Thread: Aliens, closer than we thought?

I always imagined that if we found an alien civilization as advanced or more than us, they would probably have a body structure analogous to ours.

But if you think about it, there are probably a large number of possible evolutionary paths compatible with intelectual and technological advancement.

Since the only life we know of is what exists here on Earth, this is really all we have to work with, but we can make some well-founded assumptions based on what we know about how we evolved, and what we see in other species of above-average intelligence around us:

- They would most likely be bilaterally symmetrical (a mirror image down the center of their bodies, such as two eyes, two nostrils, two ears, two arms and two legs), because its pretty damn hard to walk with one leg, and three doesn't have the same mobility advantage as four. This doesn't discount the possibility of more than four limbs, but four limbs provides a good ratio for speed and mobility against wasted resources: just how much faster could you run with six or eight limbs as a land dwelling animal? Centipedes have hundreds of legs, but they don't move hundreds of times faster than a cheetah, even if you take their scale into account.

- To be a sentient species they would have had to reach the top of the food chain on their world, which means their eyes will either be on the front of their heads, or some kind of eye-stalk for good scanning visibility. Predatory animals have their eyes on the front (most carnivores and omnivores) while prey have their eyes on the sides of their heads (herbivores).

- They would need a way to manipulate their environment via tools, so some form of digits on their limbs. How many fingers they have is really up for grabs. Five fingers definitely isn't a magic number. A lot of monkey species only have four, including the thumb, and 1 in 10,000 humans is born with 6 or more fingers on each hand (polydactylism). A thumb-like appendage would pretty much be a must, unless they had an elephant-like trunk or a very ambidextrous tail.

- Depending on the radiation their star puts out, they may evolved to see in the infra-red or ultra-violet light areas of the spectrum. They may be a semi-aquatic intelligence and have kept their nictitating membrane, whereas we lost ours a long time ago in our evolutionary history. If they kept this feature, it is likely they might also have other sea-faring adaptations, such as skin that doesn't get water-logged or like a lung-fish, has both lungs and gills for breathing on land and under water.

- It's a decent bet that they would have back-up redundancies in their internal organs. We have a four-chambered heart, two-hemisphere brain (there is a walking, talking, functional man alive today with only 10% of a brain - proving that you don't need the whole thing and most people don't use it anyway), two lungs, two kidneys, two testes/ovaries. Two is a good number for having a spare, and not taking up too much space. One is too few (lose it and you're dead). I don't discount the possibility of three or four organs, and I think there is a creature on Earth that has three lungs although it's name escapes me.

- They need not necessarily have DNA as their genetic code (but they do NEED a genetic code, obviously), but if they evolved on a planet with a similar starting atmosphere to ours I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Organic chemistry works exactly the same on Mars as it does here, and it'll work on any other 'goldilocks zone' planet in the Universe too, with the right ingredients. But give up your hopes now of being able to cross-breed with an alien female - you've got more chance of your genetic material combining with the sex cell of a chimpanzee.

- They might not even breath oxygen at all. They may have evolved on a planet with an atmosphere dominated by methane. They'll more than likely be carbon-based because carbon is just that friggin' spectacular at making bonds it's unlikely to be anything else. Silicon is the only other chance as a base for a molecular structure, but its a very very distant second place.

- Depending on the climate of their planet they might have fur, or thick body hair. Hell, they might not even be mammals. It was a complete freak chance that our mammalian ancestors survived not one, not two, but three mass extinctions from comet/asteroid impacts on this planet. For most of the history of life on our planet, reptiles were the king of the castle. Our star-visitors may very well have scales, tails, flicking tongues, venom sacs and back-spines. Dolphins and Elephants are the next most intelligence species on the planet after the great apes, but neither is suited for changing their environment to suit themselves like we have done. Elephants are slightly closer due to their trunks being able to grasp objects and use them as tools.

As you can plainly see, with an infinite number of worlds in the heavens you've really got infinite possibilities, and I could do this all night throwing out hypothetical what-ifs and there is a good reason for every single one of them that can be made from sound reasoning and inference based on what we see on Earth around us.

Personally, I don't think we're alone out here (any rational person can admit that), but I do believe we're going to be alone on our little island in space for a very very long time. The distances between stars are too big, and the time since our civilisation has arisen has been too short to expect anyone out there to have heard us. We've been a radio-capable species for just over 100 years, and we've only been beaming signals into space for the last 70-odd years. The chances of another species being at-or-above our level of technology in this tiny 70-year window in the last 13.7 billion years of the Universes' existence is mind bogglingly small. But it is still my hope that when we figure out faster-than-light travel one day in the future, we'll have some neighbours to welcome us and invite us over for dinner.

Agree. I would really look forward to seeing their architecture though.

^^

Architecture, pah, small minded civilian!

We, the United States military, would like to explore their technological and military prowess, if it is more advanced we shall assimilate it into our technology to improve our selfs. Another important thing to consider would be their energy source, if they have some kind of self sustaining power source or if they have cracked nuclear fusion, we would be interesting in acquiring that technology. If they were not to give it willingly, we would be forced to take matters into our own hands and forcefully acquire their technology, this would be especially easy if their were lacking a military force, them being peaceful would be even better, no resistance and we shall bend them to our will. All power to humankind, those who not give willingly shall be annihilated!!.........

^^ Srsly i can see that happened, as sad as it is. You'll get posters on multi planetary gathering places " Beware the Terrans, the Terrors of this Universe!"

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

^^

Architecture, pah, small minded civilian!

We, the United States military, would like to explore their technological and military prowess, if it is more advanced we shall assimilate it into our technology to improve our selfs. Another important thing to consider would be their energy source, if they have some kind of self sustaining power source or if they have cracked nuclear fusion, we would be interesting in acquiring that technology. If they were not to give it willingly, we would be forced to take matters into our own hands and forcefully acquire their technology, this would be especially easy if their were lacking a military force, them being peaceful would be even better, no resistance and we shall bend them to our will. All power to humankind, those who not give willingly shall be annihilated!!.........

^^ Srsly i can see that happened, as sad as it is. You'll get posters on multi planetary gathering places " Beware the Terrans, the Terrors of this Universe!"

HA! HAHAHA! Do you really think we can take it by force if we lack the tecnology already? Think about it, if the aliens are visiting us, their technology is already far superior to ours with interstellar travel etc. and if we try to take the weapon, they will probably use it on us, a pretty futile attempt. I don't think the'yll just give it to us, it's like a child asking for a gun. We already proved we are a very fickle and warlike species already. If they were peacful, they could simply light-speed away. See my post on http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...t=57757&page=2

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Since the only life we know of is what exists here on Earth, this is really all we have to work with, but we can make some well-founded assumptions based on what we know about how we evolved, and what we see in other species of above-average intelligence around us:

- They would most likely be bilaterally symmetrical (a mirror image down the center of their bodies, such as two eyes, two nostrils, two ears, two arms and two legs), because its pretty damn hard to walk with one leg, and three doesn't have the same mobility advantage as four. This doesn't discount the possibility of more than four limbs, but four limbs provides a good ratio for speed and mobility against wasted resources: just how much faster could you run with six or eight limbs as a land dwelling animal? Centipedes have hundreds of legs, but they don't move hundreds of times faster than a cheetah, even if you take their scale into account.

- To be a sentient species they would have had to reach the top of the food chain on their world, which means their eyes will either be on the front of their heads, or some kind of eye-stalk for good scanning visibility. Predatory animals have their eyes on the front (most carnivores and omnivores) while prey have their eyes on the sides of their heads (herbivores).

- They would need a way to manipulate their environment via tools, so some form of digits on their limbs. How many fingers they have is really up for grabs. Five fingers definitely isn't a magic number. A lot of monkey species only have four, including the thumb, and 1 in 10,000 humans is born with 6 or more fingers on each hand (polydactylism). A thumb-like appendage would pretty much be a must, unless they had an elephant-like trunk or a very ambidextrous tail.

- Depending on the radiation their star puts out, they may evolved to see in the infra-red or ultra-violet light areas of the spectrum. They may be a semi-aquatic intelligence and have kept their nictitating membrane, whereas we lost ours a long time ago in our evolutionary history. If they kept this feature, it is likely they might also have other sea-faring adaptations, such as skin that doesn't get water-logged or like a lung-fish, has both lungs and gills for breathing on land and under water.

- It's a decent bet that they would have back-up redundancies in their internal organs. We have a four-chambered heart, two-hemisphere brain (there is a walking, talking, functional man alive today with only 10% of a brain - proving that you don't need the whole thing and most people don't use it anyway), two lungs, two kidneys, two testes/ovaries. Two is a good number for having a spare, and not taking up too much space. One is too few (lose it and you're dead). I don't discount the possibility of three or four organs, and I think there is a creature on Earth that has three lungs although it's name escapes me.

- They need not necessarily have DNA as their genetic code (but they do NEED a genetic code, obviously), but if they evolved on a planet with a similar starting atmosphere to ours I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Organic chemistry works exactly the same on Mars as it does here, and it'll work on any other 'goldilocks zone' planet in the Universe too, with the right ingredients. But give up your hopes now of being able to cross-breed with an alien female - you've got more chance of your genetic material combining with the sex cell of a chimpanzee.

- They might not even breath oxygen at all. They may have evolved on a planet with an atmosphere dominated by methane. They'll more than likely be carbon-based because carbon is just that friggin' spectacular at making bonds it's unlikely to be anything else. Silicon is the only other chance as a base for a molecular structure, but its a very very distant second place.

- Depending on the climate of their planet they might have fur, or thick body hair. Hell, they might not even be mammals. It was a complete freak chance that our mammalian ancestors survived not one, not two, but three mass extinctions from comet/asteroid impacts on this planet. For most of the history of life on our planet, reptiles were the king of the castle. Our star-visitors may very well have scales, tails, flicking tongues, venom sacs and back-spines. Dolphins and Elephants are the next most intelligence species on the planet after the great apes, but neither is suited for changing their environment to suit themselves like we have done. Elephants are slightly closer due to their trunks being able to grasp objects and use them as tools.

As you can plainly see, with an infinite number of worlds in the heavens you've really got infinite possibilities, and I could do this all night throwing out hypothetical what-ifs and there is a good reason for every single one of them that can be made from sound reasoning and inference based on what we see on Earth around us.

Personally, I don't think we're alone out here (any rational person can admit that), but I do believe we're going to be alone on our little island in space for a very very long time. The distances between stars are too big, and the time since our civilisation has arisen has been too short to expect anyone out there to have heard us. We've been a radio-capable species for just over 100 years, and we've only been beaming signals into space for the last 70-odd years. The chances of another species being at-or-above our level of technology in this tiny 70-year window in the last 13.7 billion years of the Universes' existence is mind bogglingly small. But it is still my hope that when we figure out faster-than-light travel one day in the future, we'll have some neighbours to welcome us and invite us over for dinner.

Yea, well I was talking about if aliens could be humans from the future. (based on eyewitness accounts) But their are many animals which fit the needs to become an intelligent creature. For instance the evolved squid.

After mammals became extinct, squids filled in the nitches, creating a new group. They are Terasquids. The Squibbon and the Megasquid are examples. Squibbons are air-breathing descendants of squid who can swing through trees. They swing better than modern day gibbons due to their lack of an internal skeleton. Because of their need to coordinate their many-muscled limbs and the complex visual perception needed to swing from branch to branch, their brains are highly developed. As a result, they are highly intelligent and can even outsmart a megasquid, which sometimes tries to eat them. They are highly agile, snatching Forest Flish from the air to eat. It is implied that they have the capacity to evolve into sapient beings, thus allowing civilization to once again develop on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terabyte_(insect)#Squibbon

And I'm thinking that if the first picture I posted is a real eyewitness account of an aliens, it would undoubtedly be from earth. It looks so close to us. But thats not the only prediction, it shows almost a future lapse of our evolution. Bigger eyes, no hair, weakened jaw structure, smaller nose, etc. And perhaps can be a descendant from out species. For our vast universe, it is almost impossible for an alien to accidentally appear on our planet. And it would take millions of years before they receive our radio waves. My guess is that they discovered time travel, and knew our location.

And imagine an alien species, who knows our future, everything we are going to do, and use it for themselves.

The squid creature you are referring to was from the Discovery channel special on 300 million years in the future (The Future is Wild). It's interesting, but ultimately just mental masturbation. Any animal could have filled in that niche, they just picked a squid to be different.

My post was describing how aliens could look very similar to us purely because evolution of a sentient species (theoretically) requires bilateral symmetry, forward facing eyes, bipedal locomotion, digits on the hands and a chest cavity large enough to hold several sets of internal organs, all for reasons that make perfectly good sense when guessing about a species arising on another planet.

Just because they look like us doesn't mean they're from the future, it just means that evolution works in similar ways on separate planets.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

The squid creature you are referring to was from the Discovery channel special on 300 million years in the future (The Future is Wild). It's interesting, but ultimately just mental masturbation. Any animal could have filled in that niche, they just picked a squid to be different.

My post was describing how aliens could look very similar to us purely because evolution of a sentient species (theoretically) requires bilateral symmetry, forward facing eyes, bipedal locomotion, digits on the hands and a chest cavity large enough to hold several sets of internal organs, all for reasons that make perfectly good sense when guessing about a species arising on another planet.

Just because they look like us doesn't mean they're from the future, it just means that evolution works in similar ways on separate planets.

What are the chances a bipedal alien looking almost the same as us, arrived to this planet? As you said any animal could have filled that niche.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Since the only life we know of is what exists here on Earth, this is really all we have to work with, but we can make some well-founded assumptions based on what we know about how we evolved, and what we see in other species of above-average intelligence around us:

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee3bld4lTG0

I love this video!!!!

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.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

My post was describing how aliens could look very similar to us purely because evolution of a sentient species (theoretically) requires bilateral symmetry, forward facing eyes, bipedal locomotion, digits on the hands and a chest cavity large enough to hold several sets of internal organs, all for reasons that make perfectly good sense when guessing about a species arising on another planet.

yes you are absolutely right

because every sentient species that will ever exist MUST be a land walker.

.___. swimming/flying/floating are all out of the question right?

If an alien does resemble a human, I think that would call to question our understanding of life in general. I wouldn't have any trouble accepting it because I don't see the universe as random events happening, anymore than I see earth its own little bubble isolated from the rest of the galaxy.

but I think, it would be very strange to think intelligent aliens would look like us, when the chances of their eco-systems developing like earth is slim. life doesn't have to evolve on other planets like it does on earth. evolution knows no limits.

but I do expect life to evolve in our neighborhood in a similar fashion, but thats because of my spiritual beliefs. scientifically speaking, thats nutty.

You're right, a sentient species doesn't have to evolve on land.

My first rebuttal to come to mind is how would you, as an emerging sentient species, tame electricity or fire underwater? You're going to need both of these things to get off of your own planet and become a space-faring civilisation. Same goes for flying/floating species, they need to use resources from the ground at some point. Planets and their atmospheres might be different, but space is the same everywhere.

This argument isn't about whether sentient life can exist in non-humanoid forms (a somewhat silly premise to make) - it's about whether or not sentient life can exist as a space-faring species if it doesn't even remotely resemble humanoid.

Its true, its all about the thumbs. Big brains with thumbs is all we really are. Let say your arms are cut off, how much can you really do? Maybe you could survive but could you create a civilization if everyone was like that?

If you wanted to get into real sci fi stuff I guess you could say they have telepathy and can move stuff with their mind. Though I am not to sure many people will buy into that.

Originally Posted by Alric

Its true, its all about the thumbs. Big brains with thumbs is all we really are. Let say your arms are cut off, how much can you really do? Maybe you could survive but could you create a civilization if everyone was like that?

If you wanted to get into real sci fi stuff I guess you could say they have telepathy and can move stuff with their mind. Though I am not to sure many people will buy into that.

Nope. Telepathy suggests a spiritual connotation, a link between thoughts and matter. It's like saying that thinking something will make it happen, but there is a literal barrier between the two. Pulsing neurons cannot control objects. The only way you could lift something telepathically is by an invisible force pushing on it, which would mean the pushing caused resistance, so it would have to be matter, like air. Newtons laws. If if were lifted up, by definition what was pushing on it would have to be matter. That matter would have to be pushed in turn...

Meh. Not possible. Sorry for the rant.

Vance, could a species not evolve to have some power of magnetism and charge. It could repel/attract metallic objects by somehow genering a large magnetic force in an area of it's body. Also it could possible attract/repel ionic substances by somehow giving off a strong positive/negative charge in the cells of it's skin.

Then there is the ability, with some kind of chemical reaction( like the bombardier beetle) to create high temperatures( easily over 100c). They, as creatures on earth can, could also create powerful electric charges/fields.

The magnetism ability could attract/repel even heavy objects if it were strong enough, even from a relatively far distance depending on how strong the magnetism was.

The ionic one, if even possible, would probably not have much of an effect. You could guide an ionic liquid or gas though to some extent.

Both of these, especially magnetism and heat, could be used to build. I admit i am not sure if they are possible, but it is a psychical substitute to telekineses.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

Vance, could a species not evolve to have some power of magnetism and charge. It could repel/attract metallic objects by somehow genering a large magnetic force in an area of it's body. Also it could possible attract/repel ionic substances by somehow giving off a strong positive/negative charge in the cells of it's skin.

Then there is the ability, with some kind of chemical reaction( like the bombardier beetle) to create high temperatures( easily over 100c). They, as creatures on earth can, could also create powerful electric charges/fields.

The magnetism ability could attract/repel even heavy objects if it were strong enough, even from a relatively far distance depending on how strong the magnetism was.

The ionic one, if even possible, would probably not have much of an effect. You could guide an ionic liquid or gas though to some extent.

Both of these, especially magnetism and heat, could be used to build. I admit i am not sure if they are possible, but it is a psychical substitute to telekineses.

But still not telekinisis. it's like saying an electric eel has telekenisis. That's saying humans have telekinisis, if only very weak manifestations through our magnetic field.

oh sorry i didn't mean to say it was telekineses. I meant to give examples of psychical methods of manipulating objects to take the place of telekinesis as a way to move objects.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

oh sorry i didn't mean to say it was telekineses. I meant to give examples of psychical methods of manipulating objects to take the place of telekinesis as a way to move objects.

Yeah, I could see that, but how would that possibly evolve in nature? Instead of using limbs they take the simple detour of magnetic levitation of objects

What about a low gravitational planet? I would be a lot easier for carbon life forms to use tools. I saw this show and they predicted an advanced civilization in the galaxy, and it levitated with the gases in its head.