1
Premise target:
A few thousands of intelligent machine-scientists have been tasked on the creation of an organism with the abilities of an animal. The exact requirements that they are given are:
- Can move itself away from harm and towards what it considers good. It should be able to move away from being repeatedly bothered by something before 10 seconds, for example.
- Can reproduce if not under too harsh conditions. Good conditions is earth-like, either water, land or mixed, temperate climate, up to the answer requirements.
- Can autonomously/gregariously do what it need to do to feed. Whether it's hunting, absorbing nutrients, etc.
- Can adapt to environment changes on geological timescales.
- An individual should have the potential to learn based on some sort of memory and adaptable interpretation of stimuli/action/consequence loop. If should be able to remember at short and medium term that there is something bothering it in a general location.
- Its macroscopic: Could be clearly visualized if taken a photo of it with a mundane camera from a fair distance. About ten centimeters is okay.
- It does not explicitly need to be multicellular, an animal, or even reproduce sexually! If you reach the previous described characteristics, it's as good as any.
I figured out the simplest organism would be would be some fish-like animal, but you can end up with something else.
Premise scientists:
- They know way more than us in the fields of inorganic chemistry, physics, math and computation.
- They posses no previous knowledge about organic chemistry, biochemistry or biology. If the answer includes those sciences, it will need to include the time necessary to discover them to the desired depth (the necessary depth can vary depending on the method chosen to reach the goal).
- They can work on it until the project is done, however long it takes.
- Other than that, treat them as a few thousands of scientists with the ability to perfectly share information between the members and without other academic duties.
- The scientists have only access to a single type of creature, an DNA based waterborne photosynthetic unicellular organism (ABWPUO). Don't limit yourself to a Microalgae if it better suits your answer, but is must start as unicellular, waterborne and photosynthetizer.
- They have never seen any other form of organic life. They just know that an animal can be "evolved" from it. This means that they do not know how internal organs work, how creatures metabolize or how tissues mature from embryonic cells. This is a huge factor in the time it takes if the answer focuses on designing a creature insted of evolving. Maybe alternating evolution and design will speed things up a lot.
- They can study, breed and toy to their hearts contempt with the ABWPUO both in laboratory setting and in its natural habitat.
- They have at their disposition the influence, natural resources and manpower of a country the size of Japan, which they can use at will, for example to set up laboratories or alter the natural habitat of the ABWPUO. (So they could build a dam and enclose whole sections of the ocean under their sovereignty to experiment, but could not, for example, alter the atmosphere of the whole planet)
Question:
Approximately how long will it take the scientists the creation of the creature described?
What magnitude of time are we talking about? A hundred years? A million?
I know it's an estimate, but I'd like to have a well founded estimate, and they think they can do better than just waiting 3500 million years.
I'll accept the shortest believable time-frame that does not cheat the whole thing. Outside influences to the described situation are not allowed.
1What is ADN? What do you mean with "innocent directed evolution"? – L.Dutch - Reinstate Monica – 2019-01-24T13:26:23.503
It's a typo of DNA. I mean that it's evolution directed towards a goal, but with absolutely no clue of how the goal actually works. I figured it would be different from, say, a earth mad-scientist trying to create a fish from a gull, when the scientist knows how fishes work internally and can study existing specimens of the end goal. – Oxy – 2019-01-24T13:30:31.683
And the premise would be that the evolution would be faster than them learning biochemistry and DNA-altering the creature? Because that is rather far-fetched given how advanced they are in other fields. Evolution is on a millennial scale, Scientific advancement on a scale measured in years.... – bukwyrm – 2019-01-24T13:35:40.373
It seems to me that you have a strange misconception about what "organic chemistry" is. It has nothing to with biology; organic chemistry is simply the chemistry of hydrocarbons and their derivatives. The scientists cannot at the same time be very advanced in inorganic chemistry and ignorant of organic chemistry -- these two are of the same nature. And if they are totally ignorant of biology, how do they manage to keep their algae alive? (BTW, a "DNA based waterborne photosynthetic unicellular organism" is a unicellular alga.)
– AlexP – 2019-01-24T13:36:26.243@AlexP They have studied all their environment carefully, and up to the point of advancing and improving their own life. It has never included anything way more complex than methane or graphene. They stumbled upon the creature introduced to their environment. The algae itself can live (and does too well) on their existing oceans. I described it as I did in order to not limit it to a unicellular alga. It could be prokaryote, for example. – Oxy – 2019-01-24T13:42:27.887
@bukwyrm Learning what you mention and altering the DNA is valid. You can post it as an answer, if you want. But I don't think they can see the DNA of a relatively simple cell and design things such as reproductive systems or central nervous systems, muscles, gills, eyes, etc. Consider that they have never seen anything from an animal: like a respiratory system, a brain, sexual reproduction. I wouldn't consider designing all the biochemistry of a complex organism from barely nothing a feat achievable in mere years. Note that they have more knowledge, but not more intelligence! – Oxy – 2019-01-24T13:59:51.893
2Would the creature have to be about as complex as a fish? because the learing requirement is met by creatures a lot less complex and big, and the other requirements are quite basic as well - Caenorhabditis elegans would qualify, for instance. --- Also, would it even need to be multicellular? If the Scientists start without a concept of multicellularity, they might come up with a solution that goes another way, slimemold-y, for instance. If so, you'd need to adjust your goal conditions. – bukwyrm – 2019-01-24T14:54:53.397
@bukwyrm The complexity is not an end, just the abilities. It does not even need to be an animal. I'll clarify. – Oxy – 2019-01-24T14:57:49.393
@bukwyrm True, a creature such as the Caenorhabditis elegans is almost a perfect fit, it only needs to grow to a decent size. I suspect the growth aspect would be pretty fast to force, considering the work already done. – Oxy – 2019-01-24T15:25:14.753
Forgive me for being blunt, but: (a) We barely understand evolution. (b) We have only one datapoint: Earth's evolution. (c) We do not have the technology to "force" evolutionary progress (e.g., create a genetic condition that's inherited by the next generation) that isn't damaging. The consequence is that it's fundamentally impossible to answer your question. Pick a number. It's not the believable number that makes your story good - it's a good story that makes the number believable. – JBH – 2019-01-24T16:39:19.643
Why is there a need to even go multi-cellular? Unicellular macroscopic species exist.
– Kain0_0 – 2019-01-24T22:44:17.463@JBH No problem. But it's a science based question, not a hard-science one. I'm asking a timescale to reach from a point of evolution that existed in the past to a point of evolution that existed a while late, if we include some scientists to try to speed up the process that know a lot of what we know already. I don't see how would not be ok in telling if evolution could be speed up 10x to 1000x on a precise situation based on things that more or less happened and be alright with link
– Oxy – 2019-01-25T07:46:15.363@Kain0_0 There's currently no mention of multicellularity anywhere. – Oxy – 2019-01-25T07:48:36.990
@Oxy, I'm just helping to set your expectations. We don't know how to do what you're asking about. Now matter how well justified an answer is, it's a guess. – JBH – 2019-01-25T15:50:24.407
@Oxy please re-read the question title. For clarity here it is: "How fast can directed evolution make the leap from unicellular to fishlike ability level?" then the question requests capabilities that are in the realm of possibility for a Unicellular organism. – Kain0_0 – 2019-01-27T03:15:24.483