PkmnOriginsProject In reply to waterpoke [2015-06-18 13:31:09 +0000 UTC]

Yes, most likely it is. Sorry. As much as I would love to see it finished, I just can't fit Pokemon Origins onto my priority list at all. There are too many other things I'd rather be doing. Maybe one day, if I become rich and retire, I will come back to it  

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Webspidrman In reply to PkmnOriginsProject [2015-09-22 01:17:01 +0000 UTC]

Have you considered maybe passing along the project to other people?  Just like in real life, neither philosophy nor science is conducted by one person alone.  Maybe you should share your notes with other people consider giving them a stab at it.

Oh... Never mind; I see you now have a group page! Sweet!! ^_^

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PkmnOriginsProject In reply to Webspidrman [2015-09-22 10:32:59 +0000 UTC]

Absolutely, anyone is free to take this on and do whatever they like with it. I'd love to see that happen.

But finding people with the skills, willingness, free time and dedication to do this would be a difficult task in itself. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Webspidrman In reply to PkmnOriginsProject [2015-09-24 04:15:44 +0000 UTC]

Well, I did a very crude drawing back in 2011 basically detailing my belief about Pokemon evolution from in-game evidence that comes from breeding.

It was basically premised under that idea that all Pokémon that can interbreed are part of a ring-species descended from an egg-laying ancestor.

Mew is said to be the ancestor of Pokémon, but it gives live birth, and so it is my theory that after Mew the Pokémon family diverged into those which only laid eggs, and those which only give live birth, the latter line becoming humans (or Pokéhumans as I like to call them to distinguish them from the animal-evolved humans of our world in case they also exist at some point of time).  We have no idea who this original egg-laying ancestor was (probably not Mew since Mew cannot lay eggs as far as we know), but according to this theory, the egg-laying line then splintered into several Pokémon species, one of which was either Ditto or a Pokémon of which Ditto is the closest living descendant, and from Ditto or the pre-Ditto all members of what I call "the Pokémon supers-pecies", common Pokémon which belong to an egg-group, are descended.  Each egg-group can be thought of as a species complex, each evolutionary line as a species, and each stage of the evolutionary line as a subspecies.  Pokemon belonging to more than one egg-goup are transitional species which link the various groups of Pokémon  species into a single greater species.  This greater species does not include species of Pokémon which cannot breed with Ditto.

Ditto is a good candidate to be the first of this super-species, because not only does Ditto lay eggs but it has no gender, just like Mew.  Also interesting is how Mews, being able to give live birth, may be able to have sex despite being all of one sex, linking it to both the genderless Ditto and the gendered and sexed Pokéhumans, suggesting that part of the evolution of Mew into Pokéhumans was the differentiation of sexes.  Ditto's nature might also suggest that most Pokémon (specifically the descendants of Ditto or pre-Ditto) may not be sexed despite having gender, but only reproduce with opposite gender Pokémon, or otherwise the actual progenitor of the superspecies WAS sexed (like its relative the Pokéhuman) but this feature was lost with Ditto and other common genderless Pokémon.

However, in addition to this hypothetical Ditto-descended group there were also other egg-laying Pokémon, and it is from these that many (but not all) legendary Pokémon are descended from these other lines but share descent from the first egg-laying ancestor which pre-dates Ditto/pre-Ditto.  For example, Pokémon such as the legendary birds, Lugia, and Ho-Oh are likely part of one or more species independent from the common superspecies but part of the same greater clade.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PkmnOriginsProject In reply to Webspidrman [2015-09-27 03:56:25 +0000 UTC]

You've tried to keep as much of the game mechanics to be canon as possible. That's fair enough, but I think that to do so perfectly and come up with a coherent theory without any holes is impossible. Because of that, I don't even bother. I found it far more rewarding to re-imagine how Pokemon reproduction works, so as to do away with all of the unavoidable problems! 

For example, I don't think your theory explains how one egg group can be linked with a large number of other egg groups, which are linked back to others. Transitional species might work in some cases, likened to an archaeopteryx being somewhere between a dinosaur and a bird. But in Pokemon there are Field/Water1, Field/Humanlike, Field/Fairy, Humanlike/Bug, Water1/Fairy.... The list goes on. It's equivalent to finding a half reptile, half insect species on earth. It just can't be explained. 

I chose to do away with egg groups and gender ratios (with a few exceptions*). They are just too messy and inexplicable. Game Freak were not thinking about scientific explanations when they came with these things. They were just thinking about gameplay. As a result they simply can't fit reasonably into a realistic evolutionary context. The consequences of 100% male Pokemon and 100% female Pokemon, in a world where species can interbreed and the offspring always belongs to the female species, are disastrous! I have run simulations on that. Just as you'd expect, more and more species evolve to have higher ratios of female and less of male. Because there is no benefit to being a male in the Pokemon world! Then eventually everything goes extinct when there are no males left... If Pokemon had a 50/50 chance of laying an egg belonging to either parent this would be solved, but that unfortunately isn't the case. 

*Exceptions are Pokemon like Illumise and Volbeat, who are basically the same species. And Pokemon who evolved based on gender, like Mothim and Wormadam. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Webspidrman In reply to PkmnOriginsProject [2015-09-29 03:25:16 +0000 UTC]

I don't know if this would affect your calculations, but males do more easily pass on their moves to the off-spring than females.  If such is the case in the wild, then that might provide an important evolutionary advantage to have males since they would add to the overall health and strength of the population.  It is implied in some Pokedex entries that some seemingly one-gender populations do have female members (and vice versa), but they are very rare.  Otherwise, perhaps female Pokemon do on occasion leave eggs of another compatible species, like Milktank for Tauros, perhaps when exposed to the right incense or environmental conditions, but that this is just rare or only occurs in special circumstances and so doesn't show up in game-play.  Regardless, perhaps all male Pokemon are better able to add to the strength and vitality of the surrounding populations, their own populations replenished with alpha females and/or Dittos, or else some species are also able to reproduce asexually and their "gender" only comes into play when sexuality is involved (something I can easily imagine in the case of certain species like Ditto, the Solosis line, various mineral and plant-like species, and probably others that aren't so obvious like those with lop-sided gender ratios).  It also occurred to me that a number of species which seem to be all-male or all-female, like Tauros and Kangaskhan, are found in the Safari Zone, so it is possible these species' gender ratios were more balanced at one point but have become rarer due to over-hunting or environmental damage, leading to their endangerment.  I also find it interesting that the term "gender" is used rather than sex, which may mean that most Pokemon lack distinct sexes but merely prefer to breed with the opposite gender, with the feminine gender taking on the "female" role.

My thinking is that due to the ability to interbreed competition has been less common than cooperation with regards to Pokemon and that the various "species" have been co-evolving together in various environments.  The situation of Pokemon makes a lot more sense when viewed from the perspective of being a ring-species with amazingly diverse forms, with the egg groups acting as the true "species" and the Pokemon belonging to more than one egg group acting as intermediary species; it may even be possible to guess when various egg-groups diverged from one another by taking into account these intermediary species.  Real-life organisms often lose the ability to interbreed as they evolve over time, but Pokemon obviously possess an alien biology that allows them a great deal more flexibility to adapt while still being able to interbreed (probably the same inherent mechanism which also allows them to more easily metamorphose); their various forms can also make sense when considering that real organisms undergo not only natural selection but also little understood processes such as epigenetics that allow species to adapt to their environment within a few generations without having to wait for the perfect mutation, a process which might have an even more robust analogue in Pokemon.

That's really awesome that you've run simulations on this stuff! ^_^  Unfortunately, I feel like due to my lack of scientific training I have to come at the issue more from the perspective of a philosopher, which I feel leaves me at a disadvantage without any practical experience with biology in the lab or in the field.

You speak like a trained scientist.  Are you in fact one, or are you just that clever?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PkmnOriginsProject In reply to Webspidrman [2015-10-01 11:35:01 +0000 UTC]

Yes. But the move is the only thing being passed on... Since none of the father's actual genetic traits are being passed on, it doesn't matter if he gives the child a small advantage. Try reading "The Selfish Gene"! ^^ You'll learn a lot. 

In evolution it really is crucial that the offspring have about 50% of genes from each parent. Combining of genes is the only reason sex exists in the first place! If one organism is getting shafted by passing on barely any genes, or no genes, it's totally doomed. In reality, such a creature would never evolve in the first place. 

A species having only "very rare females" is doomed too! That's because they're the ones with the wombs. One male can impregnate 100 females but with 100 males and one female, there can still only be one pregnancy at one time. 

I think the term "gender" just means biological sex in Pokemon. Like what they call "evolution" is in fact metamorphosis... 

I'm not going to be able to respond to every one of your points. Maybe hit that return key a little more next time!

Yes, the simulations are really fun! I run evolutionary simulations for other digital organisms too, not just Pokemon. The main challenge with Pokemon is having to recreate the game mechanics! 

Thank you for thinking so, but I'm not actually a trained scientist. It's just an interest. I've just watched a lot of science videos, read lots of books, listened to science podcasts, etc. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Webspidrman In reply to PkmnOriginsProject [2015-10-02 14:20:53 +0000 UTC]

Thank you, I did read at least part of 'The Selfish Gene'.  Unfortunately, I didn't like it. xD  I am an atheist, like Richard Dawkins, and I believe in evolution as he does.  However, I also think he is an arrogant man.  The fact he insults people in his book turned me off really quickly.  He falls into the same trap as the people he criticizes: he confuses science with philosophy.  There can be many scientifically plausible explanations for the same phenomena, but unless people think the same way he does Dawkins says that they are irrational and blind to the truth.  If you liked the book that's fine; I hold nothing against you.

Don't feel the need to respond to everything I write.  It's fine! 

I think Pokemon makes more sense when taken as one species with many different forms rather than individual species, even if that's an incomplete and unsatisfactory explanation for us scientifically inclined.  Even so, I feel like the lack of information makes Pokemon more believable for me; there may be processes working in the background that we just don't see or understand.  For example, the way I've thought of Pokemon breeding for quite some time, even if it can't be shown or proven, is that a Pokemon child gets half its genes from each parent, but in the father's case his genes don't show up much in the child's external phenotype even if they show up in the genotype and internal phenotype.  I know you're going to say that's proof that the child isn't getting enough of the genes or that the genes must not be mixing enough, but I just chalk it up to a case of alien biology! x)

I was just getting an image in my head of a female Tauros walking around with thousands of fertilized eggs inside her (given most Pokemon lay eggs) that she later deposits.
I wonder if that's how Tauros gets it done, biologically speaking! ~_^

I'm not really convinced that gender is the same as sex in Pokemon though, especially if non-differentiated sexes serve as a partial explanation for some biological phenomena like why some varieties of Pokemon are seemingly all-female or all-male and yet still reproduce enough to repopulate; it would make sense if most if not all Pokemon can act as either the male or the female, even if they prefer one role over the other.  Pokemon is so p.c. as it is; it would make sense if they lack sex organs as we understand them.  They obviously have some means of transmitting their genes, but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if Pokemon are more or less undifferentiated in terms of sexes. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PkmnOriginsProject In reply to Webspidrman [2015-10-02 15:37:34 +0000 UTC]

Hmm, I have read a lot of Dawkins books. I didn't remember the Selfish Gene being like that. It is probably just the first chapter or two I'm guessing! I am sure that at least the majority of the book is not like that, and it has a lot of enlightening information about how evolution works, regardless of what you think about Dawkins. I definitely recommend trying it again, maybe skipping a little? If I knew another author who could explain evolution as well as Dawkins I'd let you know, but I don't!

I can't accept that all Pokemon could be subspecies of the one species... But I can accept that Pokemon is a video game series created by non-scientists, who didn't care to create lore which made any kind of sense! I think trying to explain it scientifically without changing a single bit of lore is a fool's errand. I guess it can be a fun exercise, but I find it so much more enjoyable to reimagine it; so that better parallels with real science can be drawn. 

Lately I've been focussing on creating my own original stuff. Still inspired by Pokemon and evolution! But at least it's something I can really call my own and maybe make money from one day. One idea I have is called Chimeras.... Basically, imagine Pokemon but instead of babies being the same species as the mother, they're instead awesome hybrids of both parents! ^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Webspidrman In reply to PkmnOriginsProject [2015-10-02 22:25:58 +0000 UTC]

About the 'Selfish Gene' I just feel like I can get the same information elsewhere without feeling insulted and while getting a more balanced perspective.  The chapter I found insulting was one which talked about evolutionary psychology and determinism.  Richard Dawkins gets very insulting towards people who don't believe that the psychology of the sexes isn't predominantly determined by biology.  He compared people who believe that to people who believe in religion whom he is also insulting towards (no news there), and I think he also was insulting to other groups as well if I recall, like people who aren't strict biological determinists.  It's been a long time since I read it but reading that chapter convinced me not to read anymore of his work.

I guess I take that stuff personally because of the experiences I've had.  I had a therapist who turned out to be a devout and well-read evolutionary psychologist and inferred a lot of stereotypical (or at least what I would consider negative) attributes to me due to me being male; later on I realised it had to do with her and not me, and that the stuff she was attributing was due to her own prejudice, but because she had helped me out with a lot of former anxieties I trusted her, and because it corresponded with a lot of stuff I had read, including Dawkins's ideas, and stuff I learned when I briefly sat in on a psychology class in college (the professor also believed that male and female psychology is very different and evolutionarily distinct),  I believed it must be true.  Ultimately, it lead me to a total mental breakdown.  It later took a chat with a neuroscientist friend of mine for me to understand the other perspectives.

My neuroscientist friend's opinion was that people like Dawkins and too many other evolutionary psychologists look at the data in broad strokes, treating observed differences as near absolutes and almost completely distinct to each group, not accounting for the many, many people whose psychology (or sometimes even brains) doesn't fit what is expected, something which becomes obvious when one looks at the experimental data.  She also felt that evolutionary psychologists didn't account for alternate explanations that were equally plausible.  For example, she mentioned a study, one of the ones which affected me, in which the scientists concluded that males have naturally very few mirror neurons, and therefore can't feel empathy strongly, whereas females have tons of them.  She said that even though that study has been used as evidence that males and females have biologically distinct psychologies, that the study failed to account for the differences in how males and females are raised as men and women; women are encouraged to experience empathy more, whereas men are supposed to be stoic and competitive, so it would follow that womens' and mens' brains would be affected by the difference in socialization and rearing.  She also said it made sense to be skeptical of the study and its conclusions because it doesn't account for why some males are very empathetic and some females clearly aren't.

Her opinion was that people, scientists included, want so much to have all the answers now, but that at the current point in time we don't have enough information, for instance on the human brain, to prove or disprove various hypotheses (she thought it might take at least another hundred years or more to fully understand the brain), and yet people like Dawkins will ignore the rationality of other perspectives.  Therefore, she felt that scientists have to be mindful of the impact their theories have on the public at large, especially when a lot of information is lacking which could later disprove them.  Otherwise she says people will use scientific theories to reinforce their own prejudices, which seems to be true in both my and her experiences.

But anyway....

As for what is a more interesting or scientific explanation of Pokemon, I guess it's a matter of perspective.  Personally, I like things that seem weird and alien and unfamiliar to me; like I prefer exceptions rather than parallels.  For example, I'm a huge H.P. Lovecraft fan, if you know who he is; suffice to say I am a hard-core xenophile, so I get really, really excited when presented with a kind of life or phenomenon which has exotic characteristics or defies conventional explanation.  That's not to say I dislike what actually is; I love both humankind and nature, and I'm a fairly extreme environmentalist.  But I love the feeling of having to stretch my mind to try and wrap my head around something I hadn't considered before, not that that's too different from what you did with your wonderful charts and illustrations! ^_^

Yes, I've heard about the Chimera idea!   I wonder if the official Pokemon fiction will eventually start to reflect these wonderful ideas which people come up with.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PkmnOriginsProject In reply to lunibri [2015-01-06 02:01:10 +0000 UTC]

Hi To be honest, I hadn't been very active on here either, until very recently. I enjoyed looking through your art, though. I especially liked the pineapple man. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lunibri In reply to PkmnOriginsProject [2015-01-06 02:18:15 +0000 UTC]

Thanks

👍: 0 ⏩: 0