Grey's are not plausible depictions of scientifically a

>>17689183
There is one theory that supports the idea, but it's highly unlikely.

>>17689188
What theory are you talking about? Even if their planet was like ours it's still unlikely.

>>17689193
It's the idea that all life was seeded on other planets by the first humanoid race, ergo all life, no matter how different, will resemble what made it.

File: engineer2.jpg (111KB, 638x526px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 638x526px

>>17689197
Now why does that sound familiar?

Barlowe's aliens aren't any more plausible.

>>17689207
yes, that movie was the first time someone had thought of it.

>>17689209
They are THE most plausible actually.

>>17689213
Don't get cheeky with me fggot.It wasn't a popular idea until the movie.

File: Progenitor.jpg (633KB, 1166x1080px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 1166x1080px

>>17689224
U wot m8?

>>17689224
>movies make things popular
Stop the presses!

Whatever the fuck that is in the op is scarier than a grey desu.

>>17689183
all humans are aliens

File: 1433365015221.jpg (17KB, 170x204px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 170x204px

>>17689333
so deep.

Consider the possibility that all sorts of intelligent alien life has access to us and we only see the grays the most because they're most interested in us being the most similar.

>>17689330
That's a Rimerunner, one of the fastest land animals(?) on Darwin IV

File: convergent-evolution-marine-all-about-reptiles-com.gif (22KB, 499x222px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 499x222px

Except that's wrong and no one knows for sure what aliens might look like. It's speculative science, nothing more.

>>17689530
Ah yes, the convergent evolution argument. Interesting idea, but the scope seems a little farfetched.

Imagine for a second an interstellar civilization with mastery of science and technology. With your mastery of nanotechnology, you build robots with amazing AI, ability to self-repair and self-fuel. How different would these robots look from a "natural" lifeform, which at it's core is also self-repairing, self-fuelling nanomachines.

>>17690629
A hell of a lot different, I imagine squid people or something along those lines.

>>17690644

Oh? Why so? I think the biped hominid form is pretty efficient, with the advantage of skeletal leverage which the squid lacks. The placement of the eyes in relation to the manipulators is also better in a hominid.

>>17689224
You're fucking stupid. That's been a popular idea for at least the last 20 or so years

>>17689333
Trips confirm

>>17689353
Forgive my ignorance.. but what is it from?

>>17690804
its a book/tv show thing based on art by artist wayne barlowe. book is called expedition and show was called alien planet.

>>17690826
Thankyou

Imagine being the first human to go hunting on an alien planet.
I want to shoot that thing in OPs pic and skin it

Question is, why humans look like us?

>>17689530
what about all dem encouter reports?
all dem telepathic encouters etc, etc

its also logical to say some of them will look exactly like us

>>17690864
attentionwhores, rape victims and some scam-artist hypnotists

>>17689530
They would only look like us if their planet is similar to ours, but our planet conditions might not be the only conditions necessary to sustain life.

File: 422259_257152724396829_2091739768_n.jpg (167KB, 801x960px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 801x960px

>From another thread
I just had a thought. What if all of these "aliens" are really members pf the genus Homo who have been heavily genetically modified by an ancient alien species (not the Annunaki). It would certainly explain why we, the greys and the reptilians can interbreed despite appearing to be seperate species. I propose that all these should be considered distant "races" of man.

File: 74.45.png (1KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 240x240px

>>17689183

File: 74.44.png (1KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 240x240px

>>17691787
More accurate portrayal

>>17691067
Even if planetary conditions were different on their planet it is possible that our species niches are general enough to arise there as well.

>>17691825
Ever heard of Greenworld?

>>17689530
>no one knows.
False.

>>17691832
Nope. Is it something close to what I said?

>>17690864
Learn to spell encouNters, holy shit.

File: bait.jpg (24KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 625x626px

>>17689224

File: greenworld_alpha.jpg (510KB, 800x538px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 800x538px

>>17691847
Similar niches are filled on this planet, so yeah.

>>17691920
Neat

>>17691833

Thanks for contributing.

>>17691952
There's also this.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LrLmHv4Fv4M

>>17689183
greys are humans from the future .if you travel through time on earth you need to travel through space because the earth orbits the sun and the solar system moves through the galaxy and the galaxy through the universe

more specifically the greys are asians. funny story at one point in time some one was running for president of the united states and there was this meme of him making anime real. that got spread on some chinese cartoon message board and the japanese decided to start a gmo project to make humans that look more like anime

everything was very hush hush for decades since it took time to get the geometry right. also they had to decide on a style of anime because there are many different ones. they settled on something thats basically more modern bubble gum

everything is fine peps got their wifus and all was well. until that damn astroid hit earth and some people actually made a mars base the low gravity and minimal uv light exposure changed them in unexpected ways.

nobody knows why the eyes got bigger and the pupils grew that much. geting super scrawny sure . the big head was already that way with the super narrow chin. the hair normally covered it up but they went bald and the epicanthal fold reemerged . apparently it wasnt removed just deactivated

>>17691978

The sad part about /x/ is that when I first read this I thought you were yet another seriousfag.

File: image.jpg (157KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 900x1200px

>>17689183
So... Why don't you summarize this so we can decide if it's worth looking at in the first place. 24min is a long time.

>>17691985
Kind of depressing, isn't it?

>>17689188
Another theory is that the humanoid body is well suited for highly intelligent life, which could be the answer as to why there are so many reports of humanoid-looking beings.

>>17692007
You don't have a job, so why are you complaining?

File: 1461991708700.png (93KB, 422x557px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 422x557px

Bump

>>17689197
>God created man in his own image

>>17693037
>implying God is humanoid
Blasphemy!

Bumpity

>>17689224

Panspermia is pretty old idea, anon. Directed Panspermia is at least 50 years old.

>>17689549

Don't be so dismissive.

The idea of convergent evolution is that some forms are inherently better for survival and more likely to propagate and appear over long enough time scales even in dissimilar species if they occupy the same niche.

Its also total bullshit because it assumes that evolution inherently converges on the best or most efficient adaptations. What really happens is evolution is total dumb luck and retarded useless traits stick around all the time while useful traits die out by chance.

>>17693843
I'm not meaning to be dismissive. I personally like the idea, but I prefer the GMO humans idea.

>>17689183
I don't understand why all those visions of crazy-looking aliens are more "scientifically accurate" than humanoid ones. Our mere existence is proof that bipedal humanoids are as "scientifically accurate" as any of the semi-Lovecraftian conceptions of aliens.

I'm open to the possibility that *some* aliens don't look like us, but I don't see why we should conclude that *none of them* look like us. That seems to be declaring that humans and Earth are very special and unique, which is something I don't think many scientists believe.

I mean, all these people seem to be saying that these weird, monstrous forms are the norm for life in the universe, but apparently humanity is the one exception. What's the explanation for why we're the only intelligent race in the universe who has the bipedal humanoid form?

>>17693859
It's more about "universals": traits that will appear regardless of what animal. Good examples include:eyes, wings, limbs, fins, flippers, and other such things.

>>17689183
If aliens could reach us and we can't detect them, they most likely created and we're conquered by an AI driven robot race. Organic creatures would have trouble or not be able to survive the journey but advanced robotics could. It would explain our crazy jump in technological advances.

(Please don't end me robot overlords, you know I am cool with whatever happens)

>>17694037
But that's just it, people believed aliens would look like us because that was the best that God could come up with, ergo humans are still the best. Now we know that animals such as octopi, elephants, and ravens are on the table.

>>17693859
This is why it pisses me off to see people saying we should "respect" evolution, or that all our technology and medicine is "holding us back" because it keeps otherwise "unfit" individuals alive when they "shouldn't" be alive. Evolution is shit and doesn't give a fuck about us, so I see no reason why we should give a fuck about it, either.

>>17694055
Like I said, I'm not saying that crazy-looking aliens are off the table. I just don't see why humanoids should be off the table either. My only problem is with people who emphatically state that any alien race must necessarily look nothing like us.

>>17694059
This reminds me of a story:
Two races: the hitek/tics and the Andlas. One lived in harmony with nature, while the other worked to suppress it. When drastic changes to their world started to happen, both races died out.

>>17694066
I think if we find humanoid life, it'll be quasi-humanoid at best, like the "inhabitants of the solar system" series back in 1939.

>>17694073
But why? Humans developed here, so why wouldn't humanlike aliens develop elsewhere? Are we and Earth truly that special and unique?

>>17694069
So what's the point of the story? That we're fucked either way?

>>17694092
Have you SEEN that series?

>>17694099
More like "Mother Nature is an abusive parent and the only reason we exist is because she doesn't acknowledge us at the moment."

>>17694113
No, I haven't. I guess you're implying that the aliens in that series are of the Star Trek variety, i.e. humans with minor differences? I assumed that when >>17694073 said "quasi-humanoid at best", he meant more differences than that.

File: image.jpg (346KB, 855x1141px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 855x1141px

>>17694128
That was the same anon. That was me.

>>17694137
Okay. I still fail to see how you addressed my questions. If humans developed here, why wouldn't aliens that look human develop elsewhere? Or are humans such special snowflakes that no one else in the entire universe looks like us?

>>17694145
Do you mean rubber forehead aliens?

>>17694154
Yes, or even aliens that look indistinguishable from us.

>>17694168
Just seems highly unlikely, given their evolution had a different starting point.

>>17694176
I don't think it's any more unlikely for it to happen on another planet than it was for it to happen here.

It's odd that scientists and other people who pride themselves on basing their worldview on the available evidence also feel justified in claiming how aliens would look based on pure speculation with no evidence whatsoever. We have more evidence for psi phenomena than we do for sentient aliens that look like Cthulhu.

File: really m8.jpg (31KB, 797x479px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 797x479px

>>17689224
>It wasn't a popular idea until the movie

>>17691774
who is the hobo nigger?

>>17689224
You mean the quick answer as to why all the aliens in your show look humanoid? You think that idea NEVER was popular with sci-fi until Prometheus?

You sure about that?

Like maybe Star Trek might have said it, round 1993 or so?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chase_%28Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation%29

Or Stargate? Or Doctor Who? Or...you know what? Let's make this easy.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Panspermia

>>17694037

It's because it's extremely unlikely they'll be humanoid. After all, there have been something like 20 - 30 humanoid species on our planet at some point so far. That's out of over 1 billion species to have ever existed on our planet (and that's a conservative estimate). That means around 0.000003% of species were humanoid. Stick that on the end of the Drake Equation, you're looking at a ridiculously low probability of alien humanoids.

>>17694202

Or you're just too ignorant to know what they're using to justify their claims.

>mathematical probability based on observations of our own planet
>knowledge of how humans developed over time
>knowledge that organic chemistry could very well work with differing molecules to our own
>knowledge that our planet is not the standard in what we have seen, so our environments are not the most common

>>17690661
Second

>>17694037
Anthropic Principle ftw!
Occam's Razor/ thread

>>17694563
This guy gets it

File: image.jpg (115KB, 484x596px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 484x596px

So this is a thing.

>>17689183
This is all speculation, but there are some pretty glaring advantages to many of the features we posses. Being bipedal allows us to very easily manipulate tools, intelligent life probably has at least two legs and two arms with hands of some kind and probably stands upright because it's easier to manipulate objects in an upright position, not needing to worry about losing balance in exchange for using a tool.

That alone suggests that intelligent (as in, equal at least to human intelligence) life would probably look at least partially "humanoid" in the sense that they would probably stand upright, have at least two legs, at least two arms and at least have something akin to hands. That is essentially the bare minimum for using tools properly without needing to worry about imbalance.

>>17694274
death grips

>>17695225
What if the overlying theme of vertebrates on the planet have six limbs? Will gain an extra set of arms, or become centaurid in appearance, or could it end up like the Green Martians with an intermediary set of limbs

>>17695248
*will it gain

>>17695248
Could be anything really, but they would still stand upright, have at least two arms, two legs and hands of some kind if they're intelligent and capable of using tools. Even if they had 4 arms or 4 legs they'd still somewhat resemble the human form I'd imagine (limb, torso and head arrangement), it's a good form for tool use.

The primary difference would probably be their face and their torso length and shape, I think the limbs would unanimously be the most similar thing to man among all potentially intelligent lifeforms out there, I can't really imagine a more effective set of limbs (oriented for the use of tools) than we have, regardless of environment.

>>17695225
What if they developed significant intelligence without tools, and then later developed technology that was suitable to their frame?

>>17695292
>What if they developed significant intelligence without tools
With no way to effectively manipulate and study their environment I can't imagine a creature being any smarter than maybe a dolphin honestly.

File: 20160515_135424.jpg (3MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5312x2988px

>>17695286
Is this humanoid enough? It's an octopedal centaurid descended from a tree-dweller which is descended from a tardigrade-like common ancestor.

>>17695303
I agree, it's far-fetched. But dolphins have been shown to be pretty smart. Maybe in a slightly different environment, with different types of predation, resources, etc. they could learn more.

In an infinite universe I could see it happening occasionally.

>>17695317
Perhaps seletive breeding will be their fire. They could breed certain types of crustaceans to have long, spear-like carapaces.

>>17695309
I don't understand half the words you said but it looks like it would be able to use tools. The head seems small for a brain large enough to facilitate advanced intelligence, and considering its size it would need to eat a lot to sustain itself, giving it less time for more experimental activities, and diverting nutrients to things like the muscles rather than the brain.

Humans are pretty weak, and our heads are huge, I think these all come from the fact that we put more emphasis on mental endeavors than physical ones to help us survive. I'd imagine other intelligent species would tend be similar, but again it's pure speculation.

File: tardigrade.jpg (591KB, 2048x1363px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 2048x1363px

>>17695351
To put it another way: it's eight-limbed, has a stance similar to a centaur (four legs and two/four arms), came from an animal with a similar lifestyle to monkey, and came from something resembling a tardigrade (this thing)

>>17695373
Also, they work in family units similar to chimps or ants (basically us)

>>17695225

>This is all speculation, but there are some pretty glaring advantages to many of the features we posses.

There are many glaring disadvantages, too. Such as our upright stance limiting head size due to the size of female hips, resulting in early offspring (it's why human babies are more useless at birth than most others).

>Being bipedal allows us to very easily manipulate tools, intelligent life probably has at least two legs and two arms with hands of some kind and probably stands upright because it's easier to manipulate objects in an upright position, not needing to worry about losing balance in exchange for using a tool.

Most animals on our planet have 6 or more legs. An octopus may still use tentacles when moving. An elephant even adapted its nose to form a prehensile trunk. And many creatures have tails that can be used as additional limbs.

There's also the assumption that these creatures will stand at all. What if they swim? Or float? Balance isn't a concern at all, then.

>That alone suggests that intelligent (as in, equal at least to human intelligence) life would probably look at least partially "humanoid" in the sense that they would probably stand upright, have at least two legs, at least two arms and at least have something akin to hands.

We only have our traits because of our mammalian ancestry and the environmental pressures put on us early on. It would be a huge leap to assume aliens would go through all the same factors as we did.

>That is essentially the bare minimum for using tools properly without needing to worry about imbalance.

We didn't become upright to use tools. Most of the time, we sat down to use tools (breaking open nuts with stones, probing fallen trunks for insects with sticks, etc). It was an advantage for us to be upright due to exposing less of our surface area to the hot sun, allowing us to see further and over tall grass, and to conserve energy over long distances (we were primarily persistence hunters).

>>17689188
I have a theory:

"Greys" are humans.
Further evolved humans, from the future.

Think about a time machine. You think of some kind of platform, or station, or chamber, or chair or something, yes? But let's imagine what would happen if you decided to go back in time one month: The platform/you disappears, and appears again the previous month. From everyone in the previous month, it would appear as though you just appeared out of thin air. But... it wouldn't. If you travelled back in time in such a stationary machine, you wouldn't appear in the same place the machine used to be, you'd appear in the middle of outer space, since the Earth is constantly orbiting the sun and moving through space.

The logistics of making a time machine are astronomical alone, nevermind making one that follows the course of the Earth's orbit in its travels through time. So how can you circumvent this? Create a stationary time machine located in space. If you have a time machine on a space station or a "parked" spacecraft, you can travel any length of time, and ensure that you will appear on the same space station/craft, in the same location. And this where the greys come in.

Human evolution is the result of long-term adaptation. If humans far enough in the future have mastered space travel, and presumably either the Earth is either uninhabitable or overpopulated, then humans would spend enough time in spacecrafts and in space to start to adapt: Skin grows pale and clammy, with no exposure to constant sunlight and wind/atmosphere to color and toughen it. Eyes grow large to accomodate spacial awareness in all directions. Black pupils grow large enough to cover the entire front of the eyeball to see better in the low artificial light and darkness of space. The nose diminishes to basic breathing-holes, no longer requiring our complex filtration system due to the sterile environments of spacecraft.

...

>>17695647
...

The cranium grows large to accommodate an ever-expanding brain that holds ever more advanced knowledge and concepts. The body deteriorates and atrophies, due to both technology taking care of all heavy lifting, and from living in low-gravity environments.

In the end, you're left with the Greys. They traveled to the past in their spacecraft(s) to either communicate with us, observe us (even we are familiar with how history can be lost or obscured), or even share their advanced knowledge with us, to kick-start technological evolution early.

Sometimes they slip up. They crash, or we see them hovering around in their craft. The government manages to take in some dead bodies that look nothing like humans, and we just assume that they're a distant foreign species.

>>17695494
an alien without the ability to utilize tools isn't going to be traveling across the universe m8, or even develop sentience since it won't be necessary for the niche they fill in their ecosystem.

Short of some star trek style energy being, it's a pretty safe bet that ayyyys have something akin to hands and follow either radial or bilateral symmetry.

File: bDTNixd.jpg (68KB, 535x535px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 535x535px

>>17691833

>>17695647
>>17695654
At this moment, time travel is only possible when moving forwards.

I've seen a grey (three to be precise). They are made through bio engineering to be the perfect workers in outer space. Little to no body weight with no muscle to speak of that have telepathic abilities. They float around the ship like fish.

>>17695714
>at this moment

Precisely. The only humans capable of traveling back in time would have to come from the distant future, hundreds of years ahead of us, so far away, temporally, that humans could have evolved into Greys by that time.

>>17690658
Hominids are pretty inefficient though. They work well for a while and are dexterous but they just aren't designed for long lifespans. Lots of unnecessary stress points. I imagine a species of blob capable of forming crystalline structures would be the most objectively efficient alien race.

>>17694553
>ridiculously low chances
>infinite universe

Pick one

>>17689244
>>17689244
klekl

>>17689333
>>17690710
certainly this
>3ripple3

>>17695771
I meant "as we understand it"

>>17695309
>scans keeper

>>17696205
Huh, what a coincidink. I've honestly never played it nor looked into the lore. I guess we could call this "convergeant creation."

>>17693859
>Its also total bullshit because it assumes that evolution inherently converges on the best or most efficient adaptations.
What is natural selection.
>What really happens is evolution is total dumb luck and retarded useless traits stick around all the time
?
>while useful traits die out by chance.
If a "useful trait" is eliminated by natural selection then it wasn't fucking useful in the given time and climate in the first place you fucking retard.
0/10 absolutely no understanding of how evolution works.

>>17689183
>form of life nobody has observed or has any understanding of definitely doesn't look like well known life form

Great science and logic going on here.
Being bipedal and having a straight back allows the body to support a brain large enough to have superfluous intelligence. Having hands with fingers allows firm grasp and therefor the creation of complex, intricate tools, and the ability to do physical work.
If a species reaches intergalactic space travel, it will almost certainly look like us.

>>17697289
>several anons just explained why this doesn't work
Read it

>>17697589
Who are you quoting?
Who has a valid counter argument to the other post? I skimmed the thread and didn't seem to find anything.

>>17697610
Right here
>>17695494

File: zeta.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>17689183
This little guy and I beg to differ sir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pgTBz-R_XA
MIB

>>17695494
>Most animals on our planet have 6 or more legs. An octopus may still use tentacles when moving. An elephant even adapted its nose to form a prehensile trunk. And many creatures have tails that can be used as additional limbs.

How many of these animals use simple tools and mathematics or have, I dunno, gone into space?

>>17697624
That's just wrong.
Our upright stance is the reason we have such a high brain to body mass ratio. The brain of hominids only began significantly and quickly increasing in size when they developed a straight spine and neck.

As for the second point, yes, perhaps aliens capable of interstellar travel will have more than 2 legs, although they would still have an upright posture with arms. If they are confined exclusivly to seas or skies, they will be unable to develop technology and will not become space-faring.

If aliens become space faring, that means that they are a social species, and if they are social then they have emotional systems.

Of course, animalistic alien life could be any viable form you can imagine, but in order to fill the niche of technology creators, they must assume the form of technology creators.

>>17697654
>simple tools
Dolphins with sponges, octopi with coconut shells, and ravens using a simple bartering system.

>>17697677
Dolphins and octopuses are utilizing natural objects, not creating a distinct tool out of them as early hominids did with sticks and rocks.
And ravens barter naturally? lmao wtf I highly doubt it.

>>17697701
A woman apparently traded with them. She gave them food, they gave her shiny objects.

>>17689183
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx6RQZCI0Gc

yw

>>17697711
It was a kid who fed crows every day over the course of a year, eventually little trinkets (anything from broken pieces of plastic to paper clips to metal nuts) turned up in the empty tray after the crows were done eating. Definitely not bartering, perhaps some form of gift-giving? Birds are somewhat social creatures, although very rudimental.

>>17697730
Ok, fair enough.

File: image.jpg (135KB, 285x785px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 285x785px

>>17697661
Ok. These two aliens are descended from a radial ancestor that later became bilateral when it moved onto land. They both had a a completely different evolutionary lineage than anything on earth. Tell me, does the crab thing sitting on the horse-thing resemble man in the slightest?

>>17689183
anyone else got spooped and angry at that incredibly loud and unnecessary sound effect at 22:10?

File: image.jpg (271KB, 1024x1492px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1024x1492px

This is as far as I go when it comes to humanoid aliens

>>17690843
It's weird to think that hunting's going to purely be a sport later, assuming it'll even be permitted at all

After we permanently come up with a way to easily sustain ourselves in artificial environments (I'm thinking biologically modified brainless meat, maybe starting with molluscs like clams- hell, it shouldn't even matter whether they have brains or not, just seems like it'd make easier harvesting, like meatplants or something) we won't have as much need for other life forms. I hope we don't get cucked by some single universal government or some shit

>>17691774
how many lizards have YOU fucked?

>>17697808
I'd ask you the same question.

File: ronpaul_iowa_rtr_img.jpg (162KB, 615x408px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 615x408px

>>17697756
holy fucking shit what are you trying to say? no, the picture you linked doesn't look anything like a man

>>17697819
I'm saying that man from starfish doesn't work

File: 5-curiosidades-sobre-la-saliva.jpg (22KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 630x420px

>>17697831
what the fuck? radial ancestor? became bilateral? are you super duper retarded or trolling?

There's probably some sort of war between alien species going right now somewhere else.

>>17697844
Ask the author, Dougal Dixon.

File: 1462672510275.jpg (63KB, 514x536px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 514x536px

>>17697850
>Dixon studied geology and palaeontology at the University of St. Andrews and is best known for his illustrated works of speculative fiction

ooooookaaayyyy....

>>17697858
He used our understanding of life here and projected onto another earth-like planet. He created a basal life-form (starfish-like animal). When they made the transition to land, they split into two groups: ones with two sets of limbs on the side and one limb in the front and back, and ones with two limbs in the front and back and one pair on the sides. Also, their mouth is their anus.

File: clap_clap_aplause_gif_879.gif (2MB, 400x226px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x226px

>>17697873
He's a paleontologist and he wrote a self-ascribed fiction novel... What is the point of all of this? That in one fictional world in a fictional universe there are fictional starfish that evolve into fictional 5 limned mammals that shit fictional shit out of their fictional mouths?

>>17697901
Ok, present me with some hard evidence that humanoid aliens exist elsewhere.

>>17697908
Why? Nobody has that evidence.

>>17697910
Exactly, so both of our arguments are invalid until proper contact has been made/established.

>>17697927
I just don't see the logic in it. Why would any planet, no matter how close to ours, spew out a carbon (or some other element) copy of us?

>>17697936
>if there are space faring aliens they are roughly humanoid
>roughly humanoid
>roughly
>r
>o
>u
>g
>h
>l
>y

>>17697942
How "roughly" humanoid, though? Are we talking basic shape, or just rubber forehead/painted human aliens

>>17697949
Our upright stance is the reason we have such a high brain to body mass ratio. The brain of hominids only began significantly and quickly increasing in size when they developed a straight spine and neck.

As for the second point, yes, perhaps aliens capable of interstellar travel will have more than 2 legs, although they would still have an upright posture with arms. If they are confined exclusivly to seas or skies, they will be unable to develop technology and will not become space-faring.

If aliens become space faring, that means that they are a social species, and if they are social then they have emotional systems.

They would be upright, meaning their head would be directly over their shoulders, have arms with finger appendages to manipulate tools and objects, and have a firm grasp to do work.

>>17697954
So just basic shape. That I can understand.

>>17694024
>>17694024
>GMO humans idea.

Governmental, Secret Society, or Random Mad Scientist?

>>17697995
Actual, non-humanoid aliens.

>>17697999
What did you mean by "GMO"? I took it to mean "Genetically Modified Organism".

>>17689549
How is it far fetched
We literally have no other planets with life to compare it to

>>17695123
> Only one of them is real

The alien?

what if man left earth, then came back due to the lack of gentic diversity.

>>17695942

Humans have one of the longest lifespans of all mammals? I think ur just a faget.

>>17689530

To be fair, as far as lineages go all of those animals are incredibly closely related.

>>17691978
what chapter of Franken Fran had a similar idea about some actress who fell in love with her co-star but he only liked anime so she got extensive surgery but he thought she was a grey?

I've done some reading and looked at various theories about E.T's. Some coming from religious texts, ancient history, experiences etc. and had this idea about what earth could be. Apparantly many civilisations come and go on earth. Some live here, some use its resources etc. The one thing it comes down to though is that according to the majority of text and references, all or most of the races seem to be humanoid. Some have variations but a huge selection are very similar to the way we are. Now if this is an evolutionary trait where a species evolves and ends up being very humanoid. What if the earth is/was a breeding ground. If humans have been around for the amount of time we think then would it be possible for other species such as insects, aquatic, feline to have evolved into intelligent beings over the course of several millions years. In which case reptilian would have evolved from dinosaurs for instance.
Back to my original thought. We have no idea if other planets that harbour life have such a vast variety of species. What if these species have been brought here due to it thriving and ideal conditions to keep them safe by their more evolved counter parts so that they could eventually evolve into what they are today. It seem a bit crazy but from what I've learned about human evolution, there were so many different types and over the course of so many years only one remained, us humans.

>>17697654

You're completely missing the point. We just happened to be a species that evolved to our level of intelligence so far. But to assume that all intelligence requires our build is ridiculous.

>>17695981

There isn't an infinite universe.

>>17698486
lol no they're not. The dolphin is much more closely related to you (or any other mammal) than it is to either of the others,

>>17697927

>My argument was that if there are space faring aliens they are roughly humanoid for logical reasons that are consistent with our understanding of life.

You mean for your limited understanding of probability and biology? There is absolutely no reason aliens would be humanoid. There's no reason they'd have two legs, two arms, and a head on top of an upright body.

We've already covered that large brains can form in many different body types (look up examples of organisms with low body mass to brain ratios, meaning they have proportionally larger brains than us). We've already covered that there are many different environments in which social species can develop which will greatly change body plan. We've already covered there are many different dextrous structures in the animal kingdom beyond hands. We've already covered that our particular stance is exceptionally rare, comparing just against our planet alone.

So why are you still holding this retarded notion that aliens will have to be 'roughly humanoid'? For all we know, they could be insect-like creatures with a series of tentacle-like limbs sticking out of what could vaguely be called their 'front end'. Or enormous fish-like creatures with trunks. Or floating masses of sentient jelly with microscopic organs for manipulation.

>>17689207
Star trek tng did this too

It's entirely plausible

Also the human form is very efficient when it comes to creating the technology required for space travel. It's likely that the most of the space faring beings we meet in the future will be humanoid just because it's the best way for intelligent life to develop.

It's called Convergent Evolution. Many completely unrelated species evolve extremely similar solutions to problems simply because they are the best solution to that problem.

It doesn't mean that ALL intelligent life will look like us, just that it's likely they will have the same general body shape. 1 head, 2 arms with hands that have digits, 2 legs, etc.

>>17698997
Where does it end then? Is there a wall? Did Trump build a wall around the Universe to stop extra-universal immigration?

Errr...people here are making the mistake of thinking that natural selection means that the best of possible forms will survive. In actuality it's as much about what traits don't get you killed before you can reproduce as it is what traits let you survive.

A planet-borne alien species that can travel through space must possess:

1. A means of perceiving its environment
2. A means of manipulating its environment
3. An incentive

Convergent Evolution suggests that alien civilizations from a planet similar to Earth will possess organs that meet those requirements. However that does not necessarily meant the shape would be humanoid just a form that does not hamper its chances of survival too much. Still, the existence of other humanoids is a safe bet.

Of course that is assuming that a humanoid species is capable of traversing interstellar distances. The effects of zero-g on the human body are severely deleterious. Unless we can compensate medicinally or through artificial gravity, we become like fish out of water. It could be that just as the amphibian was the bridge between sea-locked piscine and the land-dwelling reptiles we might have to take on post-mammalian traits to survive in the depths of space.

File: Gervais.gif (561KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 500x281px

>>17699106

File: sophonts_2__different_biochemistry_by_juniorwoodchuck-d8np2jm.jpg (73KB, 970x823px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 970x823px

I always felt that the belief that extraterrestrial life must be roughly humanoid is rooted in the dogma that the human form is peefect and no animal-like sophonts (intelligent species) can arise.

File: sophonts_by_juniorwoodchuck-d8nfm9b.jpg (69KB, 947x844px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 947x844px

>>17699672
Let me put it another way. We often associate the human form with advanced intelligence, whereas we associate animal forms with lower intelligence.

File: Jacques Vallee is amused by each school's equally pathetic levels of materialistic naïvité.jpg (61KB, 401x470px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 401x470px

>>17690864
>he assumes these beings are extraterrestrial biological entities based on no evidence whatsoever
>>17691008
>he pseudoskeptically dismisses reliable eyewitness accounts offhand


>report

>>17689183
Greys are part of a phenomenon indigenous to earth. The interdimensional hypothesis explains greys much better than the interstellar hypothesis.

>>17689183
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYuSHz7uOv4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxMkMBXAVZ8

http://pastebin.com/xMQ9wAwW

Perhaps your "scientist" are more like philosophers.

Also Nephilim are the Aliens we see today. They aren't aliens but are demons.

>>17694044
>Good examples include: eyes

OP's pic is from a collection of artwork by a guy named Wayne Barlowe, who tried to envision a planet where one of the defining traits is that none of the fauna evolved stereotypical eyes. They all "see" exclusively through echolocation, IIRC.

>>17695309
>actual mouth

kek call it a proboscis. Mouths aren't tubes

>>17699796
I think many criticised the project for that reason. I doesn't make sense, why would you need flourescent patches on your skin if you use echolocation?
I think the documentary they made corrected this issue by adding small eyes in places you wouldn't notice.

>>17699825
Functions more like a trunk or tongue.

I want to fuck an alien so bad

>>17699880
Go check out the xeno thread. They have some pretty good ayys.

File: spl.jpg (66KB, 705x397px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 705x397px

>>17689330
>grey desu

>>17699106

It ends at the end. It is logically impossible to exist in an infinite universe, because we know there was a beginning where everything was condensed to a single point. If infinity was condensed down and then expanded, nothing would have changed because it is still infinity, which means there wouldn't have been the event of the early plasma sea being able to cool enough to create subatomic particles.

Think of it like this: a pressurised gas canister contains a limited amount of air. If the canister suddenly expands, the air has more room so less pressure. But if the canister were suddenly infinite, the air would have infinite room and so no pressure (in fact, it would be an infinite vacuum). The same applies to heat in the universe.

File: thype-2.jpg (504KB, 2902x5246px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 2902x5246px

Bump

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2469x1880px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2469x1880px

Bump, with a dog

>>17689197
That's my theory. That's what God is.

>>17701298
But God isn't a race, He's a non-corporeal being who exists outside of time and space.

File: images.jpg (8KB, 181x278px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 181x278px

>>17689183

>>17689183
this video is hot garbage

File: a52462d3560da960c5008cb435fd2ffac8806c1212b4bc2038dfe80afdc6e0f0.jpg (20KB, 357x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 357x400px

>>17699022
In order for a species to fill a niche, it must have the qualities to fill that niche. How could you properly tighten a screw or build a computer with big floppy testicle arms? The only reason the tree shrew. mice, and birds have higher brain to body mass ratios than us is because their bodies are incredibly light, weighing under a kilogram.
As I've stated before, in order to achieve higher intelligence and complex socio-emotional processing, a land dwelling animal must have its head above its shoulders, a neck and back wouldn't support a brain that heavy if it was hanging in the front. Our stance is rare because it is what makes us the fill the niche of the technology creators.
You are entirely wrong to assert that space-faring aliens wouldn't be basically humanoid, they absolutely would. It is the only viable physiology to create technology.
You're not critically thinking, or you may not be thinking at all (which wouldn't surprise me based on your glaring ignorance and mongoloidian assertions).

>>17701371
holy shit I haven't seen Brian Peppers in years

File: ayykawai.jpg (52KB, 323x640px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 323x640px

>>17691978

>>17701371

>In order for a species to fill a niche, it must have the qualities to fill that niche.

You clearly don't know what a niche is. Humans have been out of any natural ecosystem for years, so they do not fill a niche.

>How could you properly tighten a screw or build a computer with big floppy testicle arms?

How could you lifted thousands of pounds with a frail ape body? We use technology. A tentacle can easily use primitive tools. And primitive tools just give way to more tools.

>The only reason the tree shrew. mice, and birds have higher brain to body mass ratios than us is because their bodies are incredibly light, weighing under a kilogram.

And many species of dolphin are heavier than us. Different environments, see?

>As I've stated before, in order to achieve higher intelligence and complex socio-emotional processing, a land dwelling animal must have its head above its shoulders, a neck and back wouldn't support a brain that heavy if it was hanging in the front.

Bollocks. An elephant has tusks that weigh as much as an average human. EACH. They clearly can take the weight.

>Our stance is rare because it is what makes us the fill the niche of the technology creators.

No, our niche was plains hunters. That's what gave us our stance. Our earliest upright ancestors had brains roughly the same size as a modern chimp. Intelligence was a fluke and came afterwards.

>You are entirely wrong to assert that space-faring aliens wouldn't be basically humanoid, they absolutely would.

You have absolutely no argument to suggest that. I've shown you multiple times that you're wrong.

>It is the only viable physiology to create technology.

Only if you're an unimaginative ignoramus.

>You're not critically thinking, or you may not be thinking at all (which wouldn't surprise me based on your glaring ignorance and mongoloidian assertions).

Considering I've just shown how full of shit you are, it's clearly not me that's not thinking critically.

>>17695674
you do realize there are animals without hands that utilize tools? crows, elephants. obviously not as adept as we are, but open your mind a bit.

also 'bipedal with fingers' is still an immensely vague body plan. assuming this must be a universal constant for sentient life, they still wouldn't closely resemble us due to our unique evolutionary history. need i remind you that mammals only dominated the planet due to the dinosaurs dying out? had this not occurred we wouldn't be having this conversation.

>>17701371

>"As I've stated before, in order to achieve higher intelligence and complex socio-emotional processing, a land dwelling animal must have its head above its shoulders, a neck and back wouldn't support a brain that heavy if it was hanging in the front."
>doesn't know that gravity changes depending on the planet

Stop making yourself look stupid.

>>17689188
""""theory""""

In all honesty, the chances that animal-like extraterrestrials (let's call them animals for the sake of simplicity) would have similar body plans and polarity to terrestrial animals is overwhelmingly high.
Let's look at some features that would be selected for by natural selection:
>Mouth at front of body or on base of body - This facilitates either filter feeding or bottom feeding, so these would be the most favourable locations of the organs.
>Excretory and egestive systems on opposite side of body to mouth - This prevents undigestible substances and metabolic waste from being recycled into the body.
>>The above lead to a natural polarity in which food enters one end (the front or bottom) and waste is disposed of out of the other (the back or top).

>Electromagnetic receptors (eyes) - These will probably be common to all complex animals that have any light exposure whatsoever. Since electromagnetic waves travel faster than anything else, it would only be logical for these to be favoured for survival. They would also be able to rotate, either on apendages or (more likely) on a head.
>Vibration receptors (ears) - Again, it would be favoured for these to be mobile (once again, most likely on a head), and to be on the sides of said head, in order to best detect vibration from all directions and to judge from which location they are coming.
>Chemical receptors (olfactory (smell) and gustatory (taste)) - Some of the most essential receptors, which are required to detect toxic or harmful substances in food and avoid ingesting them. Again, these would be on a head, and would be close to the mouth (ergo, the mouth would be on the head).
>>The reason for a head (the brain) - These essential sensors (electromagnetic, vibration, and chemical) would be needed to avoid predation and harm from non-living sources. Therefore, they would need to detect and respond to their corresponding stimuli quickly. Thus, the animals that have them closest to their brain

cont.

File: 1353393946920.jpg (420KB, 600x1024px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 600x1024px

All human life originated in Lyra. The physical similarity that we're seeing in most hominid aliens isn't a result of evolution, but migration.

>>17702387
cont.

>> (or brain-equivalent in their equivalent of the CNS) would be able to respond to potential threats most quickly (and thus would have a survival advantage). A head would allow these structures to be mobile (to turn and face in different directions, mostly independent of the body's orientation - more necessary in terrestrial animals than in aquatic ones), while keeping them close to the animal's brain and minimising the risk of damage coming to them (problems presented by the idea of placing these sensory organs on long appendages extending from an area of the body close to an immobile brain).
This is not an exhaustive list.

This isn't to say that they wouldn't still look very different to Earth's animals. However, concepts such as eyes located far from the brain (or, at least, very developed eyes), or mouths on the back of the animal and anuses on the front, can easily be discarded as unrealistic and evolutionarily redundant, and were most likely introduced just for the sake of making the alien different to the animals we know of in the name of "variety in design".

>>17689218
How is anything more "plausible" than anything else? Barlowe'a aliens lack eyes, yet have bioluminescence. You don't know what you're talking about. Now apologize to these nice people.

File: 1380059463115.jpg (14KB, 166x192px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 166x192px

>>17689183
Disinfo pls go

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

>>17701316
God in the terms of who created us, and God in the terms of literally everything are different steps to the same whole.

>>17689197
That doesn't work unless it was done very recently (in evolutionary terms) and was not seeding but colonization of an already living planet. Humans have been on earth for about 2 million years, life has for about 3.5 billion. If aliens were the ones to start life on earth those billions of years ago, there is absolutely no reason we should look like them except maybe having similar basic chemical structure.

>>17689218
Any preset notion of what life will look like on a macroscopic level from other worlds is pure fiction. There is a literally infinite number of variables involved, and extremely complicated evolutionary mechanisms combined with random chance to be taken into account. For all we know, particularity may be a fluke unique to earth, and doesn't happen on other planets. Forget about animals, especially vertebrates as Barlow supposes. I like what hes come up with, there are some pretty neat designs, but don't take them as anything more than fantasy.

File: Dyson Sphere.jpg (975KB, 1400x788px) Image search: [Google]

975KB, 1400x788px

>>17699106
It's funny you should ask.

>>17702592
I think they fixed that in the documentary.

>>17702387

>>Mouth at front of body or on base of body - This facilitates either filter feeding or bottom feeding, so these would be the most favourable locations of the organs.

Excluding environments where food comes from above, or is absorbed.

>Excretory and egestive systems on opposite side of body to mouth - This prevents undigestible substances and metabolic waste from being recycled into the body.

Or they don't feed on solid food at all and excrete a liquid through their feet.

>The above lead to a natural polarity in which food enters one end (the front or bottom) and waste is disposed of out of the other (the back or top).

Or food enters via a proboscis on its underside that it uses on other creatures sheltering under it, and waste is disposed as dried flakes that shed from the creature's upper side, providing a form of protection from the harsh UV radiation on its planet.

>Electromagnetic receptors (eyes) - These will probably be common to all complex animals that have any light exposure whatsoever. Since electromagnetic waves travel faster than anything else, it would only be logical for these to be favoured for survival. They would also be able to rotate, either on apendages or (more likely) on a head.

Assuming there will even be light exposure, and these creatures are actually chemotrophes. Or that the atmosphere is as ours, instead of being so foggy that echolocation is the way to go. Or they have a series of patches to sense certain wavelengths, but instead feel the world around them with thousands of long hairs.

>>Vibration receptors (ears) - Again, it would be favoured for these to be mobile (once again, most likely on a head), and to be on the sides of said head, in order to best detect vibration from all directions and to judge from which location they are coming.

Or placed on extendable appendages so that they aren't continuously exposed to the constant sandstorms they evolved in.

I could go on like this, but basically you're wrong.

>>17697625
topkek, that cgi is so fucking bad.

All these people using gloves as an argument for why everyone needs hands...

Here's a scary thought: what if we're the best that the universe has to offer at the moment. What if we're the first. What if we are that precursor race.

>>17703216
How is that a scary thought? Is all the Earth not enough for you?

>>17689226
What movie is this from, I remember watching it as a kid and I remember a human crashes on an alien planet and shit and befriends this guy right, I've been looking for the name for ages

File: Drac.png (225KB, 446x367px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 446x367px

>>17703321
That alien is from Star Trek, but the movie you're thinking of if called "Enemy Mine"

File: 1461794740029.gif (557KB, 224x199px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 224x199px

>>17689213

>>17703475
*is called

>>17703247
Just saying. We're not exactly "precursor race" material, in my opinion. (Or at least not yet)

>>17698486
they're all vertebrates sharing thousand of similar features, from bone structure to chemical pathways. That's why they converge when exposed to the same enviroment. Not only that but the whole Eukaryota is just a tiny, close-knitted group when compared to Archea or Bacteria

>>17694145
How many species on earth alone (that aren't primates btw) have ever looked like us at all?

>>17694188
Think of unlikely the development of mitochondria ALONE is, dude.

>>17695647

The unexpected alternative is that Grays are not time travelers, and we're living in a constructed environment, meant to re-enact the estimated biological form and habitat that Gray civilization represented at some distant point in their evolutionary past.

What better way to study and re-direct the development of your species.

File: 800px-ChalicotheriumDB1.jpg (74KB, 800x693px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 800x693px

>>17703613
There was a horse relative that went extinct a few hundred thousand years ago that was on its way to becoming bipedal.

Why is bipedalism and a humanoid body layout out of the question?

>>17703624
There are lifeforms on Earth that don't have mitochondria. Aliens wouldn't even exactly need mitochondria. At best they'd have none or an analog to it

File: Mitochondria_Eve.png (511KB, 593x1080px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 593x1080px

>>17703652
Mitochondria are dangerous anyway. They could rise up against us at any moment.

>>17698479
Due to medicine.

>>17703954
>mfw most cancers and diseases are caused by a reaction of the mitochondria.
Serious double edged sword.
Our entire genetic evolution was caused by these guys and at any point they could evolve again and kill us.

>>17703475
Dindu

>>17703990
Damn, and I thought I was just making a joke about an obscure PS1 game.

>>17703640
It may have been bipedal for brief amounts of time, like a ground sloth. We've seen this quite a few times in evolution. Ground sloth, a dinosaur I can't remember right off hand, I wish I had my prehistoric animal books on hand. Convergent evolution.

The human form is shitty. We have sooo many skeletal issues because of our layout. How often do animals' discs pop out or the cartilage get worn down?

I think the bipedal form of the dinosaurs or the ratites would be better. It'd free up their 'hands'. The 'domeheads' prove that the form can take weight. Hell, I don't know why the above idiot is saying the quadrupedal form can't take the weight. Look at the freaking ceratopsians. Running around with several swords and shields on you head....that's a helluva lot of weight.

Discounting elephants, dolphins, and crows for only using simple tools is pretty much discounting our ancestors. They used simple tools. Hell chimps only use simple tools. They have a dual stance, mainly quadrupedal. I'm not seeing why they couldn't be space faring aliens.

All of this is assuming that humans aren't the bastard children of Greys and they didn't create us using their own DNA. It also assumes that we are not early stage Greys and Greys are us after evolving over hundreds of thousands of years.

>>17704678
Well it's not an assumption. There's a clear fossil and genetic record of our evolution from lower apes.

Grey's are demon's not aleins. No such thing as aleins
/thread

File: c37b11447ded09f6ebfb21ea1635c7e8.gif (598KB, 384x288px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 384x288px

>>17689183
ayyy, love this channel. The guy is usually right about these things. Most /x/-philes won't agree with him, though. To be fair, this doesn't account for the possibility of time travelers, interdimensional beings or 'gods' that created us in their image.

I'm still partial to the Greys and will use them in all of my b-grade fiction due to their popularity making them the most 'likely' candidate for abductions, if not the most realistic.

>>17694066
it's off the table because it would be insanely unlikely considering the near-infinite amount of possible variations to a beings physical structure.

>>17695981
It's almost certain that another humanoid race would eventually evolve in an infinite universe, but it's also almost impossible that we would stumble upon each-other, bruh.

>>17704327
It's not obscure, everyone over 15 has played Parasite Eve, anon. Or at least they should.

>>17704681
See the Prometheus thing. I still think that natural 'per chance' evolution is the right answer, but designed evolution is still a remote possibility.

>>17689183
Your mother is not a plausible depiction of a celibate person

>>17701713
>How could you lifted thousands of pounds with a frail ape body? We use technology. A tentacle can easily use primitive tools. And primitive tools just give way to more tools.
A species wouldn't be able to reach the state of using complex tools if it hadn't strength enough to survive a more primitive state.
>And many species of dolphin are heavier than us. Different environments, see
Depending on the environment said specie would not be able to cause chemical reactions essential to the creation and use of technology
>An elephant has tusks that weigh as much as an average human. EACH. They clearly can take the weight
Unless you're arguing about creatures with more than 4 limbs, the elephant would need to be erect to manipulate tools.
>No, our niche was plains hunters.
So was the case with many other hunters that if not by our intelligence would be far more efficient at hunting.

That anon was right, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>17702777
It could also be a slow colonization process, where they begin by seeding the most simple type of life, let that shape and be shaped by the environment, and let natural selection lead to the point of animals and perhaps even primates. After that introduce the variation of the humanoid species you want.

>>17700045
vacuum is still existence of time/space, to think about a time before the big bang you have to think about a time before time/space where our laws don't necessarily apply.

>>17703063
>Assuming there will even be light exposure
If there is no light exposure there will be no bottom of the food chain and thus no species that will provide highly energetic food source that's needed to support the big amount of energy needed to supply the processes of a highly developed brain.

You are forgetting all the time that we're talking about INTELLIGENT life, and many environments do not offer what's needed to develop many of the tools and instruments for both creation, testing and studying, all of which are needed to build knowledge and intelligence.

File: birrin_study_by_abiogenisis-d4jcyj5.jpg (233KB, 900x731px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 900x731px

Just gonna leave this here for you guys.

File: 1407448732083.jpg (39KB, 591x575px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 591x575px

>>17705223
While it's an interesting painting, the first red flag is that the pincers would be useless to wear or remove clothes or operate delicate tools, much less dealing with technology.

File: eva_by_abiogenisis-d4fx9cu.jpg (410KB, 950x707px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 950x707px

>>17705249
U fukin wot m8

>>17705156
Them we wouldn't be so similar to the other beings in the planet. All living being in the planet are related but just we and other monkeys looks humanoid

File: bcd9e7514e3d4ff636e5c2b6f548903b.jpg (64KB, 619x750px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 619x750px

>>17705249

>>17705253
On this picture it's not using it's middle pincers, it's using the feet(??) somehow. And here >>17705268 it doesn't even has the pincers of the first picture.

Stop being retarded, it's an interesting painting but not even close to being realistic.

File: birrin hand.jpg (38KB, 687x542px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 687x542px

>>17705281
Those are not pincers and this >>17705268
is an ancestor.

>>17705293
The space image still has it using it's feet and the second one would be incapable of hunting.

And obviously eating meat is essential to any intelligent species because of the energy needed to sustain a developed brain.

>>17705336
They use the spear in a different way from the humans, The artist explains the details in the descriptions of his many pictures. Also crows craft tools with only feet and the beak and it should be possible for them to make more complex tools if they had the intellect.

About eating meat it is the most common solution for sustaining a big brain, chimps, crows, dolphins, and cephalopods all eat meat but there are exceptions like elephants and parrots so a meat eater is more likely to develop a big brain but sometimes other traits pushes the development of intelligence.

>>17689183

Nothing makes me laugh more than ignoramuses trying to sound smart.

>>17704622
We have spinal issues from sitting in front of a computer too much.

Are spines are perfect the way they are

Also, the term sway back comes from horses so there's at least one four legged creature that slips discs

>>17697677

Dolphins and ravens have six legs?

>>17699777
>They aren't aliens but are demons.

Or dwarfs, elves, ogres, trolls, faeries, etc.

>>17703640
You can't quite call chalicotherium a tool user, though. It's not out of the question, but it seems unlikely. Think about how life would look on earth if the precambrian extinction never happened. Would reptiles or mammals exist at all? Let alone the possibility of anything humanoid. But, until we have proof one way or the other, it's entirely speculative.

>>17703652
Yeah, but how likely is it that complex life could arise without mitochondria? Their ATP production would be so inefficient, that it's extremely unlikely that any sort of intelligence could arise.

>>17706064
The last part of her post says that at best they'd have an alternate cell component that serves the same purpose as mitochondria in our cells.

>>17706055
Life would probably look vastly different but I guarantee that if precambrian life made it out of the ocean there would eventually be at least one bipedal species eventually

>>17703063
>Excluding environments where food comes from above, or is absorbed.
For food to come from above, it would have to initially be above them. Since all of the reactions required for a feasible metabolism would take place in a liquid state, and since gravity exists, their food would start either floating in the water or on a surface (i.e. underneath them).
Of course, you may be talking about light energy, in which case, congratulations, you just described plants. (And what the hell does 'absorbed' mean?)
>Or they don't feed on solid food at all and excrete a liquid through their feet.
I'm assuming you mean "they don't feed on mass", since the properties of this also work with liquid. In all other cases, the thing would be autotrophic. (NB: we excrete liquid... And excreting it underfoot would cause one to slip a lot).
>providing a form of protection from the harsh UV radiation on its planet.
If the UV radiation was that harsh, there would be no time for a protective mechanism to mutate and evolve before all of the DNA would be destroyed, let alone for the first RNA molecules to form before their ultimate destruction.
Even if this did somehow happen, that wouldn't be excretion and egestion, since the protective layer serves a purpose (is our skin a form of excretion?)
>Assuming there will even be light exposure, and these creatures are actually chemotrophes.
I did specify light exposure. Outside of this, energy would have to come from somewhere; chemotrophs tend to use energy from oxidation reactions. Given that there is much less metal in the universe than there is hydrogen, a complex food web based on chemotrophs is implausible.
>Or placed on extendable appendages so that they aren't continuously exposed to the constant sandstorms they evolved in.
That would make them more prone to damage in a sandstorm... You do understand that, right?

Please do biology before commenting on biology...

>>17705164

>If there is no light exposure there will be no bottom of the food chain and thus no species that will provide highly energetic food source that's needed to support the big amount of energy needed to supply the processes of a highly developed brain.

Look up 'chemotrophes'.

>You are forgetting all the time that we're talking about INTELLIGENT life, and many environments do not offer what's needed to develop many of the tools and instruments for both creation, testing and studying, all of which are needed to build knowledge and intelligence.

You're failing to grasp that tools are not a requirement of intelligence, they are a result of it.

>>17706216

>For food to come from above, it would have to initially be above them.

Yup. Think of an environment where plankton-like creatures float on the lighter air above, feeding on radiation from their nearest star, while heavier filter-feeders reach up from below and take what they need.

>Since all of the reactions required for a feasible metabolism would take place in a liquid state, and since gravity exists, their food would start either floating in the water or on a surface (i.e. underneath them).

Because nothing lives under water. Brilliant.

>Of course, you may be talking about light energy, in which case, congratulations, you just described plants. (And what the hell does 'absorbed' mean?)

Plants are just one kind of autotroph. And 'absorbed' means exactly that: absorbed. Who says they don't just soak up nutrients through their skin? Look it up if you're struggling any further.

>I'm assuming you mean "they don't feed on mass", since the properties of this also work with liquid.

No, I mean they don't feed on solid food. Much like how many species don't actually produce solid faeces because of their liquid diets.

>In all other cases, the thing would be autotrophic.

Or parasitic.

>(NB: we excrete liquid... And excreting it underfoot would cause one to slip a lot).

Only if you're being unimaginative and thinking of humans, yet again. Liquid can also be adhesive.

>If the UV radiation was that harsh, there would be no time for a protective mechanism to mutate and evolve before all of the DNA would be destroyed, let alone for the first RNA molecules to form before their ultimate destruction.

You aren't thinking (what a surprise). They don't need to have evolved in the environment, simply transitioned to it. So, going from underground to above ground, for example. Think before you type.

>>17706216

>Even if this did somehow happen, that wouldn't be excretion and egestion, since the protective layer serves a purpose

Excretion is the removal of any waste products, regardless of whether it has a later purpose. For example, marking territory with piss.

>(is our skin a form of excretion?)

Our sweat is.

>I did specify light exposure.

And I'm saying you're being naïve to assume it's a requirement, even when our own planet has many species in perpetual darkness.

>Outside of this, energy would have to come from somewhere; chemotrophs tend to use energy from oxidation reactions. Given that there is much less metal in the universe than there is hydrogen, a complex food web based on chemotrophs is implausible.

Except, planets have more metals than hydrogen, simply due to the way planets form. So, again, you're talking out of your arse.

>That would make them more prone to damage in a sandstorm... You do understand that, right?

Don't be stupid. They bring them in during sandstorms, to protect them, then raise them up when its briefly clear.

>Please do biology before commenting on biology...

Says the armchair 'scientist' who knows fuck all about what he's trying to argue.

>>17705150

>A species wouldn't be able to reach the state of using complex tools if it hadn't strength enough to survive a more primitive state.

And yet there are thousands of species that do survive as seemingly vulnerable creatures, with no issues either.

>Depending on the environment said specie would not be able to cause chemical reactions essential to the creation and use of technology

Entirely depends on the environment. What we can do, they might not, and vice versa.

>Unless you're arguing about creatures with more than 4 limbs, the elephant would need to be erect to manipulate tools.

Why? They have a trunk. They're already pretty good at using them for a number of tasks. They don't need to stand up to do that, either.

>So was the case with many other hunters that if not by our intelligence would be far more efficient at hunting.

And? Look at what my point was addressing.

>That anon was right, you have no idea what you're talking about.

And you're most likely a troll, so go fuck yourself.

>>17689188
>>17689193
>>17689197
>>17689209
>>17689218
>>17689530
>>17689549
Convergent evolution is the most plausible since we have lots of evidence to back it up here on earth of different animals evolving similarities as opposed to your uneducated sci fi bullshit. Stop pretending to be intellectual and just accept that you like fantasy bullshit because you're all man children.

>>17706735
In what sense? The "humanoid is the best body type possible" sense, or the "bare essentials" sense?

>>17706735
From all animals that developed intelligence only apes are humanoid.

>>17706735

>humanoid form has occurred only once
>other forms have occurred multiple times
>"hurr durr aliens will be humanoid!!"

What if, if we at one time contact aliens, they have trancended their original bodies in the form of an artificial body better suited to what they need.

Maybe they only exist in a form of energy without a "physical body"

>>17706969
I have transcended the physical body! Now I finally can be together with my 2D waifu!

Only one intelligent humanoid species can live on a planet at a time. More than that and one will kill the other off without fail.

>>17706735
Your too focused on the example of convergent evolution rather than what it implies. Moreover it means that animals that compete for the same niches in an environment develop similar attributes to remain in competition for those niches. Sort of a genetic arms race. Those that are best suited just happen to develop similar attributes to dominate that niche effectively. It's not that all intelligent life need to be anthropomorphized, it's just the manner in which it occurred on Earth. Does that infer that different environments yielded the same results?
>>17706769
It's the argument more generally that convergent evolution shows patterns in many life forms.
>E.g. having a head with sensory organs located close to the brain, a spine that branches off into four limbs that branch off further into dactyl digits.
This shouldn't be misconstrued into meaning that the humanoid form in and of itself is inherently akin to intelligence. That's specious reasoning. It could be brought to reason that when you broaden the scope of what vertebrates have developed into we are just one of many forms that fit the example I gave. Being humanoid and being intelligent may be mutually exclusive for all we know.

That aside the general air of biological saber rattling that's going on in this thread that is largely pedantic and unfounded. Our development as a dominate species stems from many other criteria largely unrelated to being 'humanoid' in shape. Dealing more with social structure if anything.

>>17707069
>Dealing more with social structure if anything.
Being bipedal certainly was a plus for hunters. Mating without needing to be in heat didn't hurt, either.

>>17707090
Evolution kinda fucked us on the whole baby development thing, though.

>>17689224
Are you being serious, everything from the X-Files to most 1940's/50's era scifi touched on panspermia in some capacity.

>>17707090
>>17707101
>mating w/o needing to be in heat
>Evolution kinda fucked us on the whole baby development thing, though.

Women have short cycles between monthly heats which is why our sex drive is a key component of our specie's success. The shape of the penis to make sex pleasurable (chimps have barbed dicks) and scoop out the semen of competitors for a mate were also biological strengths. By making it something that we enjoyed via the incentives of that pleasure our species was able to couple and raise our long to mature offspring in a community fashion, playing to our benefit.

Having a community structure based off it taking up to 25 years for a human to fully mature means we were able to safely (using this term relatively) develop over a longer period of time. It's part of the reason we are able to grow dense synaptic pathways. Community and reliance on interdependence is our strength.

A single human not unlike an ant is easy prey, as a group we excel in teaching and assisting each other. Our ability to grow as a group coupled is a great deal of why we succeed. Consider how we use one another to gain niche information. If we were quick breeders who matured quickly and operated in small groups or as couples/individuals we wouldn't be the dominate species on the planet. Our development would have necessitated a quicker messier development to cope with survival.

>E.g. A wolf/wolves are capable of killing a man when he is cornered and cut off from the group. Conversely because of men, many of these predatory animals are either domesticated into our pack as dogs, or on the endangered species list.

We learned how to train a pack mindset through trial and error into believing we were their pack. Further the dissemination of this information via a networking social structure and time have spread, reinforced and distributed the necessary information for refining and perfecting this and many other processes.

>>17705426
>Also crows craft tools with only feet and the beak and it should be possible for them to make more complex tools if they had the intellect.
You know nothing of anatomy, one of the reasons why humans and other primates are/were able to craft tools was because of our fingers, which are one of the few designs capable of doing both a good amount of pressure and having fine motor skills. The reason why the crow isn't MORE smart is because he lacks the anatomy to make proper use of this intelligence and thus it makes no difference for them in the natural selection.

>They use the spear in a different way from the humans, The artist explains the details in the descriptions of his many pictures.
Doesn't make much difference, that convoluted anatomy isn't going to be able to use the spear to trust one may argue that it would be capable of using it to hunt fish-like creatures but even then, crafting such a tool is impossible for that wannabe roach because it lacks the necessary musculature for the task.

>About eating meat it is the most common solution for sustaining a big brain, chimps, crows, dolphins, and cephalopods all eat meat but there are exceptions like elephants and parrots so a meat eater is more likely to develop a big brain but sometimes other traits pushes the development of intelligence.
You have no idea what you are talking about our brain even for the first ancestors that started walking erect always had an absurd bigger amount of complex learning skill that no other race had, such as being able to hunt preys to exhaustion, complex communication skills that facilitated sharing knowledge and pattern recognition that didn't rely on many trials.

cont.

>>17707308
cont.

Red meat contains well over 2.5x the amount of energy that's obtainable through plants. Even more important, energy from meat comes in variations that allow for fast use and long term storage, it' not a coincidence that our ancestor's brains started growing at a ridiculous rate right around the time they started having an almost entirely carnivore diet. We were such good hunters that we extinguished big hunters such as sabertooths to extinction by being more efficient at hunting their prey and eventually them.

There's a reason why whenever a new much more efficient design for a mechanical piece enters the market, all the others fall into oblivion and disappear, because it's not possible to compete. That's us, this humanoid form with high intelligence, capacity to adapt to a wide range of environments and eat a wide range of food.

Creatures with weird designs not only existed but still exist here on earth, but they always lose to more efficient designs such as a quadruped, which in turns lose to humanoids.

Basic rule of engineering is that the simpler a design can be, the more efficient it will work.

All the sources we have indicate that for a creature to be as intelligent as humans it would need a similar design, so weird creatures are all fine on fantasy, but wouldn't work on reality.

Why would large (as in visible, not microscopic level) aliens evolve such abnormal forms? I think it's very likely that they share similarities to fish or small rodents, but not feathered elongated kangaroos or any of that shit.

Evolution made the creatures on our earth be a certain way for a reason. It works.

>>17703640
This is reasonable, but it's highly unlikely that they would match our animals evolution so far that they reach mammals and possibly humanoid forms.

>>17701211
This is not reasonable at all.

>>17707337
You seem to be using earthly biology when talking about a human lifeform. What if it had distributed intelligence? What if they cracked the evolutionary code of a smaller, more efficient brain? What about silicon-based life which may work more like a computer than an actual brain?

File: 20160518_210857.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>17701211
>>17707349
Why ever not?

>>17707352
>What if it had distributed intelligence?
Less efficient and therefore would lose on the arms race that is natural evolution.
>What if they cracked the evolutionary code of a smaller, more efficient brain?
There's no evidence that a smaller brain would be capable of being more efficient, all that we know point to the other direction.
>What about silicon-based life which may work more like a computer than an actual brain?
Silicon doesn't interact with elements like carbon does, there's a reason why all the life we see on earth is carbon based. Silicon is incapable of interacting with elements that are needed to create metabolism, and even if a life-form were based on silicon, it wouldn't be any way close to how efficient carbon-based life-forms are. Besides all of that carbon is 10x more abundant on the universe than silicon.

>>17707388
Humanity is distributed intelligence. There is no single font from which we draw total knowledge of ourselves/the world/the universe. It is broken up among our collective. Pretending we aren't a collective intellect is asinine.

>>17707396
He was talking about organism with distributed intelligence not cumulative knowledge from an entire species.

>>17707388
I'm just saying that we're dealing with a lifeform that came from a completely different lineage. For all we know, it came from something resembling a starfish.
>>17707396
I mean as in a body, like an octopus. What you're thinking of is more hive mentality, which we do have.

>>17707415
>I'm just saying that we're dealing with a lifeform that came from a completely different lineage
And what I'm saying is that lifeforms exist the way they are not because of lineage or the randomness of trait selection on reproduction but because those obey the laws of physics and chemistry, those don't change regardless of where in the universe we're talking about. Those two are the reason why we are so efficient, and the more efficient something is the fewer the options of different designs being just as efficient.

>>17707414
>>17707415
OH, my mistake. I would suppose it would have to be deeply ingrained and have dense synaptic nodes to be viable for distributing nerve impulses. The only viable plus would be potentially faster reflexes due to the speed it would be able to send them to its body. I don't necessarily think that a distributed neural makeup would have any realistic effect on sentience if you ascribe to the idea that the differing portions of the brain have different functions. However if you think that by and large it functions in concert spreading various tasks across the larger parts of the whole, then it's entirely possible this would cause interrupts by not being a single adjacent mass as our brains are.

>>17691774
why does the little purple one look like Kai Greene?

File: communion1989.jpg (50KB, 425x582px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 425x582px

>>17694274

an alien from pic related

>>17707459
A distributed neural "center" would also be much more easy to damage and permanently cripple.

File: the_mammaloid_by_dragontunders-d8iucii.jpg (73KB, 1145x697px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1145x697px

>>17707452
If you came from an entirely different lineage you'd think your body type was the most efficient and that only that specific body type exists elsewhere.

>>17689333
yes we are

>>17707488
It's not about "thinking" or "feelings", it's about the same type of process that's used to create new designs for machines and organization. We're also talking about basic chemistry that's exactly the same on the entire universe, the equations and laws made us the most advanced design are same ones that exist on the rest of the universe.

Furthermore you have nothing to back your argument.

>>17707481
Wouldn't that be dependent upon distributed function vs. assigned function? It also takes into assumption the ability of neural repair/lack there of. Who knows how effectively an alien, with a different environment and different stressors could affect the growth of said species that ultimately asserts dominance. I know we're trying to observe this through a lens of 'we only have this to work off of' but that's like saying playing chess and baseball are the same because they're both games with rules.

>>17707509
I was merely stating that bias can skew facts from time to time.

>>17707519
And I am saying that you have no reason to think that we aren't the best design for intelligent life and many reasons to think otherwise.

>>17707511
You are forgetting that different environments have more cons than pros, a planet with a much higher level of gravity wouldn't allow a lifeform to grow to our size or leave the planet, a planet with a different atmosphere wouldn't allow for many of the chemical reactions needed to sustain intelligent life or even allow life to reach the point of being considered intelligent.

Neural links are much like an HD, having a distributed neural function would only make it so that an organism had many HD's through it's body, every time an HD got damaged the creature would loose it's ability to perform a said function, or if capable of regenerating, it would be like if it lost all the experience on how to perform such task. I'm sure you can see how this is inefficient for an intelligent life.

File: scrambler-707080.jpg (128KB, 713x623px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 713x623px

>>17689183
No fucking shit op

>>17707545
Yes, we're the best design for OUR planet, with every little thing calibrated to a certian level. What about Europa or Titan?

>>17707611
>Yes, we're the best design for OUR planet, with every little thing calibrated to a certian level. What about Europa or Titan?
Like I've already said 300 times, different environments are just another obstacle to intelligent life, less gravity and they would have problems creating strong muscles, more gravity and they wouldn't grow, different atmosphere nd chemical reactions would be impossible, less UV light and the bottom of the food chain would not obtain enough energy to supply the planet, more and they would have too many mutations (cancer) and damage on the DNA to live.

>>17707635
Who says it needs to have photosynthesis to support an ecology (albiet a land-based one)? The "bottom of the food chain" could use an alternate form of energy, such as geothermal (the possible starting point and current harborer of life.

Also, how do we know it's going to be DNA? This particular course of evolution on Earth developed this method, but there could be others

>>17707635

>He still thinks all life has to be carbon based and that no entirely different biochemical systems could exist.

Gaiacentism much anon?

>>17707675
Thank you!

>>17707659
Given that compounds found on Earth are common throughout space it's fair to assume that many planets which harbor life would have DNA-based life, or possibly DNA alternatives like XNA. Do you even propagation of sugars and amino acids?

>>17707675
That isn't even an argument, there's a reason why scientists agree that places like Terra is a special planet.

>>17707659
Don't you sad fucks ever studied past fundamental school? This is High school level of information you're asking about.

>>17707069
>>17707090
>>E.g. having a head with sensory organs located close to the brain, a spine that branches off into four limbs that branch off further into dactyl digits.
You are being biassed by the fact that most animals you are thinking on are related.
Dolphins don't fit that scheme, birds don't fit it either, neither elephants. And the only group of creatures that developed intelligence completely independently from vertebrates, the cephalopods, don't fit the scheme at all.

We freed the upper limbs for manipulation when we became bipeds but elephants got a new limb, crows use the upper limbs as main locomotion form and the feet/beak to manipulate things, the octopus have multiple limbs and the dolphin pulled the short straw in the manipulation evolution.

>>17707308
>>17707337
1. I probably know more about anatomy than you since I studied it in medical school and not pop-science websites.
2. You think about technology in an anthropocentric view, different species could develop different forms of technology and could claim that their way to manipulate is the superior since there aren't other intelligent species in their planet. Finally intelligence is not a final goal for any species, just because a species is not intelligent right now doesn't means anything.

All your arguments are based solely on human example and you seems to be oblivious to how other animals evolved.
Invertebrates for example don't have a big central brain but instead have multiple brains that work together and just because there are no examples of them making civilizations doesn't means that this system is unable to develop to such degree of intelligence.

Vertebrates were unable to fly for a long time with air being dominated by insects only this didn't mean that only the insect way is the only way to fly.

>>17707699

>He still thinks that terra is a special little snowflake while telescopes keep finding "earth-like planets"

> He unironically doesn't understand that theoretically, forms with entirely different kinds of biochemical needs and compositions are just as likely to evolve.

Go back to your Asari waifu anon.

>>17707701
At least I can speak English properly.

>>17707349
>This is reasonable, but it's highly unlikely that they would match our animals evolution so far that they reach mammals and possibly humanoid forms.
Nobody said anything about aliens being mammal or mammal-like, only bipedal and humanoid in a bare sense.

For every tall blonde Nordic alien encounter (which might just be future people) there are things like the Hopkinsville Goblins, the Flatwoods Monster, and whatever the fuck you want to call the swamp monster motherfuckers from the Zanfretta case.

>>17707726
Don't forget about Old Saybrook

>>17707736
>>17707726

>Citing meme encounters and other ufology bullshit

You're not actually helping our case here lads.

>>17707726
Intelligence evolved independently on Earth in few occasions. The only one to evolve totally independently were the cephalopods, in the vertebrate group we can find it on birds, cetaceans, elephants, and apes. So you see than the tetrapode system walking in a bipedal form with upper limbs as manipulators happened only once in history. Crafting technology is about crafting simple tools and use them to craft more complex tools and so on and this is possible even without hands. Just because you are basing your entire argument in a single example that doesn't invalidate other possibilities.

Greys are robotic or clones.

It's completely reasonable here is why.

Super advanced alien civilization must be able to digitize themselves to travel long distances (they suspend their consciousness in a deep sleep inside computers).

The alternative is like Lovecraft's creepy biological space monsters, they can live for thousands and thousands of years in the vacuum of space.

If we take option one, when they arrive to a habitable planet, naturally they would take the predominant lifeform, clone and modify it (so they can explore the surface without any problems), grow these cloned bodies and upload their consciousness inside them. Some would be near catatonic robots with only basic functions, search, collect, no communication, others might be more advanced and contain a real alien intelligence housed inside.

An advanced civilization would transcend the need for a physical body, they would hop from body to body.

Just like demons and spirits in Paganism and Abrahamic religious mythology.

Look at just our own species, we are blending the sexes and soon we will be blending the biological and technological bodies, then soon we will just stop using one body (it's impractical). One you stop death, you need to justify all the living people of your species and all punishments are death. We probably need to cull the civilization down heavily to justify everyone having a role in a highly technological transcended species.

All bad bad signs, aliens are probably body posessors with eugenics and purely pragmatic and practical ethics. Utilitarian Hitlers.

>>17707755

Of course i forgot this is x....

>>17707755
Is this from a book? Because if not, you need to write one.

>>17707742
It's all memes. The entire field of study is memes.

>>17707747
What I'm saying is that even though it happened only once here it isn't invalidated for happening somewhere else.

>>17707704
>1. I probably know more about anatomy than you since I studied it in medical school
I truly do not believe that or you'd know what I was talking about, either that or it was a shitty school.
>Finally intelligence is not a final goal for any species
>goal
I HOPE you are not implying that the adaptability requisition from natural selection has a goal. It obviously has however a trait which allows for such a capacity of adaptability that outclasses all others.
>just because a species is not intelligent right now doesn't means anything.
You are either willfully ignorant or completely retarded, if a species as a whole hasn't achieved a complex level of intelligence it is because individuals with higher levels of intelligence didn't gain a survival edge that other individuals without it did. This proves that for intelligence to become a common trait, a species needs both the correct brain and body.

>All your arguments are based solely on human example and you seems to be oblivious to how other animals evolved.
I'm talking about intelligent life, this thread is about other theoretical forms of intelligent life.

>Vertebrates were unable to fly for a long time with air being dominated by insects only this didn't mean that only the insect way is the only way to fly.
And you are arguing that creatures can somehow become able to fly without wings.

>>17707747
>Crafting technology is about crafting simple tools and use them to craft more complex tools and so on and this is possible even without hands. Just because you are basing your entire argument in a single example that doesn't invalidate other possibilities.
You need proper limbs to be able to create and use such tools, you need muscles tendons and bone-like supports.

>>17707761
no dude, this is real life.

File: 1003LifeintheSkiesLevelled.jpg (80KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 400x600px

>>17707768

not him but

>And you are arguing that creatures can somehow become able to fly without wings.

Entirely possible

t.Carl Sagan, actual astrophysicist.

also to say that intelligence depends on bodyplan is ridiculous, Ravens and woodpeckers have the same bodyplan, yet one clearly outsmarts the other by miles. In the same way, late australopithecines and paranthropines had the same body plan as contemporaneous members of the genus homo, yet while early man was quite clever they were no smarter than chimps.

>>17707824
Not in our planet, it's not.

To those fags saying we need to look like humans to be intelligent:

Try harder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbSu2PXOTOc

>>17707836

>Our planet

See this is the problem with you fags, for all that we know, gas giants could be teeming with this kind of shit.

>>17707768
>I truly do not believe that or you'd know what I was talking about, either that or it was a shitty school.
I have seen your arguments before, and it was in pop-science shit.

>I HOPE you are not implying that the adaptability requisition from natural selection has a goal. It obviously has however a trait which allows for such a capacity of adaptability that outclasses all others.
I'm implying that it had NO GOAL, if it survives long enough to pass the genes it is good. There are many successful strategies for that and intelligence is only one of them and not even the dominant one. And even for intelligence it had many different approaches to it even among related groups.

>You are either willfully ignorant or completely retarded, if a species as a whole hasn't achieved a complex level of intelligence it is because individuals with higher levels of intelligence didn't gain a survival edge that other individuals without it did. This proves that for intelligence to become a common trait, a species needs both the correct brain and body.
Not really, dolphins and whales are much smarter than many other animals with better bodies for manipulating tools.

>I'm talking about intelligent life, this thread is about other theoretical forms of intelligent life.
Me too.


>And you are arguing that creatures can somehow become able to fly without wings.
They can, but I was specifically talking about insect like wings that are totally different from birds and bat wings. If you knew about basic anatomy you would know that.

>You need proper limbs to be able to create and use such tools, you need muscles tendons and bone-like supports.
You need manipulators to create tools but they don't need to have similar structure to our hands.

>>17707824
>woodpeckers
Oh yes I forgot, woodpeckers are very intelligent as well, so your argument is null

>>17707853

Now you're just cherrypicking, i said compared to ravens, not that they are unintelligent.

besides, you disregarded the entire rest of the post.

>>17707836
We have spiders locomoting for many miles by air without any wings. But you probably only consider flying if it have wings...

File: image.jpg (177KB, 797x803px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 797x803px

>>17707845
>planets just out of our reach teeming with life
>mew we'll probably never see real aliens in our lifetime
Why, universe?

>>17707869
>*mfw

Anyone think we need a new thread in a little while?

Now if you guys want REALISTIC xenobiological speculation, done by ACTUAL SCIENTISTS of various fields, then i suggest you this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHzPEpHYtXQ

Very good stuff.

>>17707900
Don't forget this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNeTxPgGJ7I

>>17707707
If Terra isn't special, that means there are lots of planets just like it, with all the same conditions that led to us developing, which means the intelligent life that develops there would be like us.

File: 12-diagram.gif (10KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 500x250px

>>17707704
>Dolphins don't fit that scheme, birds don't fit it either, neither elephants
Yes they do.
>spine
>digits
Yeah no legs to be fair.

File: african-elephant-skeleton-04.jpg (1MB, 2000x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1600px

>>17707704
Here's an elephant skeleton, look. Spine, branching into 4 primary appendages, with digits.

File: Avian-Skeleton.jpg (52KB, 735x352px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 735x352px

>>17707704
And a bird with a biological definition of Dactyl
>In biology, dactyly is the arrangement of digits (fingers and toes) on the hands, feet, or sometimes wings of a tetrapod animal. In the diagram you can see phalanges. So there are your primary examples. Your citing not the development of tools but the existence of them as a means of gauging intellect. You're putting the cart before the horse and lacking in an realistic imagination.

>>17707041

Not necessarily. After all, the various races on our planet have managed to get through all the conflicts and struggles without wiping on or the other out.

>>17708896

Don't be moronic. Think of all the events that led to our evolution. The strokes of luck that meant we could develop. The various extinction events we dodged. And now think of all the other environments there are on our planet, where an organism would develop differently.

There is absolutely no reason to suggest intelligent life would be like us, because there's no reason to assume they would have gone through all the exact same shit.

>>17709403
Then we really are special snowflakes.

>>17709313
>>17709321
No they don't. Dolphins lost the legs, birds use the upper limbs for locomotion and elephant actually have a 5th limb that lack bones and it uses it to manipulate objects while the other limbs are used for walking. Also they are all similar because they are all descendants from a creature with 4 limbs and a spine so it is not convergent evolution, it is divergent.