Let's say you had a radial symmetry creature similar to a sea urchin or sea star. I'm not sure how many segments, just more than four. It starts out in the water of course, but moves on to land and evolves sentience. How could it maintain its radial symmetry?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
6
-
$\begingroup$ What research have you done yourself on this subject? You need to demonstrate that this is part of the world you are creating and show us what conditions prevail in your world, then we can move on from that. Show us your research. $\endgroup$– Escaped dental patient.Feb 6, 2021 at 0:58
-
2$\begingroup$ Have you ever read Mountains of Madness by Lovecraft? You should. $\endgroup$– DKNguyenFeb 6, 2021 at 1:50
-
$\begingroup$ This question is well defined and should generate a wide range of interesting responses. $\endgroup$– Mike SerfasFeb 6, 2021 at 1:51
-
$\begingroup$ Thank you. Would you care to contribute? $\endgroup$– Joe SmithFeb 6, 2021 at 3:21
-
$\begingroup$ Why wouldn't it maintain its radial symmetry? Is your question about overcoming a perceived contradiction between radial symmetry and living on land, or between radial symmetry and sentience? I don't see a contradiction in either case. Without further explanation, to me this makes about as much sense as "How can my creature be blue and in the same time evolve sentience and ability to survive on land?" The lack of context makes it seem like you want us to design a creature (any creature!) for you. $\endgroup$– EdvinWFeb 6, 2021 at 17:43
|
Show 1 more comment
2 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
These creatures may be terrestrial versions of starfish. In the water, most starfish are predators. I'm unsure of why their niche is better filled by radial creatures, but by the fact that they are widespread and survived the mesozoic marine revolution indicates that it is hard to fill without starfish traits like radial symmetry. If this niche exists on land, it should be even easier to keep, as terrestrial life should have less diverse forms due to the fact that some forms, such as coelacanths, that work in water do not translate to land. And as these starfish are predators, they would have lots of availible energy with which to supply the brain, which should allow them to be intelligent
answered Feb 6, 2021 at 16:05
-
$\begingroup$ That's some direction at least for my own research. Thank you. $\endgroup$ Feb 7, 2021 at 1:50
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
Starfish die surprisingly quickly out of the water, and their mechanism of movement is fairly reliant on access to sea water for their internal system of canals and tube feet. But octopi also have some degree of radial symmetry, and a limited capability to move onto land. The failure of radially symmetric forms to evolve further in this direction seems understandable when we look at the ungainly gait in the video, but biology can always surprise us, and many possibilities remain unexplored on Earth.
For example, Earth life has never really developed the wheel, which is a radially symmetric object and a fine means of transportation. What would happen if a radially symmetric organism developed a particularly agile proboscis at its apex, and then adopted the habit of using it to set itself on edge and roll around, keeping the proboscis always in the same direction? What if two or more of them began to entwine their probosci and do this together as one, and learned to balance like a bicycle to cross inhospitable terrain between habitable pools? Eventually the proboscis of such an organism, being the only point stationary relative to the horizon, might evolve good sense organs and the brainpower to interpret them. The strategic considerations of moving long or short distances to pools with various resources and dangers might reward a high level of abstraction.
Ultimately, however, we have no idea what a "sophont" is, what the nature of consciousness is, or why we "really feel" things. There is great dispute in how we draw the boundaries of what fetal or animal forms we consider part of the phenomenon. On this basis, we cannot really answer the question to completion - we can only describe how the process might begin.
-
$\begingroup$ Although I like your creative vision, I'm afraid it opens up another can of worms. Why would the creature want to be on its side in the first place? $\endgroup$ Feb 6, 2021 at 3:18
-
$\begingroup$ Wheels are less useful than they look. The Inca had them and used them on toys. The medieval Europeans had them and would regularly transport things on animal back where the beast had to bear the weight as well as pull it. The thing is, wheels really need good roads to be efficient. $\endgroup$– MaryFeb 6, 2021 at 17:00
-
$\begingroup$ That is true on Earth, but conceivably another planet has much larger regions of flat barren rock where wheels pay off. $\endgroup$ Feb 6, 2021 at 17:02