Image: Matt Collins, after an illustration by Dale A. Russell in Reconstructions of the Small Cretaceous Theropod Stenonychosaurus Inequalis And A Hypothetical Dinosauroid, by D. A. Russell and R. Séguin, National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Natural Sciences, 1982
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
What are the odds that intelligent, technically advanced aliens would look anything like the ones in films, with an emaciated torso and limbs, spindly fingers and a bulbous, bald head with large, almond-shaped eyes? What are the odds that they would even be humanoid? In a YouTube video, produced by Josh Timonen of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, I argue that the chances are close to zero (www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKAXrmkx12g). Richard Dawkins himself made this interesting observation in a private communication after viewing it:
I would agree with [Shermer] in betting against aliens being bipedal primates, and I think the point is worth making, but I think he greatly overestimates the odds against. [University of Cambridge paleontologist] Simon Conway Morris, whose authority is not to be dismissed, thinks it positively likely that aliens would be, in effect, bipedal primates. [Harvard University biologist] Ed Wilson gave at least some time to the speculation that, if it had not been for the end-Cretaceous catastrophe, dinosaurs might have produced something like the attached [referring to paleontologist Dale A. Russell’s illustrated evolutionary projection of how a bipedal dinosaur might have evolved into a reptilian humanoid].
I replied to Dawkins that if something like a smart, technological, bipedal humanoid has a certain level of inevitability because of how evolution unfolds, then it would have happened more than once here. In his 2001 book Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, Robert Wright argues that our existence precludes other terrestrial intelligences of our level from arising. But Neandertals were as close as one can get to a counterfactual experiment: they had hundreds of thousands of years to themselves in Europe without our interference and showed nothing like the technological and cultural progress of the modern humans who displaced them. Dawkins’s rejoinder to me is enlightening:
But you are leaping from one extreme to the other. In the film vignette, you implied a quite staggering rarity, so rare that you don’t expect two humanoid life-forms in the entire universe. Now you are ... pointing out, correctly, that a certain inevitability would predict that humanoids should have evolved more than once on Earth! So, yes, we can say that humanoids are fairly improbable, but not necessarily all that improbable! Anything approaching “a certain inevitability” would mean millions or even billions of humanoid life-forms in the universe, simply because the number of available planets is so huge. Now, my guess is intermediate between your two extremes ... I suspect that humanoids are not so very rare as to justify the statistical superlatives that you permitted yourself in the vignette.
Good point. But of the 60 to 80 phyla of animals, only one, the chordates, led to intelligence, and only the vertebrates actually developed it. Of all the vertebrates, only mammals evolved brains big enough for higher intelligence. And of the 24 orders of mammals only one—ours, the primates—has technological intelligence. As the late Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr concluded: “Nothing demonstrates the improbability of the origin of high intelligence better than the millions of phyletic lineages that failed to achieve it.” In fact, Mayr calculated that even though there have evolved perhaps as many as 50 billion species on Earth, “only one of these achieved the kind of intelligence needed to establish a civilization.”
The late astronomer Carl Sagan, in a Planetary Society debate with Mayr (Bioastronomy News, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1995), noted that technologically communicating species “may live on the land or in the sea or air. They may have unimaginable chemistries, shapes, sizes, colors, appendages and opinions. We are not requiring that they follow the particular route that led to the evolution of humans. There may be many different evolutionary pathways, each unlikely, but the sum of the number of pathways to intelligence may nevertheless be quite substantial.”
See what we're tweeting about
96 Comments
Add CommentI wonder if there could be a tie-in with body shape and intelligence. If we assume that, and further assume that the likelihood of extra-terrestrial life is greatest on earth-size rocky planets the optimum distance from their stars, then it's reasonable to suggest that creatures of comparable intelligence to humans might resemble us. The inference would be that both body plan and brain size and construction would have been shaped by evolutionary forces similar to what happened on Earth. I agree with Gould that "replaying the tape" of evolution is highly unlikely to produce humans. Somehow the conditions were right that one time. They would probably have to be the same conditions on another Earth-like planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting article. Another way to phrase the question is "how many different ways are there to evolve an intelligence-supporting and tool-manipulating organism?" Convergent evolution here on Earth provides examples of species of entirely different origins "looking" very similar due to functional demands; reptilian ichthyosaurs and mammalian dolphins come to mind. Conversely, the bat and the dragonfly both fly, but use entirely different methods, and it shows. So my answer to the question is, like the creationists' "kind", it depends entirely on what you mean by "looks like".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are really two questions here. Is there anything about the environment that leads to intelligence? In other words, is sentience filling an ecological niche? The odds of sentience developing elsewhere in the universe are fairly good. It is a big universe, after all. The odds of the these sentient beings making contact with each other are not good. It is, after all, a big universe. If we do make contact, the odds are that those sentient beings will have evolved in an environment very much like our own, if only because in order to have the technology to make contact, they would of necessity had to have had access to refined materials, fire, etc... Whether they look like us is besides the point. They will operate like us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would submit that using the Neanderthal as an example of an independent evolution of a humanoid intelligence is contraindicated, because the Neanderthal is too closely related to us; coming from a common ancestor with us that was itself a humanoid intelligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order to develop a technological civilization similar to ours, it would seem that in addition to intelligence, an alien species would need the equivalent of opposable-thumb hands, something analogous to our eyesight, some structure that can be utilized for communication, and a "brain equivalent" that is capable of developing some kind of language. And I'm sure there are other "necessary but not sufficient" conditions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing one's imagination, it is easy to envision numerous alternatives for achieving each of the above requirements. Mathematics is not my forte, but I believe the above would imply that the number of possible different intelligent and civilized lifeforms approximates the number of possible solutions to each requirement, multiplied by all the others, producing a very large number:
(nr of hand equiv) x (nr of vision equiv) x (nr of communication equiv) x (nr of language equiv) x (etc) x (etc).
This would indicate that most of the time, ET will NOT look like us. While it's possible some will somewhat resemble us, others will probably be quite "alienly" alien. Indeed, in some cases, they could be so alien as to render communication impossible.
Of course, if there proves to be no way around the speed of light as a universal speed limit, we might never know. It seems ironic, but there could be hundreds of thousands of civilizations out there, which can never communicate with others, simply because of the distances involved. That would be frustrating.
I would just like to chime in and say that I wouldn't mind having 8 arms. That's all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would just like to chime in and say that I wouldn't mind having 8 arms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's all.
If you get 8 arms then I want 9, you evil evenist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this9 arms? that's crazy! who ever heard of 9 ARMS.. You don't make any sense. ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have 10 fingers and 10 toes.. Why not up the ante? 8 arms isn't too much to ask for. It's all about multitasking. One day, Evolution will show that I'm right, you'll see.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe concept of a "face" may be very common. After all, just about every mobile creature on the earth has a face of sorts: Eyes, grouped together with respiration orifice and consumption orifice. What are the chances of that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer in his video seems to say bipedalism is unlikely. Ok, sure, but then he says aliens will not 'look like' us. I disagree with that qualitative statement. I think it is highly likely that aliens would have something analogous to a "head" and and "face". The features may be rearranged a bit, but it is likely they have stereo vision, so 2 horizontally arranged eyes, a way to breath, so a nose, and a way to consume food, so a mouth.
redredred.. I like you're point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, Octopuses should not be able to do more multitasking than a human, I'm sorry but on an evolutionary scale.. that's messed up. Just cause they live in the ocean. God forbid they ever grow fingers.. we really need to keep an eye on them.
I love the irony of Shermer pointing to Protagoras bias in the conclusion of his article as a reason not to expect primate-like bipedalism in alien intelligences, when surely he is exhibiting the same with his human-centric definition of intelligence and especially "technological intelligence" (whatever that is). There have been well-studied instances of not just tool use, but tool making in non-primate species--notably in crows (intelligent dinosaurs?). Perhaps he means scientific thinking? It is interesting to speculate about in any case, but I suspect both sides of the debate are looking at the probabilities with all too human biases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think to preclude or even theorize that intelligent "life" on another planet with varying origins (both chronological and biological) would have any sort of physical attributes based on life on earth is way over stepping our abilities. For starters, examine the plethora of life forms, all of varying degrees of intelligence, that exist in the multitude of ecosystems here on earth. Each version of life is tailored for survival in it's environment over time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you extend the notion that there are physical attributes that can be ascribed to more intelligent forms of life (i.e. bipedal beings can be thought to be more intelligent than quadrupedal beings) then it is fair to believe that were a life form on earth to evolve as more intelligent than us they may posses physical attributes that give them the ability to take full advantage of those attributes. An example would be the opposable thumb combined humans' and monkeys' ability to mentally make use of it. How much would it benefit a cat to have an opposable thumb without the intelligence to make good use of it?
In considering the vast differences in habitats throughout the galaxy combined with the differing levels of intelligence; it is not unreasonable that intelligent life on other planets could either be less evolved than us, or far more involved containing attributes that humans on earth cannot imagine nor make sense of once discovering. We may even conclude that as life becomes more intelligent that it may take greater command over physics and forgo physicality as we know it all together. Thus, we may be in the presence of vastly superior life forms on Mars and other planets and be completely aware of it. How cognizant is a Lady Bug of the vastly superior humans? If, for some reason a human wanted to avoid a lady bug, how successful would the lady bug be in preventing that?
I think Alien life, or the possibilities thereof are to vast to take up a definitive argument regarding their proposed physical attributes.
The one thing that the vast majority of us miss is that it is an assumption to think that we humans are the first an only animals on the planet to have created a civilization on this planet. The human race and our nearest ancestors are only a few million years old. Of that only in the last few hundred thousand years have we left any evidence of our existence here on this planet. If we were to be gone tomorrow the vast majority of evidence of our presence here would be wiped away in a few million years at the most! If a civilization can evolve rise and fall all within a 10-20 million year time span, that opens the door for hundreds of possible civilizations. Add the fact that fossils are rare and primarily happen near water that can deposit sediment, and how few places we have looked. There could be evidence under foot right now and we could miss it, let alone and entire continent like Antarctica or the ocean floor where its impossible for us to explore at present. The odds for civilization arising on the same planet definitely improve accounting for these factors. I mean its a far fetched idea sure, but not beyond possibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI imagine under the miles of ice on Jupiters moons, deep in its inky oceans, a gigantic intelligent blob of algea-like goo, capable of individual and group thought, itself acting as both one gigantic brain, but also capable of sending out individual blobs to explore, consume, conquer, reproduce, and add to the great main blob.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect this is far more likely than a bunch of humanoids in submarines.
very well-stated irowebot. To piggyback on that thought, we KNOW that in the last 6,000 years entire human civilizations have had their very existence, and any remnant of that existence wiped away by conquering civilizations. I think science, and archeology for that matter, both do not account for the fact that we know that various parts of the historical existence of the Universe have decimated into dust particles. Honestly, one supernova can wipe out untold distances of the universe's history, and with it any life within its reach. Who knows what was out there before human beings created telescopes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"[O]f the 60 to 80 phyla of animals, only one, the chordates, led to intelligence, and only the vertebrates actually developed it. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong; cephalopod mollusks independently evolved large, intelligent brains. Even "simple" phyla like onycophorans (velvet worms) are intelligent enough to travel in social groups with dominance heirarchies—which requires quite a bit more intelligence than the "hard-wired" social insects such as bees.
"Of all the vertebrates, only mammals evolved brains big enough for higher intelligence."
Wrong again. Birds independently evolved very high intelligence, particularly the corvids and psittacines. They solve problems and have complex social systems. In captivity, psittacines have be trained to perform cognitive tasks at least on the level of a human preschooler.
"And of the 24 orders of mammals only one—ours, the primates—has technological intelligence."
Technically true, but we have had such intelligence for only a few thousand years of the half-billion years of multicellular life on earth. That means that technological intelligence is such a rare thing that we do not have enough information to make useful statistical inferences on the likelihood of its arising—other than to say it is a rare thing.
I agree with some of the commenters that the likelihood of intelligent aliens looking like us is small. It is very easy to make ourselves the standard and almost see ourselves as the 'goal' of evolution. But different planets would have different pressures, as well as different gene-stock and mutations - although it's reasonable to suppose that bipedalism and a large processessing unit would be advantageous anywhere. The illustrations remind me of the reptilian-alien conspiracy theory, whereby earth is ruled by reptilian creatures from space, who basically created us. And conveniently look very much like the reptiles that evolved on earth, and can conveniently disguise themselves as humans and mimic our vocalizations.... (And our trachea IS remarkable. If it weren't for its shape, we wouldn't be doing anything much like speaking, as we know it.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have heard of many science fiction creations of intelligent life and societies. I await for someone this garne to give a more thought out idea of the possibilities of the shape of an intelligent being; one based on functionality, and reality, or possible reality. Not the fish with technology etc. Its good to see some scientists are and I hope my fellow writers use these speculations. May more have faith to have a well thought out opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the jury is still out as to whether what we call intelligence is actually an evolutionary benefit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed 100%, and I'll add that tool use has been observed in enough other species that our "technological intelligence" isn't unique, only slightly ahead of the other species alive currently. ...which isn't saying much, considering that along the great timeline of species on this planet, even if it takes other species ten thousand more years to figure out fire, it'll still be the tiniest sliver of a percentage after we did. Not really all that much to brag about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBilateral symmetry - extremely practical and almost universal. Newton himself was fascinated by it. Photo-sensors with lenses (eyes) to perceive surroundings. Manipulative, prehensile appendages to grasp and alter surroundings. Isaac Asimov wrote some interesting articles about the common denominator of intelligent life forms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a possibility that no one seems to have considered (on these boards) :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe development of an even more evolved "super-organism(an organism made up of multiple, physically separate...)" than humans, ants, and bees. If i am not mistaken, a super-organism has a specific criterion - which typical social organisms like ,dogs and dolphins, cannot meet.
I would wager that super-organisms are more probable than individual exceptionally intelligent organisms. Here is my reasoning;All life must begin from a basic form, and then evolve to a more specialized one. Simple life such as insects appear to have a high probability of developing into 'hive organism'.
If the right environmental circumstance were to exist, necessity could illicit the evolution of neural systems with exceptional memory, or cognitive abilities.
Imagine this: A world in a solar system that during the day is bombarded with ionizing UV, or microwave radiation from the systems star(s). There is nocturnal reptilian life. In order to hunt and gather food, they must collect information and disseminate it. It's possible to develop advanced memory for scouting, more advanced than bees, and transfer it via chemical or optical communications. Further more, Its very possible the beings could be equipped with grasping appendages like a few late dinosaurs or the majority of insects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch a collective society would need a hierarchy with command entities, and being mobile it would have multiple such entities under a singular monarch, like certain ant species.
A super-organism such as that would wield incredible working memory and logic processing capabilities. The overall layout would be a queen, multiple praetorian to act as extensions of the queen, and the workers which would serve as sensory collection and hunter/gatherer.
I have left many details out for the sake of breivty, but how probable is this? Exponentially more probable than intelligent social bipedal primates
..especially since even with all our amazing leaps in understanding of the cosmos and our ability to shape it through our technology, peoples actual lives are still shaped by the same exact same motivations as earths less-inclined species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wouldn't go so far as to say we're all that advanced just because we build our cities out of heat-treated materials instead of raw ones.
For all this speculation as to what form alien intelligences will take, I think that their specific form would allow us to pursue answers to questions such as does God exist. If they look like us would that not reinforce that when God created man in his image he also created them. Would be very interested to learn about their religious beliefs and creation myths. If God is universal should their faith/faiths be similar to ours?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJIX, the "super-organism" is what I meant by the giant algae-like blob being capable of individual & group thought. I would not be surprised in the least to find that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHm. Gsmith. I've always thought that would be one of the more fun developments of finding life at all off our isolated bubble. How suddenly, do those who worship mankind & the god in its image, as the cause and end of the whole universe, come to terms with discovering their god apparently went off and had himself another little bun in the oven, and kept it a secret this whole time? Oh my my.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf history is any indicator, then sadly, I'd wager it'd play out one of two ways:
1. God may have created them too, but it says right here that what he really loves is us, here. Hence, they are "lesser" life forms for us to have dominion over. Cue scary consequences.
2. If there's no mention of this in the holy books, then it is the universe that is wrong, and said life is not extraterrestrial.
Meaning:
A. Either that life must have been knocked off earth, via comet (presumably after people tired of keeping dinosaurs as pets and ate them all up)
B. It's a manufactured conspiracy. Only liberals would believe such nonsense actually exists. I detect the hand of Al Gore in this.
An important scenario detail I forgot: The reptilian life would need to collect or hunt at night and retreat underground or in prebuilt shelters to avoid lethal radiation. A protagonist to this situation would be if the planet had short days and nights.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMark,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right. Nine arms would be very expensive; every few years, one would need to buy either four or five pairs of gloves (depending on whether or not the extra glove was saved each time).
Think about the time spent filing and possibly either buffing or painting the fingernails. An angry alien could get really nasty and give us the fingers.
Sorry; I'm a little whimsical today.
This is what I was point towards in my original post. I agree that the evolution of "life" in no way needs to mirror ours as is evidenced in the plethora of ways life on earth have reached their present forms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"when surely he is exhibiting the same with his human-centric definition of intelligence and especially "technological intelligence" (whatever that is). "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would agree that this human-centric, especially since "technological intelligence" is completely dependent upon natural/technological resources. Where would our technical innovation take us were there no copper, silicone, and various fibers? Likewise, before the discovery of these natural resources, or at least their technological usefulness a mud hut was considered a technological feat.
Furthermore, we still can't explain the construction of the pyramids which leads to the reasonable conclusion that ancient Egyptians mastered there natural resources in a manner that modern man cannot yet fathom. So, what would another species on another planet with other resources make of THEIR technological intelligence? Who knows, maybe something we can't fathom or even see.
If you interpret the Bible as a book written by individuals who may have been told the full truth but who could only interpret it through their limited understandings, then the bible stories represent their very simplified versions of the knowledge given to them. Envision trying to describe String Theory and branes to a primitive. What information would remain with the primitive?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding creation it need not have happened only here, it could have occurred universally through the selection of laws of physics making it inevitable that intelligent life can have only one form. In that sense we along with our ET cousins could be brothers created at the same time by God and as such not loved less or more by him.
In defining what ET may look like I would start at the bottom. Should we assume that all life is DNA based? There would seem to be a strong case to be made that based on the organic molecules found in various places in the universe that DNA should be universally available. The hardest question to answer is given a good environment in which to evolve would our intelligent form be duplicated? If it is duplicated does that then prove that God exists?
Ah but this is all but pure speculation. We will never know what ET looks like, and to have a philosophical discussion with him is even less likely. ET certainly has no reason to come here.
"How suddenly, do those who worship mankind & the god in its image, as the cause and end of the whole universe, come to terms with discovering their god apparently went off and had himself another little bun in the oven, and kept it a secret this whole time?" - hotblack
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo offense sir, but the Bible only talks about Earth and its origins, and only makes the claim that the Earth (not the universe) was created for man. It references the sun and moon in similar terms as science does in that their beginnings made life on Earth sustainable for humans.
Despite popular American Charismatic teachings, Genesis says nothing about the other planets or the rest of the universe except Earth, the sun, moon, and stars. Nothing of other galaxies or other planets distant or near.
Also, the Bible clearly talks about other forms of life both intellectually and physiologically different from human beings predating us. Though, again, most Christians bypass those things in favor of a bible reading that is more compatible to their preexisting beliefs about God, man, and the whole of the universe.
The bible never claims that man is the center of the universe, Christians make that claim.
"Envision trying to describe String Theory and branes to a primitive. What information would remain with the primitive?"-GSmith136"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI whole-heartedly agree. This is also my take on the Book if Revelation, in that something as obvious to us as an airplane would appear to be a "giant, iron eagle" to John. In fact, when you read the scientific accounts regarding the ends of the sun and the effects that would have on earthly life, it mirrors the accounts of Revelation.
Unfortunately, this discussion is marred in the muddled maze of incomplete and constantly updating scientific theory, and the over-exuberant belief that each generation of Christianity believe that the pieces are presently in lace to fully understand a book we believe to be the ultimate truth. This despite the fact that both scientific and Christian belief are regularly updated from one generation to the next.
Consider that the phrase "created in God's image" might not refer to physical form, but rather to how the universe is interpreted... It is not about how you see the universe, but HOW you see the universe. When you watch a sunrise, how do you feel? Do you feel at all? It's not about how or what you're made of, but how you feel when your children laugh and call out to you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarl Sagan: " We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
The question is perhaps mistated. It should be, "Is there any intelligent lifefore we would RECOGNIZE as intelligent that didn't basically look like us?" The dolphin's brain is roughly as large and complex as our own and in some ways better at processing 3-dimensional data but we still call dolphins "animals" because all they seem to do is dance on their fins and beg for fish. Because evolution forces them to use their brains so much differently than ours they don't do anything we acknowledge as "intelligent": no tools, no verbal skills, no ability to express or record abstract reasoning, etc. Put them on land and grow them some arms and legs and we might rethink our position, though. Likewise *any* lifeform we encounter across the universe with similar physical differences and capacities will have a hard time convincing us it has civil rights.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTere are 10 to the 21st power of stars. If 1 in tens planets that's 10 to the 20th power. If life develops on one in a thousand of those planets that's
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this100000000000000000 planets. If intelligent life develops on one of a thousand planets with life that's
100000000000000 planets with intelligent life. Out of a hundred trillion intelligent life forms...some will resemble Sponge Bob and some will resemble a jelly casserole
It is yet to be proven that technologically advanced species are a "higher" form of intelligence. We are still being tested, and may yet blow ourselves back to the Stone Age, or even into extinction, along with a majority of species on the planet. Human Dinosaurs are just as likely as Dinosaurean Humans, in fact they exist among us even today... Now, seriously, what we have as humans is culture, and it is far more important than technology. It is in fact our meta-forms, our knowledge base, that makes us distinctly human. Our technology is but a part of that cultural base. What technology, and knowledge together can bring, is our freedom from being constrained by the evolutionary filter. We are almost at the point where we can design ourselves, and re-invent ourselves. There is no reason we cannot modify ourselves to live anywhere, and carry our culture with us. We could live in the sea, on alien worlds, or even directly in space. I assure you that fitness will assure that the design for humans who will live in alien environments will be quite alien to our preconception of humans as bi-pedal primates. Yet, because the reality of humanity is not in our outward appearance, but in our inner workings. Our minds will be the most human thing about us, as is now the case. We will have Music, and Philosophy, and Art. And, we will search out knowledge for the sheer joy of it, and spread the wonder of Human Love throughout the Universe. ... If we can survive that long, and the Dinosaurs among us do not destroy us. If so, then in 50 million years perhaps the Rats will own this Universe, or maybe the Cockroaches will have their chance. Too bad for us, we will have failed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHahahah! Nice dis_cushion! :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI vote for the chick on "V" That's worth the NASA budget.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just want eyes in the back of my head. And ESP and total recall, oh, and flying. I'd like to fly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDanger! I'm bothered by the assumption that whatever is out there is friendly or even has a conscience. Think of our own case: if we develop AI, then die out ourselves, and our machines evolve and spread out for ten million years...? SETI (intentionally transmitting evidence of our existence) might be very foolish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere must be a cranium with enough room for a brain and protection of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may be unlikely that E.T. will look like us however if such an organism is to develop a complex technology it will require that such an organism possess extremities that allow for fine manipulation of tools and technology. Our opposable thumbs and dexterity were a prerequisite for our own technological advancement. Although, quadrupedal locomotion does not rule out the possibility of such development. It would seem that freeing up of two limbs would certainly expedite the evolution of such capabilities. Therefore, although E.T. may not be a primate, it would seem likely that there would be anatomical similarity (structurally) if he/she were to be capable of developing complex technology. In addition, since the accumulation of knowledge is closely related to technological advancement it would seem that E.T. will have a similar history of technological advancement and accumulation of knowledge of the universe around him/her.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love SciAm when, like in this piece, it publishes science and scholarly debate and eschews liberal editorial bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI cancelled my SciAm subscription because the vast majority of its stories are non-scholarly pseud-science slanted toward a particular and conclusory (i.e., green/warmingisirrefutable/non-eurocentric/politically correct/generally liberal) agenda.
Whenever SciAm gets back to its roots, I will subscribe again.
I would like to add that the odds of finding "humanoid" like alien lifeforms will be slightly increased by the phenomenon of pareidolia, which is to say that we will probably have a tendency to think of them as humanoid even when they really aren't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a strong suspicion that any lifeform which has sense organs bunched close to its brain, and forward facing will be regarded to have a face, and if they have binocular radiation sensors (we will call them eyes) and a single or paired feeding orifice or appendage (we will call it a mouth) we will tend to want to call that face humanoid. And if they have locomotive appendages pointing downwards and manipulative appendages pointing forward or to the side, regardless of number, we will call those things arms and legs, and there will be a tendency to regard that form as humanoid.
As a follow up to my previous comment I would like to add that is an intelligent E.T. would probably have to be warm blooded in order to meet the energy requirements for complex brain development. Thermodynamic considerations would also seem to favor bipedal development as the most practical route (thermodynamically) of evolutionary development consistent with the allocation of energy requirements in genetic changes in genotype.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the concepts of infinite multiverses, I tend to think almost anything is possible. It does seem to me that sentinent beings, like us in our current evolution will move from biologically-centric beings to multiple forms, some biologically based and some of other atomic materials to meet functional needs involved in exploring the vast number of different environments found on other planets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we humans manage not to kill ourselves or be wiped out by our interstellar environment, and continue our exponential rate of evolution, we are likely to become an interplanetary species and have distant offspring who are alien to this planet, just as many Americans have ancestors in "the old country". I can imagine my great, great, great grand "child" being the sentinent alien we are referring to. I'm not sure what we could call the concept of intelligence that is not limited by form or makeup. Any ideas?
"Man is the measure of all things." Therefore, we consider ourselves to be a form of "intelligent" life. I wonder if an alien species would consider us thusly.... Possibly not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea of humanoid aliens seems to be what most of us imagine and if indeed bipedal dinosaurs had evolved intelligence and technology I could see them being vaguely humanoid. It is quite possible that being a four limbed vertebrate might through the idea of convergent evolution be quite likely to turn up a "humanoid" type alien. I honestly wonder if the tail would have been completely eliminated but even with a tail you could call the illustrated creature somewhat humanoid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the real question is "Would vertebrates be likely to evolve on another planet?" Is there a way to solve the internal skeleton creature problem that does not involve a vertebra column? We have Echinoderms which basically have internal skeletons.It's not unimaginable to postulate land Echinoderms. If indeed intelligence does arise on another planet I would expect the ecological equivalent of vertebrate mammals to be what they evolve from but that doesn't mean they would have to be four limbed vertebrates
The idea of humanoid aliens seems to be what most of us imagine and if indeed bipedal dinosaurs had evolved intelligence and technology I could see them being vaguely humanoid. It is quite possible that being a four limbed vertebrate might through the idea of convergent evolution be quite likely to turn up a "humanoid" type alien. I honestly wonder if the tail would have been completely eliminated but even with a tail you could call the illustrated creature somewhat humanoid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the real question is "Would vertebrates be likely to evolve on another planet?" Is there a way to solve the internal skeleton creature problem that does not involve a vertebra column? We have Echinoderms which basically have internal skeletons.It's not unimaginable to postulate land Echinoderms. If indeed intelligence does arise on another planet I would expect the ecological equivalent of vertebrate mammals to be what they evolve from but that doesn't mean they would have to be four limbed vertebrates
No offense taken Proverbial, I was talking about how religious followers believe the universe to exist in their honor, rather than about what the bible specifically states (which I'll agree, should be taken in context of its many rewrites, edits and [mis]translations over the millenia).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReasoning, tool use, ornately planned cities, a vocabulary, greater sensory processing etc... many species specialize in each of these areas. However, we developed just enough of each of them to be dangerous, and went nuts with it all. Without the discovery of fire, we would still be the pathetic prey animals without time for developing luxuries beyond eating, reproducing & dying.
So too did the neanderthals develop intelligence, tool use, social skills, music, etc..., and look what happened to them. A couple bad moves on their part, and we killed the rest off. No matter what we find, we will seek a reason to devalue its life to a position below our own, because it's in every fiber of our nature. Only when we find a species that can best us in every test of our choosing, who we cannot wipe out, will we show them any respect. ...of course, finding that out would very likely spell the end of our species. Human nature is fairly ugly.
"But of the 60 to 80 phyla of animals, only one, the chordates, led to intelligence, and only the vertebrates actually developed it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this? Has not the phylum Mollusca, in the form of cephalopods, also demonstrated intelligence?
I always enjoy Michael Shermers page in Sciam and also enjoy Dawkins articles, good to see them in the same one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCouple of comments (always seems like a couple)
1) I'm not sure its been totally proved life arose on earth as a opposed to coming to earth through space.
I've seen theories where microbes could survive for thousands of years if not longer in space and so some other
solar system potentially seeded several thousand stars in our neighborhood. If this was the case then there
might be a higher than normal odds that something akin to us might arise near us.
2) I've wondered many times if the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous were as smart or smarter than us.
What would be left of a civilization in a millimeter or two of sediment below the kt boundry after 65 million
years. Maybe some day when we actually explore the moon we might find some funny boot prints;-)
3) Comment on comments...I'm not sure that opposable digits(read hand) are necessary for intelligence to arise.
Marvin Minski wrote a boot where the mi(machine intellegence) was housed in something like a sea urchine(times a
million). Each appendage split down till the smallest was just a few molecules wide. This enabled it to grasp
and manipulate way better than us. I don't see why this couldn't naturally occur.
more...but enough for now.
Here's my theory based on everything I have read on past human evolution and the changes which are occurring very slowly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe aliens and/or U.F.O's which a lot of people claims to have seen are humans from the future. As we know that human brain are getting larger(not by 1-2 year but 100-500 years) also that humans are in-fact becoming smaller in hight. Humans bones are also becoming more fragile and weaker, also losing muscle mass.
Again this is something I am starting to believe strongly as years goes by. Some people may believe me or regard it by just another out-of-this-world theory
test...please ignore
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, if I get 8 arms, I want four facing "front" and four facing "back" and two eyes front, and two eyes back to match.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I'd be happy with four arms front, and a couple of useful wings in the back.
Convergent evolution could happen, especially if there are evolutionary advantages to bi-symmetry as there are here on Earth. It is totally possible that big black eyes are an adaption to a differing light spectrum as would come from say a red sun. It is all speculative as we haven't met an extra-terrestrial alien yet, at least in any verifiable or public way. What is almost certain is that there is some kind of life elsewhere in the galaxy. Whether any life form could generate enough energy to fold space is another issue. I would preclude some kind of nomadic species who left a system as it went nova. They wouldn't necessarily need to travel that fast if they were born and died on migratory craft. They could find all of the water, oxygen, methane, and iron to support their existence along the way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I WOULD NOT preclude a nomadic species." Oops!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf they grew lungs, then we'd have trouble. They don't need an opposable thumb. They can manipulate things pretty well with tentacles and suction pads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey do use tools. They pick things up to get into crevices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe normally assume that any extra-terrestrial being would look like us; several films portraying ET indicate that we do so. There are, however, two things. One is to find out whether humans evolved on earth itself; the other, whether our species has been 'imported' from some other planetary system. If the first is correct, then there is a fair chance that we are an exclusive lot, and there may not be another species like us anywhere in the Universe -- highly unlike. If the second is true, then there is a chance that human-like forms exist elsewhere too -- highly likely. But there is a lot of research left to do to come to some form of clarity on this subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I am to have 8 arms, then I must have the head of an elephant to go with them!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn humans the right and left hemispheres of the neo-cortex are both fuelled by our ancient emotional Limbic Brain that is primary to memory and recall. There is ample empirical evidence that these three brains are structured to function independently and yet they seek a mutual balance. See the website article Inside Our Three Brains at www.cosmic-mindreach.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese three focal points of thought developed progressively throughout the vertebrate lineage and became most prominent in the human brain. We are born most helpless and must consciously learn virtually everything with the aid of left brain language beginning in the crib. We learn to intuitively comprehend language before we can speak. Right brain intuitive insight leads language and behaviour not vice versa. A dog responds to verbal commands but can not speak. In humans the development of sophisticated language allows us to deal with all experience in abstraction and it accentuates the bi-lateral polarization of neo-cortical brain function
These three focal points are not an accidental evolutionary development in a Darwinian sense. They are fundamental to intelligent social aliens from Alpha Centauri or anywhere in the universe. Intelligent social creatures anywhere must have some way to deal with phenomenal experience and mutually communicate in abstraction, whether in explicit spoken language, or telepathically with explicit intent. This can allow them to collectively plan and work together. They must also have some implicit equivalent of holistic intuitive insight into how phenomenal experience is universally organized and integrated. This requires some degree of structural insight into the cosmic order. This bi-lateral development between insight and expression must be emotionally fuelled in some way by a long history that emotes patterns of recall, thought and behaviour that can be tailored to suit ongoing circumstance. All learning depends on this.
In this universal structural sense there is no evolved origin to mind in space and time. This requires that highly evolved intelligent social creatures anywhere must have a bilateral organization with limbs that can be used to physically create and a three-brained organization. The simplest is a quadruped limb structure as it evolved on earth, although there could be many variations on this same structural theme.
I should add a few comments to my previous post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn humans a wealth of collective memory has been provided by 400 million years of vertebrate ancestry anchored to a quadruped limb structure that implicitly requires a degree of self-similarity in behaviour. We pick up the behavioural intentions of a family pet or an animal in the wild. We can empathize with them. We can creep up like a cat or charge like a bull. They can understand our emotive intensions and limitations and respond according to their abilities and intensions. We can not empathize with the invertebrates in the same way. Many motor-sensory formats were explored with the invertebrates before they became relatively fixed in the skeletal arrangement of the quadruped vertebrates.
A similar evolutionary history is an evolutionary requirement of intelligent and creative social beings anywhere. The reasons for this are implicit in how the cosmic order works. See www.cosmic-mindreach.com for more on this.
Soon kind of an ET will be present on Earth, but it does not come from outer space. Namely in near future often it will be difficult in many situations to distinguish between humans and robots. The "mind" of robots can become as strange to our inner self, to how we are created, as a real ET. Therefore I suggest the following robotical law:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo robot shall have humanlike face.
A man gave his wife a robot for help doing the household and he bought a special type with handmade look alike face of his female partner. On a certain day he was phoned at his office and told that his wife was safe after being rescued from a fire that burnt down the house while she was sitting already unconcious in the living room. He came home and discovered.... that the robot was rescued and nothing but ashes remained from his wife who was sleeping in the bedroom on the first floor.
In form -I'm reminded of the infinite museum of theoretical adaptations only has a very small gallery of actual extant and extinct members. with so much convergent evolution in our ecosystem -as previously mentioned -i think it's in our enzymes that only a limited selection of combinations produce life and it's features and characteristics. do you know what I'm saying? We omly have so many phyla and classes. Maybe theres not many or anymore that DNA could produce -given it needs environment within the parameters of our world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if our phyla and classes aren't the only ones -as they came through postive selection by the total environment -maybe they are the MOST LIKELY organizations. with in the limits of DNA's functional capacity we might find these phyla and classes in combination -with postive selection -produce very simialr oranisms as a total ECOSYSTEM.
Am I plain?
I think it's interesting and even a little disheartening that we have no Radio Telescope evidence of an Advanced Society in the Stars. Carl Sagan spoke of a burst of Radio Telecommunications in any developing technological society. Then it would go silent , he said, as everything went to cable and targeted emissions. I personally think there is life close by -but nothing approaching a technological society I think is obvious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is called Man if generations adapt to alien environments. I think psychodynamics, physiology, and culture go hand in hand with BEAUTY. so distant descendants will have very beautiful aspects. But will we be a more moral species there in respect to adapting to the Law of Moral Causation. Morality has some real solid physical underpinnings. but how we deal with and adapt our organism and society to Moral Causation is wide open.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisONE MAN'S MEAT IS ANOTHER MAN'S POISON.
I think we still are lacking the imagination to consider just how truly alien ET might be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have here several references to "phyla" and "DNA", but does an alien life form necessarily even have DNA? And what if such an alien did not have cells and tissues as we know them?
What if it were built on a basis that did not rely on cells and DNA?
What if life on ET's planet utilized energy from chemical reactions quite different from the Krebs cycle life on Earth uses?
And what if such alien life wasn't even based on carbon chemistry, but on an element such as silicon?
The possibilities seem limitless. I just wish we had the capacity to travel to all those other worlds, and find out just how accurate (or not) our predictions regarding ET really are.
Sure -what can be we can imagine. Mostly we can't. But people ask what is the origin of life. I just say CARBON. life itself is one of the properties of carbon. it does so well here -why wouldn't it so tremendously well elswhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhen I think of life -i think ECOSYSTEM -a number of interelated orgnisms reltaed to their environment. this would require classes of creatures.
Still -your right. what if the plant animal microbe thing isn't the plan elswhere. It might not include any one manlike.
One of the assumptions commonly made is that an intelligent species will necessarily have a technological civilization. Yet in our history there have been perhaps a dozen great civilizations, only one of which is technological. The ancient Romans and Chinese certainly could have developed technology yet chose not to. The universe may be full of life -- even extensive intelligent life yet not have a technology we can communicate with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it's a good thing that manned interstellar flight may be impossible. If ET is agressive anything like us -and a space travel society would have to be real go getters -we would probably have genocide on the menu. they could find us culturally repulsive or especially as a low form of intelligent life to be eliminated as competitors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah lets here it for the light constant.
I agree with your statements, but would point out that our specific "type" of intelligence is not only a product of our form, it is utterly dependent on it. Would our brains require the same computational ability if our ancestors were blind, quadrupedal ruminants, instead of tree-dwelling omnivores?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing this logic we can imagine other types of intelligences equal to or surpassing our own, but of completely alien character. Interstellar distances might be the least of the factors that divide us from such beings.
Given that other planets where life may evolve would probably have very different environments to Earth's, there does not seem to be any reason to me that it would evolve in a similar way to that on Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis is why I say -there is a distinct physical substrate to the Law of causation as it applies to evolution. Creatures CONSUME OTHERS. There's really no way around it in ORGANIC LIFE. Creatures need HABITAT. And for both there is COMPETITION.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE mind early in evolution is deeply concerned with developing systems to meet these requisites. I't nice to think a deeply thoughtful, generous compassionate and non-harming organism could acheive interstellar space flight.
There is just no way apassive species can make hthat kind of time and effort. Look at your work place. Look at your work. How do things get done there? Look at your homelife. How do things get done there? there's alot of very powerful game playing going on and some of it is ALWAYS competitive.
You say -"well elsewhere things are completely difffernt" the whole illusion of mutational theory is if Nautre can Create Anything through and because of Random Mutation. But it just ain't so.
In life there are very strict parameters which NO SPECIES -no matter how bizzare -NONE can escape the consequences.
These Parameters are not only CONDITIONAL but CAUSAL. and that's why we have the world we have today -and the same parameters exist wherever.
Also -you knowe you have to have a code for any phenotype you might or might not consider. And that is a distinct combination of peptides. their are just so many efficient ways they can behave together. AND IN A LIVING BEING AL CODE MUST BE COMPATIBLE.
so -what I'm saying is there is a limit to the variety we WOULD find in extraterrestrial life. thNQ
Some Talk about silicon -i assume crystaline creatures. some kind of silicon/sulphur organism would just be a poor imitation of carbon life -if it did exist. what are the conditions for such organisms and really -the energy potential in such a silicon/sulphur system might well prohibit life force. just be non-economical.
There are HARD PARAMETERS for Space Conquest -as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are other metazoan body plans that have been far more successful than bipedalism, or even tetrapods (try worms and arthropods for one; carcinization is another good one). Granted, I've never seen a crab invent agriculture - so the next question is whether the connection between vertebrate bipedalism and intelligence is an accident of history or a necessary correlation, and that's something I suspect we'll have to wait for a meeting with ET to know with any clarity. My own intuition is that a) we're being anthropocentric and there are no correlations, and that even expecting something like DNA is silly or at least that b) even if there are such correlations, they hold true here on Earth, with our own particular geology and history and biochemistry, but in the end they're provincial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsider the K-T extinction event 65 million years ago. Aside from minor exceptions such as tarantulas and alligators, there were very different dominant life forms before and after.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd this despite being on the same planet, with protein-based cellular organization and DNA in common. The K-T event essentially pressed the "reset" button for life on earth. If it hadn't happened, I doubt humans would have ever existed.
The interesting non-observation here is that the morphology of our species depended almost entirely on the conditions we evolved in, such as gravity at 1G, atmospheric pressure at 1 bar (self-referencing numbers, I know), the air mixture such as it is, the prevalence of the chemistry of carbon, the evolution of the basic body form that most species on earth now adhere to, and even living on a rocky planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly, the odds are that intelligence has developed in other parts of the galaxy, let alone other parts of the universe. Our intelligence and the form of our knowledge, however, have been shaped by our local planetary environment. Other intelligences, ones developed by forces and conditions entirely alien to ours, on a gaseous planet, for instance, or one outside the "Goldilocks" zone of our planet, say with a hugely dense atmosphere afloat with organisms (a possible situation on Jupiter, it has been suggested) would develop not only looking nothing like us or any other creature on Earth, but also having a knowledge and skills base totally alien to ours.
They and we would surely share a common understanding of physics and chemistry, but being able to communicate would be the initial, and very long term, problem. Even recognizing their intelligence might take some while (or they ours). So Dawkins and the others have stretched the envelope hardly at all as to what other intelligences might look like.
John Harris
Vancouver
ii
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's very unfair. I think some people are trying to hide the true appearance of those. But, I'm not really convince to the idea that they are or maybe they have one kind of appearance. Having an idea of them maybe, is a risk of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswould squid have a huge brain 5 million years from now and still look similar as it does now, asuming it stayed in stayed in the ocean and needed all its arms?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, there ought to be more alien species in science fiction movies who look nothing like humans. I mean there should be creatures with compound eyes, multiple appendages, wearing breathing apparatus to avoid inhaling toxic O2 in the human environment. Digital technology can create life-like animations of such creatures, but the Screen Actors Guild would surely oppose not using human actors to play aliens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a little hard to envision any significant level of technological development without the utility and functions of the human hand. Once freed from the tasks of physical support and locomotion the hand was free to manipulate and aid in the examination of the environment. This in turn helped to develop new incites and mental processes that lead to further developments and reasoning abilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe we should give consideration to what technologies could be developed without the use of hands, but given similar mental capacities to our own. It might give cures to alternate life forms and body plans different from our own.
Many animals manipulate their natural surrounding in some fashion. These actions tend to address some limited immediate or instinctive need. A few (some birds come to mind) have been found to actually make tools that they use without hands.
Given greater reasoning abilities what kinds of useful technologies might non-humanoid beings be able to develop that might give better chances of survival and expand the ability to think abstractly?
Whatever ET may look like, it would be an absolute thrill to meet any of them. The question I have is - when and if that day comes, will mankind be mature enough handle relations responsibly when we've not even demonstrated we can consistently do so merely between each other?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeveral other nonhuman humanoids have evolved on earth, but homo sapiens won.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmmm...could these 'aliens' be the hidden/never spoken off/neglected/forgotten ancient Africans? Hmmmm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's arogant to assume that humans are the only intelligent creature on Earth. Anyone that has pets can provide numerous examples of animal intelligence. Anyone that spend time in the outdoors can give you examples as well, like the Crow unzipped my bike pack looking for food or how they fly as soon as they see a rifle from even hundreds of yards away. Marine mamals are another example. They may be nearly as smart as us, but can't communicate with us or build anything simply because they don't have hands. So we label them dumb...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerphaps we just aren't smart enough to realize how smart most creatures are...
The diversity of intelligent species elsewhere in the universe is as diverse as the life forms of every kind here on earth. Think of it as here on earth we have all kinds of life forms, billions form one planet, well billions of billions of planets form the universe. Our planet is to others what is an ant to us. Just one out of so many. If every person on earth would imagine each and unique specie that likely exist somewhere, I bed there's is, and still there would be just 99,9% of all space left. There's just so many, in so many forms and stages. What would humanoid be really human about in let say 2 millions years of evolution. We have so far 6000 years of technological age. Wait for couple of millions. How humans will be human then. I just wish I live for thousands of years and see it all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, if you think about it, water arrived on earth by asteroids, which contained the water. These asteroids contained water that had to come from somewhere, where water was. So this same water on Earth could also be on another habitable planet which means it has the same conditions to produce life that would be similar to ours. Therefore since we believe most water is the same, any extraterrestrial life may look like us or something similar...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth Michael Shermer's and Richard Dawkins's concepts about alien life, particularly intellegent extraterrestrials is based on neo-darwinian evolutionary theory were both mutation and evolutionary pathways (selection) are completely random. This is not supported by growing scientific evidence on the nature of evolution. Prior to Darwin, concepts of structuralism, formalism, and vitalism were used to explain evolutionary theory. Growing scientific evidence indicates that both mutation and evolutionary pathways are not completely random and that these prior concepts have some validty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsider the concept of biological determinism in the origin of life. Many in the field of astrobiology believe that life is common in the universe and will automatically develop given the right conditions yet they persist in believing in neo-darwinian evolution. This is a contradiction. For if there is a "natural law" that gives rise to life (biological determinism), then one should expect this "natural law" or "life principle" to influence and/or direct the course of evolution.
For those searching for a scientific explanation for the possibility of humanoid life in the universe I refer you to the following three books.
Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe by Dr. Michael J. Denton
Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe by Dr. Simon Conway Morris.
Design in Nature: How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organization by Dr. Adrian Bejan and Dr. J. Peder Zane.
The last book gives a more detailed explanation as to why particular system designs occur such as particular animal morphology repeating in nature. They also have a detailed text book for engineers to improve system design using constructal law theory.
You are on the right track. Historically and sociologically, science arose on Earth from the Christian culture of western civilization. This is the only culture that gave rise to the scientific method. The ancient Greeks had philosophy but not science. They had several things right but many things wrong. The people who began the task of correcting the Greek's mistakes were the theologians and scolars of the Roman Catholic Church around the year A.D. 800 in the abbies of western Europe. Science then developed and emerged in the late middle ages (A.D. 1500)in Italy. It then spread rapidly through out Europe. Many sociologists, psychologists, and historians point out that the scientific mindset is essentially a Christian mindset, particularly Catholic in nature. Therefore if an intellgent extraterrestrial civilization did develop the modern scientific method it is a very legitemite question of anthropology and sociology to ask the nature of the civilization's religious believes. Religion is at the core of all civilizations since it addresses fundamental questions of existance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this