708

Experiments (mander.xyz)

submitted 6 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] nihilomaster@lemmy.ml 75 points 6 months ago

I could swear I have built all of those in Spore at some point.

[-] OpenStars@discuss.online 53 points 6 months ago

[-] Aquilae@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago

The ones on the right are kinda cute imo

[-] Dagnet@lemmy.world 52 points 6 months ago

Just play Spore and you will understand

[-] chasingtheflow@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Was spore worthwhile?

[-] Dagnet@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago

At the time it was revolutionary, till this day I haven't seen any attempts at recreating it. I did prefer the earlier 2 stages tho (as in evolution stages), later it wasnt as much fun.

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

It was more revolutionary the day before it was released than the day after though. That game was my first lesson in not getting hyped about something just based on what marketers were saying.

The game could have used at least a few more years of baking. The earlier stages were more complete, though IMO even they lacked breadth and depth. But the later ones were disappointing in their simplicity.

[-] Ophioparma@feddit.de 6 points 6 months ago

Be preoared then: https://revolutionarygamesstudio.com/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1779200/Thrive/

Actually, they working on the microbe stage for years now, but their goal is actually the whole Spore experience.

[-] Dagnet@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

That's cool, pretty cheap too. I hope they finish it eventually

[-] Adalast@lemmy.world 46 points 6 months ago

Geez, it's like nobody has ever played Spore.

[-] icetree@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 months ago

Spore

More spikes is always the correct solution.

[-] merari42@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Too few phallic animals for that

[-] galoisghost@aussie.zone 30 points 6 months ago

Did they really look like this or were there big fat blubbery bits that didn’t survive fossilisation

[-] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 40 points 6 months ago

Unlikely for there to be bubbly bits. These are bugs, so we know their shape because their exoskeleton (which is what fossilizes) is their shape. Fish haven't evolved yet

[-] leftzero@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 6 months ago

These seem to be illustrations of Burgess Shale organisms, Burgess Shale being renowned for the excellent preservation of soft tissues in its fossils, so the bubbly bits were actually quite well preserved, if maybe a bit squished and deflated.

[-] galoisghost@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago

Thanks. I looked it up.

You saying these are bugs tickles my funny bone imagining a metre long anomalcaris scuttling out from under the fridge, like a scene from a Cronenberg movie.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 22 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Life got pretty boring following the last mass extinction. So many mammals evolved from that mouse which survived that we all have the same basic features from hamsters to humans. So much so that mice are a good experimental model for humans...

[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

It was the N64 era of evolution.

[-] azi@mander.xyz 21 points 6 months ago

First one looks like an urchin with pattern baldness

[-] ComfortableRaspberry@feddit.de 27 points 6 months ago

My first thought was "a brain with blades in it" and now I wonder how different our answers in a Rorschach Test would be...

[-] TurtleTourParty@midwest.social 6 points 6 months ago

In my mind the brain blades can extend and retract wolverine style.

[-] Neon@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

okay, but seriously, why did they evolve so differently than modern-day fish? and if we magically reintroduced them, would they be more fit or less fit than modern-day fish?

[-] ImInLoveWithLife@lemm.ee 23 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I am not a biologist or really anyone with any authority on the matter. Just some guy who likes to read and think about all manner of subjects, so I cannot adequately explain anything here, but if you're interested in the why, it really boils down to the simplicity of morphological structures early in the development of life on earth, to more complex as evolution did its thing. That's not to say that evolution has a goal, just that added complexity often means greater advantages. Also, it isn't as though nothing similar to these creatures exist at all today. These basal forms were a prerequisite to the life we see in the oceans (and on land) today.

Definitely stay interested and read more about morphology and evolution in general! Fascinating stuff.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 6 months ago

One of the big advances around then was being able to be an effective predator at all. It's likely one of the big causes for the Cambrian explosion was the arms race to not be eaten vs being able to eat your neighbors effectively.

[-] olafurp@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

It was a different meta back then. Bottom right is as apex predator

[-] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 11 points 6 months ago

It's just a phase.

[-] CptEnder@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Early devbrach alpha build, balancing and design got implemented through testing.

[-] BreadOven@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

You know what they're doing? Their goddamned best.

[-] embed_me@programming.dev 4 points 6 months ago

Tatakae

[-] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 6 months ago

Or, just like dinossaurs, we don't know how they actually looked like because fossile records only contain bones.

[-] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 6 months ago

Other tissues can become fossilized but it's less common as the conditions need to be just right. That's how we know some dinosaurs had feathers and what their skin texture was like.

Cambrian genera like Hallucigenia completely lacked bones and we have numerous fossils of them from deposits of shale. That's how we know what they looked like: tiny Lovecraftian horrors.