/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes it is entirely possible for another species have evolved and then gone to space before us, but it hasn't happened because there's no evidence.

It's an interesting discussion on what's possible though so I say keep the thread going.

>de-evolution

>>6974553
First of all there's no such thing as de-evolution, only evolution.

Secondly, the fossil record doesn't show any support for there being a "human-like" ancestor that chimpanzees descended from, and instead all our fossil evidence points the other way, that both humans and chimps are descended from a more primitive ape ancestor.

In your video they talk about the find having more human-like hands than Lucy, but that says nothing about brain size and the skull they showed looked really small.

Looking at come pictures for Ardipithecus, the species would hardly be described as "human-like".

>>6976420
That's not how evolution works. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of it. There's no hierarchy of evolved creatures. The best suited to survival in a particular instance many not be the one closest to humans.

>>6976511
The evolutions of dolphins and manatees is a good example.

I wonder if they'll ever evolve to walk on land again.

All sorts of evolution has happened and could happen. Hell, a cockroach could evolve to be as smart as us one day, or smarter.

>>6974553
>the common ancestor looked more like a human than a chimpanzee

If the evidence point that way, then so be it. That doesn't mean the ancestor is superior to a chimpanzee in his evolutionary level or whatever you want to call it.

The common ancestor was not human, the bible is still wrong. Creationism is still bullshit.

>>6974553
>de-evolution
That doesn't exist

De-evolution impleys that evolution is going the 'wrong' way, the 'worse' way. But evolution only 'happens' when it is the 'right' way, because that's what evolution is.

>>6976987

...is this post serious?

That's evolution of a species to from one habitat to another, not "de-evolution". Just because it's predecessor came from the ocean and billions of years later a branch of them returned to their aquatic habitat doesn't mean they "de-evolved".

What the fuck.

>>6981112
To be fair he didn't calim this was de-evolution. OP mentioned de-evolution.

How intelligent are you talking about here?

Neanderthals were pretty intelligent and the most likely scenario for their disappearance is that they bred with us and we merged.

>>6981144
The FST between humans and Neanderthals is less than 0.08 or about 1/2 the Yuroba-British difference (.15)
Neanderthals weren't that different.

There's a massive difference between "possible" and "probable". The probablity of an intelligent species living before us and us missing that fact is very, very fucking remote.

>>6981309

Well said. But remember that the probability of an infinitely intelligent and omnipotent Santa Claus who's all good and holy, having designed us and the universe and all the shit in it seems far more remote by comparison. Yet most people on this ball of rock believe it still.

Not to mention the probability of aliens having repeatedly visited us and our completely inept and incapable governments being somehow able to produce a massive global cover conspiracy that actually WORKS, to keep that from getting public. Lots of people believe that too.

Probability has very little effect on the average-minded.

>>6981659
People believe in UFOs and aliens because of evidence of UFOs (not what they are, but that there are unknown flying objects out there) and abduction stories by people of normal background that manage to correlate to one another without either of them knowing eachother. I'm not an /x/tard but people who believe in that stuff are different than those who believe in God.

>>6981672
> Sure, ok.

>>6974553

Paleontologist here,

It'd be pretty implausible for an intelligent species (at least in the same way as us, tool users) to have existed before us on our planet. Simply because we can find traces of microscopic bacteria fossils that are up to 3.4 billion years old, but nothing that indicates intelligent life. It would be unlikely for something humans would call intelligent to leave no discernible traces in the rock record. Anything earlier than that 3 to 3.5 billion year period is known as the 'Hadean' because our understanding that Earth was literally like a vision of hell. A molten landscape of lava and volcanics, until it cooled down in the Archaean. Of course, our knowledge of these ages are incomplete, simply because there simply aren't many rocks to study of such extreme ages.

So, I suppose it could've happened, but based on our current understanding/data, I seriously doubt it.

I also think it would be odd that environmental factors/stressors would favor an organism to lose intelligence. From what we've seen of life on Earth, the most adaptable forms have the longest time spans, and the widest geographic range. Intelligence has given humanity incredible adaptability and we have spread all over the globe because of it. It's hard to imagine a scenario where a decrease in intelligence is more favored. If life developed intelligence in the past, then what stressor or environmental factor could cause that particular trait to no longer be favorable?

Of course, an extinction event could be an answer, but as stated earlier, there is no evidence that such a thing has happened on our planet.

Also, these guys make good points about evolution in general, >>6976509, >>6981112.

De-evolution is not a thing, there is only the development of organisms that best fit their current environments. Because the environments changes, organisms change to fit it. Primitive does not have to mean simpler, it simply means it was an earlier form.