On Creating Imaginary Worlds: Questions and Answers

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Originally Posted by TorrnT

We could debate forever, but I was hoping on feed back for the short story idea. The catch is there were 2 bacterium capsules made. one to propagate the theropod species (made by the theropods) and one by the humans(made by the humans) the short story ends when the capsules get mixed up, only one gets sent back in time, (remember this bacteria was created in a lab to endure extreme conditions) you never find out which capsule has been sent back the only way to know is if, we either find theropods or humans (if any life at all) on other planets (if we survive as a species long enough to develop the tech for high speed space travel).

I just hoped the story could remain within the bounds of credibility.

I think what AGW is trying to say (and what Zubi-Ondo is incorrect about ) is that, scientifically speaking, your story is flawed. The idea that the seeds of life could come from alien worlds is completely credible. The idea that a bacterium could be engineered to survive the rigors of space travel is also completely credible. (In fact, you wouldn't even need any human tinkering to make this credible. Bacteria already flourish in extreme conditions on earth. All that would be needed to send a hardy bacterium into space is an asteroid impact.)

However, the idea that a bacterium could be "pre-engineered" to dictate how life will evolve in a particular environment is scientifically flawed. The only thing a bacterium is "programmed" to do is replicate itself. (Again, this requires no interference from humans.) (The controversy in this discussion stems from the question of whether this "programming" requires, at least, interference from God. My opinion on this issue is beyond the scope of my answer to your original question about the validity of your story idea. However, I think this controversy is the crux of the problem. Read on... In your story, theropods and humans are the instigators of "evolution." And you have been mum on the question of whether God plays any role.) Anyway, once a bacterium has slipped the surly bonds, as it were, the fate of any life it generates is up to environment and chance. (The fate of the bacterium itself is sealed, of course. Whether it replicates or not, it will die. Again...no interference from humans or theropods required.)

That said, you could still write a rip-roarin' good science fiction yarn from this idea. Science fiction is riddled with all sorts of scientific flaws. (You could argue that scientific flaws are necessary to good science fiction.) The idea of time travel is also scientifically flawed, but you don't see any of us jumping down your throat about that, do you? The theme of time travel is a science fiction mainstay. Your idea is a perfectly valid one for a science fiction story. "Credible"? Uh...no. But that's not necessary.

The problem with choosing evolution as the topic to...monkey with is that it's politically charged at the moment, in the US anyway. Your story might even be read as ID propaganda, depending on how you approach it. If IDers are your intended audience, no problem. But, for readers like myself and AGW, your story would have to be a rip-roarin' good read to offset the fact that we would grind our teeth into powder reading some of your language on "evolution" like, "This bacterium was engineered to skip the theropod stage..." etc.

[Urlik]

Originally Posted by The Pelagic Argosy

However, the idea that a bacterium could be "pre-engineered" to dictate how life will evolve in a particular environment is scientifically flawed. The only thing a bacterium is "programmed" to do is replicate itself. (Again, this requires no interference from humans.) (The controversy in this discussion stems from the question of whether this "programming" requires, at least, interference from God. My opinion on this issue is beyond the scope of my answer to your original question about the validity of your story idea. However, I think this controversy is the crux of the problem. Read on... In your story, theropods and humans are the instigators of "evolution." And you have been mum on the question of whether God plays any role.) Anyway, once a bacterium has slipped the surly bonds, as it were, the fate of any life it generates is up to environment and chance. (The fate of the bacterium itself is sealed, of course. Whether it replicates or not, it will die. Again...no interference from humans or theropods required.)

a bacterium could be engineered to provide an environment that is more suited to hominids rather than theropods, so hominids would be more likely to evolve, although how closely they would resemble humans is totally up for grabs.

Originally Posted by The Pelagic Argosy

That said, you could still write a rip-roarin' good science fiction yarn from this idea. Science fiction is riddled with all sorts of scientific flaws. (You could argue that scientific flaws are necessary to good science fiction.) The idea of time travel is also scientifically flawed, but you don't see any of us jumping down your throat about that, do you? The theme of time travel is a science fiction mainstay. Your idea is a perfectly valid one for a science fiction story. "Credible"? Uh...no. But that's not necessary.

well said.
sometimes the issues behind the story are more important than credibility, as long as there is an adequate hook for the reader to suspend his disbelief

[TorrnT]

God and evolution. 7 days to create the world and eve was made from the rib of man.
And that is just from the bible, I haven't placed anything from any other religious texts/codex.
It is to much for me to know which religion/pseudo religion is right or wrong, without one shred of evidence other than peoples conviction and faith in what they believe. (I come from a very religious family where not knowing the lords prayer could mean severe beatings)
Now that I am older it is personal observation and deduction that dictates what I chose to believe.

Amid the few of us the can reason and debate, hide crackpots and extremists, I would never want to influence anyone away from what they believed, no matter what age or cultural background they come from.

I will give this story a "by ball" Whither DNA and RNA can be engineered to get to a specific point is within the same realm as time travel, no one can say 100% it can't be done, they can only assume because it has not yet been achieved, also we are still in our infancy technology wise. The Nobel prize was won last year by 2 men that can now put information (data) on atoms.
However, I have no intention of stirring up a hornets nest with a theoretical piece of fiction that may be misconstrued as some sort of self motivated agenda. (and believe me, there are plenty that would think so)

So I am done with it. I have many other ideas that I can work on that do not teeter on the edge. I am already researching and building upon a current project based upon a single fantasy world, over done perhaps, but it contains evolution and Gods, where I address the conflict and much more without treading on to many toes I hope.
FINAL WORD:
I really do thank every one for there comments, they have opened my eyes and I have realised that many of my ideas are not ready for short stories based within science fiction.

[Zubi-Ondo]

Originally Posted by The Pelagic Argosy

I think what AGW is trying to say (and what Zubi-Ondo is incorrect about ) is that, scientifically speaking, your story is flawed.

If what you are saying is that Humans could do that, then I agree that we do not currently posses the technology to engineer evolution, but that was the basis of my misunderstanding that started all of this malarkey to begin with. I thought when he said "... always striving towards what it was intended to be" that he meant intended by a supreme power - the same variety of power that had created the universe to begin with. Since no one really knows how the universe was conceived, it's certainly within the bounds of possibility to suppose that there was an intention included in the shaping of any or all life that currently exists. Later, Torrn cleared up that his meaning was not that a supreme power had done this, but rather life forms going back in time and creating their own form of life. (presumably well after the universe has been in existence) I had apolgized to TorrnT, but I had not gone back to consider the plausability of the story in this new light. What I did say was that it is not necessary to start with bacteria. If all of the conditions are right, and all of the necessary resources are present, bacteria will grow out of those conditions where there was no bacteria before. As was mentioned there is currently plenty of bio-engineering experimentation going on - so how do we know that humans or therapods could not discover a way to engineer evolution itself in the future? We don't. That why they call it Science Fiction. The trick would be to make it sound plausible, and that depends on how much detail he goes into. Paul McAuley is a bilologist and a Science Fiction author. He is on my TBR list, but I haven't read him yet. He might have written some examples Torrn could use as a guideline.

- Z.

[chrispenycate]

Cautiously peers into the thread; i didn't want to interfere in the bipartite discussion – everyone knows which direction I lean, anyway.
But the principle reason you can't pre-program development towards sauriens into bacteria is lack of storage space. Very few chromosome pairs, almost all the space taken up with enzyme production, nourishment absorption and the like, things essential just to be classed as "alive".
If you can send back more complex organisms – oh, they can still be unicellular, but with more information storage capacity, it might be possible to install a tendency towards the pentadactyle limb (one point where there was a wide selection of possibilities and the choice appears to have been random) or even the bilaterally symmetrical chordate form.
But I'd say that the chief argument against this is that, on the one reference planet we know life has colonised, there is such a variety of solutions to each problem. Given an environment, a source of energy and raw materials, life will find several different means of exploiting it. Lower case "life", not some directing force. The idea of "only one way" is totally foreign to the evolutionary process, even if "the optimum solution" is grudgingly accepted.

Yes, it is one of the major characteristics of science that it always be ready to change it's position with new evidence, and should be attacking on as many fronts as life itself faced with polyethelene (it must be edible – try a different enzyme), testing the most ridiculous hypotheses until something can predict what is going to happen in a future experiment and is accepted as lower case truth – till the next discovery.

Religion knows the truth in advance, and will only accept experiments that give the required results. It is unfortunate that a number of scientists fall into this attitude, often later in life, but we're built to like certainty, security.

But science can never disprove religion. It's possible the universe was created last thursday, created with all the evidence (even our memories) that it had existed much longer.

However, I don't think any deity who would cheat like that is worthy of worship.

[TorrnT]

It was my fault for not correctly explaining the entire concept, so you have nothing to apologise for -Z

My confidence in this area was floundering thank you for the hand up -Z.
chrispenycate

Cautiously peers into the thread; i didn't want to interfere in the bipartite discussion – everyone knows which direction I lean, anyway.
But the principle reason you can't pre-program development towards sauriens into bacteria is lack of storage space.

I assume you know about quantum physics especialy particle physics such as photons, neutrinos and muons (and this is only what we presently know about with new discoveries every month), as well as a wide range of exotic particles(these reside within and around atoms), even now scientists can record data on atoms and retrieve it. So to say that DNA has not enough room is not true n the least. But do not take my word for it, the 2007 nobel prize winners Albert Fert and Peter Grünberg, tell them it is impossible.. you will find they will prove other wise. the process is called "Giant Magnetoresistance", google it.

Also do you understand the nature of DNA, The older the species the longer the chain, some jelly fish have much longer DNA strains than humans, If information is locked within atoms that make up amino acids which inturn make up DNA and RNA.... did I say I was done with this....This project is binned..

It is very important to know what you are referring to before you condemn something as impossible, I always do huge research into any idea as i am my own worst critic. I also would like to apologise if this seems like a rant, I am very passionate about science and do enjoy every comment, even if it knocks me off my perch sometimes.

[Urlik]

Torrn, write the story, don't bin it.
so it causes a few people to rethink something or ask serious questions, that is one of the basic goals of SF, and there are many more books that have caused far more controversy (and usually gone straight to the top of the best sellers lists).
if somebody's beliefs can be shaken by a story then thier beliefs couldn't have been that strong. if it is your story that causes this, it isn't your fault that they are so easily swayed by someone else's opinion in a fictional setting.

it is true that many simpler life forms have far more complex DNA than the more complex life forms, but much of that has to do with how to cope with reproduction in different circumstances. take frog spawn, that has to have different responses to water temperature and other external conditions to ensure that a tadpole will hatch and then turn into a frog. in a mammal, as fas as the egg is concerned, the exterior conditions are constant because they are contained within the mother and so there are less responses needed to be coded into the DNA to cope with change.

have a read of the 3 Science of Discworld books by Terry Pratchett for good, easy explanations of everything from the beginning of the Universe up to evolution and social dynamics.

[TorrnT]

First i would like to apologise to chrispenycate
When I am in a hurry my replies can be very terse, with amendments as an after thought.

I am deep into a project right now, and after careful consideration I believe the short story would need much more elaboration than I first considered, this is due to all the comments, (for which i am very grateful) this has allowed me to see up close all the screws and bolts that need tightening and oiled.
I write for the delight of penning inventive Ideas and the exploitation of the imagination, I have no ego to serve, so ambition runs thin in my veins.
Also with religion and science clashing under a political umbrella, I would rather not get pigeon holed before I finish other projects
Many thanks Urlik.. I am aware of Pratchett's political ambiguities..and I am ashamed to say am lagging behind in some of his novels... but I put this to the bane of all things... lack of time.

[Urlik]

the science of discworld books aren't exactly novels, although they do have a story running through alternate chapters to illustrate the points raised in the chapters where the science is explained.
the 3rd book science of discworld 3: Darwin's Watch is all about evolution and also busts the myths and removes a lot of the misunderstanding surrounding evolution and "survival of the fittest"
definitely worth a read if you are thinking of using evolution as a main theme in a story

[glandowski]

Originally Posted by chrispenycate

However, I don't think any deity who would cheat like that is worthy of worship.

I always enjoyed the idea of having the characters talking in the story about winning the favor of 'god' and then it occurs to me that indirectly they are speaking to me - if I like the character I'm more willing to bend the universe to help them and if I don't well, they'd best hit the road quick....

Yes - my wife says I am feeding my ego too....

[lin robinson]

Can a diety cheat?

[TorrnT]

Originally Posted by lin robinson

Can a diety cheat?

There is well over a thousand deities from different cultures, many cheated, The Norse god Loki is only one example.

[Culhwch]

I think lots of people on diets cheat. Though I'm not certain 'diety' is the proper descriptive term for them. Dieter, perhaps?

[TorrnT]

LoL...I sooo missed that

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Culhwch

I think lots of people on diets cheat. Though I'm not certain 'diety' is the proper descriptive term for them. Dieter, perhaps?

Or Diet-rich (which almost suggests cheating if you recall the phrase: "that's (a bit) rich", or even "rich food".

(On the other hand, Dietrich means skeleton key in German, which suggests no cheating at all. )


Anyway: back to the current discussion.

What we have here are two independent systems interacting with each other: the environment of a world and the ability of organisms to evolve.

Even with the interaction of two simple, deterministic systems, it can become impossible to determine any given outcome from the start conditions. But these are not simple systems: climate itself is chaotic and I suspect the same is true of genetics, in that it can come up with any number of "solutions" to a given "problem".