I like how nobody takes a second look at the evolutionary plausibility of, say the eye eye, but the crashfish, the crashfish is where we draw the line.
Well, @Shuttlebug, if we go from the scant information found in-game, the Eyeye isn't plausible. The Eyeye represents an organism which, by all rights, should be an evolutionary dead-end - a nonfunctional mutation.
Evolution is mutation. Mutant forms of an organism arise through a variety of causes, from simple transcription errors to environmental conditions. Usually, these mutations are ineffective, conferring no benefit or detriment. Most of the rest are detrimental, reducing the organism's ability to survive in its environment. Occasionally, though, a beneficial mutation occurs. If it enables the organism to survive more effectively, allowing it to breed more readily, then it could end up being something we'd classify as new in due time. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase a lot of people use but practically nobody really understands. The common belief is that it means the stronger or faster or...whatever...the organism is, it'll survive and the rest will die. "Natural selection" the layman says. Well...it's not true. It's like saying the Earth is mud. Technically, large parts of it are, but that's missing the big picture and a lot of important details at the same time.
"Natural selection" is a misnomer, and not a phrase used in actual biological discussion. Instead, the term used is "selection pressure," because it's not a vote, it's a drift over time influenced by the environment. The problem with "natural selection" as a term is that it implies that there's some sort of review meeting every so often and the "less fit" organisms are discontinued like an unpopular Beanie Baby. In reality, there's no clearly-defined yes/no divide, but rather a scale upon which organisms will fall. Some will be more able to survive and reproduce, some less...and some not at all. And any species, any organism that's subject to selection pressure will be affected by it. A mutation can take many forms and potentially seriously improve an organism's survivability and reproductive success. Better able to avoid predation, better able to acquire food, lower infant mortality (whatever "infant" means for that species, be it eggs, young, larva, or anything else), better fertility, larger broods - anything can mean an organism is able to compete better than its peers. So long as the mutation continues to be passed on, it is incorporated into the grand old Web o' Life. The key, though, is that the mutation makes the organism more successful at passing its genes on. And don't forget that it's talking about success as a species, not as an individual. If the death of one member of a species means the rest are more likely to survive, nature views that as a good trade, and many organisms - like Monarch butterflies - take that very approach.
Now, hang on, I hear many of you saying. Humans have mutations that just plain suck when it comes to survivability. Genetic disease and disorders, congenital heart defects, nearsightedness...all of these are bad for survivability but we still have them! Yes, but there's a key phrase from above to remember: "Any organism that's subject to selection pressure will be affected by it." Put bluntly, humans are not subject to selection pressure. We've removed it from the equation. Those less capable aren't weeded out by selection pressure because we compensate for capability problems with technology and social structure. Take away modern medicine - heck, even early medical intervention like glasses - and selection pressure would alter the prevalence of those traits in the human species. That's why some claim that humans as a species have stopped evolving; we broke the system. But what that argument misses is that the opportunity for evolution still exists, and is a trope many a sci-fi author has exploited. X-Men, that godawful film Looper, and many others ascribe "supernatural" abilities to mutations (and X-Men comes right out and calls them mutants). Well, evolution is mutation, and mutation can be a step toward evolution. So could a random mutation arise where someone develops psionic ability or can debug Windows by looking at it? Maybe. Doubtful, extremely unlikely, but random mutation is cool that way. Generally, though, big changes - like the ability to read someone's mind - are the result of multiple mutations occurring over a great many generations. Mutations which don't negatively impact the organism's survival and cause themselves to be pressured out. Cumulatively, the mutations end up having an effect. The notion of single-generation, species-redefining beneficial mutations is almost exclusively science fiction.
That's all that "natural selection" is about, and what Darwin meant about "survival of the fittest." We've just refined his statement into a more nuanced form that accounts for variability in survival rather than a simplified yes/no.
The Eyeye, therefore, makes no sense in true biology. It has no offensive or defensive capabilities; it can't dissuade predators through strength or dangerous flesh, it can't outrun or outmaneuver. All it has going for it is visual acuity in an environment where it's practically a wasted effort. That could be sidestepped by being incredibly - and I mean incredibly - prolific breeders, but if that were the case we should see shoals of the things so numerous that it would make the boomerangs look like monks...and we don't. Given their unsuitability for their environment overall, they represent a line of development doomed to failure, as their mutation led to a marked decrease in odds of passing on genes. As the popular phrase goes, an evolutionary dead-end.
Unless our amazingly myopic PDA missed something in its analysis (odds on that are pretty good), the Eyeye species probably doesn't have a lot of mileage in it.
Oh yeah, bone sharks are super annoying. The idea of a Seamoth as a squeaky toy for them is accurate. They're actually pretty fragile for your thermal blade, but the fact that there are so many of them is a real pain in the pain.
Crabsquids are Kill On Sight. Stasis Rifle + 13 strikes from the thermal blade and that's that. If I hear one of those suckers in an area I'm not just passing through, they're done for.
Comments
Well, @Shuttlebug, if we go from the scant information found in-game, the Eyeye isn't plausible. The Eyeye represents an organism which, by all rights, should be an evolutionary dead-end - a nonfunctional mutation.
"Natural selection" is a misnomer, and not a phrase used in actual biological discussion. Instead, the term used is "selection pressure," because it's not a vote, it's a drift over time influenced by the environment. The problem with "natural selection" as a term is that it implies that there's some sort of review meeting every so often and the "less fit" organisms are discontinued like an unpopular Beanie Baby. In reality, there's no clearly-defined yes/no divide, but rather a scale upon which organisms will fall. Some will be more able to survive and reproduce, some less...and some not at all. And any species, any organism that's subject to selection pressure will be affected by it. A mutation can take many forms and potentially seriously improve an organism's survivability and reproductive success. Better able to avoid predation, better able to acquire food, lower infant mortality (whatever "infant" means for that species, be it eggs, young, larva, or anything else), better fertility, larger broods - anything can mean an organism is able to compete better than its peers. So long as the mutation continues to be passed on, it is incorporated into the grand old Web o' Life. The key, though, is that the mutation makes the organism more successful at passing its genes on. And don't forget that it's talking about success as a species, not as an individual. If the death of one member of a species means the rest are more likely to survive, nature views that as a good trade, and many organisms - like Monarch butterflies - take that very approach.
That's all that "natural selection" is about, and what Darwin meant about "survival of the fittest." We've just refined his statement into a more nuanced form that accounts for variability in survival rather than a simplified yes/no.
The Eyeye, therefore, makes no sense in true biology. It has no offensive or defensive capabilities; it can't dissuade predators through strength or dangerous flesh, it can't outrun or outmaneuver. All it has going for it is visual acuity in an environment where it's practically a wasted effort. That could be sidestepped by being incredibly - and I mean incredibly - prolific breeders, but if that were the case we should see shoals of the things so numerous that it would make the boomerangs look like monks...and we don't. Given their unsuitability for their environment overall, they represent a line of development doomed to failure, as their mutation led to a marked decrease in odds of passing on genes. As the popular phrase goes, an evolutionary dead-end.
Unless our amazingly myopic PDA missed something in its analysis (odds on that are pretty good), the Eyeye species probably doesn't have a lot of mileage in it.
Crabsquids are Kill On Sight. Stasis Rifle + 13 strikes from the thermal blade and that's that. If I hear one of those suckers in an area I'm not just passing through, they're done for.