/tg/fag with absolutely no scientific background here. Assuming

In evolutionary biology, convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches.

Maybe! Depending on something very specific i cant quite put my finger on.

It might happen but the odds are astronomically low that the aliens would look human enough for you to consider them human.

The best you could hope for would be a bipedal lifeform with bilateral symmetry and a digestive tract separate from the sexual organs. They're not going to be blue women with big heaving titties.

This thread pops up here fairly regularly and I've posted at length on why humanoid is the only likely arrangement for technologically savvy intelligent lifeforms. And each time I genuinely and humbly ask to be proved wrong, but nobody can, because developmental biology and physiology reasons. I would love the possibility of there being something wild out there, but it doesn't seem to be so.

The best possibility I could come up with would be reptilian humanoid, like a Cardassian.

>>9109637
i want to hear your speech. I guarantee nobody can prove you wrong because you cant prove yourself right.

>>9109427
>convergent evolution with humans
Convergent evolution makes sense, but only makes sense 'with humans' if the aliens's environment is like humans'. If the aliens live on an ocean planet they're going to convergently evolve with fish.
And there can be more than one successful type of organism per environment (shark, octopus, crab) so evolution would probably converge on one of a small number of core organism types.

>>9109644
Nah. I should have saved it, I'm not writing it again, it's late here. The main point is, I don't have to prove it, because we are the proof. If you want to suggest a being with six legs, tentacles, and testicles on its earlobes or whatever, then you have to show how any of these variations would have been selected for against the alternative which is part of our evolutionary tree. Try it, I'm open to be proved wrong.

>>9109704
>I don't have to prove it, because we are the proof.
are you also the free will guy who says free will proves free will?

I wont try it, its obvious so i think you are a troll and im not in the mood i guess.

>>9109637
lol

the reason people can't prove you wrong is because your position is unprovable