Area51

Woah, I go to work for the evening and find that there is pages of posts to go through!
 
SkinWalker, as you said, it was our difference in physical attributes
from other predators that made it necessary for us to evolve high
intelligence in order to survive. Why would it be different on another
world? Intelligence combined with tool making ability would likely
lead to higher intelligence and improved tool making for better
survival skills against physically superior but less intelligent competitors.
 
Originally posted by 2inquisitive
Why would it be different on another
world?
Click to expand...

Why would it be the same? To assume that other worlds would evolve similarly to ours is a decidedly anthropocentric viewpoint. Particularly if the outcome of billions of years of development and evolution is to create bipedal beings with hominid features.
 
So, you are saying that billions of years of evolution would find no
advantage to developing a bipedal creature with intelligence and
two appendages on the upper torso that allows the creature to
manipulate its surroundings? A separate head containing the brain
enclosed in a hard protective enclosure with the sensory organs
near the brain would offer no evolutionary advantages? Two eyes
to offer depth perception and field of vision would not be advantagous through evolution? Two ears to detect which direction
a predator was approaching from would not be an advantage through
evolution? A neck that allows the head to swiftly turn to locate the
danger picked up by the sensory organs would not be a possibility
through evolution? None of this could possibly happen through
evolution on any of the countless other planets in the universe,
let alone the Milky Way? How does evolution determine what is
advantagous, anyway?
 
2inquisitive,

no there is just no way they could be that similar by random chance in this whole galaxy. If anything humens and grey would have to be related, and since we have proof that humens developed here on earth that would mean the greys came from us. Time travelers perhaps, doubtful.
 
As I tried to establish in previous post, in my humble opinion, body
porportions similar to ours could be an evolutionary advantage for
a highly intelligent species to develope tool making and later,
technology. Other planets could have a wide variety of life develope
on them, as on earth, if the conditions were similar to earth. Although
the grays are described as similar to humans in general terms, there
are many differences. The eyes are several times larger than ours
and black, with no iris visible, which would seem to indicate a totally
different physiology. They have supposedly been observed at times
wearing very thin, tight fitting clothing and no genetalia or nipples
from a mammary gland were observed. There does not seem to be
anything to indicate a male and female sex, they all look the same.
So, how do they reproduce, do they lay a fertilized egg or something?
Their brains are much larger in relation to their body mass than ours.
They have a small slit for a mouth and no teeth have been observed.
Although they have holes in the side of their head presumed to be
for hearing, they have no ears. They have nostrils for breathing, but
a nose is almost nonexistant. They have longer and fewer digits
on their hands. I could go on, but they seem to be very different
from humans other than general shape. All of the above is from
descriptions by supposed witnesses, I have never seen a gray
and do not know if they exist, but it seems to me to be an unproven possibility.
 
Body proportions some what similar to ours yes, but not that similar, there is no way it could be that similar: there are more similarities between us and the grays then dissimilarities from outer appearance alone, the chances of that happening are simply to unlikely. I also don't see how a biped body is a advantage on low gravity world or in zero gravity, in fact a quadruped or higher body plan would be superior for space travel, 1 or 2 extra pair of hands would do great. Our biped form only came up do to the nature of our evolution in which apes needed to walk farther (no longer clime) or needed to walk through tall water (aquatic ape theory) it is not at all connected to are intelligence.
 
It would seem to me that it would be easier walk further on four
legs than two, so why didn't the apes evolve better walking legs
instead of longer rear legs and a different hip structure if intelligence
and tool making ability did not guide evolution to a bipedital mode
of locomotion to free the front appendages for use by the greater
intellect developing? Some of the great apes are ground dwellers,
but did not develope bipedital locomotion because it would serve
no evolutionary advantage without the greater intelligence to put
the front limbs to usage as tool making appendages. Continued
evolution of intelligence to a higher and higher state would seem
to serve no evolutionary advantage without tool making ability,
eventually feeding off each other to develope technology. A six
legged or eight legged species with an internal skeleton would
seem overly complicated and unnecessary on a moderate gravity
planet for evolution to produce often. A species with intelligence
and a means of manipulating their enviroment would have to be
a later evolution of an existing species.
 
2inquisitive,

Its more energy efficient to walk on 2 legs then four, with four you can move faster and climb better but your less efficient. Homided need to evolve to biped locomotion due to the prairie conditions of there local environment, the great apes do the luck of there geography remained in the forest and never needed to walk long distances.

I said six leg aliens would do well on low gravity planets.
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
2inquisitive,

Its more energy efficient to walk on 2 legs then four, with four you can move faster and climb better but your less efficient. Homided need to evolve to biped locomotion due to the prairie conditions of there local environment, the great apes do the luck of there geography remained in the forest and never needed to walk long distances.

I said six leg aliens would do well on low gravity planets.
Click to expand...
_____________________________________________

Edible fruits and plants are much more abundant in the forrest than
on the prairie, so why did hominids leave the forrest for the prairie?
Most likely, to get the high protein meat of the prairie animals. But
how did he catch and kill them? It seems most likely to me that the
early hominids were ALREADY making tools and walking upright
when he migrated to the prairie, or he would have likely starved.
Even if the process of forrest land turning into prairie land caught
the early hominids in the middle, they would still need intelligence
and tool making ability first and foremost for survival, and walking
upright would still evolve because of those needs.
 
Last edited:
About five million years ago, the plateau began to split. The separation was never completed, but the process left behind a massive scar, which can be traced from Turkey down the line of the Jordan River, Dead Sea, Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea, and then inland across Africa, where the scar is a trench partly filled by narrow but very deep lakes, including Albert, Edward, Kivu, Tanganyika and Malawi--formerly called Nyasa. (Lake Victoria, to the contrary, sits in a bowl between two arms of the trench, and though its surface area is large, the lake's water is never more than a few hundred feet deep. The rift lakes are thousands of feet deep.)

This geological rifting was filled by upwelling lava, most dramatically in Mount Kilimanjaro but also in the broad and rugged upland of Ethiopia. There, the volcanic flows were trenched by rivers, the Blue Nile the best known. Great canyons were formed--which is why the country was known in classical antiquity (and to a lesser degree even today) as Abyssinia.

The formation of the rift uplands changed the climate of East Africa. West of the rift, equatorial Africa is rain forest, moistened by winds drawn in from the Atlantic by the heat of the Equatorial lowlands. Rifting and uplifting blocked the path of those winds, so equatorial Africa east of the rift became savanna or outright desert. It remains so today. Winds from the Indian Ocean do bring some moisture to the highlands: they are the source of the annual Nile flood. But they are seasonal and often dry, originating over Arabia and blowing almost parallel to the coast.

HUMAN ORIGINS. East of the rift, in short, the continent dried out, creating a new ecological niche in which bipedal apes appeared...
Click to expand...

This is start of the most commonly accepted theory on human evolution.
 
Baboons, with leg and arm proportions more closely matching hominids than apes, live in the same enviroments as the early
hominids, but evolution did not find it beneficial for them to adapt
bipedal travel. A hip change would have been about all that was
necessary for a baboon to go bipedal. This is Pseudoscience, and
I can have my own speculation.:D I will have to revise my post
because of an obvious error on my part. The first apes to go bipedal
were no more intelligent than other apes. It seems tool making was
major factor that led to increasing intelligence, along with the ability
to improve diet because the tools led to the harvest of meat.
Distribution and Range: Baboons live in savannas, open woods, grasslands , rocky areas, and dry lands, in Africa and on the Arabian Peninsula. These intelligent primates are endangered due to loss of habitat.
edited to correct major error on my part.
 
Last edited:
Baboons did not live in the same enviorment, All higher apes came for the un-effected west side of the mountains.
 
Of course this is all assuming that an extraterrestrial, intelligent species would evolve in an environment similar to our own.

Why does our own environment have to be the most suited for evolution of life? Why not a gaseous environment in which depth perception and sound detection are more irrelevant than other senses?

To say that Earth environment is the universe's choice for developing intelligent life is anthropocentric. If other environments are possible, then the likelihood of an extraterrestrial species exhibiting hominid features is naive. Regardless of how it is advantageous on Earth.

The idea... the construct of the classic "gray" alien is from the human psyche. 2inquisitive, you're speaking as though there is some physical evidence of their traits and behaviors when there most assuredly is not. There is only mythology and lore. Ideas built on the ideas of others. Really. Mentioning that they are clothed and describing their outfits... but then mentioning that they are genderless and lack nipples? That information is not credible, let alone believable.

Pseudoscience. Fake science. Its humanity's joke on humanity.
 
SkinWalker, the whole point of these posts of mine was of a lifeform
that DID evolve on a planet similar to earth. Other types of planets
with different gravities and enviroments would most probably evolve
a different type of life, if it evolved at all. Do you hold the anthropocentric viewpoint that the earth is most likely one of a kind
in the universe? You do realize that the anthropocentric viewpoint
is the religious and scientific viewpoint that man is unique in the
universe, on a plane of existance above all other lifeforms on the
earth and in the universe. I find that viewpoint egotistical and
unproveable, not based on sound science. I do not believe all
earth-like planets will evolve creatures of high intelligence, but I
do believe water is common in the universe and there are many,
many planets that could be a similar distance from their sun and
of a similar size as the earth. If you read my posts, you would see
why I, personally, think a four legged creature would be favored
evolutionally to be the form of life to evolve into a bipedal creature
with intelligence on such a planet. Again, not on all earth-like planets
but possibly on some. I realize science has not located earth-like
planets the proper distance from their suns yet, but that is primarly
because the equipment is not well developed enough to detect the
small irregularities such a planet would produce, especially with
other, larger planets in their solar system. I stated the descripions
given were by SUPPOSED witnesses, not my own. You can find all
kinds of crap on UFO sites because most accept about anything.
The descriptions of the "grays" are a common thread that researchers have come across from interviewing the most credible
type of witnesses, many of which are well educated and hold
professional positions in society. Of course, that does not make
their statements true, but I will hold off my ridicule of them just
in case they have had a very traumatic experience.
 
SkinWalker, you seemed to imply that I was fabricating the description of the "grays". It is a description well known among
UFO researchers, not to imply it is any type of evidence or proof
it is real, but common. I will give a link to an old photo from China
of a "supposed" deceased alien. I have no idea if the photo could
possibly be "real", but most of the details I listed, except for a
view of the genetial region, are shown in the photo.
http://www.iwasabducted.com/aliengallery/alien2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top