Spore biology
From Scienceguild
by T. Ryan Gregory and Niles Eldredge
(To go back to the Spore report card, click HERE.)
The following comments are limited to the first two stages in Spore, the cell and creature stages, as these relate most directly to biological issues. This is not a comprehensive review of the game, the science to which it relates, or the entertainment value of the game. This provides only some initial impressions based on playing the first two stages of the game while focusing on the biological components.
The cell stage
Life on the planet in question (which is not Earth) does not arise abiogenetically, but arrives in the form of a simple cell through panspermia by travelling through space inside an asteroid. Most biologists hold the view that life began endemically on Earth shortly after conditions became suitable, though there is a legitimate minority view that some organic molecules (but probably not cellular life) reached the Earth from space. Players choose before the game begins whether their cell will be a “carnivore” or “herbivore”. The categories of “carnivore” and “herbivore” would be nonsensical in the early history of life on Earth as most would have been chemosynthetic, and later many became photosynthetic. “Cells” in this case are not simple bacteria-like organisms (as the first life on Earth would have been), but are more like microinvertebrates. In any event, they clearly are not single cells, as they possess organs such as arthropod-like mouthparts and human-like eyes. The size of the organism, which increases substantially as the stage progresses, appears to have no effect on how it moves in the water. As the game states, “as a cell, your mission is to eat, grow, and evolve”. The primary objective in the cell stage is to consume food in order to grow (which happens in bursts), to accumulate “DNA points” by eating other “cells”, and to “collect” traits that can then be added in the creation interface. Only features that are present initially or collected when a species exhibiting them is killed can be added to the cell. While this bears little resemblance to the biology of multicellular eukaryotes, it is not so foreign among bacteria in which horizontal transfer is common. The creation interface is initiated by “mating” with another member of the same species, indicating that sexual reproduction already exists in these cells (also unlike life on an early Earth). Each feature to be added to the cell costs a certain number of “DNA points”, which makes constructing the cell similar to other games in which vehicles or structures are customized within a budget of currency collected during gameplay. When enough growth has taken place, the cell will experience an increase in intelligence, and eventually will be able to move onto land. At this point, the player can remain in the cell stage and discover new body parts, but the level itself is effectively finished. That is, the player cannot remain aquatic even if he wishes to but is encouraged to move to the next stage in which the “cell” acquires legs and becomes terrestrial. The transition to land is instantaneous (i.e., weight-bearing limbs, lungs, eyes that can see in air, etc., all develop at once) and is depicted as a conscious choice on the part of the player’s “cell” (who also convinces all conspecifics to join him). The game then moves to the creature stage.
The creature stage
The creature stage is similar in principle to the cell stage, except it takes place in a much more complex terrestrial environment and there is no longer a growth component. The player continues to discover new parts either hidden in skeletons located throughout the environment or by hunting or allying with different species. The player can form alliances with other species by singing and dancing with sufficient proficiency to impress them, or he can render them extinct by killing a specified number of them. This provides a bonus number of DNA points. As with the cell stage, the player initiates a creation interface by mating with a conspecific at his “nest”, and then can add parts that a) have been collected during gameplay, and b) are affordable within the DNA points budget. Any part can be removed for a full refund of its DNA points value. Most of the creature stage consists of collecting DNA points, allying or battling with other species, and modifying one’s creature in order to improve functionality along a preferred dimension (e.g., better charm or combat skills). The creature can be completely redesigned at any time, with the only constraint that it cannot switch from carnivory to herbivory or vice versa. This continues until the player has progressed enough to experience several abrupt increases in intelligence. At this point, the game moves to the tribal stage.
Does Spore simulate biology?
The question of whether Spore simulates biology in any reasonable fashion forms the focus of these comments. The short answer is: not as it occurs on this planet. The following sections deal with various aspects of the biology in the game.
Evolution: fact, theory, path
It is important to distinguish between evolution as fact (i.e., that life changes over time and that species are related by common descent), evolution as theory (i.e., the mechanisms that account for evolutionary change), and evolution as path (i.e., the historical pathway followed by various lineages).
i) Evolution as fact. Spore certainly does not avoid mentioning evolution, and it is obvious that change occurs throughout the lifetime of the player’s lineage. On a basic level, then, the game clearly reinforces evolution as fact. However, there is no evidence that species are actually related to one another by common ancestry. Indeed, it would seem that the ancestor of each species arrives on Earth in its own meteor (the source of mates for these individuals are not shown), such that there may be no common ancestors among any of the species observed.
ii) Evolution as theory. Evolutionary theory explains descent with modification as a result of sorting of undirected genetic changes in populations through processes that are either random (genetic drift) and non-random (natural selection). In addition, it emphasizes the role of historical contingency, constraints, and branching speciation. None of these appears in Spore even in a metaphorical way. Thus, the “evolution” in the game bears little resemblance to evolutionary mechanisms as they are recognized.
iii) Evolution as path. On Earth, it is generally acknowledged that evolution is subject to an influence of historical contingency that contradicts teleological or progressionist interpretations of the path of evolution. Adaptation is to current environments, which can and do change. There is no overall goal, and no directionality apparent across life at large. There certainly is no obvious tendency for an overall increase in complexity or intelligence in all lineages. In Spore, the goal of increasing in complexity is explicit, and reaching the later stages of the game requires linear, progressive change in this direction. The game therefore differs significantly from the path of evolution as it is now understood. It is possible that the game simply focuses on a few lineages that evolve toward greater complexity, but there is no sign that any other species are evolving at all in the game (e.g., the plants do not change).
Heredity
The game’s mechanism of heredity is essentially a standard real-time strategy modification system that happens to be applied to organisms. It does not appear to have been informed by biology in any significant sense. The player is free to add or subtract “parts” that have been “collected” from the environment or though killing other species, and this is regulated simply through “DNA points”. Substituting mechanical parts obtained from ally or enemy technology and DNA points for currency shows how this is very similar to other games in this genre. There are several other important ways in which the game’s system of heredity differs from real biology: i) There is no variation within species (and hence, no natural selection). ii) The changes that the player makes to his creature are depicted as taking place over the span of a single generation. These changes can be dramatic (indeed, the creature can be totally redesigned), whereas such major changes do not occur in a single generation in biology. iii) Changes made to a creature affect the entire species. In fact, the player’s character hatches out surrounded by other individuals already displaying the new form. iv) There are no mutations. v) All parts are interchangeable among all species.
Growth, reproduction, and aging
Newly hatched individuals are shown as “learning” certain skills, but this can be skipped by the player. “Baby” versions of other species are sometimes encountered, as are larger “Alpha” individuals. Other than this, no growth is depicted in the creature stage (cf. the cell stage, where growth is a major component). Likewise, the player’s character does not age and persists unchanged unless it is killed or dies of starvation – and even then a new one will hatch that is completely identical. Sexual reproduction exists from the very beginning, though there is no variation between the parents and no recombination.
Natural selection / adaptation
There is no mutation and no variation within species, and therefore no natural selection. There also are no challenges imposed by the environment, no overproduction of offspring, no intraspecific competition, no disease or other causes of mortality, and no biotic interactions other than alliance or predation. Without natural selection, adaptation in the usual sense cannot occur. The choices made by the player do involve a functional element as decisions must be made about how to enhance particular abilities by choosing appropriate parts. The parts themselves are modular in that they can be added, removed, or modified individually, which at least shows that some traits can change even if others do not; however, this is too strong to the point of ignoring interactions among parts. More importantly, there is no difference in the function of a part according to the organism or its environment, nor in terms of how the part is modified or positioned. For example, there is no difference in visual ability regardless of the type of eyes, and locomotion is not affected by the number, length, or organization of legs. As such, adaptation is not really part of the game, rather this is a system of “upgrades” in which possessing a certain part – in any position or format – provides a higher “level” for a specific ability. An element of “selection” and “adaptation” could have been included if different types of parts or their arrangement had consequences for the organism, thereby requiring the player to improve the organism by trial and error.
Sexual selection
There is no intrasexual selection as there is no competition for mates. A process does occur in which the creature must sing, dance, and charm others, but these are individuals from other species and therefore this does not represent intersexual selection. All organism features represent either a) structures that support basic functions (e.g., sensing, feeding, locomotion), b) structures that enhance combat with other species, c) structures that enhance alliances with other species, or d) aesthetic choice. The actual biological reasons for such characteristics as colouration (e.g., attracting mates, warning colouration, camouflage) or ornate features (e.g., antlers, exaggerated displays) are not included.
Constraints and trade-offs
There appear to be minimal constraints and trade-offs in the game. For example, although there is a limit on the number of parts that can be added (indicated by the “complexity meter”), this does not preclude the player from gaining maximum abilities in most or all categories as long as enough DNA points are earned (which they can be by hunting or allying with other species). That is, there is no internal (e.g., developmental or genetic) or external (e.g., resource availability) limits on the form the organisms can take. As mentioned previously, there are no consequences based on the design of the organism, meaning that there are no mechanical constraints either. Similarly, there appear to be no allometric issues – for example, a major change in body size has no impact on the function of the organism and its parts even if no adjustments are made. All parts can be removed or modified without sustaining any cost. The interaction of parts appears to be inconsequential. All of this differs markedly from real living organisms, though it would have been feasible to impose a cost for maladaptive combinations and arrangements of parts, or at least to institute a cost (e.g., only a partial refund) for adding a part that must later be subtracted.
Anagenesis, cladogenesis, and classification
On the face of it, Spore would appear to represent strict anagenesis (change within lineages without branching). In any case, there clearly is no component of cladogenesis (branching speciation) in the game, which means that the species encountered are all independently evolved and do not share a common ancestor. This raises an interesting issue about classification of the organisms in the game. Several million species have been created by players and the game designers, but there is no way to classify them in the way that living species are classified. Compare this with the 1.7 million named species (of perhaps 10-100 million) that have been described formally. In terms of living taxa, Linnaeus classified animals and plants hierarchically based on similarity, which he believed was a reflection of common themes in God’s design. Of course, it turns out that the reason a nested, hierarchical classification works is that species are related through shared ancestry in such a way. However, Spore creatures are neither designed by the same person nor evolved through common descent. This means that a Linnaean “similarity of design” would not work, nor would a cladistic method based on shared derived characteristics. A nested classification also is impossible because all parts are interchangeable across all species and can be added, subtracted, and modified at any time. The relationships among species in Spore are actually similar to those envisioned for living species by Lamarck, who held that simple species arise by spontaneous generation and then progress without branching or common ancestry up a scale of increasing complexity. Spore differs from Lamarckian evolution in both the source of new, simple organisms at the bottom of the scale (panspermia vs. spontaneous generation) and in the mechanism of change (adding “upgrades” vs. use and disuse of components), but the larger historical pattern of change is similar. This marks a major difference between biological systems and the game.
From Futuyma (2005). Evolution. Sinauer Associates.
Extinction
Other species can be driven extinct, but the player’s lineage cannot. Extinction in this case is due only to direct predation – there are no other biotic factors (e.g., being outcompeted) and no external factors (e.g., catastrophes, climate change, loss of habitat). There are no mass extinctions. All of this differs from life on Earth.
Historical continuity and contingency
All parts that can be incorporated into the organism are found intact, rather than being coopted or modified from pre-existing structures. They can be modified during design, but fundamentally they arrive in a functional form and it is aesthetic rather than functional changes that are made. All changes, including the gain and loss of complex structures, are completely reversible. Nevertheless, there is a necessary global trend to increased complexity and intelligence that is a major theme of the game. The only component of historical contingency seems to be that major ecological decisions carry over from one stage to the next (e.g., carnivore vs. herbivore in the cell stage persists in the creature stage, social vs. adaptable vs. predator remains after the end of the creature stage). The game provides a historical record of the changes in the player’s lineage. It is likely that most players will make small modifications in each increment, such that this would reflect descent with modification with some historical continuity. However, it is possible to overhaul the organism totally at any moment with no holdovers of past characteristics. Case in point:
It would have been more reasonable to limit the number of changes that can occur per generation so that some historical continuity would be imposed. The game is experienced as though it takes place over a few days (based on day-night cycle and occasional rainfall), and the species may undergo only 20 or so generations. Nonetheless, the timescale at the end of the stage is shown to have involved billions of years. In that time, there is essentially no change in any other species or in the environment. An aspect of changing environment (biotic and abiotic) could have been included.
Coevolution
The only interactions among species involve predation/battle and alliances formed through singing and dancing. The species do not coevolve – they are either driven extinct or become allies without initiating changes in either species. There are no hosts and parasites. Even the roles of “predator” and “prey” are mostly unclear, as many of the battles are between equally matched “predators”.
Is Spore intelligent design?
Obviously, Spore does not simulate evolution. Is it instead intelligent design? Overall, it would not be wise for ID proponents to claim this as an example of that view. First, it is obviously completely divergent from how real biological systems work, such that the argument would be that ID works, but only in a situation completely unlike real life. Second, it does not explain the very thing IDers purport is a) a problem for evolution, and b) a solution from ID – the origin of complex features. Those features are found intact in the game, so the player is not the ultimate designer. Third, most of the designs are not intelligent at all, they are capricious and humourous. In fact, given how unlike real organisms these are or must be, design mostly boils down to a matter of aesthetics rather than rationality. Fourth, the player designs only one species. The rest are designed by others. Fifth, one is not an all-powerful designer, but must spend time hunting down (or dancing with) other animals to gain enough DNA points to include desired parts. Finally, it is absolute micromanagement as the player must control every aspect of the creature’s existence. This is not intelligent design, it is semi-intelligent middle management. In short, if this is intelligent design, then it shows just how unconstrained by reality that approach is.
Concluding remarks
Spore is not a game with any deep linkages to biology. It is, in reality, a relatively standard real-time strategy game with the same basic unlocking of features, upgrading of levels, and choices about aesthetics and function as with vehicles or buildings in other similar games. The units happen to look like organisms, the features that can be added are mouths, eyes, and limbs, and the currency is called “DNA”, but really that does not make the game anything more than superficially biological. Spore is essentially a very impressive, entertaining, and elaborate Mr. Potato Head that uses the language of evolution but none of the major principles. There do not even seem to be metaphors for actual processes, rather it follows well established game mechanics and pastes biology onto them. The one potentially good result is that it will prompt players to think about evolutionary change, though it is a shame that nothing like biological processes was incorporated, even though some opportunities would seem to have been present.
