chuman Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 topic. secondly if there are aliens would they look like humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Very possible(but that may depend on how you define 'Intelligence'). Very unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Indeed they would be smarter than us, since tehy would be older. They would not look human, but they would not look all that weird. They would be similar to some animals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 they would be bilateral and have aposable thumbs and have gone though cephalization so, they would look similar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Uhm, to the 2 previous post(ers), where or what are you basing your information on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 my bio book and common sense. they would need thumbs to build a ship. and cephalization for a brain as we know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 my bio book Then I'm sure you've taken into the account things like, Gravity, Atmospheric conditions, distance from the star, pressure, temp, so on and so forth...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 what does gravity and distance form star have to do with thumbs or cephalization? and every creature with a brain is bilateral so, that makes sense too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 what does gravity and distance form star have to do with thumbs or cephalization? The problem would be with this bit: they would look similar and every creature with a brain is bilateral so, that makes sense too It's a bit of a gross overestimation to compare all possible life forms in the cosmos to that on earth, doncha think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 similar, not congruent. they would have appendages with thumbs and they would have heads and me at least bipedal (some form of motion, right? maybe they would just be winged. nah that wing thing is stupid) ok forget bilaterality then. theyw ould still be similar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 you are assuming that they have a grip, thats why they need thumbs, maybe they could just have two arms, but yes, they would need some kind of grip, so they would need some kind of thumb.... obviously they would HAVE to have a head, there brain could be located anywhere in the body, as could the eyes ears and wtvr anywhere as well.... they wont have to look like us at all, except the thumbs..... because they wouldnt necessarily have to be carbon based, new scientific expertiments show it would be possible to have a silicon based life, and who knows, they could be some type of flying bird or something living on a gas planet..... the fact is that, we cannot know, to us, it seems impossible to imagine a creature looking different from anything we've ever seen, but the fact is that, a few million light years away, anything could have happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 The only evidence we have for extraterrestrial life is of the form of fossilised microbes. It's a bit early to be making baseless speculation, something you appear to be good at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 There's no reason why they would have to look like humans at all, to be honest. Instead of thumbs and hands they could have tentacles (a bit 50's scifi, but anyway) and live underwater. They wouldn't need to have heads as their brains could be anywhere in their bodies, and the main sensory receivers in the human head (eyes, ears, nose, tongue) - if they even had them - don't necessarily have to be in a head if the brain isn't. They could breathe and ingest through holes in their backside for all we know, though it's a frightening thought... :/ But there we have it: an intelligent, non-bipedal squid that eats through its rear and meets all the criteria put forward! But yes, gravity and distance from star alone have a massive effect on the development of life and possibly even on thumbs. I thought it was the other way around but low gravity actually drawfs plant growth, so a smaller planet has smaller plants (say goodbye to all the 1km tall trees in so many stories) and if a plant is further awat from the sun then it will need to have more efficient leaves to collect sunlight, or some completely different form of photosynthesis. So plants would be short, flat and spread out, and no species would need to be particularly tall, which are qualities that affect animal evolution. Now, if we're on a smaller planet that's further from the sun, the atmosphere will be much thinner and colder, so plants might not be able to photosynthesis at all, in which case nothig would live if we're assuming that photosynthesis is the basis for life. This is an example of how gravity and distance from a star can affect growth of life, and if you want a real-life example, look at Mars. This case doesn't necessarily prevent the rise of opposable thumbs and so forth, but it does affect the chances of them coming about and they way in which they might. To answer the original question: what are the chances of an alien life form being more intelligent than us? If you're talking about one that we might encounter or detect, then pretty high; they would have to be spacefaring in which case they might be about 50 years behind us or up to millions ahead. In terms of the whole universe, I think the chances are pretty much 100%, considering its size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 JaKiri, there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy billions of galaxies that we can see (don't forget that we can't see most of the universe). almost every star that a has been searched for a planet has had one and we aren't even that good at it yet. of those possibly countless planets, there has to be life. it is a mathematical certianty (i can't remember the formula for it though). and u think that there is no other intelligent life exists in the universe? u might as well label yourself an anthropolater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 JaKiri, there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy billions of galaxies that we can see. almost every star that a has been searched for a planet has had one and we aren't even that good at it yet. They're mostly gas giants though, and I'd like to see humanoid life growing on them. Anyway, that still leaves us with the assumption that in identical conditions, identical life will grow (or a wishywashy version of this for the matter at hand). Even ignoring chaos theory, there's still random mutation to get around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 almost every star that a has been searched for a planet has had one. Once again, what are you basing your information on? As you just said, I can pick ANY star in the cosmos, and you can tell me how many planets it has and what size, or if any at all, right?? Or at the very least provide the photographical pictures of these planets. If yes, then let me know, I'll pick a few stars for you..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 our technology hasn't progressed far enough to see many extrasolar terrestrial planets. no one said the life or conditions would be identical. we don't need identical conditions (even though there will be), because lefe has proven to exist anywhere on our planet. in every extreme where it was thought life couldn't exist, we found it. and the only reason the only proof we have is possibly fossilized microbes is that that we haven't left the syestem. we haven't even checked the most logical place for life to exist other than earth (Europa). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 admiral, http://extrasolar.net is a small archive of extrasolar planets. i didn't say any star, i said almost every star that has been searched for planets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 our technology hasn't progressed far enough to see many extrasolar terrestrial planets. no one said the life or conditions would be identical. we don't need identical conditions (even though there will be), because lefe has proven to exist anywhere on our planet. in every extreme where it was thought life couldn't exist, we found it. and the only reason the only proof we have is possibly fossilized microbes is that that we haven't left the syestem. we haven't even checked the most logical place for life to exist other than earth (Europa). Well done for completely misinterpreting my post. I'll highlight the word you appear to have missed. They're mostly gas giants though' date=' and I'd like to see humanoid life growing on them. Anyway, that still leaves us with the assumption that in identical conditions, [u']identical[/u] life will grow (or a wishywashy version of this for the matter at hand). Even ignoring chaos theory, there's still random mutation to get around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 I have not checked the linky yet, but as MrL JaKiri said, these planetisimals that they found (Numbering about 122 or so) are the size of Jupiter. By our current understanding, Life can not form on a Gas Giant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 I have not yet checked the linky yet, but as MrL JaKiri said, these planetisimals that they found (Numbering about 122 or so) are the size of Jupiter. By our current understanding, Life can not form on a Gas Giant. Oh, they have found (if memory serves) some earth-like planets. Just not very many; the vast vast vast majority of them are gas giants. Anyway, I shall refer you to this: POPULATION: None It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds' date=' simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.[/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 i already said it wouldn't be identical. there have been terrestrial extrasolar planets detected. who's to say if life can exist on a gas giant? we haven't even looked. and what about the moons of those giants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 i already said it wouldn't be identical. Hey look, so did I. In that very post! (look at the clauses following the highlighted word) there have been terrestrial extrasolar planets detected. who's to say if life can exist on a gas giant? we haven't even looked. and what about the moons of those giants? We're dealing with similar life here. There is no way that life in a gas giant could be similar to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 why? a different set of mutations and selections could have caused similar life in very dissimilar environments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 why? a different set of mutations and selections could have caused similar life in very dissimilar environments If we're talking pure speculation, then yes. But like I said, speculation isn't a good argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now