These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Fiction

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Humanity
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
vyshnegradsky
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#1 - 2012-06-19 16:44:58 UTC
The star in Pimebeka is 19 billion years old. Assuming the star was created at the start of the universe, this would make the universe 19 billion years old. However, as of now, the universe is approximately 13 billion years old. So how has humanity remained looking exactly the same, despite 6 billion years of evolution?

This one's a bit over the edge guys.

Locked for breaking... well, pretty much all the rules.

  • CCP Falcon
Ilsenae Alexandros
Perkone
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-06-19 17:27:37 UTC
Jovians?

To know the face of God is to know madness.
Esna Pitoojee
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#3 - 2012-06-19 18:01:19 UTC
With a handful of exceptions, the stats of celestial objects are largely nonsensical and pseudo-randomly generated.

I'd not read to far into it.
Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-06-19 19:03:33 UTC
We are in a different universe! /o\
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#5 - 2012-06-21 14:26:23 UTC
Benjamin Eastwood
#6 - 2012-06-21 17:39:15 UTC
Something about the diversification and reintegration of gene pools, etc. I was bored so I just turned the holo vid off and read a "book" about Gallentean college girls who visit various resort destinations during educational breaks.

"Endless ISK, the sinews of war"
David Toviyah
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-06-22 21:46:20 UTC
Artificial selection, maybe? We are already seeing it implemented today and I fear that this trend will only increase.
Dark Drifter
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#8 - 2012-06-24 18:49:40 UTC
where to start.

1- a species will adapt to suit its environment and unless something drastic happens. the species will remain in a state of evolutionary stasis, remains physicality the same ( with minor variations due to inter regional breeding)
mentally the species will still evolve as people strive to better understand and utilize their environment.

2- a star is not necessarily born at the point of universal creation. so although its parent cluster has been around for X billion years dose not mean the the star its self has also been.

3- you will most probably find that different planetary populations have different average BMIs this is due to the force of gravity on the parent planet.

apart from these points, the mammal breed that we call human is most likely at the extent of its evolutionary line and as such may become an evolutionary dead end. much like sharks or the hermit crab. both of witch are perfectly adapted to their environment and as such have not changed that much in the last 250million years
David Toviyah
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-06-24 18:55:38 UTC  |  Edited by: David Toviyah
Considering that compared to the sharks from millions of years ago ours are far, far smaller nowadays I contest that claim. In the same way evolution still affects us humans. It has been predicted that within this century the average woman will become shorter and more stout because these women tend to have more children. However, because of humanity’s unique culture such changes could be quickly reversed and are thus hard to predict. Especially considering my post it is not unreasonable to assume that we could theoretically (should we desire that) remain about the same for billions of years.
David Forge
GameOn Inc.
#10 - 2012-06-24 19:16:42 UTC
Esna Pitoojee wrote:
With a handful of exceptions, the stats of celestial objects are largely nonsensical and pseudo-randomly generated.

I'd not read to far into it.


The numbers given for object ages and sizes seem to have been made up with little regard for accuracy. One day they might fix it but for now it's best to ignore them. If we try to make them make sense we will find ourselves dealing with more than a few contradictions and scientific impossibilities. Remember, they only recently got the stargates to point in the right direction. Give them time. ;)
Dark Drifter
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#11 - 2012-06-26 08:14:59 UTC
David Toviyah wrote:
Considering that compared to the sharks from millions of years ago ours are far, far smaller nowadays I contest that claim. In the same way evolution still affects us humans. It has been predicted that within this century the average woman will become shorter and more stout because these women tend to have more children. However, because of humanity’s unique culture such changes could be quickly reversed and are thus hard to predict. Especially considering my post it is not unreasonable to assume that we could theoretically (should we desire that) remain about the same for billions of years.



much like sharks or the hermit crab. both of witch are perfectly adapted to their environment and as such have not changed that much in the last 250million years Straight
Boffles
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-06-26 11:36:20 UTC
Who is to say that the original wormhole to the New Eden was not just in space but also in time. So when the age of the human race is much less then the age that has passed in the universe.

Either that or l'oreal perfected it's "Science"

Check out my latest Chronicle in EON #28 - The Soulless Pilgrim http://www.eonmagazine.co.uk/
David Toviyah
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2012-06-26 13:03:03 UTC
Dark Drifter wrote:
much like sharks or the hermit crab. both of witch are perfectly adapted to their environment and as such have not changed that much in the last 250million years Straight
Well, excuuuse me for considering shrinking to one eight of their size “much” Roll
Dark Drifter
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#14 - 2012-06-26 21:16:48 UTC
David Toviyah wrote:
Dark Drifter wrote:
much like sharks or the hermit crab. both of witch are perfectly adapted to their environment and as such have not changed that much in the last 250million years Straight
Well, excuuuse me for considering shrinking to one eight of their size “much” Roll


still the shark genetic line is virtually unchanged. size reduction is due to the shrinking of the average size of their prey. Smile
David Toviyah
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-06-26 21:28:34 UTC
Well, I get your point but you can’t really apply it to mankind. We are totally not adapted to our current environments and habits. But we don’t have to because he have the power to change them instead.
Dark Drifter
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#16 - 2012-06-26 21:43:40 UTC
David Toviyah wrote:
Well, I get your point but you can’t really apply it to mankind. We are totally not adapted to our current environments and habits. But we don’t have to because he have the power to change them instead.


in our adapting our environment around us we effectively become "adapted" thus negating the need for generational evolution and in the long term. producing a state of "genetic/evolutionary stasis" enforcing an artificial evolutionary dead end for our breed.

although cultural and mental evolution will still occur. they will do so at a some what reduced speed. making us the hypothetical sharks of our genetic line
David Toviyah
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-06-26 21:51:46 UTC
Okay, that makes more sense.
Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2012-06-26 22:42:33 UTC
Dark Drifter wrote:

2- a star is not necessarily born at the point of universal creation. so although its parent cluster has been around for X billion years dose not mean the the star its self has also been.


What the OP means is that the star is, aparently, older than the universe itself.
Dark Drifter
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#19 - 2012-06-28 22:04:15 UTC
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:
Dark Drifter wrote:

2- a star is not necessarily born at the point of universal creation. so although its parent cluster has been around for X billion years dose not mean the the star its self has also been.


What the OP means is that the star is, aparently, older than the universe itself.


the age of our universe is 14.6 billion years, this is the accepted age of our star cluster, originating at inception "the BIG BANG"
NEW EDEN exists in a wholly separate star cluster, created by its own big bang and as such is far older than we can fathom
Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2012-06-29 01:36:38 UTC
I don't think you got the Big Bang Theory rigth...
12Next page