BW/BW2 ~//.Generation 5 Theory

[kiyoreiiryu]

~//.Pokemon Universe

Pokemon has become an escape from reality for me. a safe haven and im thoroughly enjoying the complexities its story line has to offer. With the release of the 5th Generation of pokemon, i couldnt help but notice that most of the pokemon bare striking resemblance to pokemon from other generations.

Bouffalant <> Tauros
Throh & Sawk <> Hitmonlee & Hitmonchan
Tympole, Palpitoed, Seismitoed <> poliwag, poliwhirl, poliwrath
Munna <> Drowzee
Timburr, Gurdurr, Conkeldurr <> Machop, Machoke, Machamp
[even more interesting is they are the same type pokemon]

Now the list does continue, but i think it puts an interesting spin on the pokemon revolution. now we all are accustomed to pokemon evolution, but nothing of kinship. let me explain. Pokemon are normally set in evolutionary chains and thats how you know they are family Charmander>Charmeleon>Charizard. with this, it can be assumed that it has no outside relatives. In our world, evolution doesnt work that way. (i.e. Darwin’s Finch experiment and how all the breeds of fench originated from one species. Their evolution was determined my the habitat they were forced to survive in.).

In Unova, no one has seen Pokemon from other regions. My theory is that pokemon from Kanto. even given the position of Unova to Kanto. Pokemon are able to travel freely from kanto and unova with no aquatic barriers to stop them, unlike Hoenn & Sinnoh. A wild tauros may have lost its way from the herd, due to the increase in pokemon poaching that team rocket was notorious for in Kanto and sought refuge in Unova and evolved appropriately, like Darwin’s Birds. New habitat means a new way of living and surviving.

This doesnt apply to every pokemon in Unova, some of the pokemon may have origin in Unova, but its vaguely apparent that some aren’t. {W}

 

[XieRH]

I don't think pokemon evolution is the same as evolution as described in our typical sense (darwinian and whatnot). Based on stuff I've seen so far it looks more like a form of spontaneous metamorphosis, so I feel that pokemon evolving is more of a "caterpillar to butterfly" thing rather than an "apes to humans" thing. This is even more apparent in the fact that lesser-evolved pokemon have a very juvenile appearance while later stages have a more adult appearance, and that the offspring of an evolved pokemon is always its basic stage

The word "evolution" is used because it just sounds fancier. You can see Digimon had a similar buzzword "digivolution". Of course in Digimon's case it's your typical magical transformation sequence and not natural evolution either.


Also the reason pokemon in Isshu are purely devoid of older Gen species is a game design issue and has no backstory to it. Gamefreak wanted audiences to have a feeling of a new experience and so, designed the pokemon distribution this way. Note that post-elite 4 (if I'm not wrong), you DO get older Gen pokemon appearing in Isshu.

 

[Emeralds Hold No Hope]

if you haven't noticed 90% of this regions Pokemon are rehashes. Just saiyan.

 

[kiyoreiiryu]

I agree. Caterpie to Butterfree is more like Childhood to Adulthood, thats what "evolution" in pokemon has been defined as.
but im speaking on a different type of evolution. well maybe evolution is the wrong term. Adaptability. The pokemon from Gen1 have traveled to a new land and are forced to adapt accordingly, thus giving them similar resemblance to their original selves.

 

[XieRH]

The pokemon from Gen1 have traveled to a new land and are forced to adapt accordingly, thus giving them similar resemblance to their original selves.

The problem I have with this theory is that there is hardly any significant resemblance in the physical context. Alomomolalasdfasdf is the only thing with a remote resemblance to an older pokemon.

For the rest, there is only a "symbolic" resemblance like how Pidove is the new "pidgey", or how Throh/Sawk symbolise a foughting duo like hitmonlee and hitmonchan. I mean honestly speaking... if you truly believe your theory, can you explain in a convincing and plausible manner which one (Throh or Sawk) does Hitmonlee look like it could evolve into? Or is it one of those Venonat-to-Venomoth things where the new evolved form is so unrecognisable from the old form?

The physical difference is just that radical, and that's why I disagreed with the theory. Or at the very least I disagree with the theory applying only to Isshu. If the theory holds despite the extreme physical differences, then Houndoom could be a Growlithe descendant, and Mightyena could be a Houndoom descendant or ancestor or whatever... etc.

 

[kiyoreiiryu]

"Alomomolalasdfasdf" lol

As far as Growlithe, Houndour, & Mightyena. who's to say they don't share common ancestry. Pokemon have been around for quite a while in their world. there has to be some lineage to the pokemon

but again you misconstrued my theory. Hitmonlee & Hitmonchan doesn't evolve from Sawk & Throh. but maybe similar ancestry. or perhaps the same ancestry.kind of how Prehistoric Aerodactyl has a striking resemblance to our dark cave pest, Zubat.

or even the outlandish theory of an abandoned Kangaskan baby adapting to his mother's onslaught and creating a new breed of pokemon, Marowak.Marowak & Kangaskan are nothing alike. but there is evidence that both have ties to cubone/kangaskan baby.

 

[XieRH]

There was that thing about Mew being the supposed ancestor of all due to its DNA. That's about as much from the canon as we can get. As far as "striking" resemblances go, that's only for an explicit similairity, like a voltorb and a pokeball. That's when people call it a "Striking" resemblance.

I really wouldn't use the word "evidence" to describe what you just said. Evidence is irrefutable and can't be argued against.

 

[kiyoreiiryu]

We are used to "evolution" as Pokemon "Growing Up"..

but what about another idea of "evolution" as adapting to the habitat

Pokemon have the ability to do both.. Shellos is the very same pokemon both East & Western shellos.. eastern shellos are blue, and western shellos are pink..

they "evolved.. or adapted" based on their habitat

 

[XieRH]

but what about another idea of "evolution" as adapting to the habitat

You could say pidgey is adapted to fly, goldeen is adapted to swim, etc. That's the adaptation you're referring to. It's already there.

The Shellios colour issue is not adaptation, it's polymorphism.

EDIT: no wait it's polyphenism. Polymorphism applies to shiny pokemon

 

[Slowpr0]

I was thinking that hey might start a WHOLE new region without any of the old Pokemon in it at all.
Because if you think about it, every generation, they're going to make MORE and MORE moves! Then you think about Charizard, who's been around forever! In 10+ years, he's going to have a level-up move for EVERY level! So I think it would be best to start a whole new region (maybe using same concept) and make it again.

 

[runeon12]

This is going to get old. It's causing the downfall of Pokemon.

 

[Card Slinger J]

I was thinking that hey might start a WHOLE new region without any of the old Pokemon in it at all.
Because if you think about it, every generation, they're going to make MORE and MORE moves! Then you think about Charizard, who's been around forever! In 10+ years, he's going to have a level-up move for EVERY level! So I think it would be best to start a whole new region (maybe using same concept) and make it again.

I strongly disagree due to the fact that nostalgia sells, it's what made Pokemon famous anyway. If you take that away you have nothing left. It's a very bad business move to alienate your own fanbase and with the recent VGC 2011 Rules Nintendo and GameFreak might actually regret that decision.