The Ancients: An Evolutionary Perspective (possible spoilers for Season 6 and SGA)

[220683]

Some people raised a few good points about how far fetched it is for the evolution to be so similar if the Ancients evolved on another planet. What if the environment are the same?

Here's my slightly different take on the evolution of Ancients and Tau'ri.

1. The Ancients evolved on another planet, possibily from another Galaxy.
2. They started the plan to seed the galaxy, and they found Earth.
3. Earth environment is close to what they are looking for, but not 100.00%.
4. Ancients like to do everything grand, with their technology (million years ahead of the Gadmeer) they terraforms Earth with ease and precision.
5. Coupled with their acute understanding of the human genetics, Earth is terraformed and seeded exactly according to plan.

Then we have this huge gap, where the Ancients went to Pegasus and also encounters the unknown 'plague'.

How's that? I think it's doable.

[LordAnubis]

Minor quibble. In a recent enterprise episode named E squared where they encounter a time displaced Enterprise theyre are shocked to find the captain is a human/vulcan hybrid and its said that it cant occur naturally. The crux is that the doctor had to creat a new medical technology to do it.

Isn't that what I said? It's not natural and would not realistically occur.

[LordAnubis]

To LtLisa's comments:

don't think so...I don't think our fossil record, especially around that time, is so bad that we'd miss this. (can't recall what journal this article was in, but talked the professor who did research on the fossil record before and after the dinosaur extinction....suffice it to say, LOTS of fossils). Not to mention that at that point, the only mammals around were rat like, not anywhere near what an Ancient would be
======
actually, thats a misconception of the evolutionary theory; it implies that evolution has direction or a final step, which it doesn't. Natural selection doesn't lead to 'more advanced lifeforms' it results in the evolution of lifeforms more suited to their environments...or those organisms become extinct.
=======
Not genetically. Even chimpanzees and bonobos (BOTH of which are our closest related species contrary to popular belief...its a cladistics thing, if anyone wants I'll try and explain but its hard without looking at a phylogenetic tree) anyhow, chimps don't necessarily share 99% of our genes; that figure is very controversial...and thats one of the closest related species.

The thing is, with evolution, organisms can share traits because they have a common ancestor (which had that trait) or due to convergent evolution (similar solution to the same problem...ie: bats and birds both have wings, but not due to a common ancestor). For convergent evolution the biochemical pathways and genetics are thought to differ since the trait in question evolved twice. In other words, if humans and Ancients evolved independently of one another they might look alike (although the odds are astronomical...think of the differences between bats and birds), but they'd be different biochemically and genetically...more different then they are according to Fraiser. I'll come back to this at the end, since I have a theory...
=====
we really don't know though, thats the problem. However, life as we know it is based on the special properties of carbon (it has four valence electrons so it can have four chemical bonds). There are other elements such as sulfur with this property, but they are heavier and are bigger (have more electron shells so bonds are weaker cause they're further apart). Carbon dioxide, which is important in daily life and the evolution of life is very stable and formed maturally. Sulfur dioxide is unstable and IIRC has to be made in the lab to get any useful amounts. I tend to agree with the idea though, as I don't believe that the Ancients could possibly be the result of convergent evolution ANYWHERE
=======
ok, heres where my theory comes in: I don't think we're descended from the Ancients, I think they're descended from us. I think that sometime in the future, a group of humans (by then advanced to the point of being ANcients) will end up going back in time. They end up doing all the stuff the Ancients did, as they always were supposed to (thus protecting the timeline). Don't ask me how or why...ask Carter...I'm no physicist. This solves the whole evolution problem nicely; the Ancients evolved from us in the future not millions of years ago when they couldn't possibly have done so. Thats why we're so similar and why we're finding evidence of them so long ago. What do you think?[/QUOTE]
You made some valid points about evolutionary biology, but you seemed to ignore some points I made.

You said:
don't think so...I don't think our fossil record, especially around that time, is so bad that we'd miss this. (can't recall what journal this article was in, but talked the professor who did research on the fossil record before and after the dinosaur extinction....suffice it to say, LOTS of fossils). Not to mention that at that point, the only mammals around were rat like, not anywhere near what an Ancient would be

You must not have read this part:

If they evolved on Earth, where are the fossil records? If you're an archaeologist and you dig up some ruins and find human skeletons, are you going to know whether they are Ancients or humans? Nope. If you do carbon dating and find they are millions of years old, yes...but the thing is, unless soemthing was extraordinary about the site, no one would even think to do dating on the bones because they would assume they were "human" remains. What about the technology? Hard to say, but it's a fair bet that there are Ancient ruins and tech buried on Earth in the Stargate universe and we have either not found it or not recognized it for what it is.

Also, the parts of the world where the Ancients lived might now be underwater, frozen under ice, or buried under sand. The Earth has changed a great deal over millions of years. Another thing to consider: the Goa'uld were here for many thousands of years, right? While they were here, they probably came across some of the Ancient technology, so they may have taken it away to study it, removed it so we won't see technology that is equal to or more advanced than theirs (after all, if the Goa'uld are gods, then who created technology that is more powerful than that of the gods?), or destroyed it since it was no longer working.

We know the Goa'uld were here on Earth for a long time, but even Daniel acknowledged several times that not much of their technology was discovered. I mean Osiris' ship was buried in a pyramid for thousands of years and no one discovered it, Hathor's sarcophagus was buried in Central America for 2 thousand years and it wasn't discovered, Telchak's healing device was found in Season 7 in SOuth America, but had been there (and it was Ancient tech) for thousands of years. Of course the Antarctic Outpost was there since Atlantis was on Earth and it was only recently discovered. The Giza gate wasn't found until 1928 after being buried thousands of years ago.

You see my point? Time and geographic changes cause erosion, decay,and displacement. Left over tech and human remains breakdown and get buried and lost. There is no reason to assume we would find it. If some of it was found, would we even know what it is? Plus, the Ancients may have taken their ships and tech with them when they left Earth.

There were many more mammals around at that time, but you're probably right, no primates, and certainly no humans, but this is hard to rectify given the info they gave us in the series.

As for fossil records, it is a television show; it's going to have plot holes because the writers do not have PhDs in paleontology, archaeology, or evolutionary biology. I agree, it seems like they shouldn't have evolved on Earth, but I believe they did for the reasons I argued above.

You said:
actually, thats a misconception of the evolutionary theory; it implies that evolution has direction or a final step, which it doesn't. Natural selection doesn't lead to 'more advanced lifeforms' it results in the evolution of lifeforms more suited to their environments...or those organisms become extinct.

Natural selection does NOT strive for perfection, but only survival and adaptation. In some cases, you're right, life does not always advance, but usually, changes are for the better, and betterment = advancement, not perfection.

You said:
Not genetically. Even chimpanzees and bonobos (BOTH of which are our closest related species contrary to popular belief...its a cladistics thing, if anyone wants I'll try and explain but its hard without looking at a phylogenetic tree) anyhow, chimps don't necessarily share 99% of our genes; that figure is very controversial...and thats one of the closest related species.

The thing is, with evolution, organisms can share traits because they have a common ancestor (which had that trait) or due to convergent evolution (similar solution to the same problem...ie: bats and birds both have wings, but not due to a common ancestor). For convergent evolution the biochemical pathways and genetics are thought to differ since the trait in question evolved twice. In other words, if humans and Ancients evolved independently of one another they might look alike (although the odds are astronomical...think of the differences between bats and birds), but they'd be different biochemically and genetically...more different then they are according to Fraiser. I'll come back to this at the end, since I have a theory...

Yes and no...basically don't be fooled by the genetics argument because it can be misleading. If you took a sample of let's say, python DNA, it would share many of the same amino acid sequences as dog DNA, but then at some point, the strand differentiates and becomes unique to dogs. All terrestrial animals share common DNA threads, but not the entire strand; it breaks off and becomes unique. What's interesting is that for some, that strand of DNA becomes more similar.

Example:

Human DNA: XOX OOX XXX XXO OXO 123 456
Cat DNA: XOX OOX XXX XOX XOX 349 483

The first three sequences are identical; common to mammals for example, but the last sequences are different and those differences make us unique.

With humans and chimps, however, everything is the same except the last sequence, which makes them "more related" to us than the cat, for example. Interestingly, cats and dogs share the same sequences except the last sequence, just like we do with chimps, which shows their common ancestor, but of course, they are different species incapable of mating.

Now my point about things we share wiht other Earth-evolved life is that we all do share common ancestors. Thus, we all have some common DNA sequences, but more than that, we have mathematically compatible skeletal and other morphological components. These are shared evolutionary traits that show we have a common ancestor. If the Ancients evolved on a different planet, then we humans would be somewhat (or a lot) different from Earth animals.

Parallel evolution happens a lot; it's happened here on earth. You mentioned bats and birds both having wings. This is not parallel evolution, but rather it's just an extreme form of convergent evolution/natural selection. In order for the pre-bat thngy to get food, evade predators, etc., it probably started off like a flying squirrel ...using it's arms as gliders with flaps of skin to aid it in its gliding. However, through evolution, the arms became functional wings...similar to the wings of birds, yet markedly different. This is not parallel evolution. Parallel evolution is like comparing a bird or bat with a flying insect like a dragonfly.

Birds and bats have wings that are homologous; they have the same embryological and functional origin, which is the front limbs (arms). They have bones and muscles and tendons just like our arms do, but they use their arms for flight, not for holding and grasping. A dragonfly or butterfly, however, has distinct limbs and legs; it's wings are not modified limbs, but rather they are unique organs designed for flight, not modified for flight. Both have wings and can fly, but these wings are analogous, not homologous. This is parallel evolution: accomplishing the same biological objective (in this case, flight) through vastly different physical means.

[LordAnubis]

//based on basic principles of evolutionary biology (not that I'm an expert in this area, but have done enough research and am studying it in college)//

actually this IS what I'm studying in college, so here goes...

//The Ancients evolved on Earth millions of years ago, but after the fall of the dinosaurs. Don't ask me exact dates, but this is possible given the times. We're talking maybe 70-100 million years ago maybe, but not sure exactly.//

don't think so...I don't think our fossil record, especially around that time, is so bad that we'd miss this. (can't recall what journal this article was in, but talked the professor who did research on the fossil record before and after the dinosaur extinction....suffice it to say, LOTS of fossils). Not to mention that at that point, the only mammals around were rat like, not anywhere near what an Ancient would be


//If you subscribe to the evolutionary model of human existence, you accept the basic principle that lower life progresses, through the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest), adaptation, and mutation, into more advanced life. //

actually, thats a misconception of the evolutionary theory; it implies that evolution has direction or a final step, which it doesn't. Natural selection doesn't lead to 'more advanced lifeforms' it results in the evolution of lifeforms more suited to their environments...or those organisms become extinct.

//All life on Earth "fits" together into a common pattern and form. //

ok, yes due to coevoltion over time and common ancestors (a long time ago)

//The differences can SEEM vast, but when you think about it, many animals have more in common than not.//

Not genetically. Even chimpanzees and bonobos (BOTH of which are our closest related species contrary to popular belief...its a cladistics thing, if anyone wants I'll try and explain but its hard without looking at a phylogenetic tree) anyhow, chimps don't necessarily share 99% of our genes; that figure is very controversial...and thats one of the closest related species.

The thing is, with evolution, organisms can share traits because they have a common ancestor (which had that trait) or due to convergent evolution (similar solution to the same problem...ie: bats and birds both have wings, but not due to a common ancestor). For convergent evolution the biochemical pathways and genetics are thought to differ since the trait in question evolved twice. In other words, if humans and Ancients evolved independently of one another they might look alike (although the odds are astronomical...think of the differences between bats and birds), but they'd be different biochemically and genetically...more different then they are according to Fraiser. I'll come back to this at the end, since I have a theory...

//Parallel evolution on a different planet is quite a leap. ...
Earth-based biology has commonality. If you evolved on another planet, your blood might be copper based or aluminum based. You might require more nitrogen than oxygen, or you might be able to process more carbon dioxide/monoxide. Your biochemistry would be completely different. In short, if the Ancients evolved on Planet X and only came to Earth to colonize, they would be different in some way from all other Earth life.//

we really don't know though, thats the problem. However, life as we know it is based on the special properties of carbon (it has four valence electrons so it can have four chemical bonds). There are other elements such as sulfur with this property, but they are heavier and are bigger (have more electron shells so bonds are weaker cause they're further apart). Carbon dioxide, which is important in daily life and the evolution of life is very stable and formed maturally. Sulfur dioxide is unstable and IIRC has to be made in the lab to get any useful amounts. I tend to agree with the idea though, as I don't believe that the Ancients could possibly be the result of convergent evolution ANYWHERE


//Their descendants became modern humans, some who possess the gene of the Ancients tech, while others don't.//

ok, heres where my theory comes in: I don't think we're descended from the Ancients, I think they're descended from us. I think that sometime in the future, a group of humans (by then advanced to the point of being ANcients) will end up going back in time. They end up doing all the stuff the Ancients did, as they always were supposed to (thus protecting the timeline). Don't ask me how or why...ask Carter...I'm no physicist. This solves the whole evolution problem nicely; the Ancients evolved from us in the future not millions of years ago when they couldn't possibly have done so. Thats why we're so similar and why we're finding evidence of them so long ago. What do you think?

About your time travel theory...and I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but I really hate it when in sci-fi, if a problem with something comes up, some writer says, "Hey, let's use time travel to explain this!" Think Enterprise! They throw in new species that never existed or were mentioned in the ST universe (Xindi, Suliban), events that were never mentioned (an alien attack on Earth resulting in millions dead), and that whole temporal war crap.

I mean, time travel has been used to neatly tie up loose ends in many sci-fi movies and tv shows. Why? I'm no physicist, but just based on my gut instinct, I think time travel is extremely unrealistic. There would be no historical constant if some idiot from 2540 could travel back to today and change something to repair the future, or whatever. Also, like it's been said so many times, one small mistake and the world is forever changed. We would be living like schizophrenics...not being able to distinguish between what is real and not real; what is factual history and what is not. We would be a different person every day! I've been alive 19 years and in that time, my family history, life, and basic knowledge have not changed. However, if time travel were possible, and being done, chances are someone in my life (teacher, friend, family, co-worker, somebody...) would be different because time travel changed one event in his or her life.

Space or gate travel, while costly energy wise, is possible. We can all relate to driving or riding a bike; going from point A to point B via some form of conveyance. Space travel is the same basic principle, just much more advanced. Time travel...well, it's not point A to point B, but point-in-time A to point-in-time B, which seems much more complicated.

Anyway, what Im saying is, your theory basically is the easy "hey, let's use time travel to explain this crap!" way out. It's a cool idea, but a cop out. I might not be right in my theory, but I'm trying to use basics ideas of biology to explain it. It is tv though, so none of us might be right.

[LordAnubis]

Thats Star Trek canon not Stargate: SG1 canon.

No, it's basic principles of biology period!

[LtLisa]

Different types and variation don't count as a separate species.

the baboon thing I was talking about are considered differnt species...

[LtLisa]

//If they evolved on Earth, where are the fossil records? If you're an archaeologist and you dig up some ruins and find human skeletons, are you going to know whether they are Ancients or humans? Nope. If you do carbon dating and find they are millions of years old, yes...but the thing is, unless soemthing was extraordinary about the site, no one would even think to do dating on the bones because they would assume they were "human" remains. What about the technology? Hard to say, but it's a fair bet that there are Ancient ruins and tech buried on Earth in the Stargate universe and we have either not found it or not recognized it for what it is. //

ummm..actually, I would be shocked to find an archaeologist who DOESN'T carbon date his findings. It's pretty standard.

//Also, the parts of the world where the Ancients lived might now be underwater, frozen under ice, or buried under sand. The Earth has changed a great deal over millions of years. //

true, but I still say that the evolutionary history of our world makes it pretty unlikely for the Ancients to have evolved here that long ago.

//Another thing to consider: the Goa'uld were here for many thousands of years, right? While they were here, they probably came across some of the Ancient technology, so they may have taken it away to study it, removed it so we won't see technology that is equal to or more advanced than theirs (after all, if the Goa'uld are gods, then who created technology that is more powerful than that of the gods?), or destroyed it since it was no longer working. //

ok, but what about fossils of pre-Ancient beings? Like we found Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc. (Which was partly addressed above...)

//We know the Goa'uld were here on Earth for a long time, but even Daniel acknowledged several times that not much of their technology was discovered. I mean Osiris' ship was buried in a pyramid for thousands of years and no one discovered it, Hathor's sarcophagus was buried in Central America for 2 thousand years and it wasn't discovered, Telchak's healing device was found in Season 7 in SOuth America, but had been there (and it was Ancient tech) for thousands of years. Of course the Antarctic Outpost was there since Atlantis was on Earth and it was only recently discovered. The Giza gate wasn't found until 1928 after being buried thousands of years ago.//

true, although consider: the pyramid where Osiris's ship was had been found, so had S. AMerican ones. There was evidence of the civilzation in question

//You see my point? Time and geographic changes cause erosion, decay,and displacement. Left over tech and human remains breakdown and get buried and lost. There is no reason to assume we would find it. If some of it was found, would we even know what it is? Plus, the Ancients may have taken their ships and tech with them when they left Earth.//

agreed. Based on archaeology alone, I couldn't srgue this, but I don't think it would b=make sense evolutionarily

//There were many more mammals around at that time, but you're probably right, no primates, and certainly no humans, but this is hard to rectify given the info they gave us in the series.

As for fossil records, it is a television show; it's going to have plot holes because the writers do not have PhDs in paleontology, archaeology, or evolutionary biology. //

of course, but they usually are good on their science...so I'm hoping for a good explanation. I think time travel or an AU will have to be used though. Cause I won't buy 'they evolved here first'


//Natural selection does NOT strive for perfection, but only survival and adaptation. In some cases, you're right, life does not always advance, but usually, changes are for the better, and betterment = advancement, not perfection.//

trying to word this...we're not disagreeing here, I just didn't like the wording in someone elses post. The misconception I meant was that evolution goes from primitive to advanced, which is not the case. The problem is when people assume that older species less recently evolved are primitive.


//Yes and no...basically don't be fooled by the genetics argument because it can be misleading. If you took a sample of let's say, python DNA, it would share many of the same amino acid sequences as dog DNA, but then at some point, the strand differentiates and becomes unique to dogs. All terrestrial animals share common DNA threads, but not the entire strand; it breaks off and becomes unique. What's interesting is that for some, that strand of DNA becomes more similar.

Example:

Human DNA: XOX OOX XXX XXO OXO 123 456
Cat DNA: XOX OOX XXX XOX XOX 349 483

The first three sequences are identical; common to mammals for example, but the last sequences are different and those differences make us unique.

With humans and chimps, however, everything is the same except the last sequence, which makes them "more related" to us than the cat, for example. Interestingly, cats and dogs share the same sequences except the last sequence, just like we do with chimps, which shows their common ancestor, but of course, they are different species incapable of mating.//

ummm..huh? DNA isn't suddenly different at some point along it, there are differences everywhere. We're more related to a chimp than a cat because our last common ancestor with chimps was not as long ago as our last common ancestor with the cat. I don't think I'm following you entirely here...

//If the Ancients evolved on a different planet, then we humans would be somewhat (or a lot) different from Earth animals.//

probably, it'd be pretty unlikely for the gentics to be the same...hence my conclusion that they didn't evolve on another planet.

//Parallel evolution happens a lot; it's happened here on earth. You mentioned bats and birds both having wings. This is not parallel evolution, but rather it's just an extreme form of convergent evolution/natural selection.//

oops, always screw that up...I meant convergent evolution. Parallel is where its due to a common ancestor, convergent is when its not (or so my evolution textbook says...)

//In order for the pre-bat thngy to get food, evade predators, etc., it probably started off like a flying squirrel ...using it's arms as gliders with flaps of skin to aid it in its gliding. However, through evolution, the arms became functional wings...similar to the wings of birds, yet markedly different. This is not parallel evolution. Parallel evolution is like comparing a bird or bat with a flying insect like a dragonfly.//

no, thats convergent evolution; the wings aren't due to a common ancestor. Parallel would be comparing a fly and a dragon fly (I think these are due to common ancestors...) Ah, my book says God only knows pretty much since that wings have evolved so many times in that taxa...

heres the definitions my book gives:
convergent evolution- evolution of similar features independently in different evolutionary lineages, usually from different antecedent features or by different developmental pathways

parrallel evolution- the evolution of similar or identical features independently in related lineages, thought to usually be based on similiar modifications of the same developmental pathways

oy, the bird bat insect thing...the books verdict is that bat and bird wings are parallel and both of those and insect wings are convergent. I think evolutionary biologists need better terms...

[LtLisa]

About your time travel theory...and I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but I really hate it when in sci-fi, if a problem with something comes up, some writer says, "Hey, let's use time travel to explain this!" Think Enterprise! They throw in new species that never existed or were mentioned in the ST universe (Xindi, Suliban), events that were never mentioned (an alien attack on Earth resulting in millions dead), and that whole temporal war crap.

I mean, time travel has been used to neatly tie up loose ends in many sci-fi movies and tv shows. Why? I'm no physicist, but just based on my gut instinct, I think time travel is extremely unrealistic. There would be no historical constant if some idiot from 2540 could travel back to today and change something to repair the future, or whatever. Also, like it's been said so many times, one small mistake and the world is forever changed. We would be living like schizophrenics...not being able to distinguish between what is real and not real; what is factual history and what is not. We would be a different person every day! I've been alive 19 years and in that time, my family history, life, and basic knowledge have not changed. However, if time travel were possible, and being done, chances are someone in my life (teacher, friend, family, co-worker, somebody...) would be different because time travel changed one event in his or her life.

Space or gate travel, while costly energy wise, is possible. We can all relate to driving or riding a bike; going from point A to point B via some form of conveyance. Space travel is the same basic principle, just much more advanced. Time travel...well, it's not point A to point B, but point-in-time A to point-in-time B, which seems much more complicated.

Anyway, what Im saying is, your theory basically is the easy "hey, let's use time travel to explain this crap!" way out. It's a cool idea, but a cop out. I might not be right in my theory, but I'm trying to use basics ideas of biology to explain it. It is tv though, so none of us might be right.

oh, I agree it can be a cop out...but I just can't see how they'd explain it biologically, so I threw that out there...VBach had a good point about AUs too...maybe thats involved?

you should read Asimov's The End of Eternity...deals with humans messing with time...where everything DOES change from day to day...and what happens when one of the guys who runs the time changes decides to buck the system

[LordAnubis]

//If they evolved on Earth, where are the fossil records? If you're an archaeologist and you dig up some ruins and find human skeletons, are you going to know whether they are Ancients or humans? Nope. If you do carbon dating and find they are millions of years old, yes...but the thing is, unless soemthing was extraordinary about the site, no one would even think to do dating on the bones because they would assume they were "human" remains. What about the technology? Hard to say, but it's a fair bet that there are Ancient ruins and tech buried on Earth in the Stargate universe and we have either not found it or not recognized it for what it is. //

ummm..actually, I would be shocked to find an archaeologist who DOESN'T carbon date his findings. It's pretty standard.

//Also, the parts of the world where the Ancients lived might now be underwater, frozen under ice, or buried under sand. The Earth has changed a great deal over millions of years. //

true, but I still say that the evolutionary history of our world makes it pretty unlikely for the Ancients to have evolved here that long ago.

//Another thing to consider: the Goa'uld were here for many thousands of years, right? While they were here, they probably came across some of the Ancient technology, so they may have taken it away to study it, removed it so we won't see technology that is equal to or more advanced than theirs (after all, if the Goa'uld are gods, then who created technology that is more powerful than that of the gods?), or destroyed it since it was no longer working. //

ok, but what about fossils of pre-Ancient beings? Like we found Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc. (Which was partly addressed above...)

//We know the Goa'uld were here on Earth for a long time, but even Daniel acknowledged several times that not much of their technology was discovered. I mean Osiris' ship was buried in a pyramid for thousands of years and no one discovered it, Hathor's sarcophagus was buried in Central America for 2 thousand years and it wasn't discovered, Telchak's healing device was found in Season 7 in SOuth America, but had been there (and it was Ancient tech) for thousands of years. Of course the Antarctic Outpost was there since Atlantis was on Earth and it was only recently discovered. The Giza gate wasn't found until 1928 after being buried thousands of years ago.//

true, although consider: the pyramid where Osiris's ship was had been found, so had S. AMerican ones. There was evidence of the civilzation in question

//You see my point? Time and geographic changes cause erosion, decay,and displacement. Left over tech and human remains breakdown and get buried and lost. There is no reason to assume we would find it. If some of it was found, would we even know what it is? Plus, the Ancients may have taken their ships and tech with them when they left Earth.//

agreed. Based on archaeology alone, I couldn't srgue this, but I don't think it would b=make sense evolutionarily

//There were many more mammals around at that time, but you're probably right, no primates, and certainly no humans, but this is hard to rectify given the info they gave us in the series.

As for fossil records, it is a television show; it's going to have plot holes because the writers do not have PhDs in paleontology, archaeology, or evolutionary biology. //

of course, but they usually are good on their science...so I'm hoping for a good explanation. I think time travel or an AU will have to be used though. Cause I won't buy 'they evolved here first'


//Natural selection does NOT strive for perfection, but only survival and adaptation. In some cases, you're right, life does not always advance, but usually, changes are for the better, and betterment = advancement, not perfection.//

trying to word this...we're not disagreeing here, I just didn't like the wording in someone elses post. The misconception I meant was that evolution goes from primitive to advanced, which is not the case. The problem is when people assume that older species less recently evolved are primitive.


//Yes and no...basically don't be fooled by the genetics argument because it can be misleading. If you took a sample of let's say, python DNA, it would share many of the same amino acid sequences as dog DNA, but then at some point, the strand differentiates and becomes unique to dogs. All terrestrial animals share common DNA threads, but not the entire strand; it breaks off and becomes unique. What's interesting is that for some, that strand of DNA becomes more similar.

Example:

Human DNA: XOX OOX XXX XXO OXO 123 456
Cat DNA: XOX OOX XXX XOX XOX 349 483

The first three sequences are identical; common to mammals for example, but the last sequences are different and those differences make us unique.

With humans and chimps, however, everything is the same except the last sequence, which makes them "more related" to us than the cat, for example. Interestingly, cats and dogs share the same sequences except the last sequence, just like we do with chimps, which shows their common ancestor, but of course, they are different species incapable of mating.//

ummm..huh? DNA isn't suddenly different at some point along it, there are differences everywhere. We're more related to a chimp than a cat because our last common ancestor with chimps was not as long ago as our last common ancestor with the cat. I don't think I'm following you entirely here...

//If the Ancients evolved on a different planet, then we humans would be somewhat (or a lot) different from Earth animals.//

probably, it'd be pretty unlikely for the gentics to be the same...hence my conclusion that they didn't evolve on another planet.

//Parallel evolution happens a lot; it's happened here on earth. You mentioned bats and birds both having wings. This is not parallel evolution, but rather it's just an extreme form of convergent evolution/natural selection.//

oops, always screw that up...I meant convergent evolution. Parallel is where its due to a common ancestor, convergent is when its not (or so my evolution textbook says...)

//In order for the pre-bat thngy to get food, evade predators, etc., it probably started off like a flying squirrel ...using it's arms as gliders with flaps of skin to aid it in its gliding. However, through evolution, the arms became functional wings...similar to the wings of birds, yet markedly different. This is not parallel evolution. Parallel evolution is like comparing a bird or bat with a flying insect like a dragonfly.//

no, thats convergent evolution; the wings aren't due to a common ancestor. Parallel would be comparing a fly and a dragon fly (I think these are due to common ancestors...) Ah, my book says God only knows pretty much since that wings have evolved so many times in that taxa...

heres the definitions my book gives:
convergent evolution- evolution of similar features independently in different evolutionary lineages, usually from different antecedent features or by different developmental pathways

parrallel evolution- the evolution of similar or identical features independently in related lineages, thought to usually be based on similiar modifications of the same developmental pathways

oy, the bird bat insect thing...the books verdict is that bat and bird wings are parallel and both of those and insect wings are convergent. I think evolutionary biologists need better terms...

I agree with the plot holes in the major Ancient timeline. I think it would have been better for them to say hundreds of thousands of years rather than millions, but I guess millions seems to strike home a point: they really are Ancient!

Forget the parallel evolution vs. convergent evoultion thing. I think the better terms to use are homologous and analogous since those terms are describing what you and I are talking about. Your book is right, but my prof uses homologous (same physiological and morphological and embryological function of an organ/system) and analogous (same function with different embryological origins).

About the DNA...all animal DNA shares the same/similar initial amino acid sequences. The more complex the animal, the longer the strand and the more differentiated the strand becomes (C, G, A, T). So, a human strand of DNA will share about (well, I forget the %age, but I think it's more than 50) 50 or so percent of the same sequences, then it differntiates to form the unique cat or human DNA.

With chimps, we share 95-99% of the same DNA sequences, which shows we are closer related. However, comparing felid and hominid DNA, it's obvious that there is a distant evolutionary relationship as well. Same with non-mammalian animals. If you were the byproduct of alien evolution, your DNA would not resemble anything like any terrestrial animal's DNA. That's all I was trying to say.

[LordAnubis]

oh, I agree it can be a cop out...but I just can't see how they'd explain it biologically, so I threw that out there...VBach had a good point about AUs too...maybe thats involved?

you should read Asimov's The End of Eternity...deals with humans messing with time...where everything DOES change from day to day...and what happens when one of the guys who runs the time changes decides to buck the system

I know, you've got the same problem as me: you're training to be a scientist and you look at the world, including sci-fi and tv and movies, through a scientific lens. In reality, this is a fiction show and things don't have to make perfect sense, just be entertaining. I don't buy into the alternate universe/time travel stuff because it offends me as a scientist. I'm not saying I'm a completely one-dimensional closed-minded person, but I just feel those areas of sci-fi are over-used and under-explained.

There was an eighteenth century German philosopher named Gottfried Leibnitz who theorized that there can be no reality since it is impossible to tell whether this "reality", the one you think is your real life, is merely a dream, and your dream world is the real reality, which you've confused for a dreamworld. I had "intro to philosophy" last year, read that theory, and said...what the hell!

At some point, you gotta $hit and get off the pot; you can't keep friggin' around trying to figure out what's reality. DesCartes said it well when he said, "I think, therefore I am." He was right...reality is what you make of it...

Time travel and AU confuses reality and goes back to Leibnitz; it begs the question, is the reality I perceive today what it was yesterday? Am I who I think I am? If time travel were possible, mistakes would be made all the time. When I wake up tomorrow, because of a change in the "timeline" or violation of the time directive, or whatever, my mother's father did not get married, so my former mother no longer exists, but my father married someone else, so now I look different and have a different mother. Maybe my "new" mom is less loving and caring, which shapes my personality so I'm not as happy. You see where I'm going with this? Those slight changes in time can have profound, sweeping effects on everyone. There would be no constant time line.

AUs...well, I dunno...to me, this is another cop out. It's an easy way to get a cool episode or different plot. It's a cool way to give Spock a beard, Carter long hair, and make Tea'lc evil again. Lame, lame, lame. The writers should avoid these topics since they seem to really go nowhere...again, they are cop outs.

For a good book on evolutionary biology in a sci-fi perspective, read "Inherit the Stars", "The Gentle Giants of Ganymeade", and "Giants' Star", a triology, by James P. Hogan (http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/gia...itlepage.shtml). You might love these three books, which were written back in the late 70s and early 80s, because it combines physics, biology, "Ancient" aliens, human transplants to another planet, mythology, and "origin of man" kinda stuff. It's really a great series of books.

[LtLisa]

//I agree with the plot holes in the major Ancient timeline. I think it would have been better for them to say hundreds of thousands of years rather than millions, but I guess millions seems to strike home a point: they really are Ancient! //

yup

//Forget the parallel evolution vs. convergent evoultion thing. I think the better terms to use are homologous and analogous since those terms are describing what you and I are talking about. Your book is right, but my prof uses homologous (same physiological and morphological and embryological function of an organ/system) and analogous (same function with different embryological origins).//

yeah, it'd help if scientists created less confusing terms...thats why I mixed it up.

//About the DNA...all animal DNA shares the same/similar initial amino acid sequences. The more complex the animal, the longer the strand and the more differentiated the strand becomes (C, G, A, T). So, a human strand of DNA will share about (well, I forget the %age, but I think it's more than 50) 50 or so percent of the same sequences, then it differntiates to form the unique cat or human DNA.

With chimps, we share 95-99% of the same DNA sequences, which shows we are closer related. However, comparing felid and hominid DNA, it's obvious that there is a distant evolutionary relationship as well.//

ok, right.

//If you were the byproduct of alien evolution, your DNA would not resemble anything like any terrestrial animal's DNA. That's all I was trying to say.//

I agree. No way the Ancients evolved on another planet.

[LtLisa]

//I know, you've got the same problem as me: you're training to be a scientist and you look at the world, including sci-fi and tv and movies, through a scientific lens. In reality, this is a fiction show and things don't have to make perfect sense, just be entertaining.//

yeah, thats the crux of the problem for me. For it to be a good show, I want scientific consistency.

//I don't buy into the alternate universe/time travel stuff because it offends me as a scientist. I'm not saying I'm a completely one-dimensional closed-minded person, but I just feel those areas of sci-fi are over-used and under-explained. //

These ideas don't offend me as a scientist; we just don't know anything about them. I think they're neat to explore, and I don't think TPTB have reached the point where they're using them as a fall back to solve a problem.

//There was an eighteenth century German philosopher named Gottfried Leibnitz who theorized that there can be no reality since it is impossible to tell whether this "reality", the one you think is your real life, is merely a dream, and your dream world is the real reality, which you've confused for a dreamworld. I had "intro to philosophy" last year, read that theory, and said...what the hell!

At some point, you gotta $hit and get off the pot; you can't keep friggin' around trying to figure out what's reality. DesCartes said it well when he said, "I think, therefore I am." He was right...reality is what you make of it... //

true, but its fun to play with. We really can't know for sure; we just have to decide what our reality is. Ever seen the movie 'Passion of Mind'? Its about a woman who is living in two realities and can't determine which one is real. She's a single New York career woman...then she goes to sleep and is a French widower with two kids...then she goes to sleep and is back in NY and so on. She starts to fall in love and really questions which is real.

//Time travel and AU confuses reality and goes back to Leibnitz; it begs the question, is the reality I perceive today what it was yesterday? Am I who I think I am? If time travel were possible, mistakes would be made all the time. When I wake up tomorrow, because of a change in the "timeline" or violation of the time directive, or whatever, my mother's father did not get married, so my former mother no longer exists, but my father married someone else, so now I look different and have a different mother. Maybe my "new" mom is less loving and caring, which shapes my personality so I'm not as happy. You see where I'm going with this? Those slight changes in time can have profound, sweeping effects on everyone. There would be no constant time line.//

thats what makes the question so neat...what is real? which was the real timeline

//AUs...well, I dunno...to me, this is another cop out. It's an easy way to get a cool episode or different plot. It's a cool way to give Spock a beard, Carter long hair, and make Tea'lc evil again. Lame, lame, lame. The writers should avoid these topics since they seem to really go nowhere...again, they are cop outs.//

only if done badly and too frequently

//For a good book on evolutionary biology in a sci-fi perspective, read "Inherit the Stars", "The Gentle Giants of Ganymeade", and "Giants' Star", a triology, by James P. Hogan (http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/gia...itlepage.shtml). You might love these three books, which were written back in the late 70s and early 80s, because it combines physics, biology, "Ancient" aliens, human transplants to another planet, mythology, and "origin of man" kinda stuff. It's really a great series of books.//

cool <writes down titles>

[Croatoan]

Some people raised a few good points about how far fetched it is for the evolution to be so similar if the Ancients evolved on another planet. What if the environment are the same?

Here's my slightly different take on the evolution of Ancients and Tau'ri.

1. The Ancients evolved on another planet, possibily from another Galaxy.
2. They started the plan to seed the galaxy, and they found Earth.
3. Earth environment is close to what they are looking for, but not 100.00%.
4. Ancients like to do everything grand, with their technology (million years ahead of the Gadmeer) they terraforms Earth with ease and precision.
5. Coupled with their acute understanding of the human genetics, Earth is terraformed and seeded exactly according to plan.

Then we have this huge gap, where the Ancients went to Pegasus and also encounters the unknown 'plague'.

How's that? I think it's doable.

Terraforming definatly would explain the "creation" theories of out cultures.

[Croatoan]

What if we are the devolved form of the ancients.


What if the ancients came from another corner of the known universe and colonized earth. Like the terraforming ship that lotan belonged too their specs where very detailed and over 2,000 variables had to be met for colonization. This would mean that the planets would be nearly identical to where the ancients evolved and would explain why they have so many biological commonalities with other lifeforms of earth. An evolution of neccesitiy to survivie in the enviornment if it be. After advancing generation after generation here they decided to spread out further into our galaxy with the stargate system. Upon placment of the gate on the planet from "Broca Divide," several members of the crew responsible for placing the gate become infected with the virus from the planet.

This virus de-evolves the ancients into their earliest forms of evolution. Those not infected decide to leave when atlantis takes off, those infected are left to evolve into modern day humans. To relearn our true prupose and existence.

Its quite possible the ancients eventually found a cure for those only breifly "touched" and this is why they left the repository of knowledge for those human who could not be completely cured to utilize when they evolved far enough - so that all their knowledge wouldnt be lost.

It could be explained that the ancients ultimatly had three choices to face the wraith, ascend, or return to earth and face becoming infected with the virus that was running rampant on earth.

Thats my theory!

[LtLisa]

I just don't think the Ancients could be from another planet...our genetics would have to be quite different from everything else on this planet for that scenario. Also, Lotan's ship was totally altering the world, first by destroying all life on the planet and replacing it; the specific conditions were for that, nit actually living on the planet.