Or maybe because you are forgetting what I write every 2 replies.
assuming that a person made the original one and made it me quite inefficient but still able to survive and get places to get fuel and reproduce A. sexually or B asexually and only when stimulated there would be lots of space whales evolving including ones that use radiosynthesis most likely to travel between solar systems if necessary
itâs not supposed to be a reply to specifically that i just didnât want to do a double post
Iâve enabled slow mode for this topic as this is going very badly.
I wonât join the debate again, but Iâll just point out that using gish gallop is very weak argumentation
The Gish gallop /ËÉĄÉŞĘ ËÉĄĂŚlÉp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. In essence, it is prioritizing quantity of oneâs arguments at the expense of quality of said arguments.
So please, when your previous argument is shut down, think how your next claim on how space whales can work is actually feasible and you arenât just throwing anything out there you think might work.
3 Likes
But actually living mostly in space seems pretty much impossible. Someone was talking about solar sails, but those take a very long time to get moving, and precise control is pretty much impossible. Thereâs also the issue of getting enough biomass. In space, deep space especially, thereâs barely any matter suitable for growth or healing, and somebody mentioned going to a gas giant for fuel/nutrients, but that just puts the organism into another planterâs gravity that they have to use fuel to escape.
And reproduction has to be asexual. There is no realistic way for two of these space creatures to reproduce sexually.
What about getting energy? Photosynthesis requires light, but without an atmosphere the light is also extremely dangerous. Maybe the organism could turn itâs fuel into energy that it can use, but then thereâll be less fuel for movement.
Lastly, how and why would an organism evolve all these traits!?
no light is dangerous if you have chloroplast like organelles with compounds that turn every wavelength of light into ATP around your nuclei and have smaller ones in skin/leaf cells to photosynthesize
UV light is a major problem for plants in real life, so it would be a problem even if you have chloroplasts.
Also @hhyyrylainen the slow down is not working on making willow think before posting
1 Like
Alright bois, pack it up. Thrive can only include organisms with fossil evidence or living evidence. Everything else gets thrown out.
There is no chloroplast that absorbs every wavelength of light, and the light is still just as dangerous even if there was.
Also, getting water and nitrogen (both vital for photosynthesis) is nearly impossible in deep space.
Thrive isnât constricted to living organisms or LAWK, but to what can realistically develop naturally.
One last thing, slow mode is really annoying⌠but I get why itâs on.
as fralegend made me realize this is how i need to explain it the reason nothing on earth has a chloroplast with melanin in itâs thylakoids around itâs nucleus are
-
evolution is blind
-
if an organismâs DNA does not know about anything not stored in it so it canât make compounds it doesnât have the information to make the compound so it takes a long time or getting infected by a virus carrying the DNA for that molecule
-
cells cannot easily move their organelles if they are not amoebas or amoeboid cells and they definitely cannot force them to fuse so they would have to generate a membrane around the nucleus and rip open the organelles inside that membrane to get an organelle like that and then spend energy to keep it from making a new membrane but split the membrane when the DNA divides into chromatids and the nucleus would have to start smaller and grow with the membrane around it and cells just will not do that by random chance unless given infinite time and infinite resources
-
it would have to be made by a sapient creature A. playing a game or B. modifying somethingâs genes
those are the four reasons that organelle is not real yet
@TristanMisja the reason that there is no chloroplast that absorbs every wavelength of light is that there is no organism that has a chemical to absorb every wavelength
âThe reason it doesnât exist is because it doesnât existâ
Well, theres most likely a reason why it doesnât exist.
The organisms on earth that have chloroplasts are green because theyâre adapted to absorb a certain type of light effectively.
Unless a star emits all wavelengths of light, there would be absolutely no reason to have this be a favorable trait, and thus be ignored while other traits are favored.
Well a now hidden post in this thread was reported as nonsensical magical handwaving (I didnât have enough mental energy to read and digest it so I asked someone else on the team). Seeing as there are now multiple people getting offtrack in trying to prove things, this thread is at a great risk of being locked now.
1 Like
theyâre basically arguing that just because things didnt evolve on earth, doesnt mean that they cant evolve
which is true
but thats just like arguing that just because we havent sent any teapots to space, doesnt mean that there arent any teapots in space
its not gonna help you argue for the existence of space whales
you need to prove that space whales can evolve and show a plausible evolutionary path
EDIT: skimmed through their post again
they actually did suggest some stuff
i somehow missed that
this is what happens when you skim through posts about a useless discussion that you dont care about
anyway, lots of sugestions and possibilities, no explanations as to how these things might work, no mentions of specific materials and molecules, no precise, detailed, and plausible evolutionary pathway, nor any proof for space whale existence
7 Likes
I am very pro-space whales but youâre completely right. This is a big problem on the forum, people disprove other peopleâs fallacious points instead of making a good argument. I plan to do some research tomorrow and get a plausible set of steps for how to evolve lawk-like methods for getting into space. However my end goal isnât space whales. Itâs space reefs. Those just make much more sense to me.
1 Like
I wrote this yesterday, before Topcodeâs post was hidden, but I spent quite a bit of time writing it, so Iâll post it anyways. Tell me if itâs bad or if couldâve used better wording or something.
Because a chemical like that doesnât exist. Unless youâre talking about visible light, in which case the organism is completely belgium anyways.
And again, even if a chemical that absorbs all wavelengths of light existed, it wouldnât make a difference. The organism would actually suffer much more damage than if it didnât have that. And then there are all the other issues that me and others have pointed out.
Just so you know, stars do emit all wavelengths of light, just not equally.
@Topcode I was essentially just saying that Thrive can include anything that couldâve evolved on Earth.
Thereâs no need need to be so aggressive or to insult people.
But your arguments seem to be pretty flawed,
so first of all,
We do, actually. The tides were likely very important in the development of terrestrial life, and it reflects light onto parts of Earth that are in nighttime.
Second,
that ecosystem argument is pretty much irrelevant, as you didnât explain how an ecosystem would form, and it is in no way a solution to the lack of water and nitrogen in deep space. The conditions of your little jar ecospheres and deep space are COMPLETELY different.
nobody said that there is no light. The issue is that thereâs too much of it, and if an organism wants to protect itself from that light (and from the lack of any pressure), it needs durable, thick protection. But photosynthesis also needs light, which the protection is covering. Thereâs a tradeoff between protection and photosynthesis.
And this is also not a solution, because if its outside is transparent, then the radiation can get through, which means a dead organism.
Sure, but how would life be able start on those environments? And that doesnât actually explain how or why they would get to space.
You clearly do not get just how tall those organisms would need to be to get through a planet or moonâs atmosphere, and how would they get the other ingredients for photosynthesis (nitrogen, water, carbon) or nutrients to survive? If you say from the soil, then all that stuff has to travel from the surface of the world to the leaves up above. Thereâs still the issue of protection from unfiltered solar radiation, and the last problem I can think of is how the organism would hold itself together, because even in a world with 0.1% of Earthâs gravity, it would either snap or bend so much that itâs no longer in space.
And lastly, it very much does matter. Evolution does not work like your imagination. Organisms evolve when there is pressure to. This entire discussion is about how life in deep space could realistically evolve, not about impossible magically-appearing organisms. Go look in Forum Games if you want that kind of stuff.
I have thought of a potential way for a space organism to get some energy passively, but I obviously do not think space life, at least how itâs been discussed, is possible, and this idea I have has plenty of issues.
Essentially, itâs outer surface is thick, heavy, and shiny enough to block a majority of non-ionizing radiation and some ionizing radiation, and whatever gets through is partially absorbed by radiosynthetic cells covering the inside of itâs outer surface, allowing it to get energy from light without getting scorched.
Again, I know this probably wouldnât actually work.
With all that said, in my opinion this thread should be closed. Whatâs being discussed doesnât fit into Future Game anymore, and itâs going the same way the various underwater civilization threads have.
7 Likes
I will make a suggestion here to prevent circles of meaningless arguments and help us obey rule 15.
Rule 15:
If you want to make an argument for space whales go ahead, but if you want even the slightest chance of ever seeing anything like it in thrive, start from the ground up. Cite a source for EVERY claim you make.
Stop with wild speculation like:
To the people arguing for space whales, provide proof for every claim you make. In a debate like this you do not have the luxury of saying âIâm sure one exists.â Prove it.
While I take issue with some of the claims made in the proof for underwater metalworking, I respect the argument made here. If you want to change minds, make a solid argument, because that changed my mine far more than anything Iâve seen in one of the threads.
(For the record Iâm still not convinced an UWC is possible, but this is not the place to discuss that. It just serves as a good example and I need to make sure this doesnât come back to bite me lol)
I really donât want every thread under Future Game to turn into another underwater civs like so many others have before. So many have been closed now. Continue as you will, but I will remind you once again of Rule 15. It will be enforced.
9 Likes
Ah yes the first 217 words which is almost just facts about how little we know about life.
Skipping 2 paragraphs the 140 words which has some more opinion sprinkled in, but is also just mostly facts regarding the needs of life, and why they are met in space given the right conditions.
Moving back to the skipped 60 words, thatâs just summarizing the issues with the space whales idea.
The next 43 words are a bit of an iffy part because Iâm too lazy to research all of what life can and canât produce to find something that fits. Thereâs plenty of clear things that would work, just no idea if life can make them.- obselete cause i finally did research, was boring, creatures can make very high quality glass tho
The next 42 words are simply stating that there are situations where it is way easier to get to space, there are. I could have elaborated on all the methods to actually get there, but I wonât
The next 95 words is the most speculative of all, which is that plants like light, getting above other plants is more light, so plants go high, high plants maybe go to edge of space and have similar adaptations to space. Most of that, is based on the established fact that things grow tall. The rest is based on the fact that very high altitude is very similar to space in hazards. But that doesnât explain how they make the jump, which I wonât bother doing, because Iâm not making a research paper.
The final 21 words is me telling everyone to not be tied to an earth centered point of view, and to think about possibilities outside of earth.
So of these over 600 words, roughly 60 of them are strongly based on speculation. I have no idea how that is nonsensical or magical, but I guess the community has spoken.
So if I understand this correctly, the only thing allowed on this post is âSpace whales are possible because Xâ, or âspace whales are impossible because Yâ. Not âthis reason for space whales to be possible/impossible is bad because Zâ This seems to be some sort of unspoken rule that I was unaware of, sorry.
I am not writing a research paper on space whales, and neither is anyone else here.
There are some valid complaints that could be made, such as it being rude to call peopleâs ideas stupid. Whatever the case, it seems I donât have any wanted input, so whatever.
Just go back, read the whole post. It can be very beneficial, my posts are sometimes scattered and not ordered perfectly, and while thatâs my fault it doesnât help when you donât read all of it.
you already forgot the section regarding ecospheres, they dont need a constant supply to survive in the described premise, only to grow. Periodically our high altitude balloon animals could return to the surface to intake nutrients, reproduce, etc while using the high altitude to escape predators and reach light. In addition, the jump to complete isolation would only happen when they transitioned to space, the air would still be accessible until then.
the why is later⌠read at the post before responding
water can protect from most of the most harmful, admittedly some may get through, but pigments and such can be used to mitigate that.
on a moon? good question. refer to the earlier section of the post where I really explain how little we know about life. I cant answer how life would start there, neither can anyone definitively answer how life would start anywhere.
how? good question, i cant tell you for sure, low gravity means a higher atmosphere which means that while getting to space is easier, its still not easy. volcanic eruptions, geysers, meteor impacts, etc could all be spontaneous ways that this occurs. intentional ways though, less of an idea.
There IS a pressure for plants to go higher, and space is about as high as you can get.
nty, i was unaware that i needed to write a research paper here
but anyways doing some research it does exist, some organisms can create large and clear silica crystals, which is basically just glass, which does the job of clear sturdy thing good enough, and ill even cite a source, granted its Wikipedia but i cant be bothered.
ill let you get to deleting all the posts that dont cite sources (the entire thread)
and no, i wont make sources for the other speculative claim, as stated i cant be bothered to make a research paper, and what sparked this is already hidden.
@hhyyrylainen can i make a group chat for this topic without the people who constantly try to prove that space whales could exist without using any evidence for their claims
i meant several chemicals that each absorb different parts of the spectrum but all produce ATP not one magical chemical that uses all the wavelengths so i guess i did not explain it well enough.
if i post an explanation that does not make sense try to think of it in a way that makes more sense
1 Like
As long as I donât eventually have to jump in due to people reporting each other. Iâm aware that some forum games have DMs with quite a lot of participants.
and this is the problem.
If you expect to win this kind of arguement, specific, scientifically plausible examples need to be provided. Can you anticipate all the ways life could potentially evolve on a moon, or all possible materials that could fit your purposes? No, but you could provide a fleshed out example, from initial development to end product, of how a creature or multiple creatures could survive in space.
A well written, polite argument with valid sources, using a specific speculative example and citing valid scientific evidence for your speculation is a hundredfold more likely to get people to consider your argument than a flippant, vaguely described argument backed by little evidence other than your say so.
I personally agree that space whales are possible. But when arguing in favor of something, it is your job to find and share evidence, not the job of those who disagree with you.
This is true, my game hasnât even come out and its chat has 13 people in it, and Immortalâs chat has even more (roughly 16-20 people)
4 Likes