Thread: Aliens, closer than we thought?

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Speak for yourself. What is this 'we' this and 'we' that. I don't even have that view. You write like what your saying is all fact when it isn't.

No need to be inflammatory, it's a figure of speech. I was explaining that characteristics that allowed us as a species to gain a high level of intelligence and environmental manipulation can apply to types of creatures other than mammals (specifically, primates). Give me your thoughts on the subject instead of just taking a shot at the way I express mine and leaving it at that perhaps.

What are the chances a bipedal alien looking almost the same as us, arrived to this planet?

Why would they be bipedal? Well, they don't have to be, they can have four or six legs, it makes no difference. But it makes sense to be standing upright (which is the point I was trying to make) so you can free up your hands to use with tools. Tools are what set us off on our evolutionary skyrocket. If you can't make and manipulate tools, you're going nowhere, you need hands with at least three digits (fingers), one of them being a thumb-like appendage. Two digits is useless, but ten is really overkill. The thumb is immensely important to us (even though it is the weakest digit). Would you expect a species that didn't have fingers (or something similar) to be able to weld circuitry to a precision that would allow intergalactic space flight? A tail or a trunk can only get you so far.

I've already explained why I would expect bilateral symmetry in a creature: if you disagree, please say why. Bilateral symmetry allows for the formation of a central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord). In most creatures, the central nervous system is protected by a hard substance such as bone, chitin, or very thick cartilage (not very good for land animals). This makes sense because you want to protect your brain - it's one of a kind and very important to your survival. Hence, we I would assume any intelligent creature from another world would have evolved an endo/exo-skeleton composed of something hard and durable. Please stop me if you think I'm over-reaching here (and why).

Why might one expect the brain to be in a 'head' with eyes and ears? Except for your sense of touch, your other four senses are all located on your head. They are there for a reason - they are close to the brain. Closer to the brain = less time for nerve pulse signals to travel. This gives you quicker reaction times which is an evolutionary advantage. See cephalization for why a brain is likely to form at all.

Why might one expect the head on top of it's body? Well it doesn't have to be, but if you are an upright-standing species, having the ability to see as far as possible (by having your eyes as high as possible) is a survival advantage. The further you can see, the longer you have to evade predators (or conversely, to catch your prey). They might have four eyes, compound eyes, massive eyes, eye-stalks or eagle-like vision. It makes no difference. I'm only arguing that the eyes necessarily be on the head, the front of the head specifically because a species capable of planetary domination needs to climb to the top of the food chain, and you don't do that without becoming a predator somewhere along the way and getting eyes on the front of your head to sight prey. Predators need depth perception - prey need panoramic vision.

As you said any animal could have filled that niche.

Let me clarify - I was referring to it not being necessarily a primate or even a mammal that could become a sentient space-faring species. But whatever animal did evolve to that level would have to be able to manipulate its environment, create tools, be capable of complex communication such as language (a large brain, as well as some mode of vocal communication), be a fairly sturdy creature in terms of survival (some form of skeleton, endo or exo). A 'Squibbon' could be that creature, but it needs these characteristics to prosper. Case in point, the Squibbon has no skeleton - at all. Without one it will never walk upright.


Of course none of this means shit if the atmospheric pressure and temperature of another world vary wildly from our own. But remember most of my premises were based on a world that had a similar starting chemistry to Earth, which need not be so at all. Higher pressures would create smaller organisms, lower temperatures would slow chemical reactions (or freeze water, which is bad for life as we know it) and (extremely) higher temperatures would prevent organic molecules from remaining stable long enough to get anything done.

If you disagree with anything I've posited I'd be happy to read about it. So long as you include why you disagree, and not just a blanket statement of "well I don't think so, speak for yourself". That doesn't further the conversation.

edit: And while I'm at it, why do you find that visitors from the future is more likely than similar evolutionary pathways on a neighbouring world? My position only requires that natural selection work the same everywhere in the universe, your position requires breaking (known) laws of physics and violating causality. Occams Razor: Which is more likely?

I'd be more inclined to say 'eyewitnesses' of alien greys were having hallucinations or sleep paralysis. The myth of the alien greys has been in the public consciousness for over 100 years.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

No need to be inflammatory, it's a figure of speech. I was explaining that characteristics that allowed us as a species to gain a high level of intelligence and environmental manipulation can apply to types of creatures other than mammals (specifically, primates). Give me your thoughts on the subject instead of just taking a shot at the way I express mine and leaving it at that perhaps.



Why would they be bipedal? Well, they don't have to be, they can have four or six legs, it makes no difference. But it makes sense to be standing upright (which is the point I was trying to make) so you can free up your hands to use with tools. Tools are what set us off on our evolutionary skyrocket. If you can't make and manipulate tools, you're going nowhere, you need hands with at least three digits (fingers), one of them being a thumb-like appendage. Two digits is useless, but ten is really overkill. The thumb is immensely important to us (even though it is the weakest digit). Would you expect a species that didn't have fingers (or something similar) to be able to weld circuitry to a precision that would allow intergalactic space flight? A tail or a trunk can only get you so far.

I've already explained why I would expect bilateral symmetry in a creature: if you disagree, please say why. Bilateral symmetry allows for the formation of a central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord). In most creatures, the central nervous system is protected by a hard substance such as bone, chitin, or very thick cartilage (not very good for land animals). This makes sense because you want to protect your brain - it's one of a kind and very important to your survival. Hence, we I would assume any intelligent creature from another world would have evolved an endo/exo-skeleton composed of something hard and durable. Please stop me if you think I'm over-reaching here (and why).

Why might one expect the brain to be in a 'head' with eyes and ears? Except for your sense of touch, your other four senses are all located on your head. They are there for a reason - they are close to the brain. Closer to the brain = less time for nerve pulse signals to travel. This gives you quicker reaction times which is an evolutionary advantage. See cephalization for why a brain is likely to form at all.

Why might one expect the head on top of it's body? Well it doesn't have to be, but if you are an upright-standing species, having the ability to see as far as possible (by having your eyes as high as possible) is a survival advantage. The further you can see, the longer you have to evade predators (or conversely, to catch your prey). They might have four eyes, compound eyes, massive eyes, eye-stalks or eagle-like vision. It makes no difference. I'm only arguing that the eyes necessarily be on the head, the front of the head specifically because a species capable of planetary domination needs to climb to the top of the food chain, and you don't do that without becoming a predator somewhere along the way and getting eyes on the front of your head to sight prey. Predators need depth perception - prey need panoramic vision.



Let me clarify - I was referring to it not being necessarily a primate or even a mammal that could become a sentient space-faring species. But whatever animal did evolve to that level would have to be able to manipulate its environment, create tools, be capable of complex communication such as language (a large brain, as well as some mode of vocal communication), be a fairly sturdy creature in terms of survival (some form of skeleton, endo or exo). A 'Squibbon' could be that creature, but it needs these characteristics to prosper. Case in point, the Squibbon has no skeleton - at all. Without one it will never walk upright.


Of course none of this means shit if the atmospheric pressure and temperature of another world vary wildly from our own. But remember most of my premises were based on a world that had a similar starting chemistry to Earth, which need not be so at all. Higher pressures would create smaller organisms, lower temperatures would slow chemical reactions (or freeze water, which is bad for life as we know it) and (extremely) higher temperatures would prevent organic molecules from remaining stable long enough to get anything done.

If you disagree with anything I've posited I'd be happy to read about it. So long as you include why you disagree, and not just a blanket statement of "well I don't think so, speak for yourself". That doesn't further the conversation.

edit: And while I'm at it, why do you find that visitors from the future is more likely than similar evolutionary pathways on a neighbouring world? My position only requires that natural selection work the same everywhere in the universe, your position requires breaking (known) laws of physics and violating causality. Occams Razor: Which is more likely?

I'd be more inclined to say 'eyewitnesses' of alien greys were having hallucinations or sleep paralysis. The myth of the alien greys has been in the public consciousness for over 100 years.

But who ever said you need to be upright to be an advanced species?

Tools.

You can't become a technological civilisation without tools. Without tools you can't manipulate your environment. You can't use tools without hands (or a hand-like appendage). You can't have two free hands without standing upright, or being a centaur-like creature which is essentially an upright creature with four limbs still on the floor.

And a 'tool' can be as simple as the leg bone of another animal, using it as a club or a rock to throw at the head of your prey/enemy, or to strike at fruit on a tree that is slightly higher than you are.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Tools.

You can't become a technological civilisation without tools. Without tools you can't manipulate your environment. You can't use tools without hands (or a hand-like appendage). You can't have two free hands without standing upright, or being a centaur-like creature which is essentially an upright creature with four limbs still on the floor.

And a 'tool' can be as simple as the leg bone of another animal, using it as a club or a rock to throw at the head of your prey/enemy, or to strike at fruit on a tree that is slightly higher than you are.

A squid can use tools. Its flexible 8 arms, with suction holes in them for better handling. Or an animal with tentacles. Obviously the tools would be alot different then ours.

True, but those tentacles would need a lot of dexterity to manipulate matter efficiently. Having raw power is one thing, but you also need the utility to do precise and minute movements as well. Being a squid-based lifeform, it would be an invertebrate (no endo-skeleton). On land, the biggest invertebrate you'd ever hope to get (under Earth-like atmospheric pressures) is a large scorpion, spider or insect. You can't grow an animal much larger than that without a skeleton, it would suffocate under its own weight.

But it definitely is a possibility.