Why shouldn't ET look like us?, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 4-3-2008 @ 12:50 AM by ajmusicmedia
When scientists discuss what ET would look like, we often hear them mention that he would likely look nothing like us because he developed in a totally different environment.

Of course, this is based on the fact that we have no idea how life would develop on another planet.

I don't want to go into the details of how life would emerge and what random events would make animals look the way they do, etc. We don't even know how life emerged on this planet and why it took the form we now know.

Let's just assume that there is a planet with a fully-developed plant and animal life. As far as we know, it's taken 4 billion years for intelligent life (I don't mean whales and dolphins, I mean life like ours; a species that develops tools and technology and modifies its environment) to emerge on this planet, so let's assume the development of intelligent life takes time.

What do we need for a species to develop intelligence?

If the species is a prey, it will be too busy trying to stay alive and won't have the leisure necessary to develop intelligence. On the other hand, if the species is a strong predator with no natural enemies, it won't have any use for high intelligence (lions, tigers, elephants, etc).

Intelligence serves to help a species survive and prosper. An intelligent species will have to be an ill-equipped predator. Take our ancestors: they preyed on other animals, yet they had no physical attributes to catch and kill these animals, hence the development of weapons.

The species that develops intelligence will use it first and foremost to both kill other animals and survive occasional attacks from other predators. Some apes and gorillas use weapons but haven't developed intelligence. So what's missing? Most likely, war. Like it or not, we are a warrior species.

As for physical appearance, an evolved intelligent ET will most likely have something like a solid head to protect the brain. Connected to this head it will most likely have its sense organs. We can see in nature that species that develop inefficient characteristics don't survive. Any arrangement for the sense organs which would place them elsewhere than very close to the brain would be extremely inefficient for survival.

Now ET would also need to have some sort of appendages to make tools. Why do we have five fingers instead of six? Because a sixth simply uses too much brain resources for no practical value. Why do we have 2 legs instead of 3? With 3 legs, our brains would be utilized almost exclusively for walking.

The point is that we developed physically the way we are because it's practical. We developed intelligence for survival of the species.

It would be silly to assume anything different on another planet. In all likelihood, if we met ET, he would look very much like us (1 head, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 arms, 5 fingers, 2 legs). His skin might be blue and his eyes might see in a completely different spectrum of colour, but we'd know him for what he is. And I don't think we should assume he's not from a warrior species.


reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 01:13 AM by eaurouge
All I've heard from the various ex-insiders is that some are humanoid, some aren't. You're going into a interesting area but extremely difficult for a lot of us. For example, I personally believe an intelligent third party of some kind had a hand in our species' creation and early development. Because of that, I have no idea how intelligent life on other planets would have started.

You have to either adapted techniques or physical attributes to survive, as all animals we see have some ability to adapt. We observe animals adopting strategies, developing weapons, or turning elements in their environment into weapons.

An aspect of nature I have always enjoyed is the ability of animals to communicate with each other and, brace yourself, reason. One example I found through my own observations is when a squirrel spent a few minutes on our property tinkering with a squirrel-proof feeder. He examined the mechanisms and setup for a bit, and then left and went up the tree. He got his friend who was higher up in the tree, who immediately followed him back down and held the feeder in place, so it wouldn't move, while the first squirrel disassembled one of the mechanisms and got the bird seed out.

Honestly, the more you deeply observe and analyze, simply pay attention to the world around you, it will sometimes bring tears to your eyes when you realize all the details and depth you can spend nearly a whole lifetime up to that point missing. It all adds to the understanding of the topic you've brought up, I've found.

You know, the greys frequently take credit for the development of our species. The implications of that, as a truth or as a lie, blow my mind.


reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 01:42 AM by Badge01
As one poster said, the range on Earth for intelligent creatures includes the dolphin, or whale and that's on the same planet.

One might have to back off and just say that there's a good chance that an alien species will:

1. use some kind of visual sensing system
2. have many of the sensors at one end
3. be bilaterally symmetrical
4. have some sort of system to allow mobility
5. some sort of apparatus to manupulate tools. On Earth octopuses use tentacles.

Systems that might be very different
1. whereas we intake food in one end and expel it out the other, some species may use the skin to absorb food and also expel waste.
2. language, vocalizations may be performed at extreme frequencies (note the low freq. communication of cetaceans vs higher freq. of humans)
3. mating, number of genders and similar processes could be widely varying. Note the variation on Earth, from some species that have giant females and very tiny males that live inside their mouth, almost as a parasite.
4. an 'alien' suited to long term space travel could be very different. After all they would be designed to live in low gravity, confined spaces, and with higher radiation. It could look like a giant brain with no arms or legs, tiny fingers, and no real 'eye'.

I guess my point is that taking Earth creatures as an example, we have incredible variation and the two main environments are 'water' and 'land' (and possibly 'air'). So it would seem to defy the imagination as to what an 'alien' with completely different requirements might look like.


reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 02:07 AM by Prophet-Ezekiel
reply to post by andre18



pesky DOLPHINS!!!

hahahaha!

Too bad they don't have bipedal legs and apposable thumbs, or else they'd be on the way too building a sea-land civilization and taking rule of the world!

I've started a new CONSPIRACY!

The DOLPHINS ARE TAKING OVER EVERYONE THROW YOUR 6PACK PLASTIC CONTAINERS DIRECTLY INTO THE OCEAN AND KILL THOSE SOBS!

Just kidding. =)


reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 03:54 AM by InfaRedMan
Good Post Mate.

When we look throughout our own galaxy (I won't enter into other galaxies here as they are too distant), it's pretty much made up of the same stuff - just different ratios. We have suns, planets, nebula, gravitational forces, radiation, ice - etc etc, etc. As far as we know, it's all governed by the same periodic table. The same 'stuff' essentially. Everything repeats itself.

When we look at genetics, animals that have eyes positioned more to the sides of their heads are generally herbivore. They need a wider scope of vision to graze and keep an eye on the periphery for carnivores (or predators).

Animals that have eye's positioned to the front are generally predators. They aren't too worried about being preyed upon themselves. They're only concern is keeping their 'eyes on the prize'. They are motivated by a singular goal.

Omnivores have proliferated on planet Earth because they are adaptable thus allowing them to grow in quantities where-by they don't need to be especially strong as an individual. Their power resides in their numbers. Omnivores also tend to have eyes in positioned to the front of the head.
They also have incisors, canines and molars to tackle their varied diets, (which incidentally, leads to their success as a species over long periods and through tough times). Climate Change anyone?

OK - so far, the odds suggest they could be omnivore with eye's placed closer to the front of the face or marginally to the side. They will also likely have 3 types of teeth in order for them to spread and utilize many food sources within the varied environments on their planets.

What else do we need?

Nothing of value besides manure for fertilization is produced by our 4 legged friends. They cannot manipulate objects to the degree that bipedal creatures can. I can't see them manipulating optical fibers or creating the complex machinery needed to produce technologies such as nanotech etc. Hooves and pincers must therefore be out of the question too (for obvious reasons).
Also, as one member already stated, most of their neurons are dedicated to 4+ legged locomotion.

What we need are a balance of arms and legs. Arms to fight, defend, to build and create, and digits (fingers and opposable thumbs at least) to manipulate small, technical objects with the required finesse... or to build machines that do that for them. Legs for acceptable locomotion.

I wont go on any longer as I don't want this to turn into a novel so lets look at what we have so far.

I see the basic model being:

A bipedal omnivore, with eyes to the front of the head (or close to) and 3 types of teeth, arms and legs with opposable thumbs for locomotion and manipulation/creation. Probably soft skinned as they had the numbers for safety instead of something like an exoskeleton.

That's my 2 cents worth. The only variance I can foresee is size and skin color as on Earth due to different terrains, climates and diet.

This is theoretical to a degree but it also carries much water. And is provable beyond conjecture with what we know of science and successful lifeforms.

InfraRedman Out! Peace!

[edit on 4/3/08 by InfaRedMan]


reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 10:07 AM by Badge01
reply to post by GradyPhilpott



I agree. We have to conclude that Biology, if that's the acting force, finds many solutions to the same problem here on Earth.

One way to put it might be that certain traits -seem- to be favored, and the dominant forces applied to carbon-based life are

1. physics
2. biology
3. conditions (gravity, pressure, temperature; land/sea/air)
4. ecology
5. other minor forces

From what we know, bilaterally symmetrical, medium sized, tool users would seem to be a requirement, though hive-based life could also be viable, which means all bets are off, eh?

The needs that must be addressed are probably similar
1. locomotion, propulsion;
2. reproduction;
3. food gathering;
4. assimilation and excretion;
5. social interaction, both -intra and -extra species;
6. individuation (however, one could even imagine a Gaia-based life form that was one entity, planetwide, or a hive mind).

Older definitions of 'life' include terms such as 'homeostasis, organization, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. But this excludes asexual organisms, viruses and prions, for example (taken from Wiki, see below)

Wiki sums up what 'Life' entails quite nicely:
Proposed definitions of life include:
1. Living things are systems that tend to respond to changes in their environment, and inside themselves, in such a way as to promote their own continuation.[citation needed]
2. Life is a characteristic of self-organizing, self-recycling systems consisting of populations of replicators that are capable of mutation, around most of which homeostatic, metabolizing organisms evolve.


However it might be easy to miss a live organism if their life is on a timescale unfamiliar to us, such as a slow moving, geological time based organism.

All this should lead us to conclude that though a few forms might seem to be favored, there are a -very- wide array of possible solutions.


reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 09:43 PM by InfaRedMan
reply to post by IronMan



Though your completely 'off-topic', your sense of humor was not lost on me.

I'm still laughing!!!

Thanks for some comic relief during the intermission. "You the Man".. (clad in iron of course)




reply posted on 4-3-2008 @ 11:47 PM by ajmusicmedia
I'm really glad I started this topic; Most of the replies are interesting and well-thought. Some make me ponder (but that would be the subject of a different thread) why do close-minded people bother coming to this site?

It was late when I wrote the first post, so to clarify, when I mean that I think ET would look like us, I mean in a general sense: we would know what he/she/it is very rapidly. An ape may look like a human in a general sense, but it doesn't take long to see they haven't evolved intelligence in quite the same way we have. And, to quote Infraredman, I don't think ET will have a warp engine on his butt

Hilarious! But I think it needed mentionning. Assuming ET is not carbon-based and developed on a planet substantially different from ours, that still does not invalidate that his evolution should have similar points to ours and those ETs could very well end up in a similar configuration to ours anyway.

Obviously, this doesn't mean that all ETs would look similar to us, but considering there are 200 billion stars in the galaxy (in case you missed it, last week astronomers discovered the Milky Way is twice the size previously thought). Out of these, I think it would be conservative to say there are probably several million planets that have developed technological species.

So I'm sure some of them, if not most of them, must be easily recognizable to us.

Just a note, and no offense intended to anyone, I'd appreciate if we could forget about ideas that ETs created us in a laboratory for this topic of discussion. I don't necessarily disagree with this idea, but I would like to continue exploring this topic through the idea of natural evolution.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



UFO Filmed From Avebury Crop Circle, UK With Multiple Witnesses
  Posted 19 days ago with 89 member flags
The Men In Black(OPs) The Aviary & UFOs
  Posted 12 days ago with 83 member flags
Did a RAF Tornado crash during a UFO intercept mission in 1997?
  Posted 14 days ago with 39 member flags
What is this comming out of our star?
  Posted 9 days ago with 33 member flags
Huge Unknown Objects orbiting the Sun for months...?
  Posted 8 days ago with 29 member flags
The CIA and the UFO Mythos
  Posted 16 days ago with 26 member flags
UFO Reporting for the 21st Century!
  Posted 12 days ago with 26 member flags