Slashdot Mirror


How Will Animals Look 250 Million Years From Now?

angkor writes "'How will Earth look 5 million, 100 million, even 200 million years from now?' Fantasic and fun speculation from Animal Planet. It's the work of Dougal Adams, who started this idea years ago in the out-of-print After Man: A Zoology of the Future."

29 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. My guess: by Valar · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bet they'll still be good eatin'! :}

    1. Re:My guess: by suss · · Score: 5, Funny

      I bet they'll still be good eatin'! :}

      Will probably taste like chicken.

  2. 5 millon years we will be in an ice-age? by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apparently in 5 million years the earth will be people-less and in an ice-age covering most of Europe.

    I am still a staunch believer in the fact that "global warming" is something that the Earth will fix on it's own.

    Whether or not we are part of that process is of no concesquence.

    Animal Planet agrees! ;)

    1. Re:5 millon years we will be in an ice-age? by nomadic · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am still a staunch believer in the fact that "global warming" is something that the Earth will fix on it's own.

      And I am a staunch believer in the fact that the Earth will "fix" global warming by getting rid of us.

    2. Re:5 millon years we will be in an ice-age? by juhaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I dont think anyone has ever claimed that global warming, or much about anything else we can do, is somehow permanent. And most people agree that we indeed are in the middle of rather short warm period between ice ages, yes, temperatures will go down again.

      Life survives, but any drastic changes are of course going to wreak havoc on all things we are now accustomed to and most depend on, man's position may seem stable, but it's not really very hard to imagine how easily we could be knocked back to stone age. Thus, better be carefully monitoring whichever way change is going, and be damn careful not to accelerate it in any way, and if possible, even try to brake.

  3. What will animals look like? by telstar · · Score: 5, Funny
  4. Well I know what humans will look like... by dagg · · Score: 4, Funny
    Humans will develop much larger asses so as to no longer need to purchase couches. And wheels. Evolution will finally come up with wheels. Who would have thunk it?

    As for animals, they will be genetically developed to grow human faces and replacement butts. We're already growing human ears on rats, so you just know we're going to be growing full blown cosmetic replacements for every starlet in Hollywood.

    --
    Sex - Find It
  5. I saw it and wasn't impressed... by kakos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was sort of expecting them to examine several possibilities for future evolution. Sort of like "This could happen, but this could also happen." Unfortunately, there was none of that. They only had one 'possible' evolution and I was actually somewhat disappointed in the one they presented. It seemed to involve too many squid derivatives, including two land squids. Their explanation how they can be land animals without a skeleton was kind of sketchy, in my opinion.

    It also seemed to think that the same Classes (Amphibian, Fish, etc) would exist 200 million years from now, which seems a bit off.

    Also, the show was filled with horrible names (like the Flish and the Terrabyte).

    1. Re:I saw it and wasn't impressed... by pjt48108 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was sort of looking forward to this show, and I was also unimpressed. Going into it, however, I was skeptical for a number of reasons.

      First, who is to say what course evolution will take? Kakos' criticism regarding the one 'possible' evolutionary course is well-warranted. Even a cursory review of the evolutionary history laid out in the fossil record shows that evolution moves in fits and starts, and not necessarily headed in one direction. Certainly, evolution at least covers all the bases, in case one chess move doesn't work as expected.

      Second, I felt that too much was made of very few individual species and how they eat each other. Spiders eating the last mammal species. 'Sharkopath' creatures eating giant squid (forget that the largest whales today show battle scars from their assumed feasting on giant squids, showing that there is some fight in squids that might drive that species evolution).

      Third, it took a shallow view of the wide world of animals--the only animals represented were those living within a narrow ecological band, basically several meters above/below ground and below sea level. One was begged to accept that life on Future Earth hinges on 'flish' being blown inland by Super typhoons, to feed 'bumblebeetles' that live for only a matter of hours/days.

      Where were the crustaceans? The plankton? Single-celled life? I'd like to think that the question of possible futures requires a deeper exploration of evolutionary forces, and, as Kakos indicated, a discussion of the many possibilities of evolution, rather than the narrow picture presented.

      A longer, episodic treatment is more appropriate to this subject, and personally, I'd love to see it. First episode: whoops, the Earth gets really cold! Second Episode: Eek, what if it gets really hot? Third episode: Zounds, rebellion of the sea creatures!

      Unfortunately, we'll never see such a treatment. :(

      --
      Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
    2. Re:I saw it and wasn't impressed... by transiit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I taped it. I'm watching it in segments because I get too angry at the junk science it's based on.

      My problems:
      Every single animal they had was just a slight modifcation of current specimens. Ok, so maybe things wouldn't change that much for the first part (5 million years), but in 100 million years, the best they could come up with is babookari? (The baboon is allegdly extinct, and that bald, redfaced monkey is all that's left of the primates.)

      Disregarding Cope's rule: The idea is that as things evolve, they get bigger. Bigger animals tend to win fights over mates, get more food, have fewer predators. It just makes sense. The last of the mammals being herded by spiders bigger than it? Nope.

      Disregarding Dollo's law: Evolution is a one-way path. Dinosaurs evolve into birds which evolve into dinosaurs?

      Stupid-ass names: snowstalker. deathgleaner. buttpicker. assgoblin.

      The awful subplot: Humans are gone and are sending probes back to check out the earth (but clearly not recolonizing it, even if it has gotten past any environmental damage and is just chock full of raw natural resources) Don't forget the bad tech.: 95 million years of technological progress, and the new space probe not only is just slightly larger and silver, it also can't operate without first attaching to the ancient probe.

      Just generally weird ideas:
      The spiders are silver to avoid UV radiation.
      The birds are blue to avoid UV radiation.
      The birds sleep in midair.
      One gopher-sized spink is enough to feed an entire flock of deathgleaners.

      Bad writing:
      The deathgleaners (highly evolved bats) exit their cave "like bats out of hell"

      I especially like the egotism that intelligence never really returns to the earth (I've only made it 2/3rds through, so it might).

      -transiit

  6. Frankly, I didn't like it by Lobsang · · Score: 5, Informative
    First of all, let me state I'm no scientist. But some stuff just doesn't seem reasonable:
    • FLISH (for FLying fISH) - Does it make much sense that an animal that cannot generate its own heat would spend an enourmous amount of calories flying? Also, is there a fish that can fly like a bird these days or any indication in that sense? The contrary is pretty common (penguins, et al).

    • Giant Squid roaming the forests - Owhhh, C'mon! What possible advantage is there in it? They can get all the food they need, without the hassle of vertebrae, in the ocean.

    • Sharks with flashing colors - This one was just too bad! Why would a shark need flashing things on the side of their bodies? According to the program, to "guide the other sharks and hunt in packs". C'mon... We all know light gets filtered rather rapidly by water. Wouldn't sound be a better choice?

    • Chrome Spiders herding the last mammal on earth - Yes, you heard it right. BTW, what's the point in a animal being silver chrome in color? To shine the sunlight and attract the predators?

    I also disliked the concept that most animals will get bigger. That seems contrary to what we've observed in the last million years. Animals like Sharks and Alligators have survived millenia without many changes. What makes one think the radical changes proposed in the program would occur?

    Funny thing is that I had my nephew (11 years old) watching the program with me. He laughed most of the time and thought the ideas were mostly ludicrous. And see, he's 11...
    1. Re:Frankly, I didn't like it by Ojuice · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I whole heartidly agree. Their explanation for why the "smaller" of the two squids was so lame; "naturally squids will move to land to fill the void of humanity". I mean come on, that's the fuzziest logic since producers signed on to film Kangaroo Jack..

    2. Re:Frankly, I didn't like it by protohiro1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, I would say that based on the animal kingdom now...anything is possible.
      Owhhh, C'mon! What possible advantage is there in it? They can get all the food they need, without the hassle of vertebrae, in the ocean.
      I am trying to craft a response to this, but its difficult. I think you may just fundementaly misunderstand how evolution works. As for the flying fish...there have been flying reptiles. Pteradons. In all likelyhood they were cold blooded as well
      I also disliked the concept that most animals will get bigger. That seems contrary to what we've observed in the last million years.
      Firstly, this is just wrong. There is no "trend" towards smaller creatures. The largest animal ever is actually modern: the blue whale. Secondly, their is no program. Evolution has no goal, it just happens. Any RANDOM mutation which leads to a (even tiny) increase in viable offspring will be selected for. Whether or not there are any "radical changes" proposed for the "program".
      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
  7. My prediction... by bravehamster · · Score: 5, Funny
    Damn dirty apes...with plastic machine guns!


    Also, the platypus evolves to look like a perfectly normal duck.

    --
    ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
  8. Re:Interesting! by starX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll second that. I must admit it sounded a little presumptuous when they said that squids would take to the land to fill the void. I also have a hard time buying that in 200 Million + some odd hundred thousand years smart calamari will be running the show.

    Of course when you boil it right down, I think it's pretty presumptuous to think you can predict what the future will be like. If we can't even predict what the short term effects of global warming are going to be, how can we determine that squids will become super muscular, grow lungs, and swing through the trees basically acting like modern day monkeys? Some of those beasties would make a nice addition to a Dungeons and Dragons world, but I really don't see how we can even venture a remote guess as to what life will look like in 200 Million years and expect it to be at all accurate.

    Besdies the natural events that could occur that we can't even predict, none of this really takes into account the human factor. I am one of those "the planet's not going any where, we are" people, but we DO have the ability to drastically (some might say "traumatically") alter the environment in a very short amount of time.

    Plus the idea of whats left of my mortal remains being sucked out of the ground to fill the gas tank of some land squids car is just something I would rather not think about :)

  9. Re:Thats sort of funny... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's only 'de-evoltion' to you, but certian perfectly normal for the creature 'de-evolution- has occured.
    It is veryy likelt that humans are just a blip on the scope. We have a tendency to think we're the ultimate creature, or the peak of evolution, when really we are just one of many creature that will exist until the end of time.

    do while not EOT
    Evolve
    loop

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. Re:Interesting! by CharterTerminal · · Score: 5, Funny

    Truthfully, though, I have nothing but respect for anyone who's willing to go on record as predicting that one day, giant squid will roam the forests.

    (Fortunately it sounds like we have plenty of time to stockpile garlic and olive oil.)

  11. In 250 Years... by Quaoar · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...penguins will be able to actually sit down.

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
  12. Speculation, not Science by DrLudicrous · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I have not viewed this program, but I did look at the website, and I have seen the commercials. I believe that Animal Planet is a subsidiary of the Discovery Channel, and I am noticing a trend. All of these evolution-related programs on AP and DC are very, very speculative. It is not science. It is a guess, and not necessarily a well-thought out one.

    We are not talking about predicting what kinds of particles will pop out of a high-energy collision of heavy ions, we are talking about what life will look like in 200 million years. The former is good science, the latter is not. Did anyone notice that the DC's productions on Neanderthals, Dinosaurs, and Prehistoric Beasts were full of the exact same type of pseudoscience speculation? Worst of all, they had the animals doing such things as looking at the camera repeatedly, and even spitting out water towards the TV screen!!! I mean, come on! This makes for great ratings (maybe), but pisspoor science, AFAIAC. They had the Neanderthals going around stealing women and raping them without a shred of evidence that such things occurred, save that in our modern human society they do. Baboons that make fish nets? It seems that there is an overanthromorphization of just about every creature that is CG-rendered by these programs.

    Please, when you watch these programs, don't be afraid to enjoy them- but make sure you take them with a grain of salt. To a certain extent, I believe that these programs work against getting the American public to accept evolution as scientists do, instead encouraging misconceptions about basic principles of evolution, as well as providing fodder to anti-evolutionists. Hopefully, in the future, these will be done a bit more professionaly, with less emphasis on the art, and more on the science.

  13. Didnt see it but by geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know that animals on this planet have a 40 million year shelf life with very few exceptions (crocs, cock roaches, turtles etc..).

    After the last E.L.E. that killed off all the dinosaurs the animals that survived tended to shrink in size because of the lack of food. Cock roaches used to be quite large, something the size of say a football. Crocodiles were enormous and so were sea turtles. But since the larger animals require more food, evolution kicked in and the species naturally shrunk for survival.

    Considering the abundance of life on this planet and likewise food. It seems reasonable that species will continue to grow larger, that is unless insects take over which is quite possible considering they out number us greatly and carry some really nasty diseases.

    Humankinds downfall wont be global warming or nuclear war. We will be killed off by the only thing that is higher on the food chain than us, virii. We still can't cure virii, not even the common flu has a cure, and given it's yearly mutation (evolution) there is virtually no hope of curing viruses. We can postpone but not stop them i.e. AIDS. Biowarfare is happening today, but not from Iraq, mother nature has found our supierior.

    We may develop the technology to fight off the bugs, but thats a long shot and could be worse than the buggers themselves. Time will only tell.

    Aditionally, someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the moon supposed to leave our orbit in the next 60 thousand years? It's orbit is degenerating at a certain rate, meaning it will eventually leave us altogether. What impact will this have on life here? The moon is responsible for the tides correct?

    1. Re:Didnt see it but by Planesdragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Humankinds downfall wont be global warming or nuclear war. We will be killed off by the only thing that is higher on the food chain than us, virii. We still can't cure virii, not even the common flu has a cure, and given it's yearly mutation (evolution) there is virtually no hope of curing viruses. We can postpone but not stop them i.e. AIDS. Biowarfare is happening today, but not from Iraq, mother nature has found our supierior.

      Er, Viri aren't on the food chain. They're a parasitical life form that simply won't survive if they kill off all of the hosts. (And AIDS is a particularly bad example. The "simple" act of killing, neuturing, or ostracizing every HIV+ individual & blood sample would eliminate the virus in a way that, oh, killing TB infections wouldn't.)

      Plus, don't forget that humans aren't the only ones to suffer from virii. EVERY animal has its parasites; we just happen to know more about ours, AND we've got enough tech to beat back even the nastiest of them.

  14. Was I the only one... by dasunt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...who looked at the squids and realized that H. P. Lovecraft might have been onto something?

    Only 200 years it takes for death to die.

  15. That's easy by core+plexus · · Score: 4, Insightful
    But first, a disclaimer: "Past performance is no assurance of future performance"

    Having said that, consider what organisms have been around for the previous 250 million years, and why:

    Tube worms, mosquitos, reptiles, dragonflies, and my faves, the octopus and cockroach, to name but a few.

    That's how animals will look 250 million years from now.

  16. Re:One thing they seemed to leave out... by jpkunst · · Score: 4, Funny
  17. Totally Disagree by Galahad2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I totally disagree with your idea that man will be killed off by viruses. At the pace medical technology is advancing today, we will be able to cure any virus-borne disease in no more than one hundred years. If all else fails, we can just use nanomachine virus death squads. Unless mankind loses all of their technology somehow, there is no chance of us being exterminated by a virus. And I can't think of a single feasible way, short of alien invasion, that that could happen. Even global thermonuclear war followed by nuclear winter wouldn't do it: there would be pockets of technology and knowledge held by the (many millions of) survivors.

    And it's not like there are, or can be, incredibly deadly viruses. The worst in the world (arguably) is AIDs, and it is hardly threatening mankind's survival. Far less than one percent are infected and even fewer die from it. Furthermore, no virus will survive if it is really good at killing. Viruses exist not to kill, as you seem to imply, but rather to propagate. Evolutionarily, a virus wants to hurt its host as little as possible. A virus that kills its host super-fast would burn itself out. Why do you think smallpox was so easy to eradicate? It was one of the most deadly viruses known to man, yet it was one of the easiest to kill off. Same with Ebola: it is incredibly lethal and contagious, yet far fewer than one hundred people die from it a year.

    In fact, there's no reason at all that man will ever become extinct. We will eventually colonize other planets and galaxies, exponentially reducing any threat to the species. Our technology will speed evolution up a million fold, eventually making humans effectively immortal. Nothing short of a Borg-like sentient race hell-bent on our destruction (or a planet-killing disaster in the next few hundred years) could kill us off. Sorry, universe, you're stuck with us.

  18. See Singularity. by cosmosis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the real question is what will we look like in 100 years? Assuming we are able to ride the accelerating technological curve into utopia instead of oblivion, in less than 100 years we are likely going to gain the ability to morph into almost any imaginable shape and/or becoming uploads traversing the universe.

    Planet P Blog - Liberty with Technology.

  19. Re:Interesting! by donnacha · · Score: 4, Informative
    I was able to find it at a local thrift shop
    It is quite hard to get hold of but I run a very small online book business in the UK, PristineBooks.com, and have 20 new copies selling for $27 or £17 or 27 Euros payable via PayPal and including free shipping to anywhere in the world. Next day delivery in the UK, three days to mainland Europe and around one week to the US, Asia and Australia.

    Apologies for the shameless plug but I guessed that the out-of-print status of this book might cause a lot of frustration to anyone who finds this discussion interesting.

    Anyone who's interesting can contact me via the PristineBooks.com site, cheers.

  20. Evolution requires mutation, not predictable by acroyear · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A comment I left in the "Future Is Wild" boards @ discovery.com:

    That Darwin's theory explains why things are the way they are, with regards to survival, it doesn't explain the HOW, which is mutation. Mutations occur and natural selection drives the duplication of the mutated genes 'til a new species is differentiated from the old.

    However, the nature of how mutations really happen, and how "good" ones that are "prefered" arrive (as we're very keyed in to hating anything "different" ourselves and often shun it in humans or kill it in animals) is what we as humans have not been able to truly see or test. Its hard to test, as mammals have too long a breeding period, and colonial insects (ants and bees) are usually dominated by the queen's genes. Most genes that change behaviours tended to have already been on the planet somewhere, and are only spreading now because we're accidentally spreading them (e.g., "africanized/killer" bees).

    The show did a good job of suggesting what natural selection might do, given a set of mutations over X million years to produce said animals, but the fact is that the mutations themselves are what's utterly unpredictable...and truth be told, rather boring by comparison to the end-results we saw.

    I consider evolution a fact, but not a law in the Newton/Einstein sense, because evolution can't be used to predict the future with any accuracy since evolution doesn't explain mutations; it only relies on them. It would be like trying to use Einstein to predict something in electrons without the use of calculus.
    --
    There's more of my commentary on the show in my journal @ slashdot, most of it influenced by talk from the same boards.

    --
    "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
    -- Joe
  21. Don't they watch today's nature documentaries? by geekotourist · · Score: 4, Informative
    Because if they'd seen a few more before producing this show they could have made it much better. I was fast forwarding far too many times- it was slow. Now that Tivo believes I am Charles Darwin I have a near infinite supply of "death in the desert- a viper's story" type shows (which I *do* watch, so it's not a bad thing). What a typical nature show has, which the Future is Wild didn't, include:
    • A focus. While they couldn't give us a mother and cubs, they could've given us the evolutionary equivalent. Take a couple of classes or orders and get us to care what happens to them over then next 200 million years. Introduce the squids early on. The only continuity TFIW had was "location of former cities"
    • Drama- rather than suddenly show the last mammal, they should've shown 100 million years of decreasing diversity.
    • Digressions. TFIW had few animals per time zone. If TFIW didn't have the computational budget to animate more they at least could have had more still shots. Documentaries tend to be filled with side loops, constantly showing local diversity- while the predator waits, we take five minutes to check out a cute symbiotic relationship, or a flock of colorful birds, or the prey's prey, or a dung beetle (which also is part of my next point...)
    • Humor. Let's see some baby spiders falling off the web before going into the extinction of mammals next time.
    A few random points relating to other threads in the comments:
    • Flying fish- yes, they do exist, flapping their tiny pectoral fins: check out some of the Amazonian Hatchetfish species.
    • The unlikeliness of X (giant land squid, silver spiders, etc): who'd have predicted what Pikaia-like creatures could lead to over the next 500 million years
    • the diversity of life over the past 500 million years: spend a few hours exploring the Tree of Life Project: after that, none of TFIW speculations seem too weird (although they made some physiological mistakes- as pointed out by others, the giant tortoises's legs don't make sense)
    • Extinct mammals: well, out of all of these all we have left are the birds.
    • Missing signs of humans: I've seen estimates (can't find them right away- one was in Sci-Am I think) that suggest most large-scale signs of humans (buildings, satellites, canals) would be gone within 500,000 years. Even the longest-lasting signs (large concentrations of radioactive elements, space probes, AOL CDs) won't last more than 100-200 million years given subduction, etc).