4 ms·

> The xenomorph’s multicellular structure serves as a cornerstone for its classification within Animalia (Ros-Rocher et al., 2021). Its intricate organization o

> The xenomorph’s multicellular structure serves as a cornerstone for its classification within Animalia (Ros-Rocher et al., 2021). Its intricate organization of cells, tissues, and organs reflects a level of biological complexity commonly associated with animals. This is already wrong! Animalia is an Earth kingdom, and the Xenomorphs clearly aren't an Earth life-form. > Xenomorphs can be included into the Arthropoda phylum due to the morphological similarities shared with certain terrestrial arthropods such as an exoskeletal structure, a segmented body plan, the presence of hemolymph, etc. Again, no! They're not an Earth life-form. Just because they superficially resemble some arthropods in some features doesn't make them an arthropod! You might as well say that a train is an arthropod - exoskeletal structure, segmented body plan, the presence of hemolymph...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Hikikomori 2y ago
>This is already wrong! Animalia is an Earth kingdom, and the Xenomorphs clearly aren't an Earth life-form. Is it if the engineers seeded earth with life?
- Filligree 2y ago
  It would have needed to be way back in single-cellular prehistory to be compatible with known history. They still wouldn't be the same phylum. Never mind that xenomorphs aren't even carbon-based.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> This is already wrong! Animalia is an Earth kingdom, and the Xenomorphs clearly aren't an Earth life-form. Has biology even bothered to come up with a name for that level of taxon, or would it be premature? I know that in recent years they've been quibbling about both what the top-level (Earth top-level) taxon should be, and what the specific ones would even be for it, but I've never heard of a scheme that embiggens it to alien life. If they ever did so, would there even be the same number of sub-taxons for it for any given planet? And what in the hell do we do if we discover one of those on Earth? There's no reason to be certain that life only abiogenically manifested once on Earth is there?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution Things evolve into crabs all the time I don’t know if we specially have a word for that form of mistake in the tree. I’m under the impression we just fix the tree as we go.
biofox 2y ago
Depends on your philosophic position on taxonomy. If you wish for it to capture inheritance and lineage, then I agree, but it is equally valid to view it as a relationship of similarities and patterns (similar to design patterns in programming). The lineages may have different origins, but if they converge on a common pattern, why shouldn't they be grouped together? (if it quacks like a duck...)
- tetris11 2y ago
  Also, doesn't the chemical merely mutate the existing DNA, so that a phlogeny based on sequence composition would yield high consensus for existing organisms (albeit with way higher than base rate variants)?
- psychoslave 2y ago
  We can definitely group them, but if we want to pretend they are the same phylum, that will be a move going against the consensual meaning of the term in biology, which clearly distinguish analogous structures and homologous structures. At this point, it’s clear that yes we can say whatever fantasy we want, but that is not going to instantly override the precise preponderant meaning it has gained in the community most interested and knowledgeable in the topic. All that said, I’m not a biologist, and given the honesty I show with such a disclaimer, you know you can blindly trust me on all the topics I’m barely conscious about, right? So trust me xenomorphs are actually adorable cute cuddly pets. Don’t believe all you see in your nightmarish block busters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology) https://www.thoughtco.com/analogy-vs-homology-1224760 https://www.thoughtco.com/analogy-vs-homology-1224760
jhbadger 2y ago
In science fiction you pretty much have to accept either a single source of life or amazing convergent evolution. How can Vulcans mate successfully with humans in Star Trek, if they aren't animals very closely related to Homo sapiens? Or the humans in Star Wars that lived "long ago in a galaxy far far away".
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  And in both Star Trek and Star Wars, the answer eventually given somewhere in the lore is that a very long time ago someone seeded the entire galaxy with (humanoid?) life and it is all in a single tree. (See https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Progenitor https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Progenitor and https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Celestial/Legends#Architects https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Celestial/Legends#Architect... )
  - nine_k 2y ago
    Chimps, gorillas, and humans are very close in the genetic tree, but cannot cross-breed. For a high level of genetic compatibility, constant contact and cross-breeding are likely required.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      It is actually not clear whether chimp/human hybrids are impossible. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee It’s possible it was actually going to happen if not disrupted in China during the cultural revolution
  - josefx 2y ago
    > and it is all in a single tree That seems to apply to the Star Trek one, which going by the lore seems to be more of an artificially maintained rotten stump that had any potential for divergent/adaptive growth preemptively cut. The Star Wars lore you link only seems to talk about empires that made contact with multiple species and might have helped spread them over a hundred thousand year span. It does not seem to mention a single point of origin or an artificially crippled evolution that would enforce parallel development.
philote 2y ago
I think you're missing the entire point of the article. It's attempting to classify a fictional, alien species with a real taxonomy (the only one we currently have available to us). And yes, "just because they superficially resemble some arthropods in some features doesn't make them an arthropod".. but at the very beginning they point out they cannot use DNA sequences to help classify, so they are only using known physical characteristics.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  Oh, I know the point. I'm just engaging in the same kind of nerd pedantry!
GoblinSlayer 2y ago
The elephant in the room is it's a silicon organic organism. So during parasitic stage it grows basically ex nihilo, and then hunts and eats carbon life forms for no reason. It's hollywood zoology.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  They don’t eat humans generally. They did eat a guy in one of the later ones. But the better thought out films don’t have them doing this. Just killing or paralyzing things and then taking them back to the nest.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    As far as I'm concerned, 3 and 4 never happened. I'm still on the fence about Prometheus and Covenant.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      The prequels are cool Haven’t seen the new one*
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        I haven't seen Covenant or Romulus yet. I saw Prometheus, and it was really bad, but in a complicated way. It wasn't a completely terrible movie that you can just dismiss as garbage like Battlefield: Earth and not think about again. It was beautifully shot, and a visual feast to watch. There were some really great scenes, like the robo-surgery scene. But the characters were frequently stupid, and the script was bad because it made the characters do idiotic, incompetent things that should only be seen in a B-grade horror movie. Ridley should have known better, and should have done a better job making sure the script he was working with made sense, so I'm very disappointed with him. He didn't do this with the first "Alien" movie at all. Then he apparently did it again with Covenant: I haven't seen this one yet, but what I've read says he didn't really learn his lesson from Prometheus, and made another great-looking movie with high production values and a poor script. So I haven't been in a hurry to see it. Romulus seems to have good reviews so far, and a different director, so I'd like to give it a chance. I just haven't had a chance to see it yet, but it is high on my list of films to watch soon, along with the new Quiet Place movie.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Hikikomori 2y ago

>This is already wrong! Animalia is an Earth kingdom, and the Xenomorphs clearly aren't an Earth life-form. Is it if the engineers seeded earth with life?

Filligree 2y ago
It would have needed to be way back in single-cellular prehistory to be compatible with known history. They still wouldn't be the same phylum. Never mind that xenomorphs aren't even carbon-based.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> This is already wrong! Animalia is an Earth kingdom, and the Xenomorphs clearly aren't an Earth life-form. Has biology even bothered to come up with a name for that level of taxon, or would it be premature? I know that in recent years they've been quibbling about both what the top-level (Earth top-level) taxon should be, and what the specific ones would even be for it, but I've never heard of a scheme that embiggens it to alien life. If they ever did so, would there even be the same number of sub-taxons for it for any given planet? And what in the hell do we do if we discover one of those on Earth? There's no reason to be certain that life only abiogenically manifested once on Earth is there?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jncfhnb 2y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution Things evolve into crabs all the time I don’t know if we specially have a word for that form of mistake in the tree. I’m under the impression we just fix the tree as we go.

biofox 2y ago

Depends on your philosophic position on taxonomy. If you wish for it to capture inheritance and lineage, then I agree, but it is equally valid to view it as a relationship of similarities and patterns (similar to design patterns in programming). The lineages may have different origins, but if they converge on a common pattern, why shouldn't they be grouped together? (if it quacks like a duck...)

tetris11 2y ago
Also, doesn't the chemical merely mutate the existing DNA, so that a phlogeny based on sequence composition would yield high consensus for existing organisms (albeit with way higher than base rate variants)?
psychoslave 2y ago
We can definitely group them, but if we want to pretend they are the same phylum, that will be a move going against the consensual meaning of the term in biology, which clearly distinguish analogous structures and homologous structures. At this point, it’s clear that yes we can say whatever fantasy we want, but that is not going to instantly override the precise preponderant meaning it has gained in the community most interested and knowledgeable in the topic. All that said, I’m not a biologist, and given the honesty I show with such a disclaimer, you know you can blindly trust me on all the topics I’m barely conscious about, right? So trust me xenomorphs are actually adorable cute cuddly pets. Don’t believe all you see in your nightmarish block busters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology) https://www.thoughtco.com/analogy-vs-homology-1224760 https://www.thoughtco.com/analogy-vs-homology-1224760

jhbadger 2y ago

In science fiction you pretty much have to accept either a single source of life or amazing convergent evolution. How can Vulcans mate successfully with humans in Star Trek, if they aren't animals very closely related to Homo sapiens? Or the humans in Star Wars that lived "long ago in a galaxy far far away".

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
And in both Star Trek and Star Wars, the answer eventually given somewhere in the lore is that a very long time ago someone seeded the entire galaxy with (humanoid?) life and it is all in a single tree. (See https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Progenitor https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Progenitor and https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Celestial/Legends#Architects https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Celestial/Legends#Architect... )
- nine_k 2y ago
  Chimps, gorillas, and humans are very close in the genetic tree, but cannot cross-breed. For a high level of genetic compatibility, constant contact and cross-breeding are likely required.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    It is actually not clear whether chimp/human hybrids are impossible. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee It’s possible it was actually going to happen if not disrupted in China during the cultural revolution
- josefx 2y ago
  > and it is all in a single tree That seems to apply to the Star Trek one, which going by the lore seems to be more of an artificially maintained rotten stump that had any potential for divergent/adaptive growth preemptively cut. The Star Wars lore you link only seems to talk about empires that made contact with multiple species and might have helped spread them over a hundred thousand year span. It does not seem to mention a single point of origin or an artificially crippled evolution that would enforce parallel development.

philote 2y ago

I think you're missing the entire point of the article. It's attempting to classify a fictional, alien species with a real taxonomy (the only one we currently have available to us). And yes, "just because they superficially resemble some arthropods in some features doesn't make them an arthropod".. but at the very beginning they point out they cannot use DNA sequences to help classify, so they are only using known physical characteristics.

pavel_lishin 2y ago
Oh, I know the point. I'm just engaging in the same kind of nerd pedantry!

GoblinSlayer 2y ago

The elephant in the room is it's a silicon organic organism. So during parasitic stage it grows basically ex nihilo, and then hunts and eats carbon life forms for no reason. It's hollywood zoology.

jncfhnb 2y ago
They don’t eat humans generally. They did eat a guy in one of the later ones. But the better thought out films don’t have them doing this. Just killing or paralyzing things and then taking them back to the nest.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  As far as I'm concerned, 3 and 4 never happened. I'm still on the fence about Prometheus and Covenant.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    The prequels are cool Haven’t seen the new one*
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      I haven't seen Covenant or Romulus yet. I saw Prometheus, and it was really bad, but in a complicated way. It wasn't a completely terrible movie that you can just dismiss as garbage like Battlefield: Earth and not think about again. It was beautifully shot, and a visual feast to watch. There were some really great scenes, like the robo-surgery scene. But the characters were frequently stupid, and the script was bad because it made the characters do idiotic, incompetent things that should only be seen in a B-grade horror movie. Ridley should have known better, and should have done a better job making sure the script he was working with made sense, so I'm very disappointed with him. He didn't do this with the first "Alien" movie at all. Then he apparently did it again with Covenant: I haven't seen this one yet, but what I've read says he didn't really learn his lesson from Prometheus, and made another great-looking movie with high production values and a poor script. So I haven't been in a hurry to see it. Romulus seems to have good reviews so far, and a different director, so I'd like to give it a chance. I just haven't had a chance to see it yet, but it is high on my list of films to watch soon, along with the new Quiet Place movie.