Sci-Fi impossibilities...

[torgospizza]

...or at least improbabilities.

Yesterday, I was reading an article and thinking about our shared DNA with chimps, and it dawned on me that because we share so much DNA with animals and plants--and we should, existing in the same biosphere--it was as likely to find grass on another planet as it was to find out you had a twin born across the globe to a completely different set of parents. I might be betraying my ignorance here, but that was a new concept for me. What I mean is, unless someone takes it there and plants it, flora as we know it simply won't exist anywhere else because it's unique to our biosphere. I'm assuming because there are grasses, humans, and so on in (f.ex.) Star Wars films, at some point a culture went around "seeding" planets in that mythos.

I know most of you know sound doesn't travel in space, but have you ever watched a Sci-Fi film and had something suddenly jump out at you as being impossible that you'd never considered before and have never seen addressed?

[Access]

This theory of seeding planets to explain similar humanoid aspects was covered most recently in the movie prometheus and also in Star Trek TNG episodes 25 years ago. Scientists also argue over where the first building blocks of life originated from, many resign it to a meteor or comet having stuff trapped in Ice. But then where did the Ice come from? LOL .....and away we go!

[Aricosaur]

These are just things sci-fi fans have to deal with. Sci-fi is know as being one of the genres that needs the most suspension of disbelief.

[enyawd72]

...or at least improbabilities.

Yesterday, I was reading an article and thinking about our shared DNA with chimps, and it dawned on me that because we share so much DNA with animals and plants--and we should, existing in the same biosphere--it was as likely to find grass on another planet as it was to find out you had a twin born across the globe to a completely different set of parents. I might be betraying my ignorance here, but that was a new concept for me. What I mean is, unless someone takes it there and plants it, flora as we know it simply won't exist anywhere else because it's unique to our biosphere.

That's actually not true. The same basic elements which make up our planet are found throughout the universe, so it stands to reason that wherever similar conditions exist, (temperate climate, proximity to the sun, etc.) That elements will combine in the same way. For example, Mars is red because iron oxidized on it's surface the exact same way it does on Earth...you have the exact same chemical reaction occurring millenia apart on two different planets with two extremely different climates. Even here on Earth carbon-based life has developed in environments even more inhospitable than some planets, such as the sea worms living in toxic near-boiling water next to volcanic vents.

[torgospizza]

That's actually not true. The same basic elements which make up our planet are found throughout the universe, so it stands to reason that wherever similar conditions exist, (temperate climate, proximity to the sun, etc.) That elements will combine in the same way.

Sharing the same amino acids and proteins really only means we're made from similar things, though--like the way milkshakes and cakes might both contain milk and chocolate. I see what you're talking about with convergent evolution on different planets, but I'm saying (f.ex.) that although sharks and dolphins look similar and are both carbon-based, it doesn't mean they're the same thing and a creature from another planet would be even farther removed genetically.

[enyawd72]

Sharing the same amino acids and proteins really only means we're made from similar things, though--like the way milkshakes and cakes might both contain milk and chocolate. I see what you're talking about with convergent evolution on different planets, but I'm saying (f.ex.) that although sharks and dolphins look similar and are both carbon-based, it doesn't mean they're the same thing and a creature from another planet would be even farther removed genetically.

No doubt. I still think you'd have basic plant and animal type lifeforms however. Unless of course, the life was based on a completely different element. So far there's no evidence that life can be anything other than carbon based. Imagine sentient minerals? Or perhaps gaseous beings? It boggles the mind.

[UnderdogDJLSW]

The Horta Episode of TOS had silicone based life.

[enyawd72]

The Horta Episode of TOS had silicone based life.

I never knew Cher was on Star Trek...

[mego73]

When I saw Hollow Man, when they made Kevin Bacon invisible he had to wear shades at first since his eyelids were transparent and he could not protect his eyes from the light.

And then I thought... Wait, his eyes and especially his retina is transparent now too and light passes through it so he should be blind. Any invisible man should be blind. Sort of takes the fun out of he fantasy of being invisible in the girl's locker room.

[ctc]

>although sharks and dolphins look similar and are both carbon-based, it doesn't mean they're the same thing and a creature from another planet would be even farther removed genetically

Maybe. The problem with this line of thinking is that when it comes to life in the universe we only have a sampling of one to look at; and that's a poor sampling. This is where I think you have to start givng the creators of sci-fi some credit, and some slack. It's entirely possible that what we know as life is universal; that not only do the same elements combine in similar ways across the universe, but that what we acknowledge as different phenotypes (ie: canine, arachnid, reptile, mold....) are universal as well. They might have different frequency, and there might be differing results from different circumstance, but you'll ALWAYS find something recognizable as a fish. Or a snake. Or a rat.... even though their place in the food chain may be different. So humanoid reptiles might be the norm for sentient life in most of the universe, and the reason we're not is 'cos our dinosaurs were killed off by happenstance and something else moved into their niche.

So when the dog people of Canis 4 are seen fighting a giant snake on Repticus 2, that scene might not be as far fetched as we think. And when you DO see stuff like that, you HAVE to accept that maybe this is the formula the author is using. (conscious, intentional or not; since there are all sorts of circumstance that can affect a sci-fi story.) You really can't call shennanegains 'cos according to what's "actually" happening in the story, that's how it works.

Improbable? Sure, but so is life existing at all. (and over the course of a few billion years you get more than enough tries for the probverbial ring so maybe not that improbable at all....)

Don C.

[torgospizza]

No doubt. I still think you'd have basic plant and animal type lifeforms however.

When watching Star Trek Into Darkness, I thought the red stalky plant things they were running through at the beginning was kind of interesting. I imagine they're using something other than chlorophyll for photosynthesis, otherwise they'd be green. They seem like they'd use photosynthesis for energy, since they're growing like plants. Whatever the case, I'm pretty sure I'm being too much of a dork even thinking about it and J.J. Abrams was just like, "Red weeds! Awesome!" and that's about it.

[jwyblejr]

When I saw Hollow Man, when they made Kevin Bacon invisible he had to wear shades at first since his eyelids were transparent and he could not protect his eyes from the light.

And then I thought... Wait, his eyes and especially his retina is transparent now too and light passes through it so he should be blind. Any invisible man should be blind. Sort of takes the fun out of he fantasy of being invisible in the girl's locker room.

And then you'll be thinking "Wait! Is it just his head or is it the rest that's also transparent? And if so,how does air stay in his lungs?" Which is why when you watch sci-fi,it's best to just switch off your brain and not think about things.

[torgospizza]

It's entirely possible that what we know as life is universal; that not only do the same elements combine in similar ways across the universe, but that what we acknowledge as different phenotypes (ie: canine, arachnid, reptile, mold....) are universal as well. They might have different frequency, and there might be differing results from different circumstance, but you'll ALWAYS find something recognizable as a fish. Or a snake. Or a rat.... even though their place in the food chain may be different.

I'm not sure they are universal, Don. Take hyenas, for example. They're kind of like dogs and sort of like big cats--more so than fish or elephants are, anyway--but they're neither of these things and they're living in the same ecosystem as wild dogs and predatory cats. But despite their differences with these other animal families, they shared a common ancestor--a creature from another planet wouldn't even have that in common with them.

You really can't call shennanegains 'cos according to what's "actually" happening in the story, that's how it works.

That's true. It's almost as if you have to look at it as a parable, with analogues employed to make the story more engaging for us.

[mego73]

Well the structure of the lungs are there, just transparent.

And then you'll be thinking "Wait! Is it just his head or is it the rest that's also transparent? And if so,how does air stay in his lungs?" Which is why when you watch sci-fi,it's best to just switch off your brain and not think about things.

[ctc]

>they shared a common ancestor--a creature from another planet wouldn't even have that in common with them

What I'm proposing is that they might have a very close equivalent, or an analog. That the patterns we saw here for evolution happen more or less the same on every planet with life, barring outside influence. So that common ancestor might be exactly the same, or slightly different, or completely different.... and that planet's equivalent of the hyena might have had a different ancestor altogether but evolved into something similar because it fit a niche.

Or maybe they have something close to a hyena because the underlying "canine" phenotype is universal, but theirs are twenty feet long 'cos an anomally in their biosphere kept oxygen levels WAY up, and facilitated much larger animals than we have.

>It's almost as if you have to look at it as a parable, with analogues employed to make the story more engaging for us.

That's definitely one way of looking at it.... but I prefer a more literalist interpretation. That what I see is what's "real" in the setting. And then I work backwards as needed. So rather than calling shennanegains on "oh, they're just dinosaurs!" I can imagine that there's a perfectly appropriate reason why planet Schmeedle has what are clearly Stegosauruses on it.

Suspension of disbelief is a two way street: the author has to facilitate it, but the audience has to be willing to accept what the author's putting out. There's a lot of complexity to that idea; preconceptions, expectation, climatization, nostalgia, fandom education and indoctrination.... but I always try to give the max leeway. It lets me enjoy more things:

>Wait, his eyes and especially his retina is transparent now too and light passes through it so he should be blind.

Unless he's become sensitive to wavelengths of light not normally visible. You could see Kevin Bacon with a thermal scanner; so his body wasn't blocking certain eminations. Maybe he saw in infrared or ultraviolet.

Ta-dah! Like that!

Don C.