It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Alien Evolution

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 09:07 AM
To tackle this subject without first looking at the history of our planet and our own evolution is to ignore the only examples we possess which can even begin to illuminate our thinking.

Our own Evolution

The Earth as a recognisable planet is thought to be about 4.5 billion years old. It would have been a molten swirling mass unrecognisable from the blue, green planet we know today.

As the earth cools we see the first biochemical evidence around 3.85 billion years ago, and the oldest microfossils date to around 3.5 billion years ago. There are many different theories as to what catalyst set the wheel of life in motion they range from a meteorite strike bringing with it the building blocks of life to intelligent design, the most widely held theory is that life on Earth may have emerged in undersea thermal vents in oceans. Most scientists now agree that heterotrophic bacteria were probably the first life on Earth. They absorbed the organic material that was being created by the reactions of Earth at the time including amino acids, the building blocks of life, which created new organisms and also acted as a food source.

Evolution is never static and with the first life came constant change, adaption, and colonisation.The autotrophs absorbed carbon and light while excreting Oxygen thus changing over millions of years the enviroment they inhabitted.

It would be over 3 billion years later at the beginning of the Cambrian geological period, around half a billion years ago, that the first multi-cellular organisms began to appear, particularly in the form of sponges. It was not long after that that the first primitive animals evolved leading in time to worms, molluscs, corals, anenames, and starfish.

Arthropods are the next step in marine animal evolution they are characterised by possessing jointed limbs and an exoskeleton. Crustaceans are a very good example of the first Arthropods which were also the first species to exhibit more advanced receptors in the form of eyes (photo-receptors).

At this time plant life in the oceans is abundant and it is able to colonise the shoreline after it evolves the ability to bio-synthesize lignin, a chemical process that allows the formation of a plant cell wall which retains moisture and counters the effects of gravity on land. The Arthropods evolve themselves to take advantage of this new food source and an environment with few predators. These first land animals were probably similar to millipedes. Fossil evidence dates the first land Arthropods, millepedes, to 428 million years ago. From this point land plant life and Myriapods, Arachnids and later insects colonise the land interior. The plants to avoid light and land competition, the insects to take advantage of the expanding food source and the Earth begins to resemble the blue, green planet we know today.

Meanwhile, back in the oceans the first fish are evolving. These are invertebrates (without a backbone) which have evolved from primitive crustaceans. Later vertebrates (with backbone) evolve after the evolutionary innovation of cartlidge.

From these fish vertebrates the first Amphibians evolve and with the first primitive lungs continually evolving they spend more and more time on land. Once again they take advantage of the new untapped food sources on the newly colonised land. Amphibians, though they venture on land, rely on water still to spawn and the young do not leave that water until adulthood.

Two evolutionary adaptions are needed before these Amphibians evolve into the first true land vertebrate, the Reptiles. waterproof skin (so that they do not lose moisture) and shelled eggs (which provide a moist, nutritious, and relatively safe environment as opposed to the oceans teeming with predators).

The first distinct dinosaurs occurred within the beginning of the Triassic Period, around 230 million years ago. Dinosaurs, were the most advanced reptiles of all time, due to the fact they were allowed to occupy as many ecological niches as they could without much competition in any form.

But even as dinosaurs became more and more diversified and became in some cases bigger and stronger, a new classification of species was evolving that would usurp the dominent dinosaurs. These were the first mammal like creatures it was not less than 200 million years ago that the first distinctive differences were being noticed in species. But it was not until only 65 million years ago that the first true signs of mammals were to appear as a distinct class of species (probably small vole like creatures). They were warm blooded, not cold blooded like the reptiles and dinosaurs and they did not lays eggs but carried the young inside them until birth.

Coincidently, or not, 65 million years ago is also the time at which we see the disappearence of the dinosaurs. Whatever the cause of their extinction it's clear that the mammals quickly filled the ecological vaccume left by the dinosaurs.

Continuing on our journey to our own present it was between around 6 to 8 million years ago that the first hominids diversified from the apes. This evolution from apes to hominids is not defined by any increase in intelligence but by the development of bipedality (an upright, two-legged walking style).

As you can see by the diagram above the hominid evolutionary tree leading to Homo-Sapiens is not without redundant branches.

Australopithecus, which was definitely bipedal is dated to around 4.2 million years old.

Australopithecus afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago.

Australopithecus africanus evolved around 2.9 million years ago. The cranial capacity of A africanus varied from 375 to 500 cc.

Both Australopithecus boisei and Australopithecus robustus are redundant branches of the hominid evolutionary tree which existed between 2.2 million years ago to 1 million years ago. Both had an average brain size of about 530 cc.

Though also a redundant branch, Homo habilis marks the first example we have of a hominid with humanlike abilities. It is distinguished from the australopithecines by evidence of tools found with him. Homo Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. The species is still primitive looking, but the teeth are smaller and the brain size is much larger that in australopithecines at 650 cc. The brain shape is also more humanlike and Homo Habilis likely was capable of rudimentary speech.

Please note from the diagram above that around 1.9 million years ago it was possible that at least 5 different and distinct species of Hominid were contemporaneous. Hominids may have been competing for survival.

A similar competition existed as little as 400,000 years ago when as many as 4 hominids, including Homo sapiens, were contemporaneous. Homo erectus lived between 1.4 million and 300,000 years ago. It was a successful species for a million and a half years. Early examples had an average brain size of 900cc later examples are larger at about 1200cc. The species definitely had speech. Erectus developed tools, weapons and fire and learned to cook his food.

Homo neanderthalensis Pre-existed Homo Sapiens by 200,000 years but lived contemporaneously with the Modern man for at least 90,000 years until the Neanderthal disappeared 30,000 years ago. The Neanderthal is similar to Homo erectus except having a larger brain of around 1,500 cc, slightly larger than modern humans which have an average brain size of 1350 cc. Thus proving that it isn't the size that counts but what you do with it that matters.

The dawn of Modern man has not halted evolution within our own species. There has been a trend towards smaller molars, decreased robustness, less body hair, and even an evidence of greater head circumference of newborns due to advancements in midwifery.

Evolution is in general driven by two distinct motors. Sex and Survival, although there are cases that the two appear to overlap. The Survival Motor has produced the most marked evolutionary changes since life began but it is dependent on small gene pools either surviving in isolation or taking advantage of new environments. This needs to be explained a bit more carefully. Small isolated gene pools are more likely to throw up genetic mutations many of these mutations would be redundant but a few might be advantageous and those that are advantageous are more likely to be perpetuated until a distinct new species has evolved. The Survival Motor is the most powerful force for evolutionary change but, relying as it does on the real possibility of extinction, it is dangerous and acts sporadically only when breeding population numbers are small and survival is threatenned. The Survival Motor is the great stride as opposed to the slow shuffle of the Sex Motor.

The Sex Motor, on the other hand acts continuously, it is relentless and can even be seen in the choice of spouse you choose to have children with. Attractiveness is not just a question about asthetics. It is a complicated choice where subconsciously we calculate the health, and childbearing, childcaring, or provider abilities of a mate.

But there is another evolutionary motor which only we, and perhaps our most recent Homo ancestors, possess. This is the Intelligence Motor, a distinctly different evolutionary driver which steps over the line between natural selection and into artificial improvement. The increase of head circumference of newborns is a good example. This is knowledge changing our own biology. Midwifery, from it's primitive beginnings right up to the high tech scanners and surgery of today is allowing the gene pool to extend artificially.

Alien Evolution

That brings us up to the present day and it's a good place to stop and start looking at alien evolution. It is impossible to comprehend in what other environments life might start but what we can be sure of is that life is possible in similar environments to Earth's. This may appear to show a lack of imagination on my part but it is a sound beginning to tackle this question. Remember also that the Earth, when life first started, was extremely inhospitable. When the autotrophs first absorbed carbon and light and excreted Oxygen 3.5 billion years ago they started a process of climate change which transformed the Earth into the green and lush planet it is today. Without them, and the multi-cellular plants that followed, the Earth would have no oceans, no atmospere, and no hope of supporting life.

There are, no doubt, life groups other than the ones here on Earth (Bacteria, Fish, Insects, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, Mammals, and Marsupials) others may evolve in the future, some, because of circumstances, never had the opportunity to evolve so let's look at those we know and see if they might have evolved into the position we hold today if the circumstances had been different.

We'll take 4 evolutionary markers as our guide. The first is basic life (Which all achieved on Earth), the second is land domination, the third is sentience, and the fourth is space exploration (a marker we have only recently passed).


It might seem a little unfair to set as my second marker land domination when fish have dominated the lakes, seas and oceans for over 400 million years but without it there can be no fire and without that no metal working. Yes, it is possible that volcanic vents could offer an alternative but fire must be controled before it offers any advantage. Fish have dominated our waters for over 400 years and in that time made no visible steps towards intelligence. If they haven't done it by now it's hard to see how they could get there given that they already dominate a huge environment with very little competition.


Insects only had a relatively short time on land before Amphibians and Reptiles joined them. If they had had longer could they have evolved to dominate the land ? Quite possibly, yes. There would have had to have been a number of evolutionary steps but it's not hard to see that given no competition animals descended from Insects might have filled every ecological niche on land and increased in size. It's not hard therefore under these circumstances to imagine an insect descended tree dweller following a similar evolutionary path as us. Insectoids (not a term for simply giant insects but a term for an animal group one or two evolutionary steps beyond insects), might well have evolved both intelligence and eventually the ability to leave Earth.

external image

Ants milk aphids for a sweet secretion known as 'honey dew'. The first picture (left) show an ant moving an aphid to a new 'pasture'. The second show an ant tending and milking an 'herd' of aphids


From history we know that reptiles/dinosaurs dominated the Earth, infact, it was only after their demise, 65 million years ago, that mammals had their chance. The range of dinosaurs filling every niche and more that mammals occupy now makes it hard to imagine that a Reptoid (again not giant reptiles but an evolutionary branch from them.) could not have followed the same evolutionary path as humans and so they too might have evolved into an intelligent, space faring species.


An intelligent species descended from Marsupials ? It's not impossible. They evolved quite along way in isolation from mammals in Australasia and under different circumstances on another planet could evolve to become the dominant animal type.Could Kangeroos already bi-pedal and surpringly dextrous have been the ancestors of an space faring species if circumstances had been different ?


If we exclude our own species from the picture might another mammal with a different evolutionary path have filled the vaccume left by us. Bears for instance have evolved into many sub-species some often stand on their hind legs and use their forelegs/arms to undertake tasks that require dexterity like fishing. Without primate competition mightn't they have become an intelligent species given enough time ?

Marine Mammals

There are two more classes of aliens that I want to go on to explain. The first is a new animal type that might evolve if humans and other land animal became extinct. The ancestry of marine mammals especially the more advanced ones like porpoises and whales is quite remarkable. Having left the oceans as amphibians, followed our own evolutionary path through reptiles and mammals, they once again took to the oceans and adapted the four limbs they would have had on land so that today they are atleast the equal of anything else in the ocean. Intelligence-wise they are far ahead of any fish and locomotive-wise they are atleast the fish' equal. If the land became inhospitable for a short period so that higher life forms became extinct and if these marine mammals survived might they not return to the land once more to take advantage of the new opportunities that would arise there ? And if so might these masters of evolutionary adaption with their already well developed intelligence, given time, evolve to equal our own achievements ?

The Parasite

How could a parasite become a space faring species ?

Let's take an example here on Earth. The sheep-liver fluke, Fasciola hepaticaa. A fluke is a wormlike parasite that is evolved from the flatworm and related to the tapeworm.

Until 1963 it was generally accepted that this animal used only the mud snails as intermediate host. However, it was discovered that the fluke as a cercarian [larval or immature] form does not willingly leave the snail's body. It is ejected.

The snails embed the cercariae in balls of mucus and expels them. These balls of mucus are devoured by another intermediate host, the ant.

In this insect they encapsulate in the abdominal cavity and mature to the form that is so dangerous to the sheep's liver. The question is, how do they get from an ant's stomach to a sheep's liver?
Clustered together, the infected ants hang for hours, offering themselves to be eaten by sheep or cattle, who of course oblige.

By a very strange process indeed. A single cercaria works its way to the brain of the ant and "takes over." Henceforth the ant is an automaton of a kind it was not intended to be. Under the direction of the primitive creature dominating its nerve center, the ant is compelled to do things it would never dream of doing. It climbs to the very tips of grasses and weeds and waits there. Clustered together, the infected ants hang for hours, offering themselves to be eaten by sheep or cattle, who of course oblige.


An advanced and even intelligent parasite might not have to evolve physically as we have had to do. It could control the body of a physically well adapted animal instead. This relation may well become symbiotic after time or each host animal might just be a stepping stone as better suited hosts become availanble.

Ergonomic Evolution

Ergonomic: The applied science of equipment design, as for the workplace, intended to maximize productivity by reducing operator fatigue and discomfort. Also called biotechnology, human engineering, human factors engineering.

The process of evolution is designed to find the best answers to every environmental situation life encounters.

Before looking further at the question of alien evolution it is well to point out that natural evolution given enough time often comes up with the similar answers to the same environmental conditions. The eye (often the bête noire of creationists) has evolved no less than 8 times independently, if we include serviceable image-forming eyes (photo-receptors) then that figure goes up to between 40 and 60 times that we know of. This is a prime example of nature, when faced with a blank page and from different starting points, finding the same solutions to the same problems. It is not just possible that alien life form would have eyes it is highly improbable that they would not.

Another example of evolution finding similar solutions to the same problem is found in Seals and Sea lions.

external image

The Leopard Seal, above left, is thought to be descended from otter-like ancestors whereas the "eared" seals like the sea lion, above right evolved from bear-like ancestors. This is a very good example of nature, starting from completely different points finding the same answers to the same environmental problems. So much so that most people can not tell the two apart and would be surprised to find out that their only common ancestor was probably one of the earliest vole-like mammals. They diverged for millions of years before re-converging to adapt and survive in a the same enviroment.

Primates evolved into hominids when they became bi-pedal. This freed our upper limbs so that we could undertake tasks that required greater dexterity at the expense, it must be said, of speed of locomotion. Other mammals, marsupials, or reptiles would almost certainly have had to make this same innovation. Insectoids needn't of become bi-pedal. With six limbs they could have evolved to be quadrapedal and still have been able to free up two limbs which could evolve into arms and hands (of a sort). Or they might have freed up four limbs for this purpose and become bi-pedal like us. Arachnoids with 8 limbs might have thrown up several combinations of multiple legs and arms.


On meeting an alien we may well be so overwhelmed by it's physical unfamiliararity regardless of any physical similarities to ourselves (NB: we still react subconsciously to other human beings with different colour skins or a physical disability) that we will fail to understand how instinctively different they will be to ourselves. Having spent upwards of 200,000 years in isolation from other species with a remotely comparible intelligence we would face the biggist culture shock of our existence. Our natural assumption would be that a common bond should exist between two intelligent species when they met.

However, we may not only look different we will almost certainly think differently. Our evolutionary origins define us still as a species today. We are still apes, even if we are sophisticated apes and there is still considerable disparity between our instinctive behaviour and an ideal utopian social order. We may say that we do not wish to live in an ideal utopian order because it might restrict indivuality but safeguarding that individuality is instinctive in itself.

As a species we have tried grand social experiments which are the product of high intellectual thought, like communism, and found them contrary to our ape instincts. On the one hand we can understand the benefits that such a social order could bring but on the other we are unable to live within them on a day to day basis.

We are a schizophrenic species struggling to adapt to a global society continually changing in part due to our own accelerated technological achievements while still carrying the instinctive baggage of our primitive primate ancestry.

Our laws may seem sometimes to be an effective restraint on some of our more base instincts but those laws are designed not to impinge too heavily on them incase all order might be lost.

An alien species which has evolved from a quite different type of animal other than an ape will have quite different instincts concerning issues such as breeding, feeding, rearing young, and fighting. We fight for monkey values. Insectoid values would be quite different almost to the point where it is useless to try and speculate what instincts an insectoid might retain despite intelligence and technological advancement. An alien descended from ants might have a rigid social heirachial structure and little regard for individual life but what about a preying mantis, cockroach, or a wasp ?

The differences might appear illustratively stark when we compare ourselves to a possible Insectoid race but they will be no less complicated if the alien species were to be descended from bears.

If our different individual country's perspectives are defined by our history, what differences might there be if our evolutionary ancestry were so diverse ?

The Intelligence Evolution Motor

I've already touched on this issue in passing above as regards midwifery and newborn head circumference but now it's time to look at it more detail.

What defines us as modern mankind is our use of tools but we have approached a different era of our species where the tools are beginning to define us. Our quickly accelerating technological achievements are changing our biological make up. Whether it's fast food, advanced medical techniques, or global communication we are beginning to change, atleast in the devoloped industriaised areas of the world.

Global communication means that cultural and linguistic diversity is diminishing and we are becoming homogeneous. We have a very large gene pool and so, excepting in the event of a terrible global disaster, the Survival motor of evolution is not noticable. Instead our technological achievements are, on the one hand, making us a weaker biologically becoming more and more unsuited to survival unassisted in the environments we inhabit, while on the other hand fascilitating our future biological evolution.

Much has been said about alien races who if they were to make the journey to Earth would have to be more intelligent than humans. But it is important to make the distinction between intelligence and advancement. An alien race with a longer history might well be more advanced but that does not mean they are more intelligent. Imagine stepping into a time machine and going back 1000 years into our own past. You would seem more intelligent to those you met. Now come back to our time bringing with you a newborn and put it in school. It is highly probable that after twenty years of learning there would be no discernable difference between the child you brought back and his youthful peers.

Einstein once said that he was "Standing on the shoulders of giants." He was ascribing his revolutionary thoeries to the value of accumulative knowledge. The appearence that you might be more intelligent than the people in the 11th century is only because you have a better understanding of what is possible.

We have artificial hearts, hips, kidneys, and limbs. Those that normally would die live and perpetuate their genes. This means that we will probably become more and more dependant on science and technology. It's difficult to imagine how an alien race would be physically effected by the prolonged effects of the intelligence motor just as it's difficult to imagine how it will effect ourselves in the future.

But effects there will be.

Perceptions of Aliens in Popular Culture.

No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over matter. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. H. G. Wells, War of the Worlds.

Now would be a good place to stop and look at how Alien life forms have been portrayed in popular culture over the last 50 years or so. As you will see these perceptions say more about us than they do about extra-terrestrial life but it is interesting none the less.

external image external image

Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1956 (left) and Invaders From Mars 1953 (right)

Both these films were heavily influenced by the American political climate of the time. They are as great a political comment about McCarthyism and the Communist threat as 'The Crucible' by Arthur Miller. In both average people are turned into either have their identities stolen or become alien accomplaces.

'Body Snatchers' terrified an already paranoid American public and is still a scary concept today. It has been remade twice. In it the world is replaced by alien doubles created in pods who are imperceptable from the originals people. This might be a good example of a parasitic alien.

'Invaders from Mars' is slightly different. In it probes are inserted into the necks of victims who then are controlled by the alien.

The interesting thing about this film, for our purposes, is that the main alien (pictured) has evolved using technology and appears to be unable to function biologically without that technology. It is served by drone-like aliens. These drone-like aliens could be either victims from a previous conquest or the product of genetic engineering undertaken by the superior alien race.

external image external image

The Day The Earth Stood Still 1951(left) and The Blob 1958 (right)

Two of the sillier sci-fi creations. A bi-pedal robot and a giant predatorial gelatinous blob.

external image external image external image

Star Trek 1966. Spock: Vulcan (left), Klang: Klingon (centre), and Balok (right)

The imperative for how these aliens looked was the human body. Though Balok only appeared on the monitor screen and looked like a puppet rather than a man in makeup and a suit. Vulcans and Klingons played a regular part in the series and they couldn't be too complicated. If evolution does find similar solutions to similar problems then they may be closer than they initially thought. Balok looks so much like a 'Grey' that it would be silly not to comment on it. He only appeared in one episode but a still was used in the credits. It may be that witnesses of 'Greys' may be subconsciously recalling the image they regularly saw on TV in childhood.

external imageexternal image external image

ET 1982 (left) and Star Wars 1977 (centre and right)

Over a decade on and the creators of fictional aliens are starting to think more about how their aliens evolved. ET is a quaint botanist but he doesn't strike me as convincing. Neither do I find the Star Wars aliens convincing. It's difficult for me to put my finger on it but although great strides have been made in credible alien physiology their character difference from humans is not imaginative enough probably because I've met people like Chewbacca and Attila the Hutt.

external image external image external image

Predator 1987 (left) Alien 1979 (centre) Independence Day 1996 (right)

These are amoung our most realistic interpretations of what aliens may look like. The big game hunter Predator appears to have evolved from a kind of Insectoid it is technologically superior to humans. A very realistic portrait.

Alien, a non technologically advanced alien race with a vicious and uncompromising survival instinct. It is only space faring because some advanced species visited it's home planet. Probably an insectoid.

Independence Day alien. Another technologically advanced Insectoid with an exoskeleton.

external image external image external image

Star Trek, The Borg 1996 (left) Terminator 1984 (centre) and Matrix 1999 (right)

OK, before you say anything only one of the above is alien but there is an important reason why I've included the others. Could the next rulers of the Earth be the very technology we create ? We are making great strides in Artificial Intelligence but what might happen if machines become self aware and taking over. Will they be as eager to exploit us as we are to exploit them ? Artificial Intelligence seems to me to be a legitimate evolutionary step.

external image external image external image

The Grey (left), The Reptillian (centre), and The Nordic (right)

The most common aliens described by 'witnesses' and 'abductees'

All are credible as far as evolution is concerned.

So Why Haven't We Been Visited By Aliens Until Now ?

As you can see from the map below we are on the fringes of the Milky Way galaxy. Nearer the congested centre different alien life forms are probably interacting aalready.

*We are nothing special.

*We have no resourses of value (atleast that would merit the journey)

*We're not on the way to anywhere interesting either.

Other species may have encountered intelligent life on planets in their own solar system. Imagine if Mars was a twin of Earth. That would be a huge headstart for any Intelligent species.

Some space faring races may never have left their own planet if it had not been for visitors. Therefore artificially accelerating their developement.

Personally, I like living in the quiet part of town. You just don't know your neighbours might be.

[edit on 22-6-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 22-6-2005 by John bull 1]

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 09:44 AM
I have just one url answer which would make your article a waste of time.

If you dont believe this then ask vertu and menguard.

and oh btw Truth is always stranger than fiction.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 09:54 AM
The kind of quality we expect from ya, JB.
FANTASTIC thread, this one'll keep me busy for a while. I've read the first third already, and it'll give me something to think about when I go out in a bit. Unbelievably well done.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:14 AM
John Bull 1 that all seems about ture

on day one god created the big band the galaxies and the universe. on day three god made earth but made the alien with the big head planet earlier that day. on day five god made humans but made the big head alien a couple billions year early that day.

big head aliens evoled the same as human just on a planet bigger planet & had much more time to evole. the big head alien live about the 47 closest star to us out of the septillions or so . So the big head alien are more like niegborhs then extraterristrals.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:35 AM
JB, great job! I have read thru this and will probably read it again. Question for you: Is your final conclusion that aliens have not visited us at all because of our location in our galaxy? Or is that we have been rarely visited because of our location. If not at all, then do you have any thoughts on the ufo sightings phenomemon over the past 50 or so years?

Originally posted by warthog911
I have just one url answer which would make your article a waste of time.

If you dont believe this then ask vertu and menguard.

and oh btw Truth is always stranger than fiction.

warthog, the only waste of time, IMO, is the link you have provided for Lacerta. Calling JB's post a waste of time is shameless an insult!

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:37 AM
Very informative , I highly enjoyed this post!

And I have to agree with most of your points i think alien life would be so hard to understand personaly ive always found the Aliens from the "Aliens" films a good example ,we dont know how evolution would play out on a different planet
we dont know if other planets would have the same "life groups" as you call them.

Another think I'd like to add is how "Greys" from what ive seen always seem to remind me of cetaceans (Dolphin like).

[edit on 15-6-2005 by Merkeva]

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:14 AM

Originally posted by warthog911
I have just one url answer which would make your article a waste of time.

That URL looks interesting and I will read it if I have some time. In regards to your statement about "waste of time"; you would do well to take yourself to the nearest public restroom and flush your head down the toilet because it is full of sh-t.

JB, thank you very much for you time and effort, I have really enjoyed your article and I will certainly keep an eye on your posts in the future.

I will now proceed to vote you way above!

edit: damn can't vote mods... well the vote in spirit so


[edit on 15-6-2005 by KiwiDave]

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:37 AM
Actually if we we're visited it might of been considered a pit stop to some other location. Eventually you run out of supplies or maybe an accident happend and a space parasite happened to destroy all of your nutrition. So instead of turning back just land on some rock that has the required atmosphere and life on it. Don't worry about the locals because they are technologically immature.


posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 01:59 PM

Originally posted by mpeake
Question for you: Is your final conclusion that aliens have not visited us at all because of our location in our galaxy? Or is that we have been rarely visited because of our location. If not at all, then do you have any thoughts on the ufo sightings phenomemon over the past 50 or so years?

I think they rarely visit because a) We're out of the way and b) We're not that interesting.

I imagine there are areas where multiple aliens have contact and I expect it may actually turn out to be a poison chalice.

Why would they come ? To sight see ? Scientific observation ?

Unless we were their first contact too then they'd be as interested as us if we'd found their planet.

Ask yourself this. What areas of the galaxy would you start to explore if you had the capacity ?

You'd start by checking out your nearest neighbouring solar system. Then you'd probably work towards the centre where you don't have to travel as far between stars.

We're a fair way out where the stars are sparser.

I'm not saying aliens haven't been here. I try to keep an open mind.

But 50 years watching without contact ?

Would we wait 50 years ?

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 02:09 PM
John i think the galaxy has whats called a habitable zone between the outer and inner rim, towards the center of the galaxy theres too much gravitational rough and tumble between stars because they spin faster towards the center,also radiation is alot higher in this region of the galaxy.

Being in the outer region of the Galaxy protects our Solar System from the huge gravitational tug of stars clustered near the galactic center. If we were closer in, the combined gravity of all those stars would perturb the orbit of comets in the Oort cloud.

Also the spiral arm are quite dangerious because of the density of of gas out there creating new stars also the intense radiation and gravitation of a spiral arm would cause disruptions in our Solar System just as surely as if we were closer to the center of the Galaxy.

More than 95 percent of stars in the Galaxy wouldn't be able to support habitable planets simply because their rotation is not synchronized with the rotation of the galaxy's spiral arms.

merkz out...

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 02:16 PM
Thanks man, I was going to do this for my first article-type post but you spent all lot more time than I ever would. Thanks man, I think this kind of stuff needs to obviously be discussed and taken into concideration.

This is what I think about when I think of actual alien disscusion. Real scientific actual look at why every alien we "know", we can't know. Don't worry the spirit feather communicater whatevers, will be confused.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 02:16 PM
I think that would be true of the Central/Bulge bar sometimes refered to as the nuclear bar.

More than 95 percent of stars in the Galaxy wouldn't be able to support habitable planets simply because their rotation is not synchronized with the rotation of the galaxy's spiral arms.

I'll be honest I don't understand this. Could you explain it please ?

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 02:26 PM
Theres alot involved from the compsition of the stars to the likely hood of rocky planets forming ,radiation and the stars orbit around the galactic center.

The orbit of our sun keeps us near the middle of the galaxy because its circular most stars orbits around the galactic center are eleptical taking them into the inner rim and out spiral arms the so called danger zones.

It would take me all night to explain so ill fire some links at you instead.

Its highly interesting stuff and could also narrow down the search a bit

Great thread again by the way.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by Merkeva]

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 02:47 PM
It takes 200 million years for one revolution of the Earth around the galactic centre.

I had a look a two of the sites you linked to, the other I had to register for so I didn't bother. They both seem to be saying the same thing, almost exactly.

I think that there are two camps in the scientific community. One that believes life is unique or very rare and the other that believe life is common.

It's pretty up and down.

I wouldn't dream of second guessing a professor quoted by a NASA site.

But this is just a theory and there is no way of knowing the criteria that would make life on a planet impossible.

I despair when people who claim to speak with authority make statement like " 95% of planets in the galaxy can't support life "

How do they know that ?

How can they know that ?

We don't know how many planets there are and what orbit they're in.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by John bull 1]

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 03:00 PM
very cool post, and I'll say I've always been leary of aliens that are described as -bipeds with 10 fingers, 10 toes, 2 eyes etc. It seems like they are just the fairies and trolls of the scientific age...

I've always felt they'd be extremely different from us, maybe even hard for us to accept as a life form, like pure energy....(credit to ST)

and wartfrog, I certify that the following text is the absolute truth and no work of fiction....don't beleive things just because they are on the internet !

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 03:09 PM
I agree its just a theory but where would we be with out theory , dont forget the galaxy is huge! 10-5% is a massive amount of stars its also fits in quite well with the drake equation which im sure your familiar with.

As for the critieria to make life impossible, look at our own solar system, venus pluto and jupiter these are planets which cannot support life as we know it so i'd say we have a fair idea what conditions would make life as we know it impossible

Also take into account that most of the exo-solar planets we've found are gas giants, to close to there sun. Another point is we must assume life needs rocky planets to evolve and some parts of the galaxy dont have a high enough concentration of metals to form such planets.

If you look here you'll see a recently discoverd rocky planet around another star one of the first we've discoverd, its big news because rocky planets are so rare, in fact this is one of the first we've discoverd.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 03:45 PM
Excellent read JB!

Originally posted by Merkeva
As for the critieria to make life impossible, look at our own solar system, venus pluto and jupiter these are planets which cannot support life as we know it so i'd say we have a fair idea what conditions would make life as we know it impossible

I added the bold myself, because those need to be better emphasized. There's nothing to say that life as we know it is prevalent in the universe. This is where the imagination can "legally" go wild, because we have no evidence to support the theory that carbon based, oxygen breathing life is the universal norm. There is even life on Earth living in places that life as we generally know it cannot survive. The areas around volcanic vents are prime real estate in the ocean, but are by no means inhabitable by "normal" species. I mean, just the ecological diversity here on earth is amazing--there's life that breathes CO2 (plants), and life that "breathes" water (although it does process it into oxygen) is by far more prevalent than life that breathes air.

As far as the effects of galactic location, for all we know there may be life forms that need the extra radiation and other inherent problems associated with living in a dense star cluster. Their life may have evolved in such a way to where they would die on Earth because of our protective magnetosphere. They may have evolved to the point where they "feed" off of gamma radiation, or UV light is their "visible" spectrum. We have absolutely no way of knowing, one way or the other.

If you look here you'll see a recently discoverd rocky planet around another star one of the first we've discoverd, its big news because rocky planets are so rare, in fact this is one of the first we've discoverd.

IMO, we can't say they're actually rare until we've charted a lot more space than we already have. We've discovered what, 150-200 extra-solar planets? Those planets are primarily gas giants, but that's because those are generally the only planets we know of with enough mass to allow us to detect the fluctuations in their parent star. Any of those systems may well be filled with small rocky planets that don't have the gravitational pull to deflect their star's light by an observable amount. By our present means, we'd never be able to detect them.

Warthog, do you have anything else that stands as a backing argument to the Lacerta Files? From everything I've read--including the interview itself--its little more than a great story. I'm not saying it absolutely is bunk, but it definitely needs some more corroboration.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 03:53 PM
The answer to Drake Equation depends on what values you give each question.

Rocky planets aren't necessarily rare. They are just alot harder to see than gas giants. A rocky planet might have an orbit around it's star every 5 earth years and we can only detect it properly if it crosses the light of the star. Sure we can detect gravitational wobble but that doesn't tell what's there only that something is there.

Weightier elements orbit nearer a star, lighter elements further away. Eventually, elements of similar weight start to come together until they too have a noticable gravity and form planets.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:13 PM
Thanks for the imput Mcory,

I've been very careful to say life as we know it because im well aware life can crop up in the most unusual places such as deep sea vents as you have mentioned, ive also read about rock eating bactira and some really amazing forms of life exists here on earth, no doubt about that.

On rocky planets though i agree we haven't charted enough planets to say there rare but 1 out of 150-200 seems pretty rare. And even a planet like earth alone can cause a star to wobble detectably (every action has an equal and oppisite reaction) which is the primary method of detecting planets not gravitational lensing which is looking for a planet to pass in front of a star distorting the light which is mainly used to detect black holes.

My key point is though the metal, too much you get run away gas giants to little, more gas giants.

edit: just found a really relevent ariticals good read guys give it a go

[edit on 15-6-2005 by Merkeva]

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:51 PM

Originally posted by John bull 1

Ask yourself this. What areas of the galaxy would you start to explore if you had the capacity ?

You'd start by checking out your nearest neighbouring solar system. Then you'd probably work towards the centre where you don't have to travel as far between stars.

We're a fair way out where the stars are sparser.

Great thread !

I see this argument differently. Near the center of the Galaxy , the distance to nearby systems would be closer, there would be statistically higher potential for life ,in a potentially more hostile environment, giving a life form the incentive to make a journey .
By the time they might reach the fringes of the Galaxy ( Were we live) they would be very adept at making these long journeys we consider a brick wall to visitation.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in