NESLife VI

[thomas.berubeg]

Just out of curiosity, does anything here reproduce sexually?

 

[Patchy]

One of my evolutions was going to but it died in the huge extinction event that happened a few updates back.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

All extant multicellular organisms reproduce parthenogenetically- that is, they generate clones of themselves, which they then release into the environment. The now-extinct Ganger lineage had a set of castes which in several ways resembled genders, but only some of these were reproductive. The only true sexual reproduction to arise in multicellular organisms was in the Os-Puer, which sadly went extinct during the Graderian mass extinction.

 

[Daftpanzer]

Oh I see. Time to think up some interesting mating strategies.

I fail to understand the importance of deep sea vents ....

Also, you can have bacteria thriving in the hot, mineral-rich water coming out the vents, providing a food source that exists in the complete absence of sunlight and should be fairly insulated from massive extinction events near the surface. Although as LI said, one expects the vents are few and far between.

 

[Daftpanzer]

@Iggy, just thinking, why would a player use their evolution to develop genders / sexual reproduction? It wouldn't seem to give any benefits in terms of game mechanics, since we already have as much control over evolution as we will get. IF it allows faster evolution in future (through gene mixing), that is still 'evolving with a long-term plan' which is supposed to be against the spirit of the game. Maybe you can clarify this a bit? What are you expecting from players in this regard?

You see why in NESLife 1-5 I kept this abstracted in the background, and just assumed that every animal past the blobster had genders

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Gender allows for more genetic diversity, at the cost of slower reproduction. This would greatly increase the ability of a species to respond to changes in its environment.

 

[Lambda Ignaceae]

Essentially, as long as you can afford it, it should prove to be beneficial. If you are in a stable niche, not so much, but in lean times it can be a saviour.

 

[Daftpanzer]

Well... Hmm...

Gender allows for more genetic diversity, at the cost of slower reproduction. This would greatly increase the ability of a species to respond to changes in its environment.

I mean, you already have players controlling what mutations appear. Are you saying that species with genders will be 'healthier' in a generic way? OR will they give a 'boost' to future evolutions? Sorry to be picky about this, I just want to be clear how you are handling it

 

[Daedwartin]

Essentially, as long as you can afford it, it should prove to be beneficial. If you are in a stable niche, not so much, but in lean times it can be a saviour.

Forget stable niche. A species that partakes in it will be less likely to be killed off by a single disease.

The reason why the number of cheetahs is a issue is that cheetahs are not genetically diverse enough and cant get the diversity up efficeintly with the amount of remaining cheetahs, and they have ended up inbreeding. Inbreeding causes genetic definencies, which make it harder for that offspring to even hope to survive to reprodce in a stable niche.

Look at the Hapsburg. They had a relatively stable position. they Inbred so much though, they pretty much drove themselves extinct.

Hapsburg were lucky, too. It would have been real easy for a single disease to kill the family near the end as they were so genetically similar they would have gave the same amount of resistence.

It is useful in a stable niche because its a piece of insurance. If things start to go down the drain, at least some of my offspring will survive to reproduce.

As a result, hence why so much of the multi-cellaur life on earth sexually reproduces.

They had a much higher than average chance to have a offspring that survives to reproduce.

Well... Hmm...



I mean, you already have players controlling what mutations appear. Are you saying that species with genders will be 'healthier' in a generic way? OR will they give a 'boost' to future evolutions? Sorry to be picky about this, I just want to be clear how you are handling it

They would have likely a much higher chance of being healthier, as they would have a greater chance of being prepared for change.

 

[Lambda Ignaceae]

There are innumerable organisms that have done just fine for many many years without sexual reproduction. I would dare to suggest there are more that do not than do (Depending where you lie in the argument of bacteria's sexual habits).

Two examples of inbreeding is not a strong basis of argument. Antibiotics and the arms race there is a good place to start.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Well... Hmm...



I mean, you already have players controlling what mutations appear. Are you saying that species with genders will be 'healthier' in a generic way? OR will they give a 'boost' to future evolutions? Sorry to be picky about this, I just want to be clear how you are handling it

I'm saying that they'll have greater ability to withstand sudden changes and selective pressures in their environment. They won't be generically healthier as individuals, but as populations they'll be more diverse. For gameplay reasons, I'll not make their speed of evolution significantly faster.

Simply enough, sex increases your diversity. However, if you go for two genders, this slows your rate of population increase, due to having useless males who can't produce offspring in their own bodies. Mutual hermaphroditism has been a solution to that problem in several cases, as in the cases of earthworms and gastropods. However, sexual dimorphism does allow for greater specialization.

There are innumerable organisms that have done just fine for many many years without sexual reproduction. I would dare to suggest there are more that do not than do (Depending where you lie in the argument of bacteria's sexual habits).

Two examples of inbreeding is not a strong basis of argument. Antibiotics and the arms race there is a good place to start.

Aphids, for example, are born pregnant with their granddaughters inside of them, matryoshka-style. They produce clones of themselves, but are capable of reproducing sexually when needs be.

 

[Cannae]

Organism: Freeswimmer
Ancestor: Freefloater
Selective Pressure: Unable to control movement. Previously could only float.
Mutation: The freeswimmer is much like the freefloater. Much like it's ancestor freefloater, the freeswimmer mostly gets around by floating. However, the freeswimmer unlike the freefloater can swim for short distances. The freeswimmer has also gained the ability to detect differences/changes in sunlight. This gives it an edge over other similar organisms in finding the areas best for sunlight.

 

[Grandkhan]

I for one hope that we never develop sexual reproduction. It'd be absolutely hilarious. Think about it.

I'm stuck on thinking of an evolution. I want to do something for the Estabil, but I don't want to just rehash my previous three mouths idea. Hmmm.

 

[Lambda Ignaceae]

Chose the Zebpig! It needs a fork

 

[Daedwartin]

Chose the Zebpig! It needs a fork

any clue how to reduce size of pic.

also, heres a fork for the zebpig.

 

[Daftpanzer]

I hope Iggy doesn't mind me advertising here (since he co-opted the NESLife title ). I have just launched a long-delayed continuation of NESLifeV, using the rules Iggy has pioneered in this thread. You can find it here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=493266

Multiple NESLifes for the win!

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Yay! I don't mind you advertising here at all, the more the merrier!

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Here is the map of Lambda, as of the Haerentian Epoch.

 

[Daedwartin]

And a year later, we get to see a map of the era.
HALLELUJAH, IT"S BACK!

 

[Lord_Herobrine]