Bio-diversity

seaghdhas

I haven't seen a huge amount of ST episodes, but have seen enough to ask. Why are humans and Vulcans the only species' with diversity of apperance? We've seen black and white Vulcans, but that's it. Any other species have the same skin tone and stuff. I could be wrong on theat though.

Stark

lack of imagination on the part of the show's producers. Pure and simple.

Spock

but whos to say that different skin colour on a single planet is the norm, we don't know whats out there and there very well could be speices what have no diversity

Woden

what spock said, however klingons have 'diversity of appearance' worf is black but other klingons could be considered white, or tanned. However other species like the andorians or bolians all seem to have the same skin colour (blue).

GuanYin

skin colour is an evolutionary trait.

To get different skin colour you need environmental pressure.

Perhaps none of the other species had the sort of pressure that required this diversity.

Maybe there are other subtle differences in their species that you don't notice because you are relating them to your own species.

If there were an alien life form, their appearance and biodiversity would be totally governed by their own origins and environment. Its a very slim chance that they'd even be humanoid.

bizmark

depends on the planet

black people are black because they need to protect themself from uv rays and the extra heat
white people are white because we dont have to worry about uv and heat (much)
Not a clue why koriens japan etc look the way they do....... might be because of inter marriage between white people from europe and people from asia


just becuase we have so many differnt "type" of people doesnt mean any other race will ................. After all we are the only speices on Earth that can live anywhere we want!

GuanYin

Originally posted by bizmark
depends on the planet

black people are black because they need to protect themself from uv rays and the extra heat
white people are white because we dont have to worry about uv and heat (much)
Not a clue why koriens japan etc look the way they do....... might be because of inter marriage between white people from europe and people from asia

Factually, there isn't a statement in there that isn't totally wrong in every conceivable sense.

but it makes a nice story

bizmark

its pritty much right m8......... i did higher leave biology (ARENT I SMART LOL) and although that was 2 year,s ago im pritty sure im right.

honestly though i think i am right for the most part ......... but please tell me why and how i am wrong as i like to learn new things (or relearn)

GuanYin

Originally posted by bizmark
its pritty much right m8......... i did higher leave biology (ARENT I SMART LOL) and although that was 2 year,s ago im pritty sure im right.

honestly though i think i am right for the most part ......... but please tell me why and how i am wrong as i like to learn new things (or relearn)

Well I don't wantto get into a peeing contest, but,
my 6 years in the genetic and medical research/teaching field pretty much allows me to say its wrong.

bizmark

yep it pritty much does:) .................... but could you explan why im wrong if its not a problum ????? cant learn if your not total can ya


And i can pee 4 feet from the bowl BEAT THAT !:p

Ivan

Originally posted by sykeirl
Well I don't wantto get into a peeing contest, but,
my 6 years in the genetic and medical research/teaching field pretty much allows me to say its wrong.

Explain that.

Call me interested

GuanYin

There is just no direct evidence linking evolution of skin pigmentation with damage from UV exposure.

It may explain *why* certain races colonised certain areas but there is no direct proof or even much evidence to suggest it was damage from UV exposure in climate that caused the changes. In reality, we were all probably very dark skinned to begin with.

Remember, skin colour is not dependent on the number of melanocytes - everyone has the same number. What does influence skin colour variation is the size and distribution pattern of melanosomes among other factors.

The theory that skin pigments have evolved to allow vitamin D synthesis while preventing UV degradation of folic acid meets opposition because it would condradict this.

In reality, many believe it is the reverse, that lighter skin evolved to optimise absorption in low sunshine areas. Human skin is responsible for the synthesis of vitamin D. Ultraviolet radiation absorption by the skin converts 7-dehydrocholesterol (7-DHC) to vitamin D. Vitamin D is essential for normal growth and skeletal development. Vitamin D deficiency causes immobilization, pelvic deformities, rickets, and even death

In climates with less sunshine our darker skinned ancestors would have had high mortality rates and any or all of the above problems. Melanosome distribution evolved so as to optimise for the synthesis of Vitamin D. Skin colour was just a side effect of the morphology change.

Thus, explaining why we get varied shades of skin colour.

That said, it may be taught at LC or JC level as you described, in much the same way you are taught that electrons circle a nucleus like moons around a planet. A simplified story of a much much more complex debate.

Sorry if I explained it badly, I'm tired and its late. I'll look at it again tomorrow when I'm clearer headed and edit as required.

p.pete

Originally posted by bizmark
its pritty much right m8......... i did higher leave biology (ARENT I SMART LOL) and although that was 2 year,s ago im pritty sure im right.

honestly though i think i am right for the most part ......... but please tell me why and how i am wrong as i like to learn new things (or relearn)

LOL:D

bizmark

im wrong 99.9% of the time lol DONT TRUST ANYTHING I SAY !:D

p.pete

Originally posted by bizmark
im wrong 99.9% of the time lol DONT TRUST ANYTHING I SAY !:D

Then you won't mind me questioning how rational the percentage you quote above is;)

You should leave a not by your computer telling yourself to count to 10 before sending things along the lines of "honestly though i think i am right for the most part "

GuanYin

Originally posted by p.pete
Then you won't mind me questioning how rational the percentage you quote above is;)

You should leave a not by your computer telling yourself to count to 10 before sending things along the lines of "honestly though i think i am right for the most part "

Ahh, cmon, there were two years of my life when I had faith in LC biology too.

Its not his fault, it is the irish educational system failed him.

In any case, see how subtle bio-diversity is. All the star trek characters you see could be different races.

Oh do you remember smooth vs. crinkley headed kilingons? (in TOS they all have smooth foreheads).

Roddenberry explained this by saying one was from the northern hemisphere!

p.pete

Originally posted by sykeirl
Its not his fault, it is the irish educational system failed him.

So glad I'm out of all that for the moment;)

Ivan

That explains alot I guess. But in part I think he was right, well sorta. Ok, maybe not but it does make sense and since its all theory as you said, you dont really have the right to contradict him do you?

Originally posted by sykeirl

That said, it may be taught at LC or JC level as you described, in much the same way you are taught that electrons circle a nucleus like moons around a planet. A simplified story of a much much more complex debate.

Yeah what is the story with that?

Whats all this craziness about quarks?

Pfft, someone is having a good laugh at my expense.

azezil

the species they encounter have generally been around quiet some time, over time if the species is restricted to a single planet peoples from all continents will eventually inter-mix thus the general population will inevitably being to take on similar traits, and in enough time they'll all look alike (this statement has no basis in reality but this is star trek we're talkin about :P)

bizmark

i agree Totaly with ivan because it at lest slavages some of my pride

GuanYin

Originally posted by Ivan
That explains alot I guess. But in part I think he was right, well sorta. Ok, maybe not but it does make sense and since its all theory as you said, you dont really have the right to contradict him do you?

I wasn't correcting him, I was educating as he requested.

The vitamin D theory is very likely and has alot of facts going for it. The Sunburn one doesn't.

UV damage has only been a real issue the past 100-200 years (at most) and I think it is very implausable to cause evolutionary pressure as opposed to vitamin D deficiency.

seaghdhas

Was the difference between smooth and crinkly headed Klingons cryptically explained by Worf in the episode where they time travelled back to Kirk's Enterprise? That there was some incident on the Klingon home world that caused a mutation which Worf didn't want to discuss? But that's beside the point. Just as a complete guess, having never done biology post JC. If vitamin D defficiency due to decreased sun exposure, ie climate differences, explains racial differences here, surely the same theory applies to other planets, assuming they've got similar differences in climate being spherical.

Stark

That was basically just an injoke (really good one actually). They never did explain it, just Worf went into a huff and said "em don't want to talk about it". The real answer is better make-up artists in the new Star trek series. Notice how in Enterprise the Klingons look like the new-style Klingons.

simu

AFAIK, Vulcans have green blood so Spock should have a greenish rather than a rosy(human) tinge to his skin.

Woden

I think thats to do with the fact that Vulcan/Romulan blood is based on copper while or blood is based on iron, don't ask me why klingon blood is pink, shower of girl's blouses.

simu

That's interesting, DataIsGod.
I wonder if anyone has written a book on chemistry and biochemistry in Star Trek. Would be fun trying to figure out if and how such a circulatory system would work. I've read a book on the physics of Star Trek and also a book on biology in Star trek but the biology book did not mention this topic.

GuanYin

I always wonder about those books.
To be honest, I don't watch star trek but from some episodes I have seen, the science is awful.

From mistakes in basic principles to scripting terms like "degrees Kelvin" (from a vulcan no less).

bizmark

lol man ALL tech is star trek only work because of "subspace" lol

it,s only a tv show what does it matter if some ep,s suck on the real life front............after all we cant go 2000 times the speed of light anyway

GuanYin

Coz star trek, like most major tv and film productions actually hire and pay guys to read through the scripts and add/edit science jargon content.

This would seem to imply that they want to stay abreast of the field and try have some sort of pseudo-realism to the show.

The fact that they can't get little details right is annoying.
plus its annoying correcting exam scripts with degrees kelvin in it and then seeing star trek making te same mistake.

simu

Well, any books I've ever read on science in Star Trek have been written by academics who are fans of the show and who like to point out where the show gets it wrong and what would happen in reality. One example from my bookshelves- The Physics of Star Trek - it's written by Lawrence M. Krauss who's a Prof of Physics at Case Western Reserve Uni, USA. Sounds like a guy who knows his physics! It's fun to read as he throws in plenty of jokes. However, although such books are interesting, they're not the best for learning about science - they're less thorough as they only consider the aspects of a particular branch of science that relate to Star Trek.

Then again, popular science books in general, while providing an introduction to different areas of scientific study are bound to simplify somewhat. For example, all those books that try to explain stuff like quantum mechnics, relativity etc are cool for providing mental pictures but they generally shirk away from the mathematical side of the subject.

As for the technobabble on the show itself, surely there are many Star Trek fans with science degrees who'd be willing to help them with this!

GuanYin

Hrmm, I think we'll never agree on boards heh!
I would think that popular science books are pretty important. The quality of the book really depends on its contribution.

I was talking about books produce by the TV show people though...they are the ones I find bad!

Originally posted by simu
As for the technobabble on the show itself, surely there are many Star Trek fans with science degrees who'd be willing to help them with this!

Hrmm.. I don't think you got me...I meant TV producers hire people with science degrees to edit the scripts. Yet still they get stuff wrong.

simu

TV producers hire people with science degrees to edit the scripts

You'd never think it!

As for science books, I've nothing against them, they're definitely better for reading than trashy best sellers and they encourage ppl to be curious about the universe but, being a bit of a geek myself, I often find they leave me hanging on for more info!

They're good entertainment but then I usually get textbooks or notes off the net for more thorough explanations.

Woden

I agree with simu, popular science books can be a good read but can leave a lot to be desired, as regards to degree kelvin loads of people make that mistake, including myself i presume at times and even when writing still put a degree sign with the K at the end of the day it is a convention and if some one feels more comfortable saying degree that is fine. Its like sulfur IUPAC says it should be spelt sulfur not sulphur but loads of people i'm sure still spell it sulphur, or phosphines are now officially phosphanes IIRC no big deal whats more important i think is that you understand what the person means by what they are saying/writing

Anywho with regards to star trek Andre Bormanis is the dude they call to make the 'future science' plausible and comprehensible as possible (i quote from the back of his book, Star Trek Science Logs), he holds degrees in physics and space policy and has conducted research and policy analysis for NASA. I think you can see his name in the credits of enterprise and i think he may do more then what i mentioned there above if you look at his title in the credits.