The big question about life on other planets: 1000000000000000000000 planets in the universe

[bripat9643]

A humanoid figure is ideal.

Not really. Multiple limbs is superior.

How so? If we had four arms, two of the would rarely get used.

Multiple limbs allow multiple jobs to be done at the same time. Also, redundancy. Lose a limb as a human and it is a significant loss. Lose a limb as an octopus, and it is not nearly as significant.

When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it. Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time. Can you name any?

The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two. The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools. Anything more is redundant.

Then why do we have octopoids? Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?

Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity. Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden. They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden. Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy. So does being warm blooded. All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason. It's the most energy efficient configuration. It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels. Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.

 

[westwall]

Not really. Multiple limbs is superior.

How so? If we had four arms, two of the would rarely get used.

Multiple limbs allow multiple jobs to be done at the same time. Also, redundancy. Lose a limb as a human and it is a significant loss. Lose a limb as an octopus, and it is not nearly as significant.

When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it. Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time. Can you name any?

The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two. The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools. Anything more is redundant.

Then why do we have octopoids? Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?

Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity. Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden. They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden. Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy. So does being warm blooded. All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason. It's the most energy efficient configuration. It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels. Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.

True, they don't. What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?

That is the problem with us humans. Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.

That simply is not factual.

 

[bripat9643]

How so? If we had four arms, two of the would rarely get used.

Multiple limbs allow multiple jobs to be done at the same time. Also, redundancy. Lose a limb as a human and it is a significant loss. Lose a limb as an octopus, and it is not nearly as significant.

When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it. Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time. Can you name any?

The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two. The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools. Anything more is redundant.

Then why do we have octopoids? Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?

Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity. Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden. They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden. Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy. So does being warm blooded. All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason. It's the most energy efficient configuration. It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels. Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.

True, they don't. What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?

That is the problem with us humans. Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.

That simply is not factual.

At some point, technology involves the use of fire. That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.

When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe, a form of symbiosis that has not occured to us has evolved elsewhere. Like, via a type of communication, one species is the "hands" of another species. Think, intelligent birds that control chimpanzees. The chimps do the manual manipulation, at the direction of the birds.

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe, a form of symbiosis that has not occured to us has evolved elsewhere. Like, via a type of communication, one species is the "hands" of another species. Think, intelligent birds that control chimpanzees. The chimps do the manual manipulation, at the direction of the birds.

That seems highly impractical.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe, a form of symbiosis that has not occured to us has evolved elsewhere. Like, via a type of communication, one species is the "hands" of another species. Think, intelligent birds that control chimpanzees. The chimps do the manual manipulation, at the direction of the birds.

That seems highly impractical.

So does having our pleasure hole next to our poop hole. But there you have it...

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe, a form of symbiosis that has not occured to us has evolved elsewhere. Like, via a type of communication, one species is the "hands" of another species. Think, intelligent birds that control chimpanzees. The chimps do the manual manipulation, at the direction of the birds.

That seems highly impractical.

So does having our pleasure hole next to our poop hole. But there you have it...

Where do you imagine a better place would be?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe, a form of symbiosis that has not occured to us has evolved elsewhere. Like, via a type of communication, one species is the "hands" of another species. Think, intelligent birds that control chimpanzees. The chimps do the manual manipulation, at the direction of the birds.

That seems highly impractical.

So does having our pleasure hole next to our poop hole. But there you have it...

Where do you imagine a better place would be?

Point being, i can imagine a better place. And someone else can then argue why the current location is,in fact, practical in some ways.

An intelligent bird that wants to know if the blobs in the sky he sees are nebulae or separate galaxies would find it practical to have a chimp build a telescope for him.

 

[toobfreak]

It's not going to be a friggin jellyfish, it's not going to be a friggin dog. It's going to be more like us.

And that's gonna screw up religion.

Why do you believe that all intelligent aliens must be humanoid, when most human aliens are morons? Just from the diversity of life on Earth one would conclude your theory is foolish, as the diversity in the universe logically is trillions of times Earth diversity. Your further demand that you know how alien vehicles or transport devises must be built is even more foolish now, isn't it.

How many years did you spend in school to demonstrate this much stupidity

I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but actually Fran, you are wrong. Carbon life is the natural result of the fact that carbon combines so easily in so many ways, and the condition which allow it, liquid water, temperature, gravity, light, etc., that the Earth enjoys, will necessarily be similar anywhere else carbon life develops, so science actually predicts that life will follow certain basic patterns and similarities. So yes, variation, differences, but variations and differences based within a certain framework of biological necessity.

You are wrong, you are basing your ideas on all that you know and making an assumption that all you know is that all there is.

Are you aware that there is life on Earth that uses arsenic?

You are a little child that wants to be the center of the universe, everything great is just like you.

This is foolishness

I'm not talking about life that USES carbon, you idiot, I'm talking about carbon-BASED life. There is no arsenic-based life on Earth. You are honestly worse than talking to a 7 year old.

 

[westwall]

Multiple limbs allow multiple jobs to be done at the same time. Also, redundancy. Lose a limb as a human and it is a significant loss. Lose a limb as an octopus, and it is not nearly as significant.

When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it. Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time. Can you name any?

The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two. The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools. Anything more is redundant.

Then why do we have octopoids? Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?

Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity. Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden. They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden. Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy. So does being warm blooded. All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason. It's the most energy efficient configuration. It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels. Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.

True, they don't. What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?

That is the problem with us humans. Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.

That simply is not factual.

At some point, technology involves the use of fire. That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.

When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.

Why? For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum. He can't live in it, but he needs it.

Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited. Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?

 

[bripat9643]

When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it. Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time. Can you name any?

The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two. The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools. Anything more is redundant.

Then why do we have octopoids? Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?

Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity. Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden. They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden. Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy. So does being warm blooded. All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason. It's the most energy efficient configuration. It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels. Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.

True, they don't. What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?

That is the problem with us humans. Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.

That simply is not factual.

At some point, technology involves the use of fire. That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.

When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.

Why? For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum. He can't live in it, but he needs it.

Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited. Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?

How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire? No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.

 

[Frannie]

It's not going to be a friggin jellyfish, it's not going to be a friggin dog. It's going to be more like us.

And that's gonna screw up religion.

Why do you believe that all intelligent aliens must be humanoid, when most human aliens are morons? Just from the diversity of life on Earth one would conclude your theory is foolish, as the diversity in the universe logically is trillions of times Earth diversity. Your further demand that you know how alien vehicles or transport devises must be built is even more foolish now, isn't it.

How many years did you spend in school to demonstrate this much stupidity

I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but actually Fran, you are wrong. Carbon life is the natural result of the fact that carbon combines so easily in so many ways, and the condition which allow it, liquid water, temperature, gravity, light, etc., that the Earth enjoys, will necessarily be similar anywhere else carbon life develops, so science actually predicts that life will follow certain basic patterns and similarities. So yes, variation, differences, but variations and differences based within a certain framework of biological necessity.

You are wrong, you are basing your ideas on all that you know and making an assumption that all you know is that all there is.

Are you aware that there is life on Earth that uses arsenic?

You are a little child that wants to be the center of the universe, everything great is just like you.

This is foolishness

I'm not talking about life that USES carbon, you idiot, I'm talking about carbon-BASED life. There is no arsenic-based life on Earth. You are honestly worse than talking to a 7 year old.

You are actually claiming in your own dumb way that everything everywhere must be like earth

Tell us what info do you base this on?

 

[toobfreak]

Then why do we have octopoids? Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?

Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity. Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden. They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden. Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy. So does being warm blooded. All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason. It's the most energy efficient configuration. It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels. Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.

True, they don't. What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?

That is the problem with us humans. Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.

That simply is not factual.

At some point, technology involves the use of fire. That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.

When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.

Why? For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum. He can't live in it, but he needs it.

Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited. Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?

How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire? No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.

Worth pointing out that you'd have no steel without iron and all iron is made in the center of stars without a bit of fire. Just sayin'.

 

[toobfreak]

It's not going to be a friggin jellyfish, it's not going to be a friggin dog. It's going to be more like us.

And that's gonna screw up religion.

Why do you believe that all intelligent aliens must be humanoid, when most human aliens are morons? Just from the diversity of life on Earth one would conclude your theory is foolish, as the diversity in the universe logically is trillions of times Earth diversity. Your further demand that you know how alien vehicles or transport devises must be built is even more foolish now, isn't it.

How many years did you spend in school to demonstrate this much stupidity

I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but actually Fran, you are wrong. Carbon life is the natural result of the fact that carbon combines so easily in so many ways, and the condition which allow it, liquid water, temperature, gravity, light, etc., that the Earth enjoys, will necessarily be similar anywhere else carbon life develops, so science actually predicts that life will follow certain basic patterns and similarities. So yes, variation, differences, but variations and differences based within a certain framework of biological necessity.

You are wrong, you are basing your ideas on all that you know and making an assumption that all you know is that all there is.

Are you aware that there is life on Earth that uses arsenic?

You are a little child that wants to be the center of the universe, everything great is just like you.

This is foolishness

I'm not talking about life that USES carbon, you idiot, I'm talking about carbon-BASED life. There is no arsenic-based life on Earth. You are honestly worse than talking to a 7 year old.

You are actually claiming in your own dumb way that everything everywhere must be like earth

Tell us what info do you base this on?

Fran, Honey, you have NO IDEA what I am claiming! Just take a pill and go sit down while you are still ahead.

 

[Yarddog]

Multiple limbs allow multiple jobs to be done at the same time. Also, redundancy. Lose a limb as a human and it is a significant loss. Lose a limb as an octopus, and it is not nearly as significant.

When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it. Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time. Can you name any?

The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two. The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools. Anything more is redundant.

Then why do we have octopoids? Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?

Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity. Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden. They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden. Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy. So does being warm blooded. All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason. It's the most energy efficient configuration. It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels. Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.

True, they don't. What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?

That is the problem with us humans. Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.

That simply is not factual.

At some point, technology involves the use of fire. That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.

When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.

Never been to Bikini Bottoms eh sonny????

 

[bripat9643]

Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity. Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden. They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden. Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy. So does being warm blooded. All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason. It's the most energy efficient configuration. It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels. Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.

True, they don't. What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?

That is the problem with us humans. Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.

That simply is not factual.

At some point, technology involves the use of fire. That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.

When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.

Why? For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum. He can't live in it, but he needs it.

Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited. Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?

How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire? No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.

Worth pointing out that you'd have no steel without iron and all iron is made in the center of stars without a bit of fire. Just sayin'.

Fire isn't what happens in the center of stars. Nuclear fusion isn't fire, which is a chemical process.

So what does that fact have to do with intelligent life developing underwater?

 

[toobfreak]

True, they don't. What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?

That is the problem with us humans. Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.

That simply is not factual.

At some point, technology involves the use of fire. That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.

When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.

Why? For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum. He can't live in it, but he needs it.

Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited. Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?

How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire? No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.

Worth pointing out that you'd have no steel without iron and all iron is made in the center of stars without a bit of fire. Just sayin'.

Fire isn't what happens in the center of stars. Nuclear fusion isn't fire, which is a chemical process.

So what does that fact have to do with intelligent life developing underwater?

Nothing. You missed my point. You're agreeing with me. There is no fire in stars, yet they make iron. Just a little factoid that has nothing to do with underwater. And yes, we already have intelligent life underwater, that's a proven fact. And they may be even smarter than us because they want no part of people nor are destroying their environment over greed!

 

[westwall]

Then why do we have octopoids? Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?

Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity. Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden. They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden. Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy. So does being warm blooded. All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason. It's the most energy efficient configuration. It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels. Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.

True, they don't. What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?

That is the problem with us humans. Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.

That simply is not factual.

At some point, technology involves the use of fire. That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.

When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.

Why? For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum. He can't live in it, but he needs it.

Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited. Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?

How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire? No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.

You need heat to make bronze or steel. Heat from lava would work just fine.

 

[bripat9643]

Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity. Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden. They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden. Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy. So does being warm blooded. All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason. It's the most energy efficient configuration. It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels. Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.

True, they don't. What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?

That is the problem with us humans. Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.

That simply is not factual.

At some point, technology involves the use of fire. That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.

When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.

Why? For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum. He can't live in it, but he needs it.

Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited. Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?

How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire? No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.

You need heat to make bronze or steel. Heat from lava would work just fine.

Yeah, that's a practical solution. Just wait for a volcano to erupt.

 

[bripat9643]

At some point, technology involves the use of fire. That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.

When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.

Why? For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum. He can't live in it, but he needs it.

Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited. Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?

How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire? No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.

Worth pointing out that you'd have no steel without iron and all iron is made in the center of stars without a bit of fire. Just sayin'.

Fire isn't what happens in the center of stars. Nuclear fusion isn't fire, which is a chemical process.

So what does that fact have to do with intelligent life developing underwater?

Nothing. You missed my point. You're agreeing with me. There is no fire in stars, yet they make iron. Just a little factoid that has nothing to do with underwater. And yes, we already have intelligent life underwater, that's a proven fact. And they may be even smarter than us because they want no part of people nor are destroying their environment over greed!

Humans don't make iron atoms, so your example is absurd.

They may be intelligent, but they don't have any kind of technology.