptation increases the birds' survival chances as they are no longer specialised to a certain type of food and thus can handle environmental changes. In the real world, specialists (like the panda) always do poorly compared to generalists (like the raccoon).
--- Quote from: mikmaxs on 19 Mar 2015, 13:14 ---
--- Quote from: BenRG on 19 Mar 2015, 12:50 ---Yes, even in a forest. Fruits, nuts and other plant materials are relatively energy-poor. They'll use up all the food in any given area very, very quickly so they have to keep moving.
--- End quote ---
Again, this creates a contradiction: If they live on energy-poor foods, then how can they be so huge?
--- End quote ---
How can an Elephant be so huge? How can a Rhino be so huge? How can an Ultrasaurus be the single largest life-form ever to walk the Earth all despite being pure herbivores?
If these guys are anything like Therapods and modern birds (including pure herbivores), then their likely development is a quick burst to mid-upper size whils still relatively non-mobile and then a very slow development to full adult size.
--- Quote from: mikmaxs on 19 Mar 2015, 13:14 ---The different evolutionary paths on this creature just don't line up, because they all contradict each other in one way or another.
--- End quote ---
Real life biological adaptations don't 'line up' either. Real world biology is always messier and less prone to human linear logic than theoreticians would like.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version