the anthropomorphic nature of Star Wars aliens

[Jawawithagun]

it also depends on whether or not the race uses electromagnetic radiation in perception. inhabitants of a Red Dwarf star may rely completely upon thermal sensing.

the presence of a dominant, airborne predator may discourage the placement of heads atop the body. assuming the head contains the equivalent of the brain, one would want to keep it well protected.

Yet in SW most species encountered come from a more or less Earthlike environment and did not evolve on a red dwarf star.

Dominant airborne predators like the great birds?

[Pablo Sanchez]

One problem with your reasoning is that you're forgetting that certain characteristics of an above-ground land-dwelling creature favor tool use. A species which arose on an aquatic planet might have fine manipulators, but it has no access to fire, which is the key technology in development of advanced tools. Technology is stopped at the bone-tool stage, and so the species isn't represented in the larger galaxy.

Real-life is a certain precedent for this. In the billions of years of Earth's history, with multifarious conditions and environments in place, only the plains-ape evolutionary path has ever produced tool-users. This says something to me, at least.

[Duckie]

Real-life is a certain precedent for this. In the billions of years of Earth's history, with multifarious conditions and environments in place, only the plains-ape evolutionary path has ever produced tool-users. This says something to me, at least.

Do Chimpanzees fall under plains-ape? They use sticks to gather termites as I remember. Not much, but it's a tool.

Even if they aren't, the just plain old "ape" line has been the only one to produce tools. Probably because all other species lack usable opposable thumbs, having little reason to have them I would suppose due to their diet. Humanity just happened to eat the right thing.

[SirNitram]

you all seem to be taking offense to my statement that Star War's aliens are not plausible. why is that?

There's always a few fanboys like that. Unfortunately for you, most of us understand it's a story. That's why we don't waste threads with this stuff.

some of you are unable to understand that the humanoid form ISN'T the best for tool-making. It is simply a possibility for creatures that evolved in an earth-like environment. perhaps it is the best for ground-dwelling apes, but if wolves evolved intelligence, they sure as hell wouldn't look like wolf-men.

I tire of this. You keep insisting you know these things, now start proving your claim. If you know what other intelligent species should look like, post proof.

"3. The idea that these species redesigned themselves for this is rather an impressive display of ripping things from your ass."

i'm not even the one who made up the theory. it was Dr Curtis Saxton. don't blame me if it still sounds shitty.

You are, I think, referring to his Twi'lek theory. I frankly don't care either way; but, at it's core, that theory has very little to prop it up. It's interesting speculation, but to declare it unassailable truth without evidence is not sensible.

what i meant by the quarren looking stupid is that they looked EXACTLY like some earth animal had been glued on to a man's face. to call them plausible aliens would be an affront to xenoscience.

If you want to bounce around here claiming to know, perhaps you should start showing evidence, instead of this empty indignation.

some of you have been expecting me to tell you what aliens look like. hell if i know. all i know is that they'll be perfectly designed to their environments, like we are, and even if they evolve on an earth-like planet, they probably will not look like us.

So you're a complete liar. You don't know that they wouldn't look like man-shapes; you just lie through your teeth, expecting to impress people. Sadly, don't work here. If you want anyone to accept your absurd claim that you know aliens would not look like man-shapes, start showing evidence. Otherwise, fuck off.

he precise combination of traits that define each group of animals and plants today makes it almost certain that when one replays earth's evolutionary history, one would not find those exact traits repeated. there may be insect-like creatures, but they could have 4 legs, just out of random probability.

Yep, and there's lots of 4 legged creatures around. Not many six legged ones above insect size. Maybe there's a reason you haven't thought of.

that is why i say that restarting earth would not yield humans again. it is all due to chance.

And if you were, I dunno, literate, you'd realize that's not the point. You have yet to show any emergent intelligence would have a vastly different body structure.

note that i'm not just making up crap. i've read and confirmed this belief numerous times in books like, "what does a martian look like?" by Jack Cohen and sites like this http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... phism.html

this view is also supported by the fact that many events in our prehistory (asteroid strikes causing mass extinction) may or may not happen the second time. what if dinosaurs never became extinct? you certainly wouldn't have humans evolving then.

No, but you could have saurians adapting to utilize tools. Which will require specialized forelimbs, which will require upright walking...

admittedly, there are some scientists who believe that anthropomorphic races could evolve on distant planets. however, these races would be well adapted to life in their ecosystems. they wouldn't just be men with mouse-heads.

even they admit that such life-forms would only be viable in earth-like environs.

And what a shock, there's a shitload of Terran worlds in the Star Wars Galaxy.

you claim that heads must be positioned higher on the body plan. this is a very general statement and certainly doesn't apply in all scenarios. in an aquatic environment, up and down are more aribitrary.

Pure aquatics will have trouble becoming toolmakers. Fire, a key element in early toolmaking, is hard to come by down there.

it also depends on whether or not the race uses electromagnetic radiation in perception. inhabitants of a Red Dwarf star may rely completely upon thermal sensing.

That's dandy. Hell, there's Star Wars species that have evolved to use the Force for their sight.

the presence of a dominant, airborne predator may discourage the placement of heads atop the body. assuming the head contains the equivalent of the brain, one would want to keep it well protected.

That's nice. Now show there's so many worlds with dominant airborne predators as to stop the placement of the head over the rest.

underground, head placement would probably be lateral with the rest of the body, due to space constraints.

Or the body will just be smaller.

Jeez. You throw out a bunch of specialized situations and expect any of this to stick?

i fully agree with you that manipulatory organs are necessary for civilization, but surely hands aren't the only answer. there may even be ways of manipulating organs that are not physical. control of electromagnetic forces might allow a species to work with metals.

This is rich. You're the one calling a tried and proven body form unrealistic, while proposing species evolve the ability for arbitrary EM field manipulation? Are you high?

again, i am NOT trying to prove that these species couldn't possibly exist. but it is highly, highly, highly improbable, and a more likely galaxy would have residents of more varying body plans.

Again. If you want to prove it's so staggering unlikely, start showing evidence. Not 'Here's a highly specialized situation that would make the head less optimal in it's position'.

[wolveraptor]

"There's always a few fanboys like that. Unfortunately for you, most of us understand it's a story. That's why we don't waste threads with this stuff."

actually, i was referring to you by that statement.
you know, if you think this thread is a waste of time, why are you here?

you ask for proof of my claims on the biology of extraterrestrials. i thought i already gave a book and a website.

frankly, i'm amazed that you firmly believe the humanoid form to be the best possible shape for a tool-using species.

the only things needed are manipuolatory organs (which could range from tentacles, to specialized claws, to pincers, to elongated, hardened feathers; as you can see, the hand isn't the only thing that fullfills this requirement) and a sufficiently advanced brain (which could appear anywhere on the body) that would allow for intraspecies communication.

"No, but you could have saurians adapting to utilize tools. Which will require specialized forelimbs, which will require upright walking..."

explain to me why it would require upright walking? they are already bipedal. and why their "hands" would need to resemble ours? they already had quite advanced grasping hands.

note: i'm assuming that the group most likely to evolve some form of sentience would be the maniraptorans, since they already had grasping hands and advanced brains. this may or may not be correct.

many of you have claimed that fire is necessary for advanced technology. maybe for OUR technology, it is necessary, but aliens, with their vastly different psychology, would be baffled by our ability to have technology above water.

Star Wars itself provides an example of a semi-aquatic, fireless technological civilization. the gungans.

[wolveraptor]

Real-life is a certain precedent for this. In the billions of years of Earth's history, with multifarious conditions and environments in place, only the plains-ape evolutionary path has ever produced tool-users. This says something to me, at least.

unbeataBULL: to me, it shows the unliklihood of an intelligent race ever arising in the first place. intelligence isn't always an advantage. dinosaurs had nearly 200 million years to produce intelligent beings, and from what we can tell in the fossil record, they didn't. they had no use for it (though it appears dinos gained intelligence in the late Cretaceous, particularly the maniraptorans). mammals did it in 65 million years.

Do Chimpanzees fall under plains-ape? They use sticks to gather termites as I remember. Not much, but it's a tool.

Even if they aren't, the just plain old "ape" line has been the only one to produce tools. Probably because all other species lack usable opposable thumbs, having little reason to have them I would suppose due to their diet. Humanity just happened to eat the right thing.

actually, birds have been observed using tools. otters will use rocks to smash open clams.

what really matters is when one starts hand crafting tools with a specific purpose in mind. for example, carving a rock in order to create a stabbing tool. that wouldn't be the same as smashing a rock and then inspecting the splinters to see what looks good.

[Stofsk]

note: i'm assuming that the group most likely to evolve some form of sentience would be the maniraptorans, since they already had grasping hands and advanced brains. this may or may not be correct.

Sapience, not sentience.

[wolveraptor]

i'm pretty sure its sentience. according to webster, sapience is wisdom or sagacity, which are just words we humans have created to describe different forms of intelligence (wisdom, smarts, etc.).

[SirNitram]

"There's always a few fanboys like that. Unfortunately for you, most of us understand it's a story. That's why we don't waste threads with this stuff."

actually, i was referring to you by that statement.
you know, if you think this thread is a waste of time, why are you here?

People who bullshit about science amuse me, mostly. And it's something to flex the old braincells.

And how can I be offended at them being nonrealistic when I'm among those saying it's that way because it's just a story, kiddo?

you ask for proof of my claims on the biology of extraterrestrials. i thought i already gave a book and a website.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how debate works. You bring the evidence here. No one else does your work. I'm certainly not hunting down a book for something this insignifigant.

More over, the site didn't give any compelling reasons to think they will diverge vastly from humanoid shapes. It states scientists are indulging in speculation.. Speculation is a wonderful thing, but evidence it ain't.

frankly, i'm amazed that you firmly believe the humanoid form to be the best possible shape for a tool-using species.

Best? You're pretty bad at putting words in other people's mouths.

However, a humanoid form does help out a toolmaker in a big way by satisfying all the requirements. It's also simple, and thus more likely to show up.

the only things needed are manipuolatory organs (which could range from tentacles, to specialized claws, to pincers, to elongated, hardened feathers; as you can see, the hand isn't the only thing that fullfills this requirement) and a sufficiently advanced brain (which could appear anywhere on the body) that would allow for intraspecies communication.

Tentacles lack fine manipulators.. What we call fingers. Claws are inferior at this; no tactile feedback. Pincers are a joke for the same reason as claws. Feathers, unlikely. Fingertip sensitivity is part of how we're good toolmakers.

"No, but you could have saurians adapting to utilize tools. Which will require specialized forelimbs, which will require upright walking..."

explain to me why it would require upright walking? they are already bipedal. and why their "hands" would need to resemble ours? they already had quite advanced grasping hands.

Upright walking means your forelimbs can specialize into hands. A foot isn't as good at working tools as a hand, because it's first concern is supporting you and moving you. Simple stuff, really.

note: i'm assuming that the group most likely to evolve some form of sentience would be the maniraptorans, since they already had grasping hands and advanced brains. this may or may not be correct.

Grasping hands aren't enough. It is opposable digits that are needed, along with fingertips. But there is a chance the maniraptors could reach it, were things different. Or perhaps they did. Deep Time makes things vanish well. Any pre-industrial society would vanish over sixty five million years.

many of you have claimed that fire is necessary for advanced technology. maybe for OUR technology, it is necessary, but aliens, with their vastly different psychology, would be baffled by our ability to have technology above water.

Prove it sometime. Fire is required for shaping tools more advanced than bone. You can't jump from bone tools to the stuff you can do without fire.

[quoet]Star Wars itself provides an example of a semi-aquatic, fireless technological civilization. the gungans.[/quote]

Fireless? I eagerly await proof the Gungans never developed fire. Your ass must have infinite depth! Your ignorance, however, seems equally deep: You think 'Amphibious' and 'Aquatic' are the same.

[Imperial Overlord]

SirNitram said:

Fire is required for shaping tools more advanced than bone.

To nitpick on an excellent post, you can also make a variety of stone tools without fire, although fire does help. Since our ancestors increased substantially in brain size around the time we developed stone tools (and a big brain requires a lot of resources) I thought it an important enough point to mention.

But great post Nitram.

[Pablo Sanchez]

many of you have claimed that fire is necessary for advanced technology. maybe for OUR technology, it is necessary, but aliens, with their vastly different psychology, would be baffled by our ability to have technology above water.

The stage of tool development after advanced stone tools is metallurgy, and must be so for every terrestrial species, because they will still be using the same periodic table of elements as us. We know for a fact that any extraterrestrials must work with the same basic materials--stone, probably bone (a planet of boneless creatures is possible but very remotely so), and metals. In order to work at all efficiently with metals, you must be able to heat them. You cannot do this without fire.

Star Wars itself provides an example of a semi-aquatic, fireless technological civilization. the gungans.

The Gungans are obviously amphibious, it appears that they simply choose to locate their city under water. They obviously had fire, because they had implements and structures built from metal, or at least produced with metal devices.

[Pablo Sanchez]

To nitpick on an excellent post, you can also make a variety of stone tools without fire, although fire does help. Since our ancestors increased substantially in brain size around the time we developed stone tools (and a big brain requires a lot of resources) I thought it an important enough point to mention.

Stones conducive to shaping, like flint, aren't really present on the ocean floor. In the main you get basalt and sandstone-type sediments. Most of the reason that we even got as far as stone tools is that flint breaks into sharp bits naturally or by accident, no effort involved. A people with no access to that kind of stone would probably stick to bones.

[Rogue 9]

many of you have claimed that fire is necessary for advanced technology. maybe for OUR technology, it is necessary, but aliens, with their vastly different psychology, would be baffled by our ability to have technology above water.

I eagerly await your method of underwater metallurgy that is so readily accessed by entirely aquatic species in a direct leap from stone and bone tools.

Also, if you want to have this rant, why aren't you doing it in PST? You have a hell of a lot more ammunition with Trek.

[Imperial Overlord]

Pablo said:

Stones conducive to shaping, like flint, aren't really present on the ocean floor. In the main you get basalt and sandstone-type sediments. Most of the reason that we even got as far as stone tools is that flint breaks into sharp bits naturally or by accident, no effort involved. A people with no access to that kind of stone would probably stick to bones.

I'm not knowledgable on the kinds stone found on the ocean floor, so I'm certainly not going to argue, even if I was inclined to. Don't forget about obsidian on the subject of useful stone that naturally breaks into sharp bits.

[Howedar]

many of you have claimed that fire is necessary for advanced technology. maybe for OUR technology, it is necessary, but aliens, with their vastly different psychology, would be baffled by our ability to have technology above water.

The stage of tool development after advanced stone tools is metallurgy, and must be so for every terrestrial species, because they will still be using the same periodic table of elements as us. We know for a fact that any extraterrestrials must work with the same basic materials--stone, probably bone (a planet of boneless creatures is possible but very remotely so), and metals. In order to work at all efficiently with metals, you must be able to heat them. You cannot do this without fire.

An addendum: Water is a much better conductor of heat than air, and it also has this obnoxious habit of boiling at about 373K. Even if you find an alternate heat source, it needs to be both potent enough to heat your working material to the necessary temperature, it must be controllable from a distance (it isn't going to be comfortable there near that heat!), it must not rely on any sort of redox reaction to operate, and finally your material cannot be bothered by steam bubbling by/through it.

[Stofsk]

i'm pretty sure its sentience. according to webster, sapience is wisdom or sagacity, which are just words we humans have created to describe different forms of intelligence (wisdom, smarts, etc.).

And sentience has nothing to do with toolmaking or higher intelligence, aside from being conscious and aware of sensory impressions ie you can use your eyes to see, your fingers to feel etc. My cat is sentient, my dog is sentient. Are they self aware? Are they sapient? Sapience refers to intelligence, which is what you were talking about.

This is a pet peeve of mine. The word sentience gets used and abused by bad scifi.

Oh well, it doesn't matter anyway.

[Howedar]

Oh, and another thing. Electricity is going to be virtually impossible to discover and harness by an underwater society (assuming salt water, which seems reasonable for an Earth-like environment).

[Pablo Sanchez]

Don't forget about obsidian on the subject of useful stone that naturally breaks into sharp bits.

AFAIK Obsidian doesn't form under the ocean, it usually only occurs when lava flowing overland hits a body of water. Undersea lava flows almost invariably harden into basalt, which can be used to make serviceable stone tools; it's disadvantage is that it must be worked. If you've got two chunks of flint (or obsidian) you can just knock one against the other and you'll end up with sharp fragments. With basalt you must sit down with the intention of flaking it until you have your knife.

[Howedar]

You are correct. Obsidian will not form underwater.

[Stofsk]

Also, if you want to have this rant, why aren't you doing it in PST? You have a hell of a lot more ammunition with Trek.

Because PST has a forum rule disallowing unfair attacks on ST. And since the Michael Westmore latex bumcrack aliens are so plentiful, jumping into PST and making this same rant would be nothing more than a cheapshot. The aliens in SW at least look alien, or at least, MORE alien than the ones in ST.

[Imperial Overlord]

Thank you. I have a soft spot for obsidian due to making arrowheads out of it for a hand crafted bow when I was a child. And in case your curious, yes it sucked.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Thank you. I have a soft spot for obsidian due to making arrowheads out of it for a hand crafted bow when I was a child. And in case your curious, yes it sucked.

Going a little off-topic:
That's interesting. What kind of material was the bow itself?

----

Anyway, on the topic, I think the main point that unbeataBULL doesn't understand is that while evolution can produce wildly varying results, it doesn't have to do so. Certain conditions are going to be very common.

As I believe someone already said, the most alien-looking yet plausible race in Sci-Fi is perhaps the Pierson's Puppeteer. Niven postulates some excellent things with his various alien races. For example, the Kdatlyno developed on a planet that was constantly shrouded in mists, so that the development of light-based sight never occurred and they instead see by radar. This in turn limits them because close spaces render them blind, and they can only see with relief-based devices, which are rather more complex than image-based things (TV screens and such).

[Imperial Overlord]

The bow was beachwood, IIRC (I was five or six at the time). You could bind the arrowheads to the arrows with twine made from barkstrips, but reinforcing that with homemade glue made primarily with treesap helped.

I was in an archaeological field camp at the time. The actual students made better bows (no surprise there).

Intelligence life needs conditions that allow it to develop. Big brains are huge resource hogs (85% of the energy consumtion at rest by human beings) and take years to develop to the point where they have any return. That means they have to give a big enough benefit that there worth the investment before big brains will be selected for. With our primate ancestors that wasn't just tool use, but stone tools.

[Jawawithagun]

Don't forget about obsidian on the subject of useful stone that naturally breaks into sharp bits.

AFAIK Obsidian doesn't form under the ocean, it usually only occurs when lava flowing overland hits a body of water. Undersea lava flows almost invariably harden into basalt, which can be used to make serviceable stone tools; it's disadvantage is that it must be worked. If you've got two chunks of flint (or obsidian) you can just knock one against the other and you'll end up with sharp fragments. With basalt you must sit down with the intention of flaking it until you have your knife.

Minor nitpick: It is not necessary for obsidian to form underwater. Deposits of it only need to be accessible to underwater species. Which is not impossible.

[Howedar]

It is extremely unlikely to say the least.