How Intelligent Life Evolves (And Why It Probably Looks Human) | Worldbuilding

Comments · 393

• EJ

  @EJinSkyrim · 3 years ago (edited)

  Sir, did you just evolve scientifically viable Mindflayers?? (I'm both impressed and Concerned. Those things scare me.)

  531

• TO

  @torfinnzempel6123 · 3 years ago

  Interesting thing about the relationship between sapience and language and learning; it has been scientifically proven that Cetaceons (whales and dolphins) have language. &nbsp;They don&apos;t just make sounds like other animals, but aftual language and even different dialects. We have yet to figure out how to translate cetacean to any human language, but we do know they have their own language. <br><br>Additionally, we also know that octopi can not only learn how to perform tasks; they can also teach those skills to other octopi. For example, you can teach a dog to sit and roll over, but that dog can not then teach those skills to other dogs. However, if an octopus has learned how to unscrew a cap on a jar to get the food inside; that octopus can subsequently teach that skill to another octopus that hasn&apos;t learned it yet. Additionally, scientists have observed octopi building at least 2 cities (on the ocean floor) with rules of behavior they enforce with banishment.

  318

• JI

  @JimWeaving-ty6tr · 2 years ago

  There are some adjustments I&apos;d make (because I&apos;m a biologist) to these alien species - particularly the one based on an octopus. &nbsp;Octopuses actually have very strong arms, which are very adept at grabbing, holding and manipulating objects. And just try to remove an octopus from something it&apos;s suckered on to - it&apos;s well-nigh impossible. They can open jars, and are well known for removing crabs from crab traps, as well as being able to reach into all kinds of crevices, grab something, then pull it - hiding inside coral formations offers little protection from an octopus! Also, if the alien octopus was similar to an Earth one it would have a (rather vicious) beak and neither a larynx nor a syrinx (which is what birds use). &nbsp;So it wouldn&apos;t be able to speak unless that particular trait was changed.<br>Just some thoughts from a biologist&apos;s perspective.<br>I still love your work though!

  84

• TO

  @torfinnzempel6123 · 3 years ago

  You could actually have Elves and Dwarves also evolve from the Nota, similar to how Neanderthal, &nbsp;Denisovens, and Florensians all evolved from Sahelenthropus

  244

• TH

  @Thaumh · 3 years ago

  Personally, I disagree with the Silarin becoming <b>that</b> much of a hominoid &quot;lizard-man&quot; species. Cephalization ≠ Hominization

  112

• CU

  @cube6794 · 3 years ago (edited)

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUluQEOSaUw&amp;t=875">14:35</a><br>One little nitpick:<br>Having a large, thick tail to counterbalance the front of the body works just as well as an erect back. If it worked for very large hunters like T. rex, I don&apos;t see why a convergence on a human-like body plan would be necessary.<br><br>In response to a similar, earlier concept for intelligent humanoid dinosaurs, an artist named C. M. Kosemen came up with an intelligent species that conserves a dinosaur-like bodyplan called Avisapiens saurotheos. Since YouTube doesn&apos;t like links very much, just searching up &quot;C. M. Kosemen Dinosauroids&quot; and clicking the first page suffices.

  110

• PD

  @Pds3.14 · 3 years ago

  Re: it probably looks human?<br>I think this is largely going to be true if the initial seed is a long-limbed quadrupedal terrestrial or arborial mammal that adapts to use its forelimbs as manipulators, especially one which lacks a heavy balancing tail.<br><br>However, it&apos;s far less clear what happens if the initial seed is something very different. If for example the body segments or limb count are different, or if it has a reptilian side-to side spine, only some things will converge, and some definitely won&apos;t. If monitor lizards develop sentience, it is rather unlikely they would look like us. Maybe more like us than they do now, but not like us.<br>Corvids, parrots, and otters have developed pretty extensive tool-using intelligence, but do not take on a human bodyplan. Nor is there any indication that they would do so if they began to make greater use of more complex tools along the lines of great apes. A corvid which uses hammer and anvil or ties knots need not lose its wings or tail and convert to having hands. Instead, it would likely evolve a more stable leg setup and a more effective manipulatory beak. Perhaps even a manipulatory tongue. But would overall remain vaguely Corvid-shaped and would near certainly make whatever compromises needed to retain flight, even if that limits intelligence or tool use. An otter which makes increased use of tools would likely remain mostly aquatic and retain its relatively short limbs and long twisty spine. It might even make its spine longer and twistier to more easily access and manipulate objects. It seems decidedly unlikely though that it would evolve into a terrestrial upright longlegged biped, even if it developed things like fire.

  139

• MI

  @MisterCynic18 · 3 years ago (edited)

  I would argue an upright posture would force silarins to sacrifice their speed, which would be too costly for plains hunting obligate carnivores, and they&apos;d gain all the spinal and joint problems that come from humanoid bipedalism. &nbsp;If anything becoming more ostrich-like would be the most likely direction, albeit with bigger heads/thicker necks and arms replacing wings.<br><br>I&apos;d also argue the competition with the silarins would keep the nota off out of the savannahs and from ever developing the human biped physiology, instead retaining more climbing related adaptations. &nbsp;They&apos;d probably end up as weird hairless almost human monkey people, like shaved chimps but with people faces.<br><br>I do think the na&apos;qwuil turning to parasitism to overcome the whole no bones issue is a really cool idea though.

  22

• NE

  @necroseus · 2 years ago

  One thing I do want to specify is that birds do something weird, but definitely still function within this system. <br><br>They are tetrapods, but two of their limbs are utilized for flight. So they only have two limbs (their legs) with functional digits. <br><br>For birds that are specialized for perching on branches (as opposed to ones which run, like ostriches), these digits can squeeze and grasp. So their manipulating limbs are <b>also</b> their locomotive (when on the ground) limbs, and are solely manipulative limbs when flying. <br><br>Alongside this, they adapted their mouths to be really good manipulative tools, as they have really complex neck muscles which allow for great dexterity. In combination with their feet, this trifecta of manipulation has interesting positives and drawbacks.<br><br>Looking at corvids, they use their feet and beaks to complexly break down food items. For manipulating material, they use their feet and bodyweight as anchors while they adjust items with their beaks. They can even pull a hanging object up with their beak, gradually trapping the slackened string under their feet to make sure it doesn&apos;t fall back down. <br><br>Ravens often pass items that they are carrying between their feet and their beaks as they are flying around... we don&apos;t know why, but because they are such complex/technical fliers, my guess is that they&apos;re modifying their weight distribution for different maneuvers.<br><br>And corvids are clumsy (as they scavengers that are more generalized for many tasks) when compared to parrots! Parrots can move their top and bottom jaws indepentantly from one another, which allows insane dexterity! Their feet are also more hand like, as they spend way less time on the ground than crows, so they are really good at item manipulation.<br><br>Basically, please be creative with how your organism is shaped! Keep in mind the fun complexities and challenges that exist based on design benefits and limitations! The rules laid out in the video are great, so follow them most definitely! But also don&apos;t be afraid to put a fun twist on the rules.<br><br>Off the top of my head, I can imagine a highly intelligent species of bird that has a specialized break, and has the ability to stand on one leg for long periods of time, such that it can use one foot and its beak in tandem. That, or one that can comfortably sit and make both feet available for use :)

  50

• NE

  @necroseus · 2 years ago (edited)

  For your plains runners, there is no need for them to become upright standing. Having a tail to balance yourself while already being bipedal is more energetically efficient than what we humans have. <br><br>We are only upright standing because we <b>didn&apos;t</b> have tails to balance with when we were freeing up our hands. Our endurance is so good, not because we are upright, but because we can sweat, which cools us actively while we are running. That is also why we lost our fur, to facilitate sweating.<br><br>It&apos;s very likely that those lizard guys would remain horizontal, but have upright heads :). Maybe their feathers would have an oily substance which, when flared out, allowed for really good heat exchange with the air, or something.<br><br><br>The bears are more accurate, as they also have no tails. Our pelvises became really small to support our uprightness (with women needing the smallest possible hips that are just large enough to manage giving birth). Though, their female&apos;s breasts wouldn&apos;t likely be in the same spot as humans. Grizzlies for example have 6 teats, with four on their chests, and two just above their groin. <br><br>Furthermore, you need to account for the reason that human women look the way they do when designing the sexual features of this bear species. Pimates are hugely attracted to rear ends. Mandrills, baboons, chimps, and many other primates have sexual selection pressures to have eye catching butts. <br><br>For mandrills, it&apos;s bright colours and prominence through posture. For humans, it&apos;s smoothness and jiggliness. Male eyes are really well adapted for seeing micro movements, so women have a lot of fat on their rears, as well as permanently enlarged breasts (which are rather rare in mammals).<br><br>Bears likely have different hunting specializations than humans, so their eyesight is good at different stuff. They&apos;re good at seeing colours for foraging, and movements obscured by water for fishing. Female bears might develop features on their face, teats, and hips to attract males. This might be lighter colours, intricate patterns, or even long and soft, translucent fur which mimics white water rapids.<br><br><br>I <b>REALLY</b> dig your octopus idea! The concept of an intellectual parasite is incredible, and is a really cool way to spin the anatomical strengths and weaknesses of the species. Very well done, and a really cool way to encourage uniqueness due to physical differences from other animals!! There are all sorts of cultural implications that come from such a different style of life that would be really cool to explore.<br><br>Super sweet video overall, and I appreciate the effort :)! I know this video is old and this comment likely won&apos;t be seen, but I&apos;d be very interested to hear yourthoughts on what I&apos;ve said above! Thanks for the solid stuff, dude! Keep it up :)

  15

• GR

  @GraysonOhnstad · 3 years ago

  This is definitely a fun part of the process. Interested in seeing how these creatures develop over time.

  75

• FR

  @Frinvithe · 3 years ago

  I could easily see Na&apos;qwuil going on to selectively breed certain creatures to optimally function as their hosts, almost like having livestock species to act as their perfect bodies depending on their specialization in society. Maybe they would even try to develop hosts that can survive without a brain so they can switch between host species more freely. I&apos;ve also got to wonder what role technology would have in all this once they invent robotics capable of reading neuron signals. All very interesting stuff. I can&apos;t wait to see how you develop it!

  42