Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums - Reply to Topic
40k Fluff Discuss GW background material here. All those bits in the Codex that aren't stat blocks or special rules. Post your custom character/chapter/army background in our Homebrew Fluff subforum!

Thread: Comparison, human biology now and in the 41st millenium Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
07-03-10 12:43 AM
Malak Falco Still, you do get mutants caused by unnatural factors that then breed that mutation into the population. Take a look at the Orygan, Catecan, and ratkin. Sure they're still human, but oddball factors have made them fairly divergent from normal stock.


Still. genetically we were roughly the same as we were back when we were butting heads with neanderthal over living space. I'd say if somehow you took a 40k person and plunked him into 'now' you'd still have a genetically similar human... barring radical chaos borne mutations.
07-03-10 12:36 AM
Azezel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farseer_Iowan View Post
what about, those humans that were populating other worlds? could they not have evolved/mutated to survive better in there environment? over generations of course
There are simply not enough generations. Evolution works over millions of years, not thousands. This is especially the case when one considers that for much of this time, the colonies had access to the STC systems that made environmental factors much less critical to survival.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathJester921 View Post
Actually, it seems to me that Sasha's point is relevant. At least its relevant to when the humans in 40K were colonizing other worlds. Most likely, they would colonize the world with a small population. So over the generations, the genes would change and the humans on that planet would be able to better survive on it. In my mind, no one would colonize a planet with a relatively huge population. Sure with a smaller population colonizing a world would take hundreds to possibly thousands of years to fully colonize it, but by then, most, if not all, humans on the planet would have different genes and traits that allow them to live longer and survive better. This effect would be reversed with a larger population colonizing the same planet. Fully colonizing it would take less time, but the genes and traits needed to survive would possibly take longer to develop.
A small population increases the chances of any given gene coming to dominate. Unfortunateloy, it also decreases the chance of a mutation (beneficial or otherwise) arising (arising, rather than manifesting), since there are simply fewer individuals in which a mutation might occur. Small populations are a double-edged sword for people who want to champion punctuated equalibrium.

Again though, even PE's most optimistic fans will still tell you that it takes hundreds of thousands of years, rather than millions.


Long Story Short: If you colonise Valhalla with sub-saharan African humans and come back 38'000 years later, the people living on Valhalla will still be tall, dark-skinned and lithe.

If you land a bunch of Eskimo on Tallarn and come back 38'000 years later, same deal.
07-02-10 08:35 PM
DeathJester921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azezel View Post
You're refering to Punctuated Equalibrium, Sasha - and like many people you have it slightly wrong.

PE (if it even occurs, and there is significant doubt) is pretty rapid compared to 'vanilla' evolution. PE can occur over hundreds of thousands of years, instead of millions.

I'm not familiar with the minnow experiment you describe, but it's not terribly relevant to the discussion at hand due to the tiny population of the fish tank. Whilst the colouration was no-doubt a survival trait the fact is that in a small enough population qany aberation, beneficial or otherwise has both a much higher chance of appearing (small populations encourage double-recessive traits to manifest) and flourishing (due to lack of genetic competition). Case in point, there is a village in Africa with no collar bones (cleidocranial dysostosis) - hardly a survival trait, but that's small populations for you. A sailor with the condition visited them in the 19th century, knocked boots with a local woman (or ten) and the whole village has it now.

Long story short, 38'000 years ain't long enough by an order of magnitude.
Actually, it seems to me that Sasha's point is relevant. At least its relevant to when the humans in 40K were colonizing other worlds. Most likely, they would colonize the world with a small population. So over the generations, the genes would change and the humans on that planet would be able to better survive on it. In my mind, no one would colonize a planet with a relatively huge population. Sure with a smaller population colonizing a world would take hundreds to possibly thousands of years to fully colonize it, but by then, most, if not all, humans on the planet would have different genes and traits that allow them to live longer and survive better. This effect would be reversed with a larger population colonizing the same planet. Fully colonizing it would take less time, but the genes and traits needed to survive would possibly take longer to develop.
07-02-10 08:02 PM
pariha i think as the rules of natural selection appliy, humans would vary greatly, take the two biggest imperial guard (im talking popularity) cadian & catachan.. the catachan are bound to have a more muscular build, mabey longer more ape like arms. Then theres the cadians, they live in the shadow of the eye of terror, so im guessing a larger populus of mentaly adept,also, the phisical apperence of cadians wold most likely be smaller, paler skin and eyes more ajusted to darkness.

ive said all i can.. goodbye
:D
07-01-10 08:39 PM
Farseer_Iowan what about, those humans that were populating other worlds? could they not have evolved/mutated to survive better in there environment? over generations of course
06-29-10 03:41 AM
Azezel That's exactly what I believe (and said on the first page).
06-29-10 02:59 AM
randian We don't need evolution to posit significant change in 40k humans. I'm pretty sure they live longer than we do even without rejuvenat treatments, for example. All we need is Dark Age genetic technology. Given the other wonders invented during that period, I'd bet that in-utero genetic treatments to confer resistance to bacterial and viral diseases, long life, and eliminate genetic diseases like hemophilia would have been widespread and cheap. More importantly, the changes would be inheritable. You could create Space Marines with this stuff, if you had the vision.
06-29-10 01:44 AM
Azezel You're refering to Punctuated Equalibrium, Sasha - and like many people you have it slightly wrong.

PE (if it even occurs, and there is significant doubt) is pretty rapid compared to 'vanilla' evolution. PE can occur over hundreds of thousands of years, instead of millions.

I'm not familiar with the minnow experiment you describe, but it's not terribly relevant to the discussion at hand due to the tiny population of the fish tank. Whilst the colouration was no-doubt a survival trait the fact is that in a small enough population qany aberation, beneficial or otherwise has both a much higher chance of appearing (small populations encourage double-recessive traits to manifest) and flourishing (due to lack of genetic competition). Case in point, there is a village in Africa with no collar bones (cleidocranial dysostosis) - hardly a survival trait, but that's small populations for you. A sailor with the condition visited them in the 19th century, knocked boots with a local woman (or ten) and the whole village has it now.

Long story short, 38'000 years ain't long enough by an order of magnitude.
06-29-10 12:44 AM
Hurricane I forget the name of the evolutionary process but in any case, species can adapt very very quickly. I forget the lab experiment (I'll look for it later) but I think it was minnows were placed in a controlled pond with predators and different types of soil underneath. Within ten generations the pigments in their skin had come to almost completely match the rocks underneath because it provided better camouflage and thus those that could hide were able to pass on their genes.
06-29-10 12:36 AM
hailene In terms of evolution, 38,000 years means almost nothing. Particularly in an environment where "weak" traits are not rejected with extreme prejudice. Genetically, we're more or less the same as we were 200,000 years ago when Homo sapiens sapiens rolled out.

Things may have changed if there was some sort of population bottleneck (say, the human population dropped to 10,000 breeding pairs), and it very well may have on particular isolated situations sudden climate changes, generational ships, a small sect deciding to colonize a planet on their own ect, but the Human population as the whole remained fairly large.

Of course the whole psyker thing emerged and the various mutants we see. And the ab-humans--Orgyns, rattlings, the Space Dwarves. So I suppose humans have come along much further than evolution could explain. That's fantasy for you, I suppose.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome