Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.

[Elder Iptuous]

hm.
how about an animal that has mucous membrane on the end of short stumpy appendages which act as the axles.  the membrane secretes lubricating mucous that also dries forming a hard shell type wheel.  the appendage would act with short reciprocating motions in a ratcheting effect to turn the hard wheels.

[V3X]

I've been thinking more about the biological wheel problem, and I think I've discovered a solution. In a single organism, it wouldn't work, but in a colonial organism it could. The biological "axel" could spin within a fluid filled invagination, perhaps by cillia, or some sort of skeletal gear tooth mechanism. The issue then becomes, how does the axel and wheels part communicate with the chassis part, when to stop and go, or forward and reverse?

Wow, that's a really interesting idea!!

Pheromones probably won't work fast enough? Or could they be made to?

Fortunately there's other "distance sensing" options, even for simple organisms.

Bees must recognize that dancing communication pretty fast, right? Do they use vision, or some other sense?

I can also imagine some kind of cross between an antenna and a neuron/nerve type of thing. It would slide against the outer rim, not unlike the pole mounted on bumper cars gets electricity from the ceiling. You could have a whole bunch of radial "spokes" like these.

... wait I just looked up what "cilia" are, you were probably thinking of roughly the same thing then?

If the chamber housing the "axel" was tightly sealed and filled to sufficient pressure, start/stop/direction signals could be transmitted via rhythmic "beating" from muscles in the chamber wall causing pressure waves detected by the axel.

[LuciferX]

Just about to read this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml

Why Don't Animals have Wheels
By Richard Dawkins

[El Twid]

Just about to read this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml

Why Don't Animals have Wheels
By Richard Dawkins

Hey Ferx, long time no see.


How've you been?

[LuciferX]

Just about to read this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml

Why Don't Animals have Wheels
By Richard Dawkins

Hey Ferx, long time no see.


How've you been?

Well & looking forward (and now back for further absence you?

Re: article, just before where the picture was (supposed to be)
...

Now I must mention that there is one revealing exception to my premiss.  Some very small creatures have evolved the wheel in the fullest sense of the word.  One of the first locomotor devices ever evolved may have been the wheel, given that for most of its first two billion years, life consisted of nothing but bacteria (and, to this day, not only are most individual organisms bacteria, even in our own bodies bacterial cells greatly outnumber our ‘own’ cells).

Many bacteria swim using threadlike spiral propellors, each driven by its own continuously rotating propellor shaft.  It used to be thought that these ‘flagella’ were wagged like tails, the appearance of spiral rotation resulting from a wave of motion passing along the length of the flagellum, as in a wriggling snake.  The truth is much more remarkable.  The bacterial flagellum is attached to a shaft which, driven by a tiny molecular engine, rotates freely and indefinitely in a hole that runs through the cell wall.

...

[ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S.]

Just about to read this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml

Why Don't Animals have Wheels
By Richard Dawkins

Hey Ferx, long time no see.


How've you been?

Well & looking forward (and now back for further absence you?

Re: article, just before where the picture was (supposed to be)
...

Now I must mention that there is one revealing exception to my premiss.  Some very small creatures have evolved the wheel in the fullest sense of the word.  One of the first locomotor devices ever evolved may have been the wheel, given that for most of its first two billion years, life consisted of nothing but bacteria (and, to this day, not only are most individual organisms bacteria, even in our own bodies bacterial cells greatly outnumber our ‘own’ cells).

Many bacteria swim using threadlike spiral propellors, each driven by its own continuously rotating propellor shaft.  It used to be thought that these ‘flagella’ were wagged like tails, the appearance of spiral rotation resulting from a wave of motion passing along the length of the flagellum, as in a wriggling snake.  The truth is much more remarkable.  The bacterial flagellum is attached to a shaft which, driven by a tiny molecular engine, rotates freely and indefinitely in a hole that runs through the cell wall.

...

I've been trying to figure out the biomechanics of how this would work on a larger scale. It doesn't seem possible in a terrestrial environment, there would be too much potential for fluid loss.

[LuciferX]

Just about to read this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml

Why Don't Animals have Wheels
By Richard Dawkins

Hey Ferx, long time no see.


How've you been?

Well & looking forward (and now back for further absence you?

Re: article, just before where the picture was (supposed to be)
...

Now I must mention that there is one revealing exception to my premiss.  Some very small creatures have evolved the wheel in the fullest sense of the word.  One of the first locomotor devices ever evolved may have been the wheel, given that for most of its first two billion years, life consisted of nothing but bacteria (and, to this day, not only are most individual organisms bacteria, even in our own bodies bacterial cells greatly outnumber our ‘own’ cells).

Many bacteria swim using threadlike spiral propellors, each driven by its own continuously rotating propellor shaft.  It used to be thought that these ‘flagella’ were wagged like tails, the appearance of spiral rotation resulting from a wave of motion passing along the length of the flagellum, as in a wriggling snake.  The truth is much more remarkable.  The bacterial flagellum is attached to a shaft which, driven by a tiny molecular engine, rotates freely and indefinitely in a hole that runs through the cell wall.

...

I've been trying to figure out the biomechanics of how this would work on a larger scale. It doesn't seem possible in a terrestrial environment, there would be too much potential for fluid loss.

Just for the sake of conversation, I'd graft a gene to have the organism produce shellac to act as a barrier for fluid loss.  If the pH can be kept around 8, some kinds of shellac would not dissolve to allow permeability.  When access to water is granted, the pH could fall and allow for fluid exchange, osmosis etc.  If water is plentiful, the shell could be dissolved completely to allow for sexual reproduction, just for fun, not because the organism would be necessarily so complex.

[V3X]

They should have a computer game that allows you to sequence a genome from scratch using real genetic code, and then model the resulting organism and let you put it in various environments to see what would happen. I'd pay like $20 for such a game. Surely this is possible?

[LuciferX]

I can't say I'm much of a gambler, however, I'd give it a whirl for a stake in patents obtained 

[:regret:]

They should have a computer game that allows you to sequence a genome from scratch using real genetic code, and then model the resulting organism and let you put it in various environments to see what would happen. I'd pay like $20 for such a game. Surely this is possible?

Doubtful if it will be accurate.
Not enough is know yet.

[LMNO, PhD (life continues)]

I'd posit that if you're making a genome from scratch, you're going to fail roughly a billion times.  Just like the universe did.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'd posit that if you're making a genome from scratch, you're going to fail roughly a billion times.  Just like the universe did.

And that's how we got Texas.

[stelz]

I'd posit that if you're making a genome from scratch, you're going to fail roughly a billion times.  Just like the universe did.

And that's how we got Texas.

I can vouch for that.

[M. Nigel Salt]

I'd posit that if you're making a genome from scratch, you're going to fail roughly a billion times.  Just like the universe did.

And that's how we got Texas.

 

[Pergamos]

I'd posit that if you're making a genome from scratch, you're going to fail roughly a billion times.  Just like the universe did.

Could work if they give you a bunch of premade stuff, and let you tinker, mutate basically