Comment by Eliezer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Eliezer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

LARGE SPOILERS AHEAD:

I liked Avatar, but to me the obvious science fail was the telepathic connection between the Na'vi and the animals. Evolution doesn't work like that! Rattlesnakes do not grow rattles for your benefit! I'm afraid that yon astrophysicist knows rather a bit more about physics than about evolutionary biology if the inter-species universal complex adaptations didn't jump out at him.

As for the planetary tree-mind being able to read out human brain networks using its own standardized equipment, who are they kidding?

Yes, the whole plot would have worked without it! The central tree could have been providing a vital nutrient without which the local ecosystem would fail, or something that their women needed to reproduce. There's no reason you need telepathy to ride a horse. The final stampede could have been started by one or more heroes, rather than being magic. And the final body-swap wasn't really necessary (just keep using the old equipment), but it could have been an effect of running the interface for a sufficiently long time (the alien brain gets reprogrammed).

And then it would have been hard science fiction, which would have made a visually-awesome, okay-plot movie into one of the greatest SF movies of all time.

Also, I will accept pretty alien ladies for the sake of plot, but having them cry tears is going too far, and it's not necessary. That really jumped out at me.

Avatar was good, but it could have been so much more if they'd spent five minutes thinking about how to get the plot effect they wanted via science instead of magic.

There's so much we don't know about this imaginary world that I don't think this is a fair assessment.

If, early on in the evolution of animals with brains, it was typical for them to communicate through these connections, wouldn't it make sense for all descendant animals to also have this ability? If contact between divergent species was still frequent, and the contact was positive and mutually beneficial, why not communicate through this channel when needed? Spoken language may have been unique to their humanoids. Indeed, spoken language is a bit more odd than directly connecting to the brain of the other.

To me, this is just as unusual or counter to evolution as our ability to use sign language to communicate (albeit primitively) with apes, or give spoken orders to dogs. That is: it isn't.

> I liked Avatar, but to me the obvious science fail was the telepathic connection between the Na'vi and the animals. Evolution doesn't work like that! Rattlesnakes do not grow rattles for your benefit! I'm afraid that yon astrophysicist knows rather a bit more about physics than about evolutionary biology if the inter-species universal complex adaptations didn't jump out at him.

You should check this out: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/paris.php The latest science suggests that evolution is less random than we thought, and that unrelated species often swap genetic information. Inter-species universal complex adaptations may be a bit more plausible than we think.

I am not an expert on evolution, but much of this article strikes me as incorrect. The fact that genes are capable of modifying other genes (turning them off/on, splicing in new genes, etc.) doesn't refute the concept of natural selection of random mutations unless you're ALSO positing a new mechanism by which this modification ability can be acquired. I skimmed through and didn't see one, even though he strangely implies that the fact that genes behave in a complex fashion means that organisms aren't coded by them. His (apparent) creationist sympathies and tacit endorsement of the gaia concept leads me to believe he thinks there is some sort of magic at work, which is not a very useful explanation.

I'm equally perplexed by his overall point of "genetics is complicated, therefore genetic engineering and capitalism is immoral."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com