Why do alleged aliens look human like or even come here?
act...@greenheart.com
Magnum123 wrote:
>
> I have a few questions to ask "Why do alleged aliens like "human" in
> appearance?
Bipedality and stereo vision are excellent evolutionary
adaptations and might occur in an alien environment.
The "aliens" are not alien at all, but humans either
from our own future or from a connecting dimension.
A human appearance is the closest thing we can get our
brains to approximate when confronted with them.
The government decided long ago to adopt a "little
green man" disguise.
Magnum123
Okay I am new to newsgroups so please bear with me.
I have a few questions to ask "Why do alleged aliens like "human" in
appearance?
Someone in a documentary on TV (can't remember the name off hand) recently
quoted "aliens are disguised as human like so as not to give us a great fear
of them? Yeah right. Are we admitting we are an insuperior race? Maybe we
are? Why would they bother even coming here? They certainly would come to
destroy this planet as we are doing quite a good job of that ourselves! Are
they coming here to see why we do this to our world or what makes us think
the way we do? Why? Really why would they bother?
I must say I believe that it would be naive of us to think that there is no
other civilization other than ourselves.
Howpl
>"Why do alleged aliens like "human" in
>appearance?
For the most part, they don't. I mean. the little grays and the others
are a pretty far cry from the nice gentleman in The Day the Earth Stood
Still. You mean to tell me you wouldn't be scared to death to see one of
these spindly, bug-eyed creatures staring back at you. You want giant
cochroaches maybe? Try Men in Black.
Why are they here buzzing our planes, maybe kidnapping people, declining
to meet with Clinton (to the best of my knowledge)? That's a tough one.
There's the human-alien hybrid hypothesis and the preparing to take us
over hypothesis, which could explain their relative asociability. For
those who prefer a rosier view, there's the show-us-the-path-to-peace
hypothesis. But I have the same problem with that one as I have with God
- if you've got a message for us, why all the pussyfooting around? For
heaven's sake, open up the clouds and just tell us!.
Howpl
>
>If you look at the depictions of the "grays" of alien abduction accounts
>you will see that they are much closer to a matchstick depiction of a
>human than any living animal. Don't even try to say that's because they
>are not from earth--if they were not, they would not look human. This
>isn't just my opinion, it's a feature of evolutionary theory called
>contingency, and it applies to all evolution.
>....
>>There's the human-alien hybrid hypothesis
>
>-
Who said they look human? No one would ever mistake them for human. Then
again, they look more like they're human than does a rock.
Please explain contingency. You're talking in code to us scientific
laypersons.
Who said they have the same DNA as us?
By the way, human DNA is a 98% match with some of our monkey friends.
That don't make monkeys humans.
Jean van Gemert
In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>If you look at the depictions of the "grays" of alien abduction accounts
>you will see that they are much closer to a matchstick depiction of a
>human than any living animal. Don't even try to say that's because they
>are not from earth--if they were not, they would not look human. This
>isn't just my opinion, it's a feature of evolutionary theory called
>contingency, and it applies to all evolution.
Staggering. Another fine example of "Sherilyn" legislating to us, based on his
voluminous experience <rolling eyes> in these matters, the true morphology
of extraterrestrial life, and what can't be. Just what a mess the universe would
turn out to be without the help of this guy! :)
In any case, you still don't make a convincing case at all here, I might add,
which can only be surmised as willful blundering. "Grays," in fact, do seem
to have things in common with many land animals, like, say, a head end,
torso, and legs. To this you can add their upright posture which makes them
look somewhat similar to us. All in all, not much of a surprise to those who
anticipated the most likely 'configuration' of a technology-using alien, on a
earth-like planet, to be similar to our own morphology. The randomness of
mutations, or "contingency," is not the influential factor here, despite your
perpetual delusion. Successful and useful survival designs on the other hand
_are_. Evolution is not random; it is driven by natural selection caused by
environmental factors. There are good reasons why we look the way we do
and good reasons to expect any highly progressed alien will likely look very
similar to us. So here's the clue once more; random mutations do *not*
dominate logical, efficient, and useful survival designs. Period.
>>There's the human-alien hybrid hypothesis
>
>And they have the same DNA as us because...?
Here I agree with you for once. There's no reason at all to believe ETs would
be genetically compatible. There's, in fact, considerable paleontological and
biochemical evidence that all life-forms on Earth are related and were created
by natural selection from early, very simple forms. Also, there's an excellent
refutation of this "human-alien hybrid" hypothesis in Prof. Mike Swords' 1991
MUFON paper titled "Modern Biology and the ETH."
____________________________________________________________________________
Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
____________________________________________________________________________
Sherilyn
In article <5sih33$f...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock] writes
>In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>If you look at the depictions of the "grays" of alien abduction accounts
>>you will see that they are much closer to a matchstick depiction of a
>>human than any living animal. Don't even try to say that's because they
>>are not from earth--if they were not, they would not look human. This
>>isn't just my opinion, it's a feature of evolutionary theory called
>>contingency, and it applies to all evolution.
>
>
...
>"Grays," in fact, do seem
> to have things in common with many land animals, like, say, a head end,
> torso, and legs. To this you can add their upright posture which makes them
> look somewhat similar to us. All in all, not much of a surprise to those who
> anticipated the most likely 'configuration' of a technology-using alien, on a
> earth-like planet, to be similar to our own morphology.
This is a common fallacy known (very appropriately) as anthropomorphism.
You make the mistake of working backward from where we are, then going
forward again, and simply end up confirming your own prejudice.
>The randomness of
> mutations, or "contingency," is not the influential factor here, despite your
> perpetual delusion. Successful and useful survival designs on the other hand
> _are_.
The humanoid morphology is transparently not a case of a successful and
useful survival design. Tailless bipeds are pretty scarce in nature. I
rather suspect that you can't have this morphology _without_ high
intelligence to make use of it. At the risk of appearing to ape your
own highly charged methods of debate-by-insult, I suspect that this will
go over your head.
Whatever evolves on a planet as a highly intelligent tool user, it is
simple anthropomorphism to expect it to resemble humans as much as the
greys do.
[Jean's restatement of the "good design" hypothesis snipped]
--
Sherilyn
moo cow
>In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Don't even try to say that's because they
>>are not from earth--if they were not, they would not look human. This
>>isn't just my opinion, it's a feature of evolutionary theory called
>>contingency, and it applies to all evolution.
>
Key word is THEORY. Just because something is a THEORY in no way makes
it a FACT. Basically what you are saying is that someone from another
part of the universe CANNOT look human because of someone's THEORY.
Sounds pretty weak to me.
Sherilyn
In article <19970808213...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Howpl
<ho...@aol.com> writes
>>
>>If you look at the depictions of the "grays" of alien abduction accounts
>>you will see that they are much closer to a matchstick depiction of a
>>are not from earth--if they were not, they would not look human. This
>>isn't just my opinion, it's a feature of evolutionary theory called
>>contingency, and it applies to all evolution.
>>>There's the human-alien hybrid hypothesis
>>
>>And they have the same DNA as us because...?
>
>Who said they look human? No one would ever mistake them for human.
They resemble humans more closely than any other animal. They are
recognisably caricatures of the human form.
...
>
>Please explain contingency. You're talking in code to us scientific
>laypersons.
In a word: chance. The decision tree for evolution is rich in branches.
Appeals to convergence will only get you so far; it will not produce
recognizable greys.
>
>Who said they have the same DNA as us?
The hybridization hypothesis would require at the very least a common
DNA for cloning.
>
>By the way, human DNA is a 98% match with some of our monkey friends.
Chimps are apes, not monkeys. </pedant>
>That don't make monkeys humans.
>
Please explain the relevance of the above to your humanoid aliens.
--
Sherilyn
Bruce Salem
In article <oFs1w0BI...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The humanoid morphology is transparently not a case of a successful and
>useful survival design. Tailless bipeds are pretty scarce in nature. I
>rather suspect that you can't have this morphology _without_ high
>intelligence to make use of it. At the risk of appearing to ape your
>own highly charged methods of debate-by-insult, I suspect that this will
>go over your head.
I can see no reason why the theropods that lived in the Mesozoic
couldn't have evolved to be as intelligent as we are. The smaller versions
are very successful as birds, and some of them, parrots, are quite
intelligent, no jokes, please, about "Bird Brains", the preditory birds
are quite smart, and so were it not for exogenous events, earth might
have become populated by tripods, two feet and tail, rather than bipeds.
It have have been run by LGMs (Little Green Men, reptilian to boot.).
This raises the possibility of morphology of lifeforms on a planet
with a much thicker atmosphere than earth, a planet like Venus in a
gentler clime. The lifeforms of such a planet might be more like medusas.
On a planet like Mars, with low gravity, they could be spider-like but
as large as us. (Ever stop and think why insects aren't as big as we? There
are comparative giants, Eurypterids and a Devonian dragonfly with a six-
foot wing span, but most small.) It is concievable that life might appear
on planets as diverse as our nearest neighbors in the Solar System and just
as easy to imagine radically different morphologies. I have a fantesy about
an earth millions of years from now, the continents have shifted, Mankind is
long gone, but Cetacians have gotten smart enough the dig up the fossils of
the "long legs" and to speculate about their midden deposits, to go to
the surface of the land in bathtub rovers. The story ends when they set about
designing a craft to go to the moon and find what awaits them there, the
artifacts of a "lomg leg" visit of millions of years in the past.
Bruce Salem
--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!
Sherilyn
>>The randomness of
>> mutations, or "contingency," is not the influential factor here,
Oh, and I missed this one. Contingency is not _just_ the randomness of
mutations. It's the arbitrary unpredictability of evolution itself.
Environmental events are also part of evolution, in the sense that the
environment will influence evolution, think of the Yucatan peninsula
asteroid collision.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
In article <5sjjop$39v$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, Bruce Salem
<sa...@pangea.Stanford.EDU> writes
>In article <oFs1w0BI...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
>Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
>
> I can see no reason why the theropods that lived in the Mesozoic
>couldn't have evolved to be as intelligent as we are. The smaller versions
>are very successful as birds, and some of them, parrots, are quite
>intelligent, no jokes, please, about "Bird Brains", the preditory birds
>are quite smart,
Hmm, predatory birds _smart_? Not that I noticed, to be perfectly
honest. They seem to spend most of their time digesting the last meal.
Macaws, on the other hand... Having spoken to the bird handlers at
London Zoo I have no doubt about their opinion about which is the
smarter bird.
As it turns out, the therapsids lost their foreclaw manipulation skills
when they evolved wings (though the hoatzin has wing claws).
Contemporary bird morphology is not going to develop a second set of
manipulating limbs. It has to be said, however, that macaw manipulation
skills are amazing, and they use their prehensile beaks as extra limbs
for climbing. They also have the capacity, from a standing start, to
catch a thrown object descending under gravity.
Could the therapsids have developed high intelligence? I wonder if it's
worth dwelling on the question of whether perhaps some dinosaurs _did_.
Would the fossil record reveal evidence of tool manufacture after a
period of 80 million years or more? Just an idle thought.
...
>
> This raises the possibility of morphology of lifeforms on a planet
>with a much thicker atmosphere than earth, a planet like Venus in a
>gentler clime.
This is another common anthropomorphism blind spot. We know our
planet's climate is pretty special and supports life very well, but is
this the only way to be? Different environments would make very
different evolutionary conditions for survivability of traits, with
development of tool-using being more likely, IMO, where gravity is
relatively low and the living medium is permeable (use of projectiles
would greatly extend the range of a hunter).
--
Sherilyn
ANAPHY
Not all aliens look human. There are several types of aliens have
encountered over the years. Greys are described as having larger heads,
enlongated eyes, long fingers, and very little facial features. They also
appear to wear skin-tight suits. There are also Nortics (which are very
human like in appearence), Reptilian (lizard like creatures), and many
others. There is a book that explains the types by normal text and also
pictures, I don't know the name off hand but I'm sure somone else will.
Sherilyn
In article <19970811012...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, ANAPHY
<ana...@aol.com>
PREDICTS
>Not all aliens look human.
While this is very probably true, we don't yet know for sure if
intelligent extraterrestrial life exists.
--
Sherilyn
Jean van Gemert
In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Hmm, predatory birds _smart_? Not that I noticed, to be perfectly
>honest.
Completely agree here.
>manipulating limbs. It has to be said, however, that macaw manipulation
>skills are amazing, and they use their prehensile beaks as extra limbs
>for climbing. They also have the capacity, from a standing start, to
>catch a thrown object descending under gravity.
Pretty impressive tricks, I'm sure. But it's definitely not enough, nor will it ever be,
for conceptualization. And at the same time, a bird's brain can't be large in any
case because it would make the bird too heavy to fly.
>This is another common anthropomorphism blind spot. We know our
>planet's climate is pretty special and supports life very well, but is
>this the only way to be?
"We know" our climate is "special"? Astounding how some people will pull "facts"
from out of nowhere. But setting aside your evident "expertise" in these matters,
Spall notes in his JBIS article that due to limitations of biological systems (carbon
compounds most likely basis for life, sensitivity of DNA, etc.), this would limit "the
planetary considerations necessary for the evolution of larger sized organisms
somewhat severely -- in fact, it restricts planets that may have intelligent life to
those with broadly Earth-like surface temperatures and pressures." I believe that's
a pretty firm, rock-solid assumption. An atmosphere like ours is also what you'd
want if your intentions are to build some spacecraft or do anything at all with fire.
No "blind spot" here I'm afraid. Prof. Mike Swords has also laboured these points
in far more detail in his papers.
Jean van Gemert
In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Environmental events are also part of evolution, in the sense that the
>environment will influence evolution, think of the Yucatan peninsula
>asteroid collision.
If the events are catastrophic enough and lasting, sure that could have a
potential effect on the type of designs that would be most suitable for
*that* environment. Don't expect any space-travelling aliens anymore then
though. Something like what happened to the dinosaurs for example, is
just another example of nature cleaning up what doesn't work. It's likely
that, before another meteor of that size strikes the earth, we'll already
have other colonies in space minimizing the risk of our own extinction.
Jean van Gemert
In article, sa...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) wrote:
> I can see no reason why the theropods that lived in the Mesozoic
> couldn't have evolved to be as intelligent as we are.
I think it's conceivable that some dinosaur _could_ have evolved a form of higher
intelligence along the way (Incidentally, there's in fact a model of an intelligent
humanoid dinosaur hypothesized by paleontologist Dr. Russel on display at the
Canadian Museum of History). But I don't know of any evidence that "preditory
birds" [sic] are or were "quite smart" in any case.
> This raises the possibility of morphology of lifeforms on a planet
>with a much thicker atmosphere than earth, a planet like Venus in a
Re planetary atmospheres see my response to Sherilyn.
>neighbors in the Solar System and just as easy to imagine radically different
>morphologies.
Emphasis on "imagine." More on your vivid imagination below.
>I have a fantesy about an earth millions of years from now, the continents have
>shifted, Mankind is long gone, but Cetacians have gotten smart enough the dig
>up the fossils of the "long legs" and to speculate about their midden deposits, to
>go to the surface of the land in bathtub rovers. The story ends when they set about
>designing a craft to go to the moon and find what awaits them there, the
>artifacts of a "lomg leg" visit of millions of years in the past.
And what a "fantesy" [sic] this is! In this paragraph you've managed to illustrate just
about everything that's wrong with this kind of science-fiction randomizing reasoning;
"it's imaginable, and that makes it as likely as anything else." What crap! Everything
_isn't_ as probable as everything else. Not every morphology or environment will be
conductive to producing a technological-oriented species.
To wit, you have aquatic mammals (probability of developing some kind of technology
or interest in such in a fluid is essentially zero) "digging up" fossils on land, building a
"bathtub rover," for some transportation, and last but not least, you make them build a
spacecraft to go to the moon, no less! You've pretty much made my point here how
"diversionists" throw out reason and justification. "I can imagine it, thefore it must be
likely and true" is the motto. Bah, humbug!
Howpl
>n article <19970808213...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Howpl
><ho...@aol.com> writes
>>>
>>>If you look at the depictions of the "grays" of alien abduction
accounts
>>>you will see that they are much closer to a matchstick depiction of a
>>>human than any living animal. Don't even try to say that's because
they
>>>are not from earth--if they were not, they would not look human. This
>>>isn't just my opinion, it's a feature of evolutionary theory called
>>>contingency, and it applies to all evolution.
>>>....
>>>>There's the human-alien hybrid hypothesis
>>>
>>>And they have the same DNA as us because...?
>>>-
>>
>>Who said they look human? No one would ever mistake them for human.
>
>They resemble humans more closely than any other animal. They are
>recognisably caricatures of the human form.
>...
"little green men"? Little and green but still men-like. Can you clarify?
Are you saying ETs exist but the ones reported so far couldn't be real
ETs since they look so much like us; therefore, people made them up? Or
reinterpreted what they saw in more familiar terms? Or do you not believe
in ETs? Or is it that you don't believe ETs have visited earth. Perhaps
your opinion is well known to long-time members of the group, but I'm new.
>>Please explain contingency. You're talking in code to us scientific
>>laypersons.
>
>In a word: chance. The decision tree for evolution is rich in branches.
>Appeals to convergence will only get you so far; it will not produce
>recognizable greys.
>
Why the heck not? How do you know? What if they come from the "third
rock" of another solar system with a similar sun and similar distance from
the sun? There may be billions of similars out there? And, anyway, how
many ways have sci-fi writers imagine locomotion could occur. Legs/feet
should be a pretty popular adaptation no matter where the are as long as
they're on solid ground. Sure, they could look completely different, but
they could also look very different.
In the end, this is a semantic debate as it pertains to the grays. To the
question, do they look like us, the answer is Yes and No, depending on how
you look at it.
And, by the way, chance governs mutation. It most certainly does not
govern natural selection. Selection is very much biased. That's the
whole point of evolutionary theory: a rigorous/ruthless logic governs
species development. In a given environment, some mutations are just
better than others. >>
></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#FFFFFF" SIZE=3>
>
>
>
>
>
Jean van Gemert
In article , Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>This is a common fallacy known (very appropriately) as anthropomorphism.
>You make the mistake of working backward from where we are, then going
>forward again, and simply end up confirming your own prejudice.
No, I'm looking for good reasons why we look the way we do, and these do
exist. To muse on just a few, take our head for instance. The arrangement
of the mouth, eyes, and nose isn't accidental or random, but because it's
useful to have it that way. The keyword here is functionality (e.g. the nose
is above the mouth to smell what you're eating just in case you're about to
gobble something possibly dangerous). We have a head for a good reason
either. It's just most efficient to put the processor (the brain) close to the
sensors to cut back the processing time for sensory data.
>The humanoid morphology is transparently not a case of a successful and
>useful survival design.
I beg to differ here. I'd argue we're pretty superior in every way in competing for
scarce resources, and habitat. We *are* the chief here, and that's what I'd call
successful, certainly. And in any case, I'm _not_ saying any of the other land
animals aren't succesful, because I think they are, in their own way. They do
after all share common characteristics with us like, say, torso, legs, head with
similar facial arrangement, etc. Those _are_ recurring themes, examples of
convergence. Those designs work well and I don't see a point in denying it.
>Tailless bipeds are pretty scarce in nature.
That's just because we're so good in killing off anything that could conceivably
pose a threat to us. The first intelligent bipeds to arrise on a planet will for that
reason likely also be the last, provided some natural disaster doesn't wipe 'em
all off the face of the planet that is. Besides, we're _not_ the only hominids that
existed in the history of our planet, just the most successful one to survive.
>I rather suspect that you can't have this morphology _without_ high
>intelligence to make use of it.
I'd say developing intelligence goes hand in hand with manipulative ability, and
consequently with upright posture.
[ad hominem snipped]
>simple anthropomorphism to expect it to resemble humans as much as the
>greys do.
"Resemble humans" merely means they're bipedal, have a head with a mouth and
eyes, torso, limbs capable of tool manipulation, and a means of locomotion. It's
what I'd expect works well. There's nothing improbable about it. Period.
Ax
In article <5snikt$o...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van
Gemert) wrote:
> Something like what happened to the dinosaurs for example, is
> just another example of nature cleaning up what doesn't work.
Would you care to support this assertion with argument? Preferably argument
grounded in the theory of evolution indicating 'nature' acting in a
sentient manner.
Ax.
--
- I used to be indecisive; now I'm not so sure. -
PZ Myers
In article <5sniu8$p...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van
Gemert) wrote:
> In article , Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >This is a common fallacy known (very appropriately) as anthropomorphism.
> >You make the mistake of working backward from where we are, then going
> >forward again, and simply end up confirming your own prejudice.
>
> No, I'm looking for good reasons why we look the way we do, and these do
> exist. To muse on just a few, take our head for instance. The arrangement
> of the mouth, eyes, and nose isn't accidental or random, but because it's
> useful to have it that way. The keyword here is functionality (e.g. the nose
> is above the mouth to smell what you're eating just in case you're about to
> gobble something possibly dangerous). We have a head for a good reason
> either. It's just most efficient to put the processor (the brain) close
to the
> sensors to cut back the processing time for sensory data.
>
My good friend Xapflmort of Quorm finds your argument absurd. The best
place to have olfactory and taste organs is on the central sensory tentacle;
the orifice for eating is placed near the digestive organs and is independent
of the respiratory system; and the all-important brain is located centrally,
in a well-protected portion of the anatomy. He finds the human necessity
of crudely processing food in such close proximity to the vital organs of
sight, not to mention the brain, clumsy and dangerous. He is _shocked_ at
the often-fatal association of the breathing and ingestion apparatus.
What he has to say about earthly reproductive systems is unprintable. He
believes the conflation of excretion and reproduction is the chief reason
this planet is so screwed up.
By the way, to relate this to another thread on t.o., he's been looking
for the so-called Intelligent Designer responsible. So far, none of the
capable civilizations of the galaxy will confess, since it has been
determined that whoever was responsible will have their gene manipulation
license revoked. I'm also supposed to pass along the word that we
should change the name from "Intelligent Design" to "Moronic Bumbling",
and that instead of a Designer, we should be looking for the Great
Bumbler.
> >The humanoid morphology is transparently not a case of a successful and
> >useful survival design.
>
> I beg to differ here. I'd argue we're pretty superior in every way in
competing for
> scarce resources, and habitat. We *are* the chief here, and that's what
I'd call
> successful, certainly. And in any case, I'm _not_ saying any of the
other land
> animals aren't succesful, because I think they are, in their own way.
They do
> after all share common characteristics with us like, say, torso, legs,
head with
> similar facial arrangement, etc. Those _are_ recurring themes, examples of
> convergence. Those designs work well and I don't see a point in denying it.
Cockroaches. Squid. Flies. Bony fish. Barnacles. Earthworms.
All are pretty successful animals. All represent eminently successful
body plans that have endured far longer and in far greater numbers than
our own unusual form. Did you really say "They do after all share common
characteristics with us like, say, torso, legs, head with similar facial
arrangement" with a straight face? If so, your ignorance of biology is
rather appalling.
6 or more legs is a much more common recurring theme. It's a design that
works very well. It's also very versatile -- many-legged animals have
a much easier time combining stability, locomotion, and manipulatory
capabilities than those sadly limited to only 4. Why aren't any of the
aliens looking like centaurs?
>
> >Tailless bipeds are pretty scarce in nature.
>
> That's just because we're so good in killing off anything that could
conceivably
> pose a threat to us. The first intelligent bipeds to arrise on a planet
will for that
> reason likely also be the last, provided some natural disaster doesn't
wipe 'em
> all off the face of the planet that is. Besides, we're _not_ the only
hominids that
> existed in the history of our planet, just the most successful one to
survive.
>
> >I rather suspect that you can't have this morphology _without_ high
> >intelligence to make use of it.
>
> I'd say developing intelligence goes hand in hand with manipulative
ability, and
> consequently with upright posture.
>
> [ad hominem snipped]
>
> >simple anthropomorphism to expect it to resemble humans as much as the
> >greys do.
>
> "Resemble humans" merely means they're bipedal, have a head with a mouth and
> eyes, torso, limbs capable of tool manipulation, and a means of
locomotion. It's
> what I'd expect works well. There's nothing improbable about it. Period.
On what basis do you judge the probabilities here? The only data we have
is in the fossil record for this one planet. Bipedalism has arisen several
times, but the other bipedal patterns (as in kangaroos or dinosaurs) differ
in significant ways from the hominid pattern, and the differences are patently
obvious even to someone as ignorant as you are. A "head with..[our]..facial
arrangement" is common only to the vertebrates, and again I suspect that
even you would have no problem seeing the significant differences in the
faces of a human and, for instance, a trout (well, if you happen to be a
bug-eyed, noseless, chinless guy with no forehead, maybe you do have some
trouble telling the difference...is this the source of your problem?).
From the only available evidence, bipedal hominids are one small, minimally
branched line of descent; they represent much less than a millionth of the
diversity currently present on the planet, and since they have existed
for only a minute fraction of the time life has been on Earth, they
represent an even tinier fraction of the diversity present in the last
few billion years. The *FACTS* say that the probability that aliens would
resemble us in any significant way are vanishingly small. Period.
--
Paul Z. Myers
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
The Kearsley Family
Jean van Gemert wrote:
a bird's brain can't be large in any
> case because it would make the bird too heavy to fly
Have you forgotten that not all birds fly?
Sarah Kearsley
Sherilyn
In article <myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>, PZ
Myers <my...@netaxs.com> writes
>
>My good friend Xapflmort of Quorm finds your argument absurd.
>What he has to say about earthly reproductive systems is unprintable.
He (?) should subscribe to the alt.sex hierarchy, particularly
a.s.stories; I suspect he will find that his utterances are all too
printable by comparison. ;)
--
Sherilyn
PZ Myers
In article <5snikt$o...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van
Gemert) wrote:
> In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Environmental events are also part of evolution, in the sense that the
> >environment will influence evolution, think of the Yucatan peninsula
> >asteroid collision.
>
> If the events are catastrophic enough and lasting, sure that could have a
> potential effect on the type of designs that would be most suitable for
> *that* environment. Don't expect any space-travelling aliens anymore then
> though. Something like what happened to the dinosaurs for example, is
> just another example of nature cleaning up what doesn't work. It's likely
> that, before another meteor of that size strikes the earth, we'll already
> have other colonies in space minimizing the risk of our own extinction.
>
Read Raup's "Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?". He comes down squarely on
the side of bad luck in most cases, and he has data to back that conclusion
up.
Nature does *not* have a goal, nor a propensity for "cleaning up what
doesn't work" by throwing meteors at it. Do you have a mechanism that
would explain how the obnoxious behavior of dinosaurs would have deflected
an asteroid into striking the earth?
Sherilyn
In article <5snikt$o...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock] writes
>In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Environmental events are also part of evolution, in the sense that the
>>environment will influence evolution, think of the Yucatan peninsula
>>asteroid collision.
>
> If the events are catastrophic enough and lasting, sure that could have a
> potential effect on the type of designs that would be most suitable for
> *that* environment. Don't expect any space-travelling aliens anymore then
> though.
Okay, I won't.
>Something like what happened to the dinosaurs for example, is
> just another example of nature cleaning up what doesn't work.
You are Michael Reynolds and I claim my free subscription to The
Learning Channel. :)
Jean, before you attempt any more posts to talk.origins, you might like
to read the extensive FAQs. There's a lovely introduction to
evolutionary biology by Larry Moran.
<snippage>
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
In article <33EF78...@hotmail.com>, The Kearsley Family
<kear...@mnsinc.com> writes
Amazingly, I just read Jean's follow-up to Bruce Salem in which he
states that he thinks "it's conceivable that some dinosaur _could_ have
evolved a form of higher intelligence along the way", The old double
standard at work.
Tool construction in the wild has been filmed in one species of (I
think) male parakeet apparently driven by sexual selection (I'll try to
hunt up a cite if somebody asks nicely). The male parakeet finds a
hollow tree and then uses its beak to fashion a drumstick which it drums
against the tree, sending a loud signal of its ownership of a nice
hollow nesting place. Parakeets are also very social, though I'd be the
first to admit that, by primate standards, they're no Einsteins.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
In article <5snitf$p...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock] writes
>In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[bird intelligence]
>
> Pretty impressive tricks, I'm sure. But it's definitely not enough,
> nor will it ever be, for conceptualization. And at the same time, a
> bird's brain can't be large in any case because it would make the bird
> too heavy to fly.
And a primate could never develop a large brain because then it couldn't
swing from trees, right? :)
In any case, I believe somebody has got there before me and pointed out
your disregard of the flightless birds.
>
>>This is another common anthropomorphism blind spot. We know our
>>planet's climate is pretty special and supports life very well, but is
>>this the only way to be?
>
> "We know" our climate is "special"? Astounding how some people will
> pull "facts" from out of nowhere.
Abundant liquid water, temperate climate, atmosphere that shields many
harmful rays, just the right level of oxygen for development of air-
breathers, etc (I don't buy Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, but he has a
point about the levels). Amazing how some people just jump to
conclusions.
> But setting aside your evident
> "expertise" in these matters, Spall notes in his JBIS article that due
> to limitations of biological systems (carbon compounds most likely
> basis for life, sensitivity of DNA, etc.), this would limit "the
> planetary considerations necessary for the evolution of larger sized
> organisms somewhat severely -- in fact, it restricts planets that may
> have intelligent life to those with broadly Earth-like surface
> temperatures and pressures." I believe that's a pretty firm, rock-
> solid assumption.
==========
Odd that you just objected to my pointing out that our planet had
exceptionally life-friendly properties--friendly to our kind of life, or
course.
File under fallacies/anthropomorphism. YMMV. See my earlier posts.
An atmosphere like ours is also what you'd
> want if your intentions are to build some spacecraft or do anything at
> all with fire.
Fire is just another chemical reaction. You might as well say you'd
need the sea to be made of etch solvent if you wanted to do any
electronics, or a really hot atmosphere if you wanted to smelt metal.
> No "blind spot" here I'm afraid. Prof. Mike Swords has also laboured
> these points in far more detail in his papers.
Doctor Michael Swords is listed in recently-dated Ufology sources on the
WWW variously as both Professor of Natural Sciences and Professor of
Genetics and Life Sciences at the University of Western Michigan.
However, he is not (any longer?) listed as being on the faculty of that
University. An altavista search throws up mentions of a Michael Swords
at U of Western Michigan dated 1986, but the server was off-line when I
tried. I guess the Men In Black got there first. ;)
Pubmed doesn't help much either. A search on "swords m" gives only:
"J Protozool 1966 Aug;13(3):469-472
Biosynthesis of phosphatidylcholine in Euglena gracilis.
Tipton CL, Swords MD"
Unusual for a professor with a brace of prestigious-sounding titles,
don't you think?
But maybe it's just me. It wouldn't be the first time Medline has let
me down.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Entrez/medline.html
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
>Something like what happened to the dinosaurs for example, is
>> that, before another meteor of that size strikes the earth, we'll already
>> have other colonies in space minimizing the risk of our own extinction.
>
>Nature does *not* have a goal, nor a propensity for "cleaning up what
>doesn't work" by throwing meteors at it. Do you have a mechanism that
>would explain how the obnoxious behavior of dinosaurs would have deflected
>an asteroid into striking the earth?
I'll answer that. I think Jean simply meant that, on a planet subject
to periodic meteor strikes, there's a time limit to the time for
development of space-travelling intelligence, and the dinosaurs had
their pop. This in no way answers the point about the role of chance,
and it comes perilously close to assuming intelligence as a goal of
evolution (which it surely ain't).
--
Sherilyn
sa...@dircon.co.uk
Howpl wrote:
> >"Why do alleged aliens like "human" in
> >appearance?
>
> For the most part, they don't. I mean. the little grays and the
> others
> are a pretty far cry from the nice gentleman in The Day the Earth
> Stood
> Still.
They are still essentially "humanoid" in appearance....which to some
makes their "extraterrestrial origins" all the more dubious.
> You mean to tell me you wouldn't be scared to death to see one of
> these spindly, bug-eyed creatures staring back at you. You want giant
>
> cochroaches maybe? Try Men in Black.
Are you suggesting the aliens are shaper-shifters.....only appearing as
"grays" to keep us from going loopy....?
> Why are they here buzzing our planes, maybe kidnapping people,
> declining
> to meet with Clinton (to the best of my knowledge)? That's a tough
> one.
> There's the human-alien hybrid hypothesis and the preparing to take us
>
> over hypothesis, which could explain their relative asociability. For
>
> those who prefer a rosier view, there's the show-us-the-path-to-peace
> hypothesis. But I have the same problem with that one as I have with
> God
> - if you've got a message for us, why all the pussyfooting around?
> For
> heaven's sake, open up the clouds and just tell us!.
Sure..but .that also applies to the first two hypotheses you put forward
As for not meeting the Clintons ... can you really blame the (alleged)
aliens (if they are found to exist). Let's face it - one Clinton would
probably try to bed the aliens, and the other would attempt to sell the
aliens real estate in a decidedly dodgy deal.
Bruce Salem
In article <5sniu8$p...@tuegate.tue.nl>,
Jean van Gemert <jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl> wrote:
> To muse on just a few, take our head for instance. The arrangement
> of the mouth, eyes, and nose isn't accidental or random, but because it's
> useful to have it that way. The keyword here is functionality
How is this any different from an argument from design? You know what
the organs in the head are for and so you argue, ad hoc, that is they way
they should be. If you were a true evolutionist you would examine morphology
as though you have no clue as to function but note how change is based on
changes in structures over time. Indeed, why do nearly all tetrapods have
five digits on their limbs? It is because there was no selection against
five digits once the ancestral stock has limbs with five digits. This
has nothing to do with fingers and thumbs, because we have five digits
just as every vetebrate back to the amphibians has them.
Sherilyn
In article <5sniu8$p...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock] writes
>In article , Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>This is a common fallacy known (very appropriately) as anthropomorphism.
>>You make the mistake of working backward from where we are, then going
>>forward again, and simply end up confirming your own prejudice.
>
> No, I'm looking for good reasons why we look the way we do, and these do
> of the mouth, eyes, and nose isn't accidental or random, but because it's
> is above the mouth to smell what you're eating just in case you're about to
> gobble something possibly dangerous). We have a head for a good reason
> either. It's just most efficient to put the processor (the brain) close to the
> sensors to cut back the processing time for sensory data.
Haven't you read Voltaire's highly entertaining satire of Leibniz?
Le prcepteur Pangloss tait l'oracle de la maison, et le petit
Candide coutait ses leons avec toute la bonne foi de son ge
et de son caractre. Pangloss enseignait la mtaphysico-
thologo-cosmolonigologie. Il prouvait admirablement qu'il n'y a
point d'effet sans cause, et que, dans ce meilleur des mondes
possibles, le chteau de monseigneur le baron tait le plus beau
des chteaux et madame la meilleure des baronnes possibles.
" Il est dmontr, disait-il, que les choses ne peuvent tre
autrement : car, tout tant fait pour une fin, tout est
ncessairement pour la meilleure fin. Remarquez bien que les nez
ont t faits pour porter des lunettes, aussi avons-nous des
lunettes. Les jambes sont visiblement institues pour tre
chausses, et nous avons des chausses. Les pierres ont t
formes pour tre tailles, et pour en faire des chteaux, aussi
monseigneur a un trs beau chteau ; le plus grand baron de la
province doit tre le mieux log ; et, les cochons tant faits
pour tre mangs, nous mangeons du porc toute l'anne : par
consquent, ceux qui ont avanc que tout est bien ont dit une
sottise ; il fallait dire que tout est au mieux. "
File under "Pangloss' Syndrome/Acute."
>
>>The humanoid morphology is transparently not a case of a successful and
>>useful survival design.
>
> I beg to differ here.
Okay. How many times has this morphology developed, in how many
different phyla? What's the mean extinction time for this morphology in
the phyla in which it has cropped up?
>I'd argue we're pretty superior in every way in competing
>for scarce resources, and habitat. We *are* the chief here, and that's
> what I'd call successful, certainly.
Something tells me the point zinged right over your head.
...
>
>>Tailless bipeds are pretty scarce in nature.
>
> That's just because we're so good in killing off anything that could
>conceivably pose a threat to us.
If that's the case, how did we keep the other tailless bipeds from
arriving before we turned up?
> The first intelligent bipeds to arrise
> on a planet will for that reason likely also be the last,
...
Attempt to change subject noted.
> Besides, we're _not_ the only hominids
>that existed in the history of our planet, just the most successful one
> to survive.
Hominids are johnny-come-latelies, and all the other hominids are
related to humans--it seems to have happened only once or twice, and
very recently in the history of this planet. By itself, hominid
morphology stinks. It needs a hell of a good support apparatus to make
it even a possibility.
>
>>I rather suspect that you can't have this morphology _without_ high
>>intelligence to make use of it.
>
> I'd say developing intelligence goes hand in hand with manipulative
ability, and consequently with upright posture.
Then you'd be paraphrasing me.
>
> [ad hominem snipped]
<grin>Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And you've been such
a good boy in this thread, too :)
>
>>simple anthropomorphism to expect it to resemble humans as much as the
>>greys do.
>
> "Resemble humans" merely means they're bipedal, have a head with a
> mouth and eyes, torso, limbs capable of tool manipulation, and a means
> of locomotion. It's what I'd expect works well. There's nothing
> improbable about it. Period.
I think you just put out a description that would fit a number of
terrestrial animals and birds, none of which resembles homo sapiens as
much as Mr Grey. Are you sure you aren't Michael Reynolds? He has
repeatedly tried exactly the same dilution on me in similar
circumstances.
--
Sherilyn
Bruce Salem
In article <5snits$p...@tuegate.tue.nl>,>[...]
>>neighbors in the Solar System and just as easy to imagine radically different
>>morphologies.
>
> Emphasis on "imagine." More on your vivid imagination below.
Of course, imagination, a fantesy, a dream, but one that has
a certain plausability. The animals I imagine already exist. They could
evolve into manipulators, no?
>>I have a fantesy about an earth millions of years from now, the continents
>>have
>>shifted, Mankind is long gone, but Cetacians have gotten smart enough the dig
>>up the fossils of the "long legs" and to speculate about their midden
>>deposits, to
>>go to the surface of the land in bathtub rovers. The story ends when they
>>set about
>>designing a craft to go to the moon and find what awaits them there, the
>>artifacts of a "lomg leg" visit of millions of years in the past.
>
> And what a "fantesy" [sic] this is! In this paragraph you've managed to
> illustrate just
> about everything that's wrong with this kind of science-fiction
> randomizing reasoning;
> "it's imaginable, and that makes it as likely as anything else."
I beg your pardon, Sir, I am well aware that people imagine more
than can possibly be true. If you would stop people from making up stories
then you would destroy basic human creativity, and who made you judge
of which dreams are useful and applicable to reality and which are not?
Besides I think that I clearly identified my story as a dream not some
reality. Even as a plausable course for earth history it is no more
guarenteed than a myrid of others.
> What crap! Everything
> _isn't_ as probable as everything else. Not every morphology or
> environment will be
> conductive to producing a technological-oriented species.
I will accept your apology for reading more into what I wrote then
is actually there. I made no representation that my little story is more
likely or guarenteed, or that cetacians would become manipulators. In fact
the little story was really meant to underscore the idea that Mankind is
not guarenteed to keep his dominion over the Earth and could become just
another extinct species, prehaps some other creature would evolve and see
mankind as alien or at least take note of artifacts of intelligence and
technology.
> To wit, you have aquatic mammals (probability of developing some kind of
> technology
> or interest in such in a fluid is essentially zero)
Oh, why are you so sure? The discussion, it seemed to me, was
about limits people put on what they imagine exobiology to be, not
an argument that life only appeared on earth, or is only like it is on
earth, or that animals that exist on earth now couldn't evolve to develop
adaptations that are new. I made no representation that cetaceans were
going to evolve in any direction I amagined.
> "digging up" fossils
> on land, building a
> "bathtub rover," for some transportation, and last but not least, you make
> them build a
> spacecraft to go to the moon, no less! You've pretty much made my point
> here how
> "diversionists" throw out reason and justification.
Oh, come on now, you fool, I made no such representation. You
are blowing things all out of porportion. What is the matter with you?
> "I can imagine it,
> thefore it must be
> likely and true" is the motto. Bah, humbug!
Man, you have some kind of serious problem!
Bruce Salem
In article <5sniu8$p...@tuegate.tue.nl>,
>>The humanoid morphology is transparently not a case of a successful and
>>useful survival design.
>
> competing for
> scarce resources, and habitat.
A funny story, When I first saw what you were responding to I
misread the quote "The Hemmerodial morphology..." So at the risk of turning
you into a bleeding asshole, the misaprehension on your part is apt. The
weakness of the vascular tissue around one's anus is a good example of
a human maladaption since the structure is not well suited to take the
hydrostatic load delivered to it by years of bipedal posture. It fails
all too often. But it is not a fatal flaw. It is usually a problem of
people past reproductive prime and so it would not necessarily be "perfected"
by generations of selection.
Bruce Salem
In article <5snikt$o...@tuegate.tue.nl>,
Jean van Gemert <jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl> wrote:
Man, are you ever misinformed!
> Don't expect any space-travelling aliens anymore then
> though. Something like what happened to the dinosaurs for example, is
> just another example of nature cleaning up what doesn't work. It's likely
> that, before another meteor of that size strikes the earth, we'll already
> have other colonies in space minimizing the risk of our own extinction.
The history of life is not some plan. It is a set of contigant events
that are external to evolution, continental colissions, astronomic events,
asteroid colissions. These have nothing to do with what "doesn't work".
The dinosaurs worked for 150 million years which is one hell of a lot longer
time than we have been here. The cynic in me says that we are more likely
to become extinct due to our own stupidity than an event like an asteriod
colission.
A group of organisms can be sptacularlly sucessful for hundreds
of millions of years only to become extinct when the traits that made
them last become liabilities, the Dinsoaurs and trilobites come to mind.
Mammals, on the other hand, lived as subordinates under the great reptiles
for a longer time then they dominated the earth afterward. Nature had
laid the groundwork for the Mammals in Permean time over 250 million
years ago, true mammals appear in the mid triassic and don't emerge on
their own until 65 million years ago.
George Fergus
Magnum123 asked:
> Why do alleged aliens look "human" in appearance?
act...@greenheart.com replied:
> Bipedality and stereo vision are excellent evolutionary
> adaptations and might occur in an alien environment.
This does not tell us why aliens look like they evolved
from brachiating primates and not from, say, things like
crabs or spiders.
-George
George Fergus
Sarah Kearsley wrote:
> Jean van Gemert wrote:
> > a bird's brain can't be large in any
> > case because it would make the bird too heavy to fly
>
> Have you forgotten that not all birds fly?
Ah, then considering the Aquatic Ape Theory of human origins,
maybe the aliens evolved from penguins.
-George
Dave Haas
They do wear tuxedos!
> -George
Richard Harter
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>In article <5spc86$h...@drn.zippo.com>, Archae.S...@drn.zippo.com (jmca...@gtn.net) writes:
>> > case because it would make the bird too heavy to fly.
>>
>> Wrong, 30 million years ago there were predatory birds with 30 foot
>> wingspans and bodies of similar size to a small human.
>__Birds__ with 10m wingspans? Not quezlcoatlus [sp] ?
>That puts a pretty big hole in Ted Holden's mongol eagle-breeding
>parable, doesn't it?
>Hmm. How come when you really *want* Ted Holden around, he's never there?
No, you've got this one mixed up. These were part of his support for his
reduced felt effect of gravity. Totally different argument.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Men were designed for short, nasty, brutal lives.
WOmen are designed for long, miserable ones.
Archae.S...@drn.zippo.com
In article <5snits$p...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl says...
>In article, sa...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) wrote:
>> I can see no reason why the theropods that lived in the Mesozoic
>> couldn't have evolved to be as intelligent as we are.
>I think it's conceivable that some dinosaur _could_ have evolved a form of
>higher
>intelligence along the way (Incidentally, there's in fact a model of an
>intelligent
>humanoid dinosaur hypothesized by paleontologist Dr. Russel on display at the
>Canadian Museum of History). But I don't know of any evidence that "preditory
>birds" [sic] are or were "quite smart" in any case.
Dino-nut eh...
Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
Archae.S...@drn.zippo.com
In article <5snitf$p...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl says...
>In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Hmm, predatory birds _smart_? Not that I noticed, to be perfectly
>>honest.
> Completely agree here.
>
>>manipulating limbs. It has to be said, however, that macaw manipulation
>>skills are amazing, and they use their prehensile beaks as extra limbs
>>for climbing. They also have the capacity, from a standing start, to
>>catch a thrown object descending under gravity.
>Pretty impressive tricks, I'm sure. But it's definitely not enough, nor will it
>ever be,
>for conceptualization. And at the same time, a bird's brain can't be large in
>any
> case because it would make the bird too heavy to fly.
Wrong, 30 million years ago there were predatory birds with 30 foot
wingspans and bodies of similar size to a small human. You would not
what to meet one of these in its hunting region. They used the wind
blowing off of Andes to fly but went extinct when North America and
South America collided and the weather patterns changed. There were
a few other species some flew some didn't and they were also of
similar size to a human and most likely had a large brain. Probably
had similar intelligence to wolves, large cats etc.
Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
<SNIP>
Jonathan Stone
>
> Wrong, 30 million years ago there were predatory birds with 30 foot
> wingspans and bodies of similar size to a small human.
__Birds__ with 10m wingspans? Not quezlcoatlus [sp] ?
Alindsey
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) writes:
>__Birds__ with 10m wingspans? Not quezlcoatlus [sp] ?
>That puts a pretty big hole in Ted Holden's mongol eagle-breeding
>parable, doesn't it?
<ted>
The fact that these birds are extinct today PROVES that the felt effect of
gravity was less in the past! You'd have to be prettu STUPID to believe
that a bird with a 30' wingspan could fly in today's gravity!
</ted>
>Hmm. How come when you really *want* Ted Holden around, he's never there?
No need, he's not hard to imitate.
-Andrew Lindsey
Sherilyn
In article <fJS4TzByx$7zEw$3...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
...
>
>Haven't you read Voltaire's highly entertaining satire of Leibniz?
>
> Le prcepteur Pangloss tait l'oracle de la maison, et le petit
Bugger! All the accented letters disappeared. Serves me right for
being pretentious.
--
Sherilyn
sa...@dircon.co.uk
Sherilyn wrote:
> In article <19970811012...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, ANAPHY
> <ana...@aol.com>
>
> PREDICTS
>
> >Not all aliens look human.
>
> While this is very probably true, we don't yet know for sure if
> intelligent extraterrestrial life exists.
Although it might be conceited of us to think it does not....just as it
is an equal conceit to believe that it does / may exist, it is therefore
visiting this planet.
Archae.S...@drn.zippo.com
In article <5sniu8$p...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl says...
>In article , Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>This is a common fallacy known (very appropriately) as anthropomorphism.
>>You make the mistake of working backward from where we are, then going
>>forward again, and simply end up confirming your own prejudice.
> No, I'm looking for good reasons why we look the way we do, and these do
> exist. To muse on just a few, take our head for instance. The arrangement
> of the mouth, eyes, and nose isn't accidental or random, but because it's
> useful to have it that way. The keyword here is functionality (e.g. the nose
> is above the mouth to smell what you're eating just in case you're about to
> gobble something possibly dangerous). We have a head for a good reason
>either. It's just most efficient to put the processor (the brain) close to the
> sensors to cut back the processing time for sensory data.
A lot of this has to do with our original ancestor which survived the
Cambrian extinction event. We could have had a different ancestor since
there were so many completely different animals back then (and it
appears to be just luck that chose what we got stuck with). In fact it
appears that all the vertebrates and non-vertebrates evolved from 3
ancestors. Take a look at the octopus it separated from us 400 million
years ago it has similarities but it has many differences. Pick any one of
the extinct species from the Cambrian and I doubt that you would get us
in the end (posibly some similarities but many many differences).
Sherilyn
[note weird groups and follow-ups--t.o cross-posting limits]
In article <33F008...@xnet.com>, George Fergus <fer...@xnet.com>
writes
>Sarah Kearsley wrote:
>
>> Jean van Gemert wrote:
>>
>> Have you forgotten that not all birds fly?
>
>Ah, then considering the Aquatic Ape Theory of human origins,
>maybe the aliens evolved from penguins.
>
--
Sherilyn
Jonathan Stone
In article <5sppbc$e...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>
> >__Birds__ with 10m wingspans? Not quezlcoatlus [sp] ?
>
Smacks head. Removes foot from mouth. *Those* Teratorns.
Thanks to Peter Lamb <peter...@cmis.csiro.au>.
> >Hmm. How come when you really *want* Ted Holden around, he's never there?
>
> No, you've got this one mixed up. These were part of his support for his
> reduced felt effect of gravity. Totally different argument.
uh, I was thinking of this as a refutation of Ted's claimed point for
an upper limit on eagle size. I guess I never really thought clearly
about gliding and soaring as a possible counter-argument. Pretty darn
stupid of me really, considering the years I spent living close to an
Royal albatross colony.
WILLIAM H. BICKERS
Magnum123 <Magn...@bigpond.com> wrote in article
<33e93...@139.134.5.33>...
> Okay I am new to newsgroups so please bear with me.
>
> I have a few questions to ask "Why do alleged aliens like "human" in
> appearance?
>
> Someone in a documentary on TV (can't remember the name off hand)
recently
> quoted "aliens are disguised as human like so as not to give us a great
fear
> of them? Yeah right. Are we admitting we are an insuperior race? Maybe
we
> are? Why would they bother even coming here? They certainly would come
to
> destroy this planet as we are doing quite a good job of that ourselves!
Are
> they coming here to see why we do this to our world or what makes us
think
> the way we do? Why? Really why would they bother?
>
> I must say I believe that it would be naive of us to think that there is
no
> other civilization other than ourselves.
>
> The Celestial Beings use voice, pain, and other bodily effects to control
some individuals to perform tasks they request. I call these individuals
(operatives). They willing or forcefully perform tasks and some of them are
friends and agents of the alien civilization in contact with them. When
their tasks are religious they are called prophets, human angels, and such.
They have not traditionally recognized the concepts of personal
sovereignty and have engaged in structured realities that have harmed
humans. When humans learn the truth and stop cooperating with celestial
beings when asked to perform harmful tasks, structured realities that may
harm humans might stop. People in the starships or UFOs voices systems need
to start standing up for their unalienable rights.
William H. Bickers, Lt USCG Ret.
Custodian of the Celestial Starship
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Jean van Gemert (jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl) wrote:
: Pretty impressive tricks, I'm sure. But it's definitely not enough, nor
: will it ever be, for conceptualization. And at the same time, a bird's
: brain can't be large in any case because it would make the bird too
: heavy to fly.
Although a birds' brain cells *do* replace themselves. This does save on
weight, as the brain no longer has to compensate by growing to the point
where all the cells one has is all one will ever have.
But, to get alien about it, It's possible that, on a planet with even a
slightly lower gravity and yet a slightly thicker atmosphere...
--
***********************************************************
I saw weird stuff in that place last night -- weird,
strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, *evil* stuff!
And I want in!
Homer J. Simpson
***********************************************************
Howpl
>
>> Why are they here buzzing our planes, maybe kidnapping people,
>> declining
>> to meet with Clinton (to the best of my knowledge)? That's a tough
>> one.
>> There's the human-alien hybrid hypothesis and the preparing to take us
>>
>> over hypothesis, which could explain their relative asociability. For
>>
>> those who prefer a rosier view, there's the show-us-the-path-to-peace
>> hypothesis. But I have the same problem with that one as I have with
>> God
>> - if you've got a message for us, why all the pussyfooting around?
>> For
>> heaven's sake, open up the clouds and just tell us!.
>
>Sure..but .that also applies to the first two hypotheses you put forward
I agree with you basicly. None of these hypotheses is awfully convincing
about why they do what they do. If they're so much more powerful than we
are, they wouldn't have to slink in the shadows. Then again, if they're
so hell-bent on not showing themselves, why do they appear to be showing
themselves to everyone but Clinton on an almost daily basis? Land on the
White House lawn , already! Or stay invisible. I don't get this
in-between stuff.
>As for not meeting the Clintons ... can you really blame the (alleged)
>aliens (if they are found to exist). Let's face it - one Clinton would
>probably try to bed the aliens, and the other would attempt to sell the
>aliens real estate in a decidedly dodgy deal.
>
Good one.
>
Sherilyn
In article <49lxuuAt...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Tool construction in the wild has been filmed in one species of (I
>think) male parakeet apparently driven by sexual selection (I'll try to
>hunt up a cite if somebody asks nicely). The male parakeet finds a
>hollow tree and then uses its beak to fashion a drumstick which it drums
>against the tree, sending a loud signal of its ownership of a nice
>hollow nesting place. Parakeets are also very social, though I'd be the
>first to admit that, by primate standards, they're no Einsteins.
Palm cockatoo. Probosciger aterrimus. This practice of banging a stick
held in one foot against the trunk of the hollow tree is known as
drumming.
http://www.aza.org/aza/ssp/palmcoc.html
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
In article <33F0D33B...@dircon.co.uk>, sa...@dircon.co.uk writes
>Sherilyn wrote:
>
>> In article <19970811012...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, ANAPHY
>> <ana...@aol.com>
>>
>> PREDICTS
>>
>> >Not all aliens look human.
>>
>> While this is very probably true, we don't yet know for sure if
>> intelligent extraterrestrial life exists.
>
>Although it might be conceited of us to think it does not.
That's no reason to assume that it does. The correct answer is "we
don't yet know."
--
Sherilyn
Tom Ray
sa...@dircon.co.uk wrote in article <33EF9D5D...@fubar.com>...
> Howpl wrote:
>
> They are still essentially "humanoid" in appearance....which to some
> makes their "extraterrestrial origins" all the more dubious.
>
So you are saying that just because they may not be "extraterrestial"
that they do NOT exist?----Typical skeptic (il)logic. ;-)
TOM
Jean van Gemert
In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[Just a couple of points here...]
>An atmosphere like ours is also what you'd want if your intentions are to
>build some spacecraft or do anything at all with fire.
>
>Fire is just another chemical reaction. You might as well say you'd
>need the sea to be made of etch solvent if you wanted to do any
>electronics, or a really hot atmosphere if you wanted to smelt metal.
You're missing the point. There would be a specific range of oxygen density
in which you either simply could not create any fire, or you'd end up with an
atmosphere stuck with uncontrolable, rampaging firestorms. Only a specific
range of oxygen density allows for the use of controlled fire, which is, in my
assessment, a rather handy thing when it comes to building any kind of
technology, don't you think? Also see the abstract of Swords' 1995 essay
in JSE on this topic.
>Doctor Michael Swords is listed in recently-dated Ufology sources on the
>WWW variously as both Professor of Natural Sciences and Professor of
>Genetics and Life Sciences at the University of Western Michigan.
>However, he is not (any longer?) listed as being on the faculty of that
>University.
I wrote Swords a letter at Michigan Univ. last year. The stationery on which
Swords wrote his response says "Department of Science Studies." Perhaps
he switched departments? He still is at WMU though.
Jean van Gemert
In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[A few more comments here...]
>Look at it this way. Hominids appeared on earth how long ago? After
>how long?
This tells us nothing on alien morphology, and in particular nothing
about the most likely morphology of large land-dwelling animals.
>What makes you think that a hominid is particularly well suited to an
>earth-like world?
Two can play this game. What makes you think it's not? As with all land
animals, we're pretty well "adapted" IMO.
>Read "Wonderful Life" by Stephen Jay Gould, possibly the greatest living
>American [we have Dawkins! :)
Swords in particular comments on people like Gould and Simpson and
why their reasoning is basically flawed. Of course you can pretend his
criticisms don't exist. :)
>looking like a human is the only way to be a highly intelligent tool
>maker, then we might as well give up on the idea of any aliens out
>there. It's just too much of a fluke.
You're assuming your conclusion. Using tools is hardly the only reason.
The more basic morphology (head end, torso, etc.) was also influenced
significantly during the early moments of life's development here on our
earth (producing the "tube").
>no end of potential intelligent tool users.
Spoken like a true science-fictionist. :)
>primates, the hominids, homo sapiens is because that's the way it
>happened _here_.
Faulty argument. It's not just "because it happened here," but wether similar
conditions elsewhere could conceivably end up with same. The environment
and especially the liquid medium, had a very effective influence in the early
stages of the development of life as to what it would look like. Bieri notes
that the tube shape, with a food intake at one end and anus at the other,
has turned up "again and again." It seems the probability of this recurring
repeatedly is pretty good.
>Once the chordates had a head start coming out of the
>postcambrian extinctions, basically every successful design was bound to
>look pretty much like a tube.
On the "tube" Swords writes "It's hard to imagine an ecology on a terrestrial
world not evolving such logicall-derived base structures. Our own world not
only developed them but they were devastating to the bizarre "experimental"
structures of the early multicellular ages. They were the predatory worms in
their simplest, most dangerous early incarnations, and they led to the ex-
tinctions of many unfit flourishes by mother nature." Swords further makes
reference for this to a book by Stephen Wainwright, "Axis and Circumfence,"
Cambridge, MA, Harvard U. Press, 1989.
>No, in terms of evolution they would be unequivocally the strongest ever
>case of convergence.
A hominid would be the result of several independently recurring convergent
(likely) steps, not a single and improbable large one.
Sherilyn
In article <myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>, PZ
Myers <my...@netaxs.com> writes
...
>
>I've done a medline search for Spall and the British Interplanetary
>Society...no luck there, either. What is the BIS? Is this another
>UFO fan club?
BIS is quite a venerable institution; I believe its existence predated
spaceflight by some decades. Its most famous honorary fellow is an
early member (a founder?) Arthur C Clarke. It produces a journal in
which speculative articles are encouraged. I pass its clearly marked,
rather sedate-looking headquarters next to Vauxhall Station in the train
every day, but I have never visited (I think this is a shame, they sound
quite fun). BIS is perhaps most famous for the Daedalus Project, a
paper design for an interstellar spacecraft which was featured quite
prettily in Carl Sagan's lovely Cosmos series (how I wish the BBC would
repeat it!)
A. Bond, A.R. Martin, R.A. Buckland, T.J. Grant, A.T. Lawton, et al.,
"Project Daedalus," J. British Interplanetary Society 31, (Supplement,
1978).
It also published an interesting paper by Mark Carlotto and others on
the problem of the recognition of artificiality in planetary landscapes.
Carlotto, Mark J. And Stein, M. C., "A Method for Searching for
Artificial Objects on Planetary Surfaces." Journal of the British
Interplanetary Society, Vol. 43 No. 5 (May 1990).
There is an updated on-line copy of this paper at:
http://www.psrw.com/~markc/Pubs/Other/JBIS1990Paper/JBIS1990Paper.html
Spall's JBIS paper is
N. J. Spall, "The Physical Appearance Of Intelligent Aliens", Journal of
the British Interplanetary Society Vol 32, pp.99-102,1978
at:
http://www.skiesare.demon.co.uk/aliens.htm
IMO, we need more speculative institutions like BIS.
(I most certainly do not necessarily endorse any opinions expressed in
any of the above cited papers. This post is provided for informational
purposes).
--
Sherilyn
Jean van Gemert
In article, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>Swords does not seem to have much of a publication record -- I found
I don't see the relevancy of this with regard to his arguments. You may
have difficulty locating his papers on humanoids indeed, because they
were published in the context of assessing the extraterrestrial hypothesis
as an explanation for some UFO reports.That's why I suggested you write
him yourself since he's easily tracked down at Michigan University.
>one irrelevant article on Euglena, and a list of publications with
>something called the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which seems
>to be some kind of fringe journal that pushes everything from
>cryptozoology to UFOs.
It does not "push" anything. the editor of the JSE is a well-respected
scientist who also edits the renowned Astrophysical Journal. Numerous
affiliated scientists from Universities such as Cornell and Harvard serve
on its editorial board too.
>It's not a very credible source
Faulty logic. You assess the journal's credibility by looking at the published
subject matter, not, as is common, the integrity of applied scientific metho-
dology and investigation. This is unfortunately indicative of a highly polarized
position on your part.
>I've done a medline search for Spall and the British Interplanetary
>Society...no luck there, either. What is the BIS? Is this another
>UFO fan club?
It's "JBIS", which is a highly respected British Journal on Space Exploration
and related issues, and is frequently cited in journals and books which touch
the same topic. Arthur C. Clarke was one of its founders and past chairman
of the BIS. Their web site is at:
http://freespace.virgin.net/bis.bis/Bis.htm
Abstracts of articles (including those from JBIS) can also be searched for at
NASA's database:
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/casitrs.html
Where did you get the idea that this was "another UFO fan club"? Your bias
is again blatantly showing.
Jean van Gemert
In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>BIS is quite a venerable institution...
While we're on topic, I found this interesting paper. I haven't read it yet but
will get myself a copy:
Coffey, E. J., "Hominid evolution and SETI," British Interplanetary Society,
vol. 34, Mar. 1981, p. 107-114.
From the abstract:
Various preconceptions about human origins and the character of the
processes of thinking are shown to be misleading. The extent of the
relationship between perceiving and thinking is revealed. It is shown
that understanding human evolution requires consideration of human
biological adaptations, rather than any supposed human uniqueness.
Evidence from various sources is shown to be consistent with the
notion of man as a neotenous ape. Bipedalism is shown to be the
basic hominid adaptation, and a necessary precondition for the
emergence of both technology and language.
PZ Myers
In article <BL4fz1AB...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>, PZ
> Myers <my...@netaxs.com> writes
> ...
> >
> >I've done a medline search for Spall and the British Interplanetary
> >Society...no luck there, either. What is the BIS? Is this another
> >UFO fan club?
>
*Rational* speculation is always nice. I had not heard of the BIS before,
but your description (and that of van Gemert, too) suggests that it would
be worthwhile for me to look them up some more.
>
> (I most certainly do not necessarily endorse any opinions expressed in
> any of the above cited papers. This post is provided for informational
> purposes).
I appreciate the fact that the Spall paper is made available on the web, so
I can look it up without even walking downstairs two whole floors to our
department library :-). However, it is *not* a very good paper. I can't tell
what the authors' background might be, but I doubt that it is biology.
In addition, there is no serious attempt to present a balanced perspective,
but is clearly directed towards achieving a predetermined conclusion,
that aliens would be humanoid or at least that it is "unlikely that mankind
will find the alien fearful in physical appearance".
The author starts by claiming that there are two views: that aliens would
look like us, or they would look completely different. That's not a very
informative stand to take. I could also make the claim that there two
views, that aliens look like carrots or they look like something else, but
it is a position that sure assumes an awful lot and incorporates a lot of
unspoken biases.
For someone who is attempting to balance two points of view, Spall fails
to follow through very effectively. The alternative position (that the
aliens would look non-human), which is also the hugest category, gets one
short section. In two paragraphs, he superficially dismisses the possibility
of non-carbon-based life. In a third, he "can't envisage" life on anything
but a planet with earth-like temperature and pressure, and a sun like ours.
In a fourth, he postulates further extremes, Jovian gas-bags or a Hoyle-like
"black cloud", and dismisses them by saying that he can't imagine how they
would evolve intelligence.
See the pattern? It's the old argument from inadequate imagination. And this
from an author who in this short section cites Hoyle, Clarke, Stanislaw
Lem, Quatermass, and Star Trek. I would have been more impressed if he'd
given a little more thought to the diversity of body plans found on our
planet alone, and a little less to shooting down the easy targets of
science fiction.
He makes one pathetic attempt in this direction. Here's his concluding
paragraph to this section:
"Life on Earth shows us just how strange creatures can become in the chain
of evolution. The giraffe is a good example of this. But it is highly
unlikely that these creatures could ever become intelligent."
A *giraffe* is his idea of a bizarre creature? I can see why he is incapable
of imagining much -- he not only lacks imagination, he lacks much awareness
of the biological world. I happen to agree with his concluding sentence,
but for a different reason than is his intent. It is highly unlikely that
*any* creature will evolve high intelligence, but that has nothing to do
with deviations from an anthropomorphic body plan.
The remainder of the paper focuses on "the anthropomorphic view". It is
similarly limited in imagination or recognition of biological diversity.
Apparently, after dispensing with Star Trek-like Hortas, intelligent
gas clouds, and giraffes, the only possibility left is something
humanoid.
He first summarizes the Bieri paper, which I haven't read but van
Gemert cited. Apparently, this paper makes some very general conclusions:
that dominant metazoans would be bilaterally symmetrical (OK, probably,
but I wouldn't say certainly), with important sensory and manipulatory
organs near an anterior mouth (hmmm, maybe) with a central brain near
those sensory organs (which I disagree with mildly), and a posterior
anus. That's the pattern on our planet, but we can't rule out the possibility
that these are all contingencies of our common history -- that arthropods
and annelids and chordates and so forth all arose from a successful
ancestor that happened to be bilaterally symmetrical with a gut that
posessed both a mouth and anus. It is still reasonable speculation, though.
Spall's next step is unreasonable, however. The Bieri paper as described
sets up some very general likelihoods -- so general, that the pattern
can still give rise to creatures as diverse as barnacles, squid, ants,
earthworms, sea urchins, us, and that paragon of bizarre morphology, the
giraffe. Spall's leap, though, is to next tell us that birds and fish
have lifestyles that are incompatible with intelligence, and that it
must be a land animal. Huh? Somehow, he has jumped to the conclusion that
the only choices are limited to contemporary earthly phyla, and we
can start paring down the possibilities now -- with the obvious destination
of showing that two-legged mammals are ultimately the only possibility.
In his next few sections, he argues similarly that intelligent aliens *must*
be predators, with legs. Four, of course. Anything more than four is "too
complex for land predators"...obviously, centipedes must be the most
clever creature on earth. With only four limbs, the creature must then
specialize two for manipulation, if it is truly intelligent, so all
intelligent aliens must be bipeds. This is an appallingly bad argument
that requires an abysmal ignorance or blindness of the most successful
group on our planet, the arthropods. These animals have many limbs, which
can then be specialized to serve a huge number of useful functions:
locomotion, manipulation, feeding, mating, respiration, etc. I should think
that a *better* body plan would combine the internal skeleton of the
chordates (allowing growth to large size, in conjunction with other
adaptations) with the multiple limbs of an arthropod. Why couldn't an
alien look like a giant soft-bodied centipede with a subset of its limbs
modified for tool use?
Now that Spall has convinced himself that the aliens *must* be four-limbed
bipeds, he proceeds into greater absurdity, and tries to argue that they
must have sensory organs similar to ours. Here's another example of his
ignorant approach to biology:
"More than two eyes is rare in land creatures -- the spider possesses
multiple eyes, but they are of doubtful sensitivity, and would
confuse a large hunting creature."
Wrong. Completely, thoroughly wrong. Most (by far) land creatures have more
than two eyes. Hunting spiders have very good eyes -- generally, two are
the major high-resolution, binocular eyes, but they also maintain other
eyes that are useful for detecting general patterns of light and shadow,
such as a bird flying in from behind. They don't confuse dim little arthropods,
so why should we assume that they would confuse a big, bright, and brainy
alien?
The remainder goes on to catalog details that he argues must resemble ours,
apparently because we humans happen to be perfectly adapted. He does
occasionally concede that there could be variations (eyes and ears wouldn't
have to be in the same place, and they could have different skin color
or texture), but he also makes absurd restrictions. They should have about
the same number of fingers, for instance, because "more...would seem
excessive and difficult for the brain to coordinate" while "Less than
four fingers on the hand would make basic technology difficult to manipulate".
Again, he is making arguments that have no basis in fact (many animals
have far more appendages with less brain, and technology is designed
to fit the being, not the other way 'round). He is also making huge
unacknowledged leaps. Why fingers? Why not tentacles, or claws, or
modified mouthparts?
Did I say this was not a very good paper? I was being nice. It is a very,
very bad paper, an attempt to predict alien biology by someone who has
virtually no knowledge of earthly biology. I sincerely hope this isn't
representative of the quality of work that gets published by JBIS. But
thanks for pointing it out to me -- I'm teaching a course on the
evolution and development of invertebrates this Fall, and this will be
a lovely discussion paper to dissect. One of the things I try to do
early in a course like this is to shake the poor students out of their
usual mammal-centric stereotypes, and this is such a blatantly
anthropocentric bit of bad biology that it will make for a useful
bad example. The Bieri paper sounds more reasonable, so I'll have to
look at it and see if it would be a useful counter-example.
--
Paul Z. Myers
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
PZ Myers
In article <5t26cv$o...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van
Gemert) wrote:
> Even so, I'll make a couple of those here. If you're interested in truly
understanding
> why evolution here did not produce, and why it will not produce this on
other earth-
> type worlds either, your fancied "intelligent" alien with a brain in its
torso (no head)
> and a sensory stalk, I suggest you start reading Bieri's article
"Hominids on Other
> Planets," American Scientist, Vol. 52, 1964, pp. 453-58. After this, try
and grasp
> the reasoning behind Spall's comments in "The Physical Appearance of
Intelligent
> Aliens," published in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society,
Vol. 32, 1979,
> pp. 99-102. From here proceed to Michael Swords' papers. I'm positively
sure that
> Swords would be happy to answer any queries you might have on this
subject and
> point you to his published papers. You can write him at:
>
> Dept. of Science Studies
> Western Michigan University
> Kalamazoo, MI 49008
Swords does not seem to have much of a publication record -- I found
one irrelevant article on Euglena, and a list of publications with
something called the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which seems
to be some kind of fringe journal that pushes everything from
cryptozoology to UFOs. It's not a very credible source, and I am
unable to find any of his relevant papers that might have any bearing
on this topic.
I've done a medline search for Spall and the British Interplanetary
Society...no luck there, either. What is the BIS? Is this another
UFO fan club?
The American Scientist I have access to, and I'll look up Bieri's
article on Monday. Your batting record ain't so hot so far, so I
don't have a lot of confidence that this will be worth reading, but
I'll give it a shot.
Sherilyn
In article <5t26dm$o...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock] writes
>>An atmosphere like ours is also what you'd want if your intentions are to
>>build some spacecraft or do anything at all with fire.
>>
>>Fire is just another chemical reaction. You might as well say you'd
>>need the sea to be made of etch solvent if you wanted to do any
>>electronics, or a really hot atmosphere if you wanted to smelt metal.
>
> You're missing the point. There would be a specific range of oxygen density
> in which you either simply could not create any fire, or you'd end up with an
> atmosphere stuck with uncontrolable, rampaging firestorms. Only a specific
> range of oxygen density allows for the use of controlled fire, which is, in my
> assessment, a rather handy thing when it comes to building any kind of
> technology, don't you think? Also see the abstract of Swords' 1995 essay
> in JSE on this topic.
Oxygen is good to have around, but why assume that other conditions
would favor combustion?
>
>>Doctor Michael Swords is listed in recently-dated Ufology sources on the
>>WWW variously as both Professor of Natural Sciences and Professor of
>>Genetics and Life Sciences at the University of Western Michigan.
>>However, he is not (any longer?) listed as being on the faculty of that
>>University.
>
> I wrote Swords a letter at Michigan Univ. last year. The stationery on which
> Swords wrote his response says "Department of Science Studies." Perhaps
> he switched departments? He still is at WMU though.
So it seems. He is listed in recent JSE abstracts as "Michael D.
Swords, Dept. of Science Studies, Western Michigan University,
Kalamazoo, MI 49008".
An altavista search on +swords +"science studies" +michigan +transfer*
throws up:
1. 19 December, 1986
19 December, 1986. WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY. BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
REGULAR MEETING. The regular meeting of the Western Michigan University
Board of...
http://www2.wmich.edu/BOT/minutes/1986/19861219.html -
size 30K - 1-Oct-96 - English
But sadly I still cannot connect to that server.
--
Sherilyn
PZ Myers
In article <5t2pm3$r...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van
Gemert) wrote:
> In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >BIS is quite a venerable institution...
>
> While we're on topic, I found this interesting paper. I haven't read it
yet but
> will get myself a copy:
>
> Coffey, E. J., "Hominid evolution and SETI," British Interplanetary Society,
> vol. 34, Mar. 1981, p. 107-114.
>
> From the abstract:
>
> Various preconceptions about human origins and the character of the
> processes of thinking are shown to be misleading. The extent of the
> relationship between perceiving and thinking is revealed. It is shown
> that understanding human evolution requires consideration of human
> biological adaptations, rather than any supposed human uniqueness.
> Evidence from various sources is shown to be consistent with the
> notion of man as a neotenous ape. Bipedalism is shown to be the
> basic hominid adaptation, and a necessary precondition for the
> emergence of both technology and language.
>
Sounds fine, up until that last phrase...how does showing that bipedalism
is a key adaptation in one organism show that it is also a precondition
for a not-necessarily related trait in a completely different hypothetical
organism? Perhaps the author is laboring under some preconceptions?
Sherilyn
In article <19970814210...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Howpl
<ho...@aol.com> writes
>
>The 54-post thread on the theory of evolution was highly edifying and not
>without value: there is a real issue as to how much variation is possible
>in different environments, but this seems to me to be a question that
>resists resolution -- at least until we know more about the environments
>of other worlds (are there other earth-like worlds out there?) and whether
>radically different environments from earth can support intelligent,
>space-travelling life).
Look at it this way. Hominids appeared on earth how long ago? After
how long? What makes you think that a hominid is particularly well
suited to an earth-like world? We have to drag our offspring around
after us for at least the first ten years of life, and they don't even
start reproducing until maybe four years after that.
>
>Allow me to repost the key paragraphs in an earlier post that noone - not
>even Sherilyn - has responded to (perhaps because of a typo that muddled
>it up):
>
>I wrote:
>>>Please explain contingency. You're talking in code to us
>scientific laypersons.
>>
>>In a word: chance. The decision tree for evolution is rich in
>branches. Appeals to convergence will only get you so far; it will not
>produce recognizable greys.
>>
>[EMPIRICAL QUESTION] Why the heck not? How do you know? What if they
>come from the "third rock" of another solar system with a similar sun and
>similar distance from the sun? There may be billions of similars out
>there? And, anyway, how many ways have sci-fi writers imagine locomotion
>could occur.
Read "Wonderful Life" by Stephen Jay Gould, possibly the greatest living
American [we have Dawkins! :) ] evolutionist. Some of his stuff is a
little controversial, but his conclusions about the unlikelihood of
human life developing in a rerun of evolution are pretty well founded.
Actually my case against humanoids is that it's so _pessimistic_. If
looking like a human is the only way to be a highly intelligent tool
maker, then we might as well give up on the idea of any aliens out
there. It's just too much of a fluke. But looking around me, I can see
no end of potential intelligent tool users. The only reason we are
stuck with looking at the chordates, the vertebrates, the mammals, the
primates, the hominids, homo sapiens is because that's the way it
happened _here_. Once the chordates had a head start coming out of the
postcambrian extinctions, basically every successful design was bound to
look pretty much like a tube. If we cannot even say _why_ the chordates
were most likely to survive the postcambrian extinctions, then we have
no basis to limit intelligent tool use to hominids.
>Legs/feet should be a pretty popular adaptation no matter where they come
>from as long as they're on solid ground. Sure, they could look completely
>different, but they could also look very similar. (originally said
>"different")
This is neither here nor there. Nearly all animals have feet. Most
animal feet look pretty different from other animal feet. On earth,
where we all have basically the same range of conditions to cope with.
>
>[A QUESTION OF SEMANTICS] In the end, this is a semantic debate as it
>pertains to the grays. To the question "do they look like us?" the answer
>is Yes and No, depending on how you look at it.
>
No, in terms of evolution they would be unequivocally the strongest ever
case of convergence. To my knowledge, nothing remotely close to this has
ever happened on earth.
--
Sherilyn
Jean van Gemert
In article, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
[...]
>and the differences are patently obvious even to someone as ignorant as you are.
[...]
>faces of a human and, for instance, a trout (well, if you happen to be a
>bug-eyed, noseless, chinless guy with no forehead, maybe you do have some
>trouble telling the difference...is this the source of your problem?).
[And from another post...]
>but it seems to me that you are the one wrapped up in the genuinely pointless
>masturbatory activity...
Surely it must have crossed your mind that the chance of me actually responding
to this tripe in kind, with a decent and well-argued response was rather remote. I
am definitely disinterested in arguing someone having a holier-than-thou attitude,
relying on one-upmanship, insults, and sarcastic provocation to score points.
Even so, I'll make a couple of those here. If you're interested in truly understanding
why evolution here did not produce, and why it will not produce this on other earth-
type worlds either, your fancied "intelligent" alien with a brain in its torso (no head)
and a sensory stalk, I suggest you start reading Bieri's article "Hominids on Other
Planets," American Scientist, Vol. 52, 1964, pp. 453-58. After this, try and grasp
the reasoning behind Spall's comments in "The Physical Appearance of Intelligent
Aliens," published in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 32, 1979,
pp. 99-102. From here proceed to Michael Swords' papers. I'm positively sure that
Swords would be happy to answer any queries you might have on this subject and
point you to his published papers. You can write him at:
Dept. of Science Studies
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI 49008
Be sure to emphasize that he, too, must be totally ignorant of, biology, evolution,
and genetics for proposing such obviously ridiculous a concept.
PZ Myers
In article <5t26cv$o...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van
Gemert) wrote:
> In article, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>
> [...]
> >and the differences are patently obvious even to someone as ignorant as
you are.
> [...]
> >faces of a human and, for instance, a trout (well, if you happen to be a
> >bug-eyed, noseless, chinless guy with no forehead, maybe you do have some
> >trouble telling the difference...is this the source of your problem?).
> [And from another post...]
> >but it seems to me that you are the one wrapped up in the genuinely
pointless
> >masturbatory activity...
>
> Surely it must have crossed your mind that the chance of me actually
responding
> to this tripe in kind, with a decent and well-argued response was rather
remote. I
> am definitely disinterested in arguing someone having a holier-than-thou
attitude,
> relying on one-upmanship, insults, and sarcastic provocation to score points.
In the few posts I've seen you make, you come across as a flit-brained
fanatic who has no interest in any kind of scientific discussion, so I
see no interest in trying very hard to be rational with you.
I'll see your three articles and raise you two.
Simpson, GG (1964) The nonprevalence of humanoids. In _This View of Life_,
NY:Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Mayr, E (1988) The probability of extraterrestrial intelligent life. In
_Toward a New Philosophy of Biology_, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
I can't help but notice that you were totally incapable of dealing with
any of the substance I presented in my messages, but chose to ignore them
and concentrate solely on my sarcasm. Does that mean you have no way to
reply to the fact that human morphology and intelligence are apparently
very rare and unlikely events?
Sherilyn
In article <5t2lng$s...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock] writes> More insults. In contrast, I have never insulted you if my memory serves me
> correctly.
...
Perhaps you insulted someone else and he noticed.
Just a thought.
--
Sherilyn
Jean van Gemert
In article, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>In the few posts I've seen you make, you come across as a flit-brained
>fanatic who has no interest in any kind of scientific discussion, so I
>see no interest in trying very hard to be rational with you.
More insults. In contrast, I have never insulted you if my memory serves me
correctly. Asside, your method of "scientific discussion" must be something
quite different from what I'm used to seeing in scientific journals and the like
if you feel you have to buttress it with ridicule and demeaning sarcasm.
>I'll see your three articles and raise you two.
>
>Simpson, GG (1964) The nonprevalence of humanoids. In _This View of Life_,
>NY:Harcourt, Brace, and World.
The Bieri article is a direct response to Simpson's assumptions, not so much
wether aliens exist but which form intelligent life would take. I have read the
Simpson article in our University's library. Simpson and those who express
similar views are also given unbiased treatment (along with their opponents) in
the excellent book "The Biological Universe" by Steven J. Dick, Cambridge U.
Press. I've been reading both sides of the debate for a long time.
>I can't help but notice that you were totally incapable of dealing with
>any of the substance I presented in my messages...
I do not need to, they have all been sufficiently addressed by Bieri, Spall, and
Swords. I simply have much better use for my spare time than debating a guy
who has a propensity for polemics and insulting rethoric. Additionally, I do not
have the intention of persuading you on this issue, I'm saying the question isn't
as black and white as you paint it to be.
>Does that mean you have no way to reply to the fact that human morphology
>and intelligence are apparently very rare and unlikely events?
I will certainly agree that human-type intelligence will be rare. If intelligent alien
life exists it's difficult to conceive how their mode of thinking would be like ours.
Their morphology is another issue, however. In any case, I vaguely remember
you expressed some sympathy to Mayr's points of view re ET life and the
improbabilty thereof. I respect your opinion, just don't expect me to agree with it.
PZ Myers
In article <5t2nnd$s...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van
Gemert) wrote:
> In article, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>
> >Swords does not seem to have much of a publication record -- I found
>
> I don't see the relevancy of this with regard to his arguments. You may
> have difficulty locating his papers on humanoids indeed, because they
> were published in the context of assessing the extraterrestrial hypothesis
> as an explanation for some UFO reports.That's why I suggested you write
> him yourself since he's easily tracked down at Michigan University.
>
> >one irrelevant article on Euglena, and a list of publications with
> >something called the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which seems
> >to be some kind of fringe journal that pushes everything from
> >cryptozoology to UFOs.
>
> It does not "push" anything. the editor of the JSE is a well-respected
> scientist who also edits the renowned Astrophysical Journal. Numerous
> affiliated scientists from Universities such as Cornell and Harvard serve
> on its editorial board too.
Saying that "scientists" are on the board doesn't mean a thing. There *are*
a few raving loonies among scientists, too.
>
> >It's not a very credible source
>
> Faulty logic. You assess the journal's credibility by looking at the
published
> subject matter, not, as is common, the integrity of applied scientific metho-
> dology and investigation. This is unfortunately indicative of a highly
polarized
> position on your part.
Yes, it is. Fringe science is the pariah that it is for good reason, and
I can't see much to recommend a journal whose raison d'etre seems to be
to collect a hodge-podge of articles with the common topic of being
way out of the mainstream. That puts them in the same territory as
"Fate" magazine.
>
> >I've done a medline search for Spall and the British Interplanetary
> >Society...no luck there, either. What is the BIS? Is this another
> >UFO fan club?
>
> It's "JBIS", which is a highly respected British Journal on Space
Exploration
> and related issues, and is frequently cited in journals and books which touch
> the same topic. Arthur C. Clarke was one of its founders and past chairman
> of the BIS. Their web site is at:
>
> http://freespace.virgin.net/bis.bis/Bis.htm
>
> Abstracts of articles (including those from JBIS) can also be searched
for at
> NASA's database:
>
> http://www.sti.nasa.gov/casitrs.html
>
> Where did you get the idea that this was "another UFO fan club"? Your bias
> is again blatantly showing.
Read it again. I made no assumption -- I asked a question.
Richard Bayarri Bartual
Jean van Gemert wrote:
> >I've done a medline search for Spall and the British Interplanetary
> >Society...no luck there, either. What is the BIS? Is this another
> >UFO fan club?
>
> It's "JBIS", which is a highly respected British Journal on Space Exploration
> and related issues, and is frequently cited in journals and books which touch
> the same topic. Arthur C. Clarke was one of its founders and past chairman
> of the BIS. Their web site is at:
>
> http://freespace.virgin.net/bis.bis/Bis.htm
>
> Abstracts of articles (including those from JBIS) can also be searched for at
> NASA's database:
>
> http://www.sti.nasa.gov/casitrs.html
>
> Where did you get the idea that this was "another UFO fan club"? Your bias
> is again blatantly showing.
>
Spall's JBIS paper is however filled with errors. As an example, in his
arguments on why exoskeletal structures are unlikely for anything large
and complex enough to evolve intelligence, he states that the tarantula
is the largest land-based "insect", when it is neither an insect, nor
the largest spider, and certainly not the largest land-based arthropod
(this distinction probably belongs to the land-crab, which can weigh in
excess of 20lbs, and spends its whole adult life out of water. Such
large size is a direct refutation of Spall's basic argument about the
exoskeletal integument rapidly becoming too thick to allow any room for
musculature: nature, with its usual ingenuity, seems to have hit upon
the novel and apparently counter-intuitive solution of simply increasing
the diameter of the offending limb). There are numerous other factual
and logical errors, perhaps the most fundamental one being that it is
possible to make any valid assumptions whatsoever about possible paths
of extra-terrestrial evolution based on a statistical sample of one!
Richard "Not being a scientist doesn't stop me thinking like one" B.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van Gemert) wrote:
[snip]
> I will certainly agree that human-type intelligence will be rare. If intelligent alien
> life exists it's difficult to conceive how their mode of thinking would be like ours.
> Their morphology is another issue, however. In any case, I vaguely remember
> you expressed some sympathy to Mayr's points of view re ET life and the
> improbabilty thereof. I respect your opinion, just don't expect me to agree with it.
>
Interesting. IMO, and I emphasize opinion, there would be more
similarity in thinking than in morphology. I suspect that much of the
thinking is based on how the world works. The shape may be
unimportant, but cause and effect and mathematics are universal.
Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------------
CAUCHON. And you, and not the Church, are to be the judge?
JOAN. What other judgment can I judge by but my own?
_Saint Joan_ by GBS, Scene VI
Jonathan Stone
In article <5t3rhu$m...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
> I have my doubts about similarity in thinking. Math, yes, because it is
> grounded in the formal structure of uninterpreted symbols. Physics and
> chemistry work the same regardless of how your brain works.
I must respecfully beg to quibble on both counts.
First, much, if not all, all of the Western basis for _formal_
mathematics stems from Greek geometry, which is a consideration of the
real world, at least in an idealized sense.
Second, sure, physics and chemistry work ``the same'' for everybody,
but our perception of what counts as ``normal'' chemistry also depend
on (as you say later) actual experience.
Brin's has magnetoroidal intelligent aliens living in the photosphere
of a star. Forward has cheela living on the surface of a neutron star.
For argument's sake, let's hypothesize even more ``alien'' intelligent
aliens, living inside a pulsar. Their physics may be the same, but
relativistic concerns might be an everyday commonplace, and they may
well have no notion of `chemistry' whatsoever.
And if you postulate aliens so alien that quantum tunneling effects
and virtual particles (cf. Hawking radiation) are a direct part of
their `everyday' sensorium, they might even have a hard time wth
numbers, which depend after all on conservation laws. (Modulo the
results of macroscopic measurement of Bell's inequality, my own
near-total nonrecollection of what physics I once knew,, &c, &c).
Richard Harter
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>In article <5t3rhu$m...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>> I have my doubts about similarity in thinking. Math, yes, because it is
>> grounded in the formal structure of uninterpreted symbols. Physics and
>> chemistry work the same regardless of how your brain works.
>I must respecfully beg to quibble on both counts.
>First, much, if not all, all of the Western basis for _formal_
>mathematics stems from Greek geometry, which is a consideration of the
>real world, at least in an idealized sense.
Not any more. Formal mathematics is grounded in the manipulation of
symbols - you have your choice of various formulations, e.g. Turing
machines, the Lambda calculus, general recursive systems, but they are
all equivalent. Mathematics was arithmeticized quite some time ago. The
abstract structure is the same for 'everybody'; the only requirement is
the operation with discrete symbols which is IMO hard to avoid.
>Second, sure, physics and chemistry work ``the same'' for everybody,
>but our perception of what counts as ``normal'' chemistry also depend
>on (as you say later) actual experience.
>Brin's has magnetoroidal intelligent aliens living in the photosphere
>of a star. Forward has cheela living on the surface of a neutron star.
>For argument's sake, let's hypothesize even more ``alien'' intelligent
>aliens, living inside a pulsar. Their physics may be the same, but
>relativistic concerns might be an everyday commonplace, and they may
>well have no notion of `chemistry' whatsoever.
>And if you postulate aliens so alien that quantum tunneling effects
>and virtual particles (cf. Hawking radiation) are a direct part of
>their `everyday' sensorium, they might even have a hard time wth
>numbers, which depend after all on conservation laws. (Modulo the
>results of macroscopic measurement of Bell's inequality, my own
>near-total nonrecollection of what physics I once knew,, &c, &c).
Granted that aliens living in a wildly different physical situation are
going to have very different concerns. However things would be sticky
even if the aliens are from a world much like ours, i.e., a water world
with O2 in the atmosphere and a carbon based biochemistry. This will be
true even if the world is a lot like ours.
Your point about geometry illustrates why. We simplify physics by
considering the laws in the context of simplified models - the models are
chosen in part on the basis of perceptual metaphors. A different species
would have different intuitions, different natural representations.
Technologies would inevitably be very different. A lot of our technology
is keyed to the specific needs of the human animal.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Men were designed for short, nasty, brutal lives.
WOmen are designed for long, miserable ones.
Jonathan Stone
In article <5t40sc$p...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>
> >In article <5t3rhu$m...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>
> >> I have my doubts about similarity in thinking. Math, yes, because it is
> >> grounded in the formal structure of uninterpreted symbols. Physics and
> >> chemistry work the same regardless of how your brain works.
>
> >First, much, if not all, all of the Western basis for _formal_
> >mathematics stems from Greek geometry, which is a consideration of the
> >real world, at least in an idealized sense.
>
> Not any more. Formal mathematics is grounded in the manipulation of
> symbols - you have your choice of various formulations, e.g. Turing
> machines, the Lambda calculus, general recursive systems, but they are
> all equivalent.
But Richard, you've confounded mathematics with formal computer
science. You do know that there are those who aver that the latter is
all just `technology'?
(And you forgot Chomksy!)
Mathematics was arithmeticized quite some time ago. The
> abstract structure is the same for 'everybody'; the only requirement is
> the operation with discrete symbols which is IMO hard to avoid.
But geometry was not `arithmeticized' until Descartes. Until then it
was based firmly on an idealization of the world we perceive.
A better example of what I'm saying is this: imagine an intelligent
alien from a _really_ high-gravity environment, where GR has
signficant effects on the aliens' moral equivalent of walking around.
How much mathematics are these aliens going to have in common with
pre-Riemann humans?
Richard Harter
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>In article <5t40sc$p...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <5t3rhu$m...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>>
>> >> I have my doubts about similarity in thinking. Math, yes, because it is
>> >> grounded in the formal structure of uninterpreted symbols. Physics and
>> >> chemistry work the same regardless of how your brain works.
>>
>> >First, much, if not all, all of the Western basis for _formal_
>> >mathematics stems from Greek geometry, which is a consideration of the
>> >real world, at least in an idealized sense.
>>
>> Not any more. Formal mathematics is grounded in the manipulation of
>> symbols - you have your choice of various formulations, e.g. Turing
>> machines, the Lambda calculus, general recursive systems, but they are
>> all equivalent.
>But Richard, you've confounded mathematics with formal computer
>science. You do know that there are those who aver that the latter is
>all just `technology'?
>(And you forgot Chomksy!)
No, I haven't confounded mathematics with formal computer science.
Formal computer science uses techniques and theories developed by
mathematicians who were investigating the foundations of Mathematics well
before computers were invented. I'm not up to writing a long essay on
the foundations of Mathematics. Trust me. And Chomsky is irrelevant.
> Mathematics was arithmeticized quite some time ago. The
>> abstract structure is the same for 'everybody'; the only requirement is
>> the operation with discrete symbols which is IMO hard to avoid.
>But geometry was not `arithmeticized' until Descartes. Until then it
>was based firmly on an idealization of the world we perceive.
I was thinking of arithmeticized in a different sense. What you say is
true enough, of course. The critical point in the development is a full
axiomation (Geometry wasn't correctly axiomatized until Hilbert). All
formal systems can be arithmeticized in the sense that all theorems
in the system can be translated into theorems in number theory.
>A better example of what I'm saying is this: imagine an intelligent
>alien from a _really_ high-gravity environment, where GR has
>signficant effects on the aliens' moral equivalent of walking around.
>How much mathematics are these aliens going to have in common with
>pre-Riemann humans?
Why don't you say pre-Newton or pre-Euclid while you're at it. It
doesn't matter what mathematical theories they may have developed - they
are expressible in terms of the mathematics we have now. The only
requirement is that they have formal proofs. Whatever your physiology,
whatever your environment, 1+1=2.
PZ Myers
I just read the Bieri paper, "Humanoids on other planets" (thanks,
Sherilyn). It *is* better than the Spall paper, which isn't saying much --
that one was one seamless collection of misapprehensions, logical errors,
and outright errors of fact. Bieri makes the same kind of conceptual leaps
in the service of his argument, but it isn't as blatantly bogus as Spall's
work. One very odd thing, though -- in his acknowledgements, Bieri lists
*Stephen Gould*, a major surprise given the fact that his argument requires
a disregard of contingency in evolution. I rather suspect that Gould did
not actually spend much effort critiquing this paper; either that, or it
was early enough in his career that he was reluctant to be too critical.
I'm beginning to get a feel for how this genre works. Take the long chain
of adaptations that led to modern humans. Ignore most, especially those
that don't have some obvious selective advantage. Take a few morphological
parameters out of their historical context, list a few alternatives that
are "clearly" unlikely, and claim that that aspect of morphology is a
necessity. Finally, sprinkle the paper with the good old argument from
personal incredulity -- alternatives are inconceivable. To caricature this
brand of logic, it is something like "Aliens must have two legs because
three would be hopelessly awkward. Also, I cannot imagine any other
alternatives."
Both Spall and Bieri reveal their unspoken motives with occasional
statements of unlikely detail that they say *must* be the case. For
example, Spall claims aliens must have 4 or 5 fingers on a hand. Bieri
claims that hair is the most likely outer covering (apparently, keratin is
a molecule pre-determined by the physical laws of the universe)! It is
clear that both are arguing from their conclusion, that aliens must be
humanoid, not from any objective analysis of biological reality.
Spall obviously borrowed heavily from Bieri. The structure of the two
papers is very similar, beginning with abiogenesis and the necessity that
life be carbon-based, leading up to the necessity that intelligent life be
humanoid. Many of the arguments are also the same, and just as
unconvincing.
From the initial argument that life must be carbon based, Bieri then leaps
to the argument that it is likely to be bilaterally symmetrical, with a
head end containing the mouth, brain, and sensory organs. I don't think it
is as pat as he makes it, since there are successful organisms with a
different arrangement. That aside, however, this is a gigantic leap. I
would argue that, for instance, there is a huge battery of molecular
pattern-forming mechanisms that are *not* predetermined, and that the
"accident" of how body plans are precisely determined on a molecular level
is going to be the source of major constraints on possible plans that could
be derived later. Again, this is the general strategy of these papers --
ignore the long preceding chain of events, and skip from morphological
decision to decision, pretending all the intermediates were fore-ordained.
Basically, Bieri has jumped from pre-prokaryote replicators to the Cambrian
metazoans as if nothing of significance, nothing variable, had happened in
the intervening few billion years.
Much of the rest of the paper focusses on more details of morphology that
he argues are necessary. Aliens gotta have a big anterior brain, for
instance, because that's the only logical way to do it, since you want to
keep sensory pathways short. Let's ignore the alternative, seen in
arthropods -- a distributed set of ganglia, so sensory processing can be
done local to the sense organs, but not necessarily in the head. Insects
also show significant trends towards condensing multiple ganglia into
larger, more complex processing centers, but unfortunately for Bieri's
argument the largest center may be thoracic, not cephalic.
He also argues for specific numbers of limbs, sort of. Actually, first he
argues that animals *must* have legs rather than wheels or wiggling (tell
that to snakes), ignoring the fact that "legs" is a rather general term
that can describe everything from caterpillar feet to lobster claws to
human-style limbs. When arguing for specifically four limbs in any alien,
he at least acknowledges that insects seem to have settled on a different
number with this curious statement:
"...it seems most probable that our extraterrestrial huminoid will have
either two or three sets of paired appendages. I'm willing to bet on the
smaller number."
That's it. That's his sole argument for four, not six -- he's willing to
bet on it. Why? Perhaps we can use this as a novel way to settle scientific
disputes. The winner is the guy who is willing to bet the largest sum.
Bieri also speculates on the number of fingers, but he's a bit more liberal
than Spall. He thinks "Three, four, six, or seven fingers might work as
well, but certainly an arrangement of claws, fingers, tweezers, knives, and
so forth would not work as well." Again, why? Why couldn't an optimal
arrangement be a hand like a Swiss army knife, with specialized digits? A
creature with such an arrangement might wonder how we cope, with such crude
and clumsy generalized pegs at the ends of our arms.
There is more of the same, but here's how he sums up:
"To restate the argument, a conceptualizing population of living organisms
can only develop by the process of evolution. Given the ninety-two known,
naturally occurring elements, the forms of energy available, and limited
time, the number of alternative solutions to the major steps leading to a
conceptual organism are strictly limited."
There you go. Why must aliens be humanoid? Because they must be made up of
the same 92 elements we are. The pattern of biology is entirely
pre-determined by the chemical properties of carbon. Mr. Bieri has managed
to completely ignore one of the most significant philosophical aspects of
the Darwinian revolution, that life is not absolute and predictable, but is
ruled by chance and history. I guess the biologists can just retire now,
and wait for the physicists to come up with the laws of biology.
sa...@dircon.co.uk
PZ Myers wrote:
> <snip>
> I've done a medline search for Spall and the British Interplanetary
> Society...no luck there, either. What is the BIS? Is this another
> UFO fan club?
Got to step in here, I'm afraid.
The BIS is _not_ "another UFO fan club".
The BIS was founded in 1933, and is the world's longest-running
organisation devoted solely to the exploration of space and
astronautics.
Over the years, the BIS has attracted many luminaries among its
membership - Arthur C. Clarke was a one-time President of the Society,
and the Fellows of the BIS include Neil Armstrong, "Buzz" Aldrin, Mike
Collins, the top scientists in the UK involved in aerospace research, as
well as many leading members of NASA - such as william McLaughlin,
Manager, Mission Control and Systems Architecture Section, JPL.
Over the years the BIS has been responsbile for a number of highly
creible projects - the Society's views and designs on a Lunar Excursion
Module from the late 1950s was looked at by the likes of NASA, Rockwell
and Grumman in the 1960s. In the mid-1970s, the BIS published the
Daedelus Project, which conceptualised the use of a nuclear propulsive
system to send and umanned probe to Bardnard's star (expected flight
duration 56 Earth years). Fellows of the Society have more recently been
involved in the SSTO HoTOL project, and Alan Bond developed the world's
first "air-breathing" engine, the RB545, now patented by Rolls Royce
Aeroengines Ltd.
The Society publishes two periodicals: "Spaceflight": which is a monthly
look at the real-world of international space efforts including Mir
missions, shuttle activities, JPL-run projects, Japanese space efforts,
the work of the European Space Agency, etc. The second publication is
the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, long regarded as a
major publication relating to theoretical and practical spaceflight and
space efforts. Articles for the latter publication come from scientists,
engineers and theoreticians at the forefront of out modern space
efforts.
Issues of the JBIS tend to concentrate on specific themes (e.g. the
Practical Exploration of Mars). The August 1997 issue is develped to
Soviet / CIS Cosmonautics, with subjects including:
* science on board the Mir space station, 1986 - 94
* Russian participation in the International Space Station: Status and
Issues
* An updated analysis of the 3-stage N-1 Lunar launch vehicle
* A review of the cosmonaut selection programme
* 12 years of Mir space station operations.
Generally, the BIS is a responsible, sceintifically-minded body. I have
been a member (and Fellow) for more than a decade. The Society's aim is
to promote a better understanding of the importance of space
exploration. The Society's homepage can be found at:
http://freespace.virgin.net/bis.bis/Bis.htm
As a Fellow, I have, on behalf of the Society, presented talks and
lectures including:
* The Exploration of Mars: Past, Present and Future
* The Space Shuttle: A Remarkable Flying Machine
* Mir: A House in Space
* The Grand Tour: Voyager and the Solar System
* So, You Want to be an Astronaut? (educational talk for schoolchildren
showing what is involved in astronaut selection / training)
* Hubble Trouble (a join presentation with Steve Tidey, member of the
British Astronomical Association on the HST - from launch thro' initial
focus problems to the Endeavour "rescue" mission to the most recent HST
images)
* Shuttle! (educational talk & video presentation for school children,
illustrating a "typical" shuttle mission)
The Society holds regular meetings and symposia in London throughout the
year.
As a whole, Society memebership is rather sceptical of ETI visitations
to this planet...so I am rather surprised to find the Society being
referenced in the newsgroup.
While I (as a sceptic myself) appreciate your stance on this question, i
would ask that you do not lambast those organisations of which you admit
you do not have any personal knowledge. I sincerely hope this posting
goes some way to clearing up exactly what the BIS is.
As I have access to back issues of both the JBIS and Spaceflight, I'd
be most interested in receiving an update of the reported article
published by the BIS WRT UFO/ETIs (i.e. the title, author and date of
publication, if they were given). I've treid to trace the thread back to
retrieve this information myself from earlier postings, but my ruddy ISP
server keeps generating Bad Article messages. I'm curious to see if what
was printed by the BIS may have been taken out of context....
>
--
"Scepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it
is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the
first comer: there is nobility in preserving it
coolly and proudly through long youth, until
at last, in the ripeness of instinct and
discretion, it can be safely exchanged for
fidelity and happiness"
- George Santayana
sa...@dircon.co.uk
--------------01BEF87FA803FC3A23D6AFFD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
PZ Myers wrote:
<snip>
> I've done a medline search for Spall and the British Interplanetary
> Society...no luck there, either. What is the BIS? Is this another
> UFO fan club?
Got to step in here, I'm afraid.
The BIS is _not_ "another UFO fan club".
The BIS was founded in 1933, and is the world's longest-running
organisation devoted solely to the exploration of space and
astronautics.
Over the years, the BIS has attracted many luminaries among its
membership - Arthur C. Clarke was a one-time President of the Society,
and the Fellows of the BIS include Neil Armstrong, "Buzz" Aldrin, Mike
Collins, the top scientists in the UK involved in aerospace research, as
well as many leading members of NASA - such as william McLaughlin,
Manager, Mission Control and Systems Architecture Section, JPL.
Over the years the BIS has been responsible for a number of highly
http://freespace.virgin.net/bis.bis/Bis.htm
year.
>
- George Santayana
--------------01BEF87FA803FC3A23D6AFFD
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
PZ Myers wrote:
<P><snip>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>I've done a medline search for Spall and the British
Interplanetary
<BR>Society...no luck there, either. What is the BIS? Is this another
<BR>UFO fan club?</BLOCKQUOTE>
Got to step in here, I'm afraid.
<P>The BIS is _not_ "another UFO fan club".
<P>The BIS was founded in 1933, and is the world's longest-running
<BR>organisation devoted solely to the exploration of space and
<BR>astronautics.
<P>Over the years, the BIS has attracted many luminaries among its
<BR>membership - Arthur C. Clarke was a one-time President of the Society,
<BR>and the Fellows of the BIS include Neil Armstrong, "Buzz" Aldrin, Mike
<BR>Collins, the top scientists in the UK involved in aerospace research,
as
<BR>well as many leading members of NASA - such as william McLaughlin,
<BR>Manager, Mission Control and Systems Architecture Section, JPL.
<P>Over the years the BIS has been responsible for a number of highly
<BR>creible projects - the Society's views and designs on a Lunar Excursion
<BR>Module from the late 1950s was looked at by the likes of NASA, Rockwell
<BR>and Grumman in the 1960s. In the mid-1970s, the BIS published the
<BR>Daedelus Project, which conceptualised the use of a nuclear propulsive
<BR>system to send and umanned probe to Bardnard's star (expected flight
<BR>duration 56 Earth years). Fellows of the Society have more recently
been
<BR>involved in the SSTO HoTOL project, and Alan Bond developed the world's
<BR>first "air-breathing" engine, the RB545, now patented by Rolls Royce
<BR>Aeroengines Ltd.
<P>The Society publishes two periodicals: "Spaceflight": which is a monthly
<BR>look at the real-world of international space efforts including Mir
<BR>missions, shuttle activities, JPL-run projects, Japanese space efforts,
<BR>the work of the European Space Agency, etc. The second publication
is
<BR>the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, long regarded as
a
<BR>major publication relating to theoretical and practical spaceflight
and
<BR>space efforts. Articles for the latter publication come from scientists,
<BR>engineers and theoreticians at the forefront of out modern space
<BR>efforts.
<P>Issues of the JBIS tend to concentrate on specific themes (e.g. the
<BR>Practical Exploration of Mars). The August 1997 issue is develped to
<BR>Soviet / CIS Cosmonautics, with subjects including:
<P>* science on board the Mir space station, 1986 - 94
<BR>* Russian participation in the International Space Station: Status
and
<BR>Issues
<BR>* An updated analysis of the 3-stage N-1 Lunar launch vehicle
<BR>* A review of the cosmonaut selection programme
<BR>* 12 years of Mir space station operations.
<P>Generally, the BIS is a responsible, sceintifically-minded body. I have
<BR>been a member (and Fellow) for more than a decade. The Society's aim
is
<BR>to promote a better understanding of the importance of space
<BR>exploration. The Society's homepage can be found at:
<P><A HREF="http://freespace.virgin.net/bis.bis/Bis.htm"> http://freespace.virgin.net/bis.bis/Bis.htm</A>
<P>As a Fellow, I have, on behalf of the Society, presented talks and
<BR>lectures including:
<P>* The Exploration of Mars: Past, Present and Future
<BR>* The Space Shuttle: A Remarkable Flying Machine
<BR>* Mir: A House in Space
<BR>* The Grand Tour: Voyager and the Solar System
<BR>* So, You Want to be an Astronaut? (educational talk for schoolchildren
<BR>showing what is involved in astronaut selection / training)
<BR>* Hubble Trouble (a join presentation with Steve Tidey, member of the
<BR>British Astronomical Association on the HST - from launch thro' initial
<BR>focus problems to the Endeavour "rescue" mission to the most recent
HST
<BR>images)
<BR>* Shuttle! (educational talk & video presentation for school children,
<BR>illustrating a "typical" shuttle mission)
<P>The Society holds regular meetings and symposia in London throughout
the
<BR>year.
<P>As a whole, Society memebership is rather sceptical of ETI visitations
<BR>to this planet...so I am rather surprised to find the Society being
<BR>referenced in the newsgroup.
<P>While I (as a sceptic myself) appreciate your stance on this question,
i
<BR>would ask that you do not lambast those organisations of which you
admit
<BR>you do not have any personal knowledge. I sincerely hope this posting
<BR>goes some way to clearing up exactly what the BIS is.
<P>As I have access to back issues of both the JBIS and Spaceflight,
I'd
<BR>be most interested in receiving an update of the reported article
<BR>published by the BIS WRT UFO/ETIs (i.e. the title, author and date
of
<BR>publication, if they were given). I've treid to trace the thread back
to
<BR>retrieve this information myself from earlier postings, but my ruddy
ISP
<BR>server keeps generating Bad Article messages. I'm curious to see if
what
<BR>was printed by the BIS may have been taken out of context....
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE><A HREF="http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/"></A> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>--
<BR>"Scepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it
<BR>is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the
<BR>first comer: there is nobility in preserving it
<BR>coolly and proudly through long youth, until
<BR>at last, in the ripeness of instinct and
<BR>discretion, it can be safely exchanged for
<BR>fidelity and happiness"
<P>- George Santayana
<BR> </HTML>
--------------01BEF87FA803FC3A23D6AFFD--
Richard Bayarri Bartual
PZ Myers wrote:
> Saying that "scientists" are on the board doesn't mean a thing. There *are*
> a few raving loonies among scientists, too.
PZ Myers
> PZ Myers wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > I've done a medline search for Spall and the British Interplanetary
> > Society...no luck there, either. What is the BIS? Is this another
> > UFO fan club?
>
[snip]
> As a whole, Society memebership is rather sceptical of ETI visitations
> to this planet...so I am rather surprised to find the Society being
> referenced in the newsgroup.
>
> While I (as a sceptic myself) appreciate your stance on this question, i
> would ask that you do not lambast those organisations of which you admit
> you do not have any personal knowledge. I sincerely hope this posting
> goes some way to clearing up exactly what the BIS is.
Yes...and note that I was *asking* whether this was some gullible
group of UFO nuts, a reasonable question given the source.
>
> As I have access to back issues of both the JBIS and Spaceflight, I'd
> be most interested in receiving an update of the reported article
> published by the BIS WRT UFO/ETIs (i.e. the title, author and date of
> publication, if they were given). I've treid to trace the thread back to
> retrieve this information myself from earlier postings, but my ruddy ISP
> server keeps generating Bad Article messages. I'm curious to see if what
> was printed by the BIS may have been taken out of context....
>
Sherilyn provided a URL for the article somewhere in this thread. I've
also posted my opinion of it -- several of you have now told me what a
reasonable and prestigious organization the BIS is, but I'm afraid that
the quality of this one article reflects very poorly on the society.
Jean van Gemert
In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> You're missing the point. There would be a specific range of oxygen density
>> in which you either simply could not create any fire, or you'd end up with an
>> atmosphere stuck with uncontrolable, rampaging firestorms. Only a specific
>> range of oxygen density allows for the use of controlled fire...
>
>Oxygen is good to have around, but why assume that other conditions
>would favor combustion?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with "why assume that other conditions
would favor combustion?" I'm arguing that to have material science you would
pretty much need an atmosphere similar to ours. This shouldn't pose any real
problems because there ought to be lots of earth-like planets out there.
Jean van Gemert
In article, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>I can't see much to recommend a journal whose raison d'etre seems to be
>to collect a hodge-podge of articles with the common topic of being
>way out of the mainstream.
You won't get fringe science claims into the mainstream (if there's
something to some of them) unless you publish reliable data that
conceivably could sway other scientists. That's where the JSE
comes in, publishing articles either critical or supportive. None of
this argues for "unreliability" of the journal as long as they follow
accepted scientific protocols and stringent peer review standards.
Condemning a journal just because it publishes papers on topics
you regard to be a waste of time is, in my view, wholly irrational.
Do you treat the SI the same then?
>That puts them in the same territory as "Fate" magazine.
Regarding some of the subject matter, yes. But as for reliability and
scholarship? A definite "no."
>> >I've done a medline search for Spall and the British Interplanetary
>> >Society...no luck there, either. What is the BIS? Is this another
>> >UFO fan club?
>
>> Where did you get the idea that this was "another UFO fan club"?
>>Your bias is again blatantly showing.
>
>Read it again. I made no assumption -- I asked a question.
It's the implication, easily derived from your highly suggestive question.
Jean van Gemert
In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Just a thought.
A flimsy one. :)
In any case, I had hoped to continue participating for some more days,
but alas, it won't be so. Other more important duties here at home call
for my immediate attention. Won't be posting here for at least a couple
of months as of tomorrow.
Jean van Gemert
In article, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
[snippage of agreements...]
>In addition, there is no serious attempt to present a balanced perspective,
>but is clearly directed towards achieving a predetermined conclusion,
Obviously the author is pushing his ideas, yes. But to his credit he does
reference and state the existence of opposing views.
>The author starts by claiming that there are two views: that aliens would
>look like us, or they would look completely different...it is a position that
>sure assumes an awful lot and incorporates a lot of unspoken biases.
I'm sorry but this makes hardly any sense. Spall's saying people either
believe intelligent aliens will have a humanoid morphology (i.e. Asimov's
view) or they won't look humanoid at all but can take all sorts of shapes.
Are there any other options then? Aliens looking like a tv, a car?
>short section. In two paragraphs, he superficially dismisses the possibility
>of non-carbon-based life.
For which justifiably little to no evidence exists. Scientists' views on this
are highly negative (on anything else but carbon). Even in 1930 Urey and
Miller wrote that "we know enough about the chemistry of other systems,
wuch as those of silicon, ammonia and hydrogen fluoride, to realize that
no complex system of chemical reactions similar to that which we call
"living" would be possible in such media" (Sullivan, "We are not alone,"
1993 edition, p. 133).
>In a third, he "can't envisage" life on anything but a planet with earth-like
>temperature and pressure, and a sun like ours.
Not life, but _intelligent_ life that may someday develop technology, i.e.
"step out of a spaceship" (asside from that, this already requires an
atmosphere somewhat similar to ours) which he specifically emphasized.
The reasons for this are sound, as is his argument on carbon-based life.
>See the pattern? It's the old argument from inadequate imagination.
I see. Imagination is a substitute for facts? :)
>but for a different reason than is his intent. It is highly unlikely that
>*any* creature will evolve high intelligence...
You're entitled to your opinion. Nevertheless, even G. G. Simpson wrote in
his book "This View of Life" that intelligence is "a marvelous adaption" which
has "survival value in a wide range of environments." Philip Morrison has also
made an appeal to convergence for the case of intelligence, arguing that it
has shown up in two independent lines of evolution namely men and the
dolphins.
[...]
>giraffe. Spall's leap, though, is to next tell us that birds and fish
>have lifestyles that are incompatible with intelligence, and that it
>must be a land animal. Huh?
No, not just with "intelligence." Spall's saying they are incompatible with a
(primitive) technology-using intelligence. For example, a liquid environment
will inhibit any trends towards development of tool-use or technology.
>group on our planet, the arthropods. These animals have many limbs, which
>can then be specialized to serve a huge number of useful functions:
>locomotion, manipulation, feeding, mating, respiration, etc.
I'd say they do not have the requisite brains, their manipulative capacities and
physical abilities if stretched to their limits would never allow them to construct
tools, etc. They don't seem to be interested in such either probably because it
is not an extention of their morphology in the first place. AFAIK, they're only
interested in existing (which means nothing to them anyway).
>excessive and difficult for the brain to coordinate" while "Less than
>four fingers on the hand would make basic technology difficult to manipulate".
>Again, he is making arguments that have no basis in fact (many animals
>have far more appendages with less brain, and technology is designed
>to fit the being, not the other way 'round).
Misses the point completely. "technology is designed to fit the being." That's
a rather pointless remark if the being in question can't construct any such in
the first place. Just having appendages does not make them tool manipulators;
ever tried building something with your feet? And "less brain" too works against
the probability of developing intelligence and conceptualization.
In any case, thanks for the reasonable perspective here.
[some more snippage]
Jean van Gemert
In article, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>> notion of man as a neotenous ape. Bipedalism is shown to be the
>> basic hominid adaptation, and a necessary precondition for the
>> emergence of both technology and language.
>>
>
>Sounds fine, up until that last phrase...
That's why I posted it. :)
>how does showing that bipedalism is a key adaptation in one organism show
>that it is also a precondition for a not-necessarily related trait in a completely
>different hypothetical organism? Perhaps the author is laboring under some
>preconceptions?
Since I haven't read the paper it's difficult to answer that. Perhaps the author
assumes that all large land-dwellers will mostly be quadrupeds (not counting
tails). For emergence of technology to be possible you'd at least need to free
the forelimbs then and this bipedalism-manipulation-brain feedback seems to
be a necessary step towards a rapid increase in encephalization.
Jean van Gemert
In article, Richard Bayarri Bartual <r...@host.bemarnet.es> wrote:
>Spall's JBIS paper is however filled with errors. As an example, in his
>arguments on why exoskeletal structures are unlikely for anything large
>and complex enough to evolve intelligence, he states that the tarantula
>is the largest land-based "insect", when it is neither an insect, nor
>the largest spider, and certainly not the largest land-based arthropod
Typing in "tarantula" in my cdrom encylopedia turns up the entry "insect"
and lists the tarantula as being such. Spall has neither claimed it was the
largest arthropod.
>(this distinction probably belongs to the land-crab, which can weigh in
>excess of 20lbs, and spends its whole adult life out of water...
I believe you have missed his point. Spall argues that any insect-like
appendages are not suited for predatory animals. None here negates
his case however that insects or crabs for that matter will be unlikely
to ever develop intelligence. They are not motivated to do so, and the
morphology doesn't lend itself to it.
>possible to make any valid assumptions whatsoever about possible paths
>of extra-terrestrial evolution based on a statistical sample of one!
The argument is that we're a typical example of the many earth-like
planets that are believed to be out there. As such we could learn
and make predictions (none of which of course can be known to be
true until we actually meet ET) about the evolution on other planets
by looking at our own biological history to see which morphological
characteristics turn up again and again (convergent evolution). The
pivotal question "why did we become intelligent critters?" is also an
important player here.
Sherilyn
In article <5t4q4e$e...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock] writes
>>> in which you either simply could not create any fire, or you'd end up with an
>>> atmosphere stuck with uncontrolable, rampaging firestorms. Only a specific
>>> range of oxygen density allows for the use of controlled fire...
>>
>>Oxygen is good to have around, but why assume that other conditions
>>would favor combustion?
>
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say with "why assume that other conditions
> would favor combustion?" I'm arguing that to have material science you would
> pretty much need an atmosphere similar to ours. This shouldn't pose any real
> problems because there ought to be lots of earth-like planets out there.
My point is that the above argument assumes that the other circumstances
will tend to favor combustion--for instance, you assume that it's
available as free oxygen and in an environment that otherwise would
become a combustion hazard if concentration were much higher.
Feel free to dismiss this as science fiction, but I find the proposal
that life, intelligent life, even, can _only_ develop in circumstances
that we can conceive of to be highly suspect. We simply know too little
to circumscribe such things as Bieri and Spall do.
Here's Harvard paleontologist Steve Gould on the Cambrian Explosion as
recorded in the Burgess Shale fauna. I include this because it
indicates that life on earth could have developed many different
morphologies, even accounting for "good design", simply on a different
outcome to the post-Cambrian mass extinctions.
"For species that can be classified within the known
[modern] phyla, Burgess anatomy far exceeds the modern range.
The Burgess Shale ncludes, for example, early representatives
of all four major kinds of arthropods, the dominant animals
on earth today--the trilobites (now extinct), the crustaceans
(including lobsters, crabs and shrimp), the chelicerates
(including spiders and scorpions), and the uniramians (including
insects). But the Burgess Shale also contains some twenty to
thirty kinds of arthropods that cannot be placed in any modern
group. Consider the magnitude of this difference; taxonomists
have described almost a million species of arthropods, and all
fit into four major groups; one quarry in British Columbia,
representing the first explosion of multicellular life, reveals
more than twenty additional arthropod designs! The history of
life is a story of massive removal followed by differentiation
few surviving stocks, not the conventional tale of steadily
increasing excellence, complexity and diversity."
[Wonderful Life _The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History_
Stephen Jay Gould, Radius 1989, Penguin Books 1991]
Now Steve Gould does like to lay it on with a trowel; his swipe at the
"conventional" tale is a little uncalled-for, and this attitude has
brought him run-ins with various ethologists, zoologists and
philosophers. But only because they claim to have known all along what
Steve Gould, in his inimitable way, has a knack for emphasizing anew.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
In article <5t4q5h$e...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock] writes
>In article, Richard Bayarri Bartual <r...@host.bemarnet.es> wrote:
>
>>Spall's JBIS paper is however filled with errors. As an example, in his
>>arguments on why exoskeletal structures are unlikely for anything large
>>and complex enough to evolve intelligence, he states that the tarantula
>>is the largest land-based "insect", when it is neither an insect, nor
>>the largest spider, and certainly not the largest land-based arthropod
>
> Typing in "tarantula" in my cdrom encylopedia turns up the entry "insect"
> and lists the tarantula as being such.
If it shows an illustration of a tarantula (European or American), count
the legs. Then go to the definition of insect. The definition of
insect _should_ conflict with the leg count of the tarantula, if it's
correct.
I can only suggest you cut your losses on the CD, and investigate the
wretched disk's potential as a frisbee. Encarta 95 is fairly cheap and
gives comprehensive descriptions under insect, arachnid and tarantula.
Do you really think you should be arguing taxonomy if you cannot
distinguish the main classes of the arthropod phylum? Just another
flimsy thought.
[recap of anthropomorphic argument snipped--comprehensively refuted
already]
--
Sherilyn
PZ Myers
In article <5t4q2s$e...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van
Gemert) wrote:
> In article, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>
> [snippage of agreements...]
> >In addition, there is no serious attempt to present a balanced perspective,
> >but is clearly directed towards achieving a predetermined conclusion,
>
> Obviously the author is pushing his ideas, yes. But to his credit he does
> reference and state the existence of opposing views.
>
> >The author starts by claiming that there are two views: that aliens would
> >look like us, or they would look completely different...it is a position
that
> >sure assumes an awful lot and incorporates a lot of unspoken biases.
>
> I'm sorry but this makes hardly any sense. Spall's saying people either
> believe intelligent aliens will have a humanoid morphology (i.e. Asimov's
> view) or they won't look humanoid at all but can take all sorts of shapes.
> Are there any other options then? Aliens looking like a tv, a car?
>
The logical flaw is to take something with a huge number of alternatives,
each one remote, and lump them into two categories: the one you favor, and
everything else. It automatically elevates the perception of your favored
view to a higher-than-justified plane. As I explained in the original post,
you could say the alternatives are carrot vs. everything else, or arthropod
vs. everything else, or bird vs. everything else. Whatever way you do it,
it is a crude rhetorical trick to trivialize a multitude of possibilities
into one easily dismissed mass.
> >short section. In two paragraphs, he superficially dismisses the possibility
> >of non-carbon-based life.
>
> For which justifiably little to no evidence exists. Scientists' views on this
> are highly negative (on anything else but carbon). Even in 1930 Urey and
> Miller wrote that "we know enough about the chemistry of other systems,
> wuch as those of silicon, ammonia and hydrogen fluoride, to realize that
> no complex system of chemical reactions similar to that which we call
> "living" would be possible in such media" (Sullivan, "We are not alone,"
> 1993 edition, p. 133).
>
> >In a third, he "can't envisage" life on anything but a planet with
earth-like
> >temperature and pressure, and a sun like ours.
>
> Not life, but _intelligent_ life that may someday develop technology, i.e.
> "step out of a spaceship" (asside from that, this already requires an
> atmosphere somewhat similar to ours) which he specifically emphasized.
> The reasons for this are sound, as is his argument on carbon-based life.
>
> >See the pattern? It's the old argument from inadequate imagination.
>
> I see. Imagination is a substitute for facts? :)
No. But he also failed to provide any facts, and actually included a large
number of blatant errors equivalent to your recent claim that spiders are
insects. And the fact that someone cannot imagine an alternative cannot
be used as a proof that such an alternative could not exist, which is what
Spall is up to here.
>
> >but for a different reason than is his intent. It is highly unlikely that
> >*any* creature will evolve high intelligence...
>
> You're entitled to your opinion. Nevertheless, even G. G. Simpson wrote in
> his book "This View of Life" that intelligence is "a marvelous adaption"
which
> has "survival value in a wide range of environments." Philip Morrison
has also
> made an appeal to convergence for the case of intelligence, arguing that it
> has shown up in two independent lines of evolution namely men and the
> dolphins.
>
> [...]
> >giraffe. Spall's leap, though, is to next tell us that birds and fish
> >have lifestyles that are incompatible with intelligence, and that it
> >must be a land animal. Huh?
You miss the source of my confusion. Spall has just made a gigantic leap,
a colossal non sequitur. He has just finished saying some general statements
about how he thinks brains must be organized, and *wham*, he just jumps
straight into birds & fish vs. land animals, ignoring a half billion years
worth of evolutionary alternatives. It is another indication of poor logic
and a lack of familiarity with basic biology.
>
> No, not just with "intelligence." Spall's saying they are incompatible with a
> (primitive) technology-using intelligence. For example, a liquid environment
> will inhibit any trends towards development of tool-use or technology.
>
> >group on our planet, the arthropods. These animals have many limbs, which
> >can then be specialized to serve a huge number of useful functions:
> >locomotion, manipulation, feeding, mating, respiration, etc.
>
> I'd say they do not have the requisite brains, their manipulative
capacities and
> physical abilities if stretched to their limits would never allow them
to construct
> tools, etc. They don't seem to be interested in such either probably
because it
> is not an extention of their morphology in the first place. AFAIK,
they're only
> interested in existing (which means nothing to them anyway).
We evolved from fish. If you had been around 300-400 MYA, would you have
pointed to a
primitive jawless fish, and claimed that their brains and manipulative
capacities
meant their descendants were destined to rule the world?
The evolution of intelligence does not require some absurd prior "interest"
in order to occur. You might want to read some basic evolutionary biology
before continuing this kind of discussion.
>
> >excessive and difficult for the brain to coordinate" while "Less than
> >four fingers on the hand would make basic technology difficult to
manipulate".
> >Again, he is making arguments that have no basis in fact (many animals
> >have far more appendages with less brain, and technology is designed
> >to fit the being, not the other way 'round).
>
> Misses the point completely. "technology is designed to fit the being."
That's
> a rather pointless remark if the being in question can't construct any
such in
> the first place. Just having appendages does not make them tool manipulators;
> ever tried building something with your feet? And "less brain" too works
against
> the probability of developing intelligence and conceptualization.
Consider the context. If an intelligent organism has one finger and one
thumb, it
will make tools that can be used with such a hand. The fact that it would be
unable to use a Black & Decker power drill designed by and for humans does not
constitute an argument that such a creature could not exist.
Sherilyn
In article <myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>, PZ
Myers <my...@netaxs.com> writes
>In article <5t4q5h$e...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van
>Gemert) wrote:
...
>>
>> I believe you have missed his point. Spall argues that any insect-like
>> appendages are not suited for predatory animals.
>
This is like saying "some people who live in Hollywood tend to appear in
movies." :)
There are insectile modes of predation that others just haven't come
close to. 17 year cidada? No problem!
--
Sherilyn
Richard Harter
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>In article <5t46e5$u...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>>
>> >But Richard, you've confounded mathematics with formal computer
>> >science. You do know that there are those who aver that the latter is
>> >all just `technology'?
>>
>> >(And you forgot Chomksy!)
>>
>> No, I haven't confounded mathematics with formal computer science.
>> Formal computer science uses techniques and theories developed by
>> mathematicians who were investigating the foundations of Mathematics well
>> before computers were invented. I'm not up to writing a long essay on
>> the foundations of Mathematics. Trust me. And Chomsky is irrelevant.
>No, I don't trust you. Sorry, Richard, if you say Chomksy is
>irrelevant, you quite clearly *don't know what you're talking about*.
>End of story. (Not suprising if you insist on considering only the
>mathematical roots of CS.)
I get the feeling that you are working on misreading me. Let's hope not.
The issue at hand is not computer science but mathematics and whether an
'alien mathematics' would be comprehensible to us.
CS is a red herring here, one that was introduced by you when you said
that I was talking about CS rather mathematics. Chomsky is certainly
relevant to CS and (debatably) relevant to communication with aliens but
that is a separate matter.
The issue at hand revolves around Church's thesis and the deep
isomomorphism of all formal groundings of mathematics. It is a matter of
simple fact that Turing, Post, Church, et. al. did their relevant work
before the advent of computers, let alone computer science as a
discipline. The proofs that theorems in formallized systems are
isomorphic to statements in diophantine equations long precedes CS.
If Church's thesis is unprovable (which in the nature of things it must
be) still there is no good reason to doubt it. But from this it follows
that all formal systems are embeddable within number theory.
Now it is quite conceivable that our hypothetical aliens don't use
discrete symbols, in which case comparing mathematical theories is the
least of our communication problems. And it is conceivable that they
don't use proofs - that they operate with an intuition which is never
made explicit. Such a "mathematics" would be inaccessible to us.
But if they go so far as to use actual discrete symbols and publicly
ascertainable rules of inference then the formalism is translatable and
is embeddable in number theory.
>I hope I'm not going to have to write another tutorial. Life's too
>short. Please see, e.g., chapter 9 of Hopcroft and Ullman.
Since I don't have a copy at hand, perhaps you could amplify your rather
cryptic remark.
>> I was thinking of arithmeticized in a different sense.
>If you're confounding `aritmeticized' and `axiomatized', perhaps you
>*should* write the essay. But please find out a little more about
>Turing-complete formalisms first. Claiming that they are solely
>mathematical reveals a certain bias which to me seems rather hard to
>reconcile with the facts.
Where do you get these notions - confounding 'arithmeticized' and
'axiomatized' indeed. The fact that formalized axiomatic theories can be
arithmeticized, i.e., translated into equations in number theory goes
back to the 20's, if not earlier. [I can dig up references if you like -
it was thought at the time to be a great simplification - axiomatic set
theory (which was hard and mysterious) was reduced to number theory
(which was thought to be 'easy' and 'well understood'. Such are the
illusions of life.]
May one enquire as to what it is you think that I am supposed to find
about Turing-complete formalisms?
May one also enquire as to what these mysterious facts are?
I will concede some justice to the plaint about term 'solely
mathematical'. We are talking about what is commonly called
metamathematics which covers, roughly, what can be said and done within
mathematics. However the essential results of metamathematics use
methods that are mathematical in character.
It is likely enough that our hypothetical aliens will not have anything
remotely resembling axiomatic set theory. If they compute, however,
their methodology will be bounded by effective computability and it will
be expressible in extant formalisms.
==
As an end note I will concede that it has been quite some time, decades
in fact, since I have worked in this area. However I did have a certain
modest familiarity with the field, including having read (and hopefully
understood) the original work of Fege, Zermelo, Frankel, Tarski, Bernays,
Russell, Goedel, Quine, Turning, Church, and, of course, that marvelous
text by Kleene. I don't quite think I've forgotten everything.
Jonathan Stone
In article <5t5o1a$e...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>
> >In article <5t46e5$u...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
> >> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>
> I get the feeling that you are working on misreading me.
Not at all.
> The issue at hand is not computer science but mathematics and whether an
> 'alien mathematics' would be comprehensible to us.
The examples you offered as mathematics seem to _me_ to fall outside
mathematics and into the boundary of foundational CS theory. I would
tend to see much of 20th century mathematical logic the same way, too.
It's an area where the boundaries are at best decidedly fuzzy, and I
hope there's room for good-natured disagreement.
Would you describe process algebraists as mathematicians, or as
computer scienists? How about researchers on linear logics?
> CS is a red herring here, one that was introduced by you when you said
> that I was talking about CS rather mathematics. Chomsky is certainly
> relevant to CS and (debatably) relevant to communication with aliens but
> that is a separate matter.
But the Chomsky hierarchy is formallly equivalent to the other
formalismsn you claim as ``mathematics'' and tow hich Chomksy is
irrelevant. I am not working at misreading you. I *am* disputing your
characteriziation of what counts as universal mathematics, and what
doesn't.
> The issue at hand revolves around Church's thesis and the deep
> isomomorphism of all formal groundings of mathematics.
*Not* just mathematics, and not purely mathematics.
> May one enquire as to what it is you think that I am supposed to find
> about Turing-complete formalisms?
>
> May one also enquire as to what these mysterious facts are?
Mainly, the formal equivalence of levels 3, 2, and 0 of the Chomsky
hierarchy of languages with regular sets/FSMs, PDAs, and Turing
machines.
If you want to claim Chomskian formal language theory and Post
production systems are purely mathematical methods, I give up. We
have too big a semantic gap about what's "mathematics". I do wonder,
though: you yourself said that Chomsky was irrelevant. *Why* do you
think Chomsky is irrelevant? Is it because it's not a mathematical
approach, or something else?
> I will concede some justice to the plaint about term 'solely
> mathematical'. We are talking about what is commonly called
> metamathematics
Oh. Now you clarify that's what *you're* talking about, what you're
saying makes much more sense. Thanks.
which covers, roughly, what can be said and done within
> mathematics. However the essential results of metamathematics use
> methods that are mathematical in character.
They use proofs? Yes. The formalisms? I think you're on shaky
grounds there, unless you are retroactively labelling all
Turing-equivalent formalisms as mathematical.
> It is likely enough that our hypothetical aliens will not have anything
> remotely resembling axiomatic set theory. If they compute, however,
> their methodology will be bounded by effective computability and it will
> be expressible in extant formalisms.
Uh, Vaughan Pratt tells anyone who listens that quantum computation is
beleived to be strictly more powerful than non-deterministic Turing
machines. I can never follow his argument, though, and i concede I'm
arguing from authority. Damn good one, though.
Richard Harter
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>In talk.origins jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van Gemert) wrote:
>[snip]
>> I will certainly agree that human-type intelligence will be rare. If intelligent alien
>> life exists it's difficult to conceive how their mode of thinking would be like ours.
>> Their morphology is another issue, however. In any case, I vaguely remember
>> you expressed some sympathy to Mayr's points of view re ET life and the
>> improbabilty thereof. I respect your opinion, just don't expect me to agree with it.
>>
>Interesting. IMO, and I emphasize opinion, there would be more
>similarity in thinking than in morphology. I suspect that much of the
>thinking is based on how the world works. The shape may be
>unimportant, but cause and effect and mathematics are universal.
I have my doubts about similarity in thinking. Math, yes, because it is
grounded in the formal structure of uninterpreted symbols. Physics and
chemistry work the same regardless of how your brain works. But our kind
of thinking uses chains of symbols (references that point to other
references) which are ultimately grounded in references pointing to
actual experience.
The thought processes of aliens would be grounded in a different
physiology, different senses, different hormones, and different evolved
social structures. Even with humans we can (and have) built wildly
different cultures on top of a common physiology. With aliens the
difference in underlying grounding would make almost all of their thought
processes inaccessible to us; in effect they would 'speak' in
incomprehensible metaphors.
PZ Myers
In article <5t4q5h$e...@tuegate.tue.nl>, jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl (Jean van
Gemert) wrote:
> In article, Richard Bayarri Bartual <r...@host.bemarnet.es> wrote:
>
> >Spall's JBIS paper is however filled with errors. As an example, in his
> >arguments on why exoskeletal structures are unlikely for anything large
> >and complex enough to evolve intelligence, he states that the tarantula
> >is the largest land-based "insect", when it is neither an insect, nor
> >the largest spider, and certainly not the largest land-based arthropod
>
> Typing in "tarantula" in my cdrom encylopedia turns up the entry "insect"
> and lists the tarantula as being such. Spall has neither claimed it was the
> largest arthropod.
What?? A tarantula is *NOT* an insect. Your encyclopedia has some serious
problems -- this is rather like saying an octopus is a mammal.
>
> >(this distinction probably belongs to the land-crab, which can weigh in
> >excess of 20lbs, and spends its whole adult life out of water...
>
> I believe you have missed his point. Spall argues that any insect-like
> appendages are not suited for predatory animals.
False. A great many insects are very successful predators.
> None here negates
> his case however that insects or crabs for that matter will be unlikely
> to ever develop intelligence. They are not motivated to do so, and the
> morphology doesn't lend itself to it.
"Motivated to do so"? What animals are so motivated?
>
> >possible to make any valid assumptions whatsoever about possible paths
> >of extra-terrestrial evolution based on a statistical sample of one!
>
> The argument is that we're a typical example of the many earth-like
> planets that are believed to be out there. As such we could learn
> and make predictions (none of which of course can be known to be
> true until we actually meet ET) about the evolution on other planets
> by looking at our own biological history to see which morphological
> characteristics turn up again and again (convergent evolution). The
Yes. And the characters that turn up frequently are not bipedalism, or
10 fingers, or even fingers for that matter.
> pivotal question "why did we become intelligent critters?" is also an
> important player here.
--
Jonathan Stone
In article <5t46e5$u...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>
> >But Richard, you've confounded mathematics with formal computer
> >science. You do know that there are those who aver that the latter is
> >all just `technology'?
>
> >(And you forgot Chomksy!)
>
> No, I haven't confounded mathematics with formal computer science.
> Formal computer science uses techniques and theories developed by
> mathematicians who were investigating the foundations of Mathematics well
> before computers were invented. I'm not up to writing a long essay on
> the foundations of Mathematics. Trust me. And Chomsky is irrelevant.
No, I don't trust you. Sorry, Richard, if you say Chomksy is
irrelevant, you quite clearly *don't know what you're talking about*.
End of story. (Not suprising if you insist on considering only the
mathematical roots of CS.)
I hope I'm not going to have to write another tutorial. Life's too
short. Please see, e.g., chapter 9 of Hopcroft and Ullman.
Rev. Chuck
Alleged gods look human and come here because we want them to.
Alleged aliens look human and come here because we want them to.
Ever notice that people are either fascinated with gods or fascinated with UFO's, but
rarely at the same time?
Richard Harter
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>In article <5t5o1a$e...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <5t46e5$u...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>> >> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>>
>> I get the feeling that you are working on misreading me.
>Not at all.
>> The issue at hand is not computer science but mathematics and whether an
>> 'alien mathematics' would be comprehensible to us.
>The examples you offered as mathematics seem to _me_ to fall outside
>mathematics and into the boundary of foundational CS theory. I would
>tend to see much of 20th century mathematical logic the same way, too.
>It's an area where the boundaries are at best decidedly fuzzy, and I
>hope there's room for good-natured disagreement.
Yep. It would seem that we were mostly arguing about labels. I'm right,
of course, but there's no harm in letting the Johnny Come Lately CS types
use their own jargon.
>Would you describe process algebraists as mathematicians, or as
>computer scienists? How about researchers on linear logics?
Mathematicians gone bad.
:-)
[snip Chomsky and some stuff]
>> May one enquire as to what it is you think that I am supposed to find
>> about Turing-complete formalisms?
>>
>> May one also enquire as to what these mysterious facts are?
>Mainly, the formal equivalence of levels 3, 2, and 0 of the Chomsky
>hierarchy of languages with regular sets/FSMs, PDAs, and Turing
>machines.
Oops, mea culpa. Yes, Chomsky does put Turing machines at level 0.
You can include him in the list of equivalent formalizations. It wasn't
meant to be a complete list (there are others as you probably know.)
>If you want to claim Chomskian formal language theory and Post
>production systems are purely mathematical methods, I give up. We
>have too big a semantic gap about what's "mathematics". I do wonder,
>though: you yourself said that Chomsky was irrelevant. *Why* do you
>think Chomsky is irrelevant? Is it because it's not a mathematical
>approach, or something else?
Of course they're mathematics. Chomsky you have a point on. It's true
he includes turing equivalence (sort of de rigeur) but it's not where the
action is in his work.
>> I will concede some justice to the plaint about term 'solely
>> mathematical'. We are talking about what is commonly called
>> metamathematics
>Oh. Now you clarify that's what *you're* talking about, what you're
>saying makes much more sense. Thanks.
> which covers, roughly, what can be said and done within
>> mathematics. However the essential results of metamathematics use
>> methods that are mathematical in character.
>They use proofs? Yes. The formalisms? I think you're on shaky
>grounds there, unless you are retroactively labelling all
>Turing-equivalent formalisms as mathematical.
What do you mean, retroactively? They were labelled as being
mathematical initially. Calling it CS is very much an after the fact
sort of thing, a product of the last 30 years.
Be that as it may, you can translate them into number theory
isomorphically and that I hope you will concede is mathematics.
>> It is likely enough that our hypothetical aliens will not have anything
>> remotely resembling axiomatic set theory. If they compute, however,
>> their methodology will be bounded by effective computability and it will
>> be expressible in extant formalisms.
>Uh, Vaughan Pratt tells anyone who listens that quantum computation is
>beleived to be strictly more powerful than non-deterministic Turing
>machines. I can never follow his argument, though, and i concede I'm
>arguing from authority. Damn good one, though.
Well, yes, he does and this a big issue. As I read it, it's not - when
everything is shaken out we're still dealing with effective
computability. I may be wrong, of course.
Jean van Gemert
In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>My point is that the above argument assumes that the other circumstances
>will tend to favor combustion--for instance, you assume that it's
>available as free oxygen and in an environment that otherwise would
>become a combustion hazard if concentration were much higher.
>
>Feel free to dismiss this as science fiction, but I find the proposal
>that life, intelligent life, even, can _only_ develop in circumstances
>that we can conceive of to be highly suspect. We simply know too little
>to circumscribe such things as Bieri and Spall do.
No, we do, you just deny that fact. Too high a concentration of oxygen,
no spaceships, no nothing. Too low a concentration, no spaceships, no
nothing. End of story. You can't get around that. You can appeal to your
imagination all you want until you get purple in the face, but it ain't a
substitute for facts.
Thanks for the Gould cite though. I'm looking forward to reading Mike
Swords' paper and seeing how he deals with it.
Mark Isaak
In article <5t4q5h$e...@tuegate.tue.nl>,
Jean van Gemert <jeanvg@[spamblock]dds.nl> wrote:
> Typing in "tarantula" in my cdrom encylopedia turns up the entry "insect"
> and lists the tarantula as being such.
Toss your cdrom encyclopedia.
> Spall argues that any insect-like appendages are not suited for
> predatory animals.
Huh? One-third of insects species are predatory animals.
> None here negates
> his case however that insects or crabs for that matter will be unlikely
> to ever develop intelligence. They are not motivated to do so, and the
> morphology doesn't lend itself to it.
>
>>possible to make any valid assumptions whatsoever about possible paths
The niches they occupy don't lend themselves to it. I see nothing in
their morphology otherwise which would prevent intelligence. Or I should
say greater intelligence. Arthropods already can learn.
--
Mark Isaak at...@best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"To undeceive men is to offend them." - Queen Christina of Sweden
Jean van Gemert
In article, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I can only suggest you cut your losses on the CD, and investigate the
>wretched disk's potential as a frisbee. Encarta 95 is fairly cheap and
>gives comprehensive descriptions under insect, arachnid and tarantula.
I have that one too, didn't check it. Software Toolworks encyclopedia
runs faster.
>Do you really think you should be arguing taxonomy if you cannot
>distinguish the main classes of the arthropod phylum? Just another
>flimsy thought.
Let's see. I have one encyclopedia which says the Tarantula is an
insect, and I have Encarta which says it's not. And what does Sheri
do? Yup, she blames the messenger. Always take the easier route.
>[recap of anthropomorphic argument snipped--comprehensively refuted
>already]
Another cute political trick; _pretend_ the argument was settled in favor of
one side. Noteably, I'm not in a position as of yet to refut all of Meyr's points
(I'm after all not a biologist nor a biochemist) but I'm sure Mike Swords would
take a look at it. :)
Mike Noren
Replying to my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers)
: > Coffey, E. J., "Hominid evolution and SETI," British Interplanetary Society,
: > vol. 34, Mar. 1981, p. 107-114.
: >
: > From the abstract:
: >
: > Various preconceptions about human origins and the character of the
: > processes of thinking are shown to be misleading. The extent of the
: > relationship between perceiving and thinking is revealed. It is shown
: > that understanding human evolution requires consideration of human
: > biological adaptations, rather than any supposed human uniqueness.
: > Evidence from various sources is shown to be consistent with the
: > notion of man as a neotenous ape. Bipedalism is shown to be the
: > basic hominid adaptation, and a necessary precondition for the
: > emergence of both technology and language.
: >
:
: Sounds fine, up until that last phrase...how does showing that bipedalism
: is a key adaptation in one organism show that it is also a precondition
: for a not-necessarily related trait in a completely different hypothetical
: organism? Perhaps the author is laboring under some preconceptions?
IMHO it is impossible to make any predictions about an intelligent
alien race other than that they, by definition, will be intelligent
and alien. The reason being that we've only got one data point
(humans), and would need to find atleast one other, unrelated,
intelligent species - and one with a technological culture of some
kind - to make any useful generalizations.
: Paul Z. Myers
Michael Norén, Doctoral student, Tel: Int +46 (0)8 6664236
Swedish Museum of Natural History, Fax: Int +46 (0)8 666
Dept. of Invertebrate Zoology
P.O.B. 50007
S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
REMOVE THE WORD 'SPAMSTOP' IN MY ADDRESS TO MAIL ME
Peter Nyikos Quote of the day:
"too many people here probably believe that we
human beings act according to natural law mechanisms."
-- Peter Nyikos, talk.origins, 97-07-31
Jean van Gemert
In article, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>What?? A tarantula is *NOT* an insect. Your encyclopedia has some serious
>problems -- this is rather like saying an octopus is a mammal.
Seems so. Well, at least I didn't pay for it. :)
>> his case however that insects or crabs for that matter will be unlikely
>> to ever develop intelligence. They are not motivated to do so, and the
>> morphology doesn't lend itself to it.
>
>"Motivated to do so"? What animals are so motivated?
Uh, read again. I said _not_ motivated.
>> The argument is that we're a typical example of the many earth-like
>> planets that are believed to be out there. As such we could learn
>> and make predictions (none of which of course can be known to be
>> true until we actually meet ET) about the evolution on other planets
>> by looking at our own biological history to see which morphological
>> characteristics turn up again and again (convergent evolution). The
>
>Yes. And the characters that turn up frequently are not bipedalism, or
>10 fingers, or even fingers for that matter.
And this is your problem. I can agree about the fingers for now to some
extent. But, if you look at all _large_ land-dwellers, the ones which are
the most likely to become intelligent, there are definite recurring patterns
here. You're just saying, "hey, I can point to animals that look completely
different." Big deal, none of these belongs to the larger land animals and
are most unlikely to develop intelligence. See for example your snake
argument that's supposed to prove Bieri's assumption on locomotion is
not valid. Highly entertaining evasion though.