the anthropomorphic nature of Star Wars aliens

[LadyTevar]

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.

Just depends if the sea they're living in was ever dry land at one point.

Still, there's a reason most water-based are amphibious

[wolveraptor]

perhaps the aquatic race could harness the energy of geothermal vents (if it lived on a more geologically active planet).

anyways, it was just an example.

manipulators: elongated claws/feathers/pincers could function a bit like tweezers. imagine fingers that you couldn't bend beyond the knuckle. perhaps not as effective, but evolution doesn't necessarily take the most effective path: it takes the path available to it. wolves or some alien equivalent aren't likely to sprout fingers. they DO have claws, though.

tentacles can easily work as well as fingers. octopi can handle multiple objects with dexterity and ease. they can even open jars.

"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."

i agree. manipulators and large brains will prevail in any civilized species. however, one must remember that the species "look" will be ENTIRELY influenced by its ancestry. if an alien life-form descends from medium-sized arboreal animals with grasping hands that took to the plains, it might look like us. but think about those odds. the only reason arboreal species might be more likely to develop civilization is that they already have manipulators. even then, there are many ways to take to the plains from the trees. archaeopteryx (thought to be the ancestory of dromaeosaurids) was mostly arboreal, and its descendents (big-brained, and having "hands" just like later hominids) looked little like us.

it is almost certain that aliens will look more outlandish than they have been portrayed. mother nature is far more imaginative than we are.

[SirNitram]

perhaps the aquatic race could harness the energy of geothermal vents (if it lived on a more geologically active planet).

Here we go again. 'Perhaps they..' 'Well, if this..' No quantification, just asspulling in a desperate attempt not to concede. Anyway, this has been dealt with already by other distinguished posters.

anyways, it was just an example.

manipulators: elongated claws/feathers/pincers could function a bit like tweezers. imagine fingers that you couldn't bend beyond the knuckle. perhaps not as effective, but evolution doesn't necessarily take the most effective path: it takes the path available to it. wolves or some alien equivalent aren't likely to sprout fingers. they DO have claws, though.

Perhaps you're simply braindead. Evolution will breed towards the best toolmaker body possible, because those will be the ones who survive. Wolfmen who are born without claws will be able to better craft tools, thus will breed more successfully.

tentacles can easily work as well as fingers. octopi can handle multiple objects with dexterity and ease. they can even open jars.

Wow. They can open jars. So can my feet. My feet cannot build tools.

"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."

i agree. manipulators and large brains will prevail in any civilized species. however, one must remember that the species "look" will be ENTIRELY influenced by its ancestry. if an alien life-form descends from medium-sized arboreal animals with grasping hands that took to the plains, it might look like us. but think about those odds. the only reason arboreal species might be more likely to develop civilization is that they already have manipulators. even then, there are many ways to take to the plains from the trees. archaeopteryx (thought to be the ancestory of dromaeosaurids) was mostly arboreal, and its descendents (big-brained, and having "hands" just like later hominids) looked little like us.

Here you go again with 'Think about the odds'. Well, you never give those odds, you just refer to them periphially, as if they're written on the sky and clearly in your favor. Why don't you prove that.

it is almost certain that aliens will look more outlandish than they have been portrayed. mother nature is far more imaginative than we are.

And here is where I write it in ALLCAPS, in the hopes of penetrating your steel-lined cranium.

PROVE IT.

[wolveraptor]

if you want empirical proof, like me bringing you a live alien, you're out of luck. all we can do is speculate. but i do have expert opinion, in the site i previously posted, and the book.


"Perhaps you're simply braindead. Evolution will breed towards the best toolmaker body possible, because those will be the ones who survive. Wolfmen who are born without claws will be able to better craft tools, thus will breed more successfully"

why is that? they have little or no chance of developing fingers, as those bones have already atrophied severely. so without claws, they would have NO manipulators; hardly an evolutionary advantage.


earlier, you stated that there weren't any six-legged species above the size of bugs, and that there was some reason i hadn't thought of.

the reason all large land animals today are tetrapods is because of their ancestry. fish were the first vertebrates to advance on to land. it is only natural that their 4, muscular fins would be converted into legs. had fish never gone onto land, it is possible that insects would've shed their exoskeletons and grown bigger, thus becoming large, six-legged creatures.

this is of course speculation, but it is not impossible, or baseless.

[Howedar]

perhaps the aquatic race could harness the energy of geothermal vents (if it lived on a more geologically active planet).

And how would they do that? You know the water around such a vent (presumably one hot enough to melt metal, otherwise it's a moot point) is going to be scalding for many meters around the vent. How exactly do you get near it in order to use it?

[SirNitram]

if you want empirical proof, like me bringing you a live alien, you're out of luck. all we can do is speculate. but i do have expert opinion, in the site i previously posted, and the book.

No you don't. The link simply gave a quote saying 'Some scientists are engaging in speculation'. And then it immediately quoted one of those whose been sensibly sticking to what they have.

You know, if there's no evidence and nothing of substance to support your position, you should concede. You look like a retard as of right now.

"Perhaps you're simply braindead. Evolution will breed towards the best toolmaker body possible, because those will be the ones who survive. Wolfmen who are born without claws will be able to better craft tools, thus will breed more successfully"

why is that? they have little or no chance of developing fingers, as those bones have already atrophied severely. so without claws, they would have NO manipulators; hardly an evolutionary advantage.

You aren't seriously this dumb, are you? The mutation of claws into fingers isn't even complicated; it's the random mutation of being born without claws plus some new tactile feedback. It'll take a signifigant number of generations to get fingers like ours, but it will implacably go that way: Because that's what'll be best to work with tools.

earlier, you stated that there weren't any six-legged species above the size of bugs, and that there was some reason i hadn't thought of.

And now you'll try and fail to postulate it.

the reason all large land animals today are tetrapods is because of their ancestry. fish were the first vertebrates to advance on to land. it is only natural that their 4, muscular fins would be converted into legs. had fish never gone onto land, it is possible that insects would've shed their exoskeletons and grown bigger, thus becoming large, six-legged creatures.

this is of course speculation, but it is not impossible, or baseless.

Actually it's rather baseless to assume an insect could grow much larger. But you'll be unable to figure out why.

[Dooey Jo]

IIRC, insects have been known to grow huge when there's lots of oxygen in the atmosphere (like there was some hundreds of million years ago). That is because they don't breathe with lungs but through their skin (or something like that). That is what limits their size, and not necessarily their exoskeleton.

[wolveraptor]

i think it was their exoskeleton that limited them from Elephantine-sizes.

"No you don't. The link simply gave a quote saying 'Some scientists are engaging in speculation'. And then it immediately quoted one of those whose been sensibly sticking to what they have.

You know, if there's no evidence and nothing of substance to support your position, you should concede. You look like a retard as of right now. "

lol concede to what? that all aliens will look like men in suits? that's not in line with current scientific thought.

"You aren't seriously this dumb, are you? The mutation of claws into fingers isn't even complicated; it's the random mutation of being born without claws plus some new tactile feedback. It'll take a signifigant number of generations to get fingers like ours, but it will implacably go that way: Because that's what'll be best to work with tools."

we evolved from creatures who already HAD fingers, and just had claws on them. they lost the claws in order to manipulate objects better in trees, and to become more efficient brachiators. if the specimen we deal with had no fingers in the first place, wouldn't it have far more difficulty evolving such fingers? each stage of the finger needs to be useful, including the stub.

[wolveraptor]

perhaps the aquatic race could harness the energy of geothermal vents (if it lived on a more geologically active planet).

And how would they do that? You know the water around such a vent (presumably one hot enough to melt metal, otherwise it's a moot point) is going to be scalding for many meters around the vent. How exactly do you get near it in order to use it?

there are already creatures that live around geothermal vents. granted, they are primitive, but it shows that life can survive such extremes. hell, there's bacteria that lives in the mantle. heat might not be a problem.

[Ghost Rider]

perhaps the aquatic race could harness the energy of geothermal vents (if it lived on a more geologically active planet).

And how would they do that? You know the water around such a vent (presumably one hot enough to melt metal, otherwise it's a moot point) is going to be scalding for many meters around the vent. How exactly do you get near it in order to use it?

there are already creatures that live around geothermal vents. granted, they are primitive, but it shows that life can survive such extremes. hell, there's bacteria that lives in the mantle. heat might not be a problem.

Then prove they can reach a stage of toolmaking because we can point out that bacteria survives under many conditions just as extreme.

Pointing out life can exist is a pointless red-herring

[SirNitram]

i think it was their exoskeleton that limited them from Elephantine-sizes.

Their respiration system also doesn't agree with large size, nor their body structure. The thin connections between each part won't support heavier components.

"No you don't. The link simply gave a quote saying 'Some scientists are engaging in speculation'. And then it immediately quoted one of those whose been sensibly sticking to what they have.

You know, if there's no evidence and nothing of substance to support your position, you should concede. You look like a retard as of right now. "

lol concede to what? that all aliens will look like men in suits? that's not in line with current scientific thought.

Oh wow, the trolling peice of shit strawmans.

No, you weasaling pile of crap. You should concede that your bullshit about 'IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR LIFE TO BE HUMANOID ELSEWHERE' is unfounded.

"You aren't seriously this dumb, are you? The mutation of claws into fingers isn't even complicated; it's the random mutation of being born without claws plus some new tactile feedback. It'll take a signifigant number of generations to get fingers like ours, but it will implacably go that way: Because that's what'll be best to work with tools."

we evolved from creatures who already HAD fingers, and just had claws on them. they lost the claws in order to manipulate objects better in trees, and to become more efficient brachiators. if the specimen we deal with had no fingers in the first place, wouldn't it have far more difficulty evolving such fingers? each stage of the finger needs to be useful, including the stub.

I've heard this bullshit before. This is the old Creationist stupidity about 'half an eye'. Yes, the stub will be useful for grasping and holding, more useful than the claw. How do you think it came about in the first place? Of course, you're rather brightly showing your own ignorance: The fingers can form, THEN the claws can atrophy. Evolution doesn't follow some hard line, but it also isn't this completely random kitbashing you seem to think it is.

[LadyTevar]

I just wish unbeataBULL would learn to use the quote button in the upper right of each post, so it's clear who said what.

[Lord Revan]

Then possiblity that some Alien in SW (and other Scifi) look like a guy in a suit , is that it is a suit, not just in the way you think. Could it be possible that some non-humanoids would wear humanoid like suit to interact better with Human(oid)s (like Gen Grievous).

[Howedar]

perhaps the aquatic race could harness the energy of geothermal vents (if it lived on a more geologically active planet).

And how would they do that? You know the water around such a vent (presumably one hot enough to melt metal, otherwise it's a moot point) is going to be scalding for many meters around the vent. How exactly do you get near it in order to use it?

there are already creatures that live around geothermal vents. granted, they are primitive, but it shows that life can survive such extremes. hell, there's bacteria that lives in the mantle. heat might not be a problem.

Yeah, but the geothermal vents WE'RE used to aren't exactly hot enough to use metalurgically, which was the entire point of your geothermal vent sidetrack.

[Ender]

The largely anthromorphic nature of aliens is actually logical. Consider: While the evolution of utterly bizarre creatures is more likely, why would we have any contact with them? Completely divergent physiologies means different needs and different technologies. Sure a race of brown dwarf inhabitants may have perfected uploading and starwisp technology to allow themselves to spread throughout the galaxy, but what use is that to a human society with hyperdrive and uberterraforming? There would be no need for trade or interaction, and thus no place for them inthe galactic society. That's why most of the aliens seen are human in nature or similar to earth creatures - only they would develop into being similar to us for there to be any purpose to interaction.

[Pablo Sanchez]

There's also the matter that evolutionary paths on non-Earthlike worlds would very likely lead to species that cannot exist in Earthlike environments (read: pretty much every planet visited during the movies and EU). The methane-breathing alien Zuckiss is an example, oxygen was a deadly poison to him. Water would probably have a similar effect on silicon-based organisms, which would tend to restrict them. It's possible that truly inhuman alien species exist, but simply don't appear "on-screen."

[wolveraptor]

so is the basic consensus that only the humanoid species APPEAR in film and most EU? and that there are more diverse species?

i also notice that more diverse species began to appear in the prequels, due to CGI.

i have another question: why is it that so many species are capable of pronouncing basic? shouldn't their vocal chords be vastly..."alien"? (bad pun)

[wolveraptor]

"You should concede that your bullshit about 'IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR LIFE TO BE HUMANOID ELSEWHERE' is unfounded. "-SirNitram

well yeah, that i agree. humanoid life can easily form. i was just saying that it is only 1 of many possibilities, and that in a realistic universe, there would be a more-or-less equal proportion of the different forms possible. there is no reason the humanoid form is MORE successful than any other form. it is a viable form, though.

[Howedar]

And here we go again. Please provide reasoning for your belief that all shapes of intelligent life should succeed in equal numbers.

[wolveraptor]

please provide reasoning for your implication that one form of sentient life is more successful than another.

all an intelligent being needs are manipulators, a big-brain, and access to some form of metallurgy (or its equivalent).

on Earth-like planets, you might begin to see a pattern in forms of Sapient life. there's a limited number of possibilities.

[Ender]

please provide reasoning for your implication that one form of sentient life is more successful than another.

Because certain forms of life have moved to the top of the food chain and then advanced to the point where they have spread themselves out across space to other planets and others have not.

all an intelligent being needs are manipulators, a big-brain, and access to some form of metallurgy (or its equivalent).

You have a woefully small view of the world if that is all you believe is required.

on Earth-like planets, you might begin to see a pattern in forms of Sapient life. there's a limited number of possibilities.

And as I pointed out, you really don't need to care about those outside that range of possibilities. So what is a sillicon based (though such life is impossible owing to thermodynamic limitations) life has tech that converts a sulfer based atmosphere to an amonia based one, making venus like planets suitable to them? Its not useful to you, the idea of resources being rare when you have easy access to a galaxy is laughable, so there is no need ot have any contact with them.

[wolveraptor]

what else does a civilization-building species need besides the things listed?

there is no valid reason why walking on 2 feet with an erect stance is better than walking on 4 ft with a lower-slung stance. at least, not in terms of technological abilities.

[Ender]

what else does a civilization-building species need besides the things listed?

Energy
Argiculture
communication
calculating devices
Advanced knowledge in astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, mathmatics, and engineering

How far in this veing do you wnat me to go? I can leave the broad generalizations and get down to the specifics, like the fact that they have to overcome the major technologuical hurdle of high thrust vs high efficiency for engines if they want to be a viable spacefaring power, or the troubles in heat dissipation, etc.

there is no valid reason why walking on 2 feet with an erect stance is better than walking on 4 ft with a lower-slung stance. at least, not in terms of technological abilities.

A low slung body that moves on all fours is going to have a very different bones structure and muscle attachments, even if we still grant them agile digits, despite the fact that walking on all 4s would tend to evolve that out of them. Thus they will have significant challenges in say, freefall. Really big problem when you are making your first forays into space.

[Ender]

I'd further add that a number of body types make survival in space impossible; for example birds require gravity to swallow, and thus cannot survive for long in free fall. Other examples would be if the creature has a very slow cellular replacement rate, it would be much more susceptible to radiation sickness then others and couldn't tolerate the environment.

This is much jmore complex then your whining of "its unoriginal" suggests. Like I said: woefully small world view.

[Howedar]

please provide reasoning for your implication that one form of sentient life is more successful than another.

You fucking douche, I just did. FOR TWO FUCKING PAGES. You cannot smelt metals underwater. It ain't fucking possible, kid.