/sci/ - Science & Math

[Horus !!w428ZKI4e/Q No.2310906]

Sup /sci/

I'm tired of the shit you post on here day in day out, but instead of sitting here complaining I've decided to try and start some titilating (lol tit) discussions.

First up, what are the essential physical features for an advanced and intelligent lifeform. This can be anything from the presence of thumbs, to the position of the eyes in relation to the mouth, or anything else you think a lifeform will need in order become race equal to or more advaned than us.

Pic related, all movies show humanoid races, is it because this is the only physical structures f that allows a race to advance?

[Horus !!w428ZKI4e/Q No.2310930]

I'll try and start

>Limbs
Arms and slender fingers must be necessary, without these there can be no way the creature can use tools. Could possibly exist with one, but 2 or more are prefferred. Legs would be best, howeverI don't think they are necessary, although no legs would probably create a slow creature and it would have to have evolved with some sort of advanced defensive mechanisms as it couldn't run away from predators

Feel free to disagree with anything

[Anonymous No.2310935]

It should look nothing like this.

[Anonymous No.2310950]

the idea that humanoid feature are the only way an organism to be 'advanced' is silly, there are plenty of things about the human form that are much less advanced than other animals but as a whole humans are far more advanced than other species are

one thing to consider is that in order for our intelligence to develop we had to give up or go without certain things. cephalopods and hawks have much better eyesight than us, cheetahs are faster, etc. but we have a much larger capacity for intelligence

[Anonymous No.2310948]

>>2310906
There are two separate concerns here. One is the features that make high intelligence FAVORABLE in natural selection. The other is features that make high intelligence POSSIBLE.

For intelligence to be favorable in natural selection, you typically need the ability to dextrously manipulate the environment. Intelligence costs energy, and if it can't be put to use it is selected against because of inefficiency. Another is arising in an environment that benefits from manipulation. You can't start fires underwater (easily), and that make early technology hard to come by. Also, being a social species makes intelligence much more favorable. A group of a dozen organisms that cooperate socially can use an intelligence-enhancing mutation to plan, cooperate more effectively, and specialize in skills, not to mention cultural development, teaching, and technology. A solitary species doesn't benefit near as much from a little individual intelligence, and selection pressures for intelligence are weaker.

tl;dr Thumbs good, fire good, friends good.

As for making intelligence POSSIBLE, you have to have enough biomass to support the complex networks and feedbacks that seem to be necessary. There are no intelligent gnats. At least, it would take a tightly connected network of small organisms, making a superorganism that can display intelligence. Social insects aren't quite there, but you get the idea.

tl;dr Complexity needs physical space.

[Horus !!w428ZKI4e/Q No.2310953]

>Skeleton

If you're above ground and want to grow big, you need a skeleton, otherwise you are probably going to collapse under your own weight. I think the skeleton should probably be on the inside to allow soft tissue on the outside, as soft tissues allows for more precision in the limbs which needs to be used for creating and using tools.

[Anonymous No.2310956]

>>2310948
I'll add that you *might* be able to get around the need for social behavior if you have a mechanism of genetic memory. Like how spiders know how to make webs. But it doesn't seem to work nearly as well or as emergently as social learning. Culture (including technology) evolves much faster than biology can.

[Anonymous No.2310963]

>>2310906
1. Dexterity
2. Intelligence
3. Communication skills
4. Instinctive duty to species

Opposable thumbs are preferred, but I don't think something like a tentacle would work out so bad if the species had a lot of them. The most different species from us that I can think of being intelligent would be something like a land octopus.

Communication between octopi wouldn't be all that sophisticated until they developed writing, though. They'd have to have some system of symbols they make with their tentacles or something, and they'd have to get past the whole "I am octopus, lone warrior" thing.

[Anonymous No.2310964]

Well lets start by looking at us.

1) the brain size of monkey has a direct correlation with the size of groups they live in. Basically it takes a lot of brain power to get ahead in a highly social environmental.

So our aliens will probably be very social creatures.

2) Humans as a race learned to walk up right several millions years ago (i might fuck these numbers up), but our race kind of flat lined with intelligent for a couple million more. It wasnt until the climate started fluctuating wildly that the our brain size really took off.

Not really sure what this would say about our aliens, but theyd probably be well equipped to live on our planet even if their biology were completely different. (But thats kinda durrr, of course a cosmic traveler is going to travel well equiped)

3) One of the big trends we see in human history as brain size gets larger, child growth gets slower. Basically, the amount of time we spend learning starts increasing.

So the aliens will probably have slow growing children, that grow up much slower than we do.


Thats about it really. I imagine they would probably have arms and legs, with a recognizable face (two eyes nose mouth ears). They would also likely have fingers. I imagine their body structure would be the part that varies the most. Whether they be scaley and cold blooded, furry mammels, or perhaps like an insect with an exoskeletan. I imagine all those would be up for grabs for any intelligent creature.

[Horus !!w428ZKI4e/Q No.2310971]

>>2310950

Of course there are small things that could be improved or not needed, what I am trying to get at is is there a form other than standing upright with 2 legs and 2 arms, with a head on top with eyes and a mouth that could give rise to an advanced being. Basicly what physical qualities are and are not necessary

[Anonymous No.2310981]

>>2310953
>>2310930
>Arms, fingers, legs, soft tissue external

>>2310964
> I imagine they would probably have arms and legs, with a recognizable face (two eyes nose mouth ears). They would also likely have fingers

Oh what the fuck guys. Do you take ALL your cues from Star Trek, where all aliens are just people with funny foreheads and ears?

[Anonymous No.2310993]

evolution = sporadic mutation?

how do you describe the process that favored asymmetrical beings? spore should have aptly proven evolution is bullshit and the only real force is convolution which determines the constants for the physics system upon which everything else is based

[Anonymous No.2310990]

>>2310981

No, im taking cues from life on this planet.

[Horus !!w428ZKI4e/Q No.2310988]

>>2310963

Thanks for all the posts, but again it's less of a "it must act in this or that way" but more of a "it must look like this or that"

[Anonymous No.2310996]

>>2310950
Hawks actually have mediocre close range stereoscopic vision compared to us. Our eyes are the way they are for the examination of objects at arm's length, which we excel at better than almost any animal.

The human eye is actually a remarkable combination of ability for the perception of a good range of colors, depth perception, and detail. It's not the most impressive, but it fits our needs very nicely.

[Horus !!w428ZKI4e/Q No.2310998]

>>2310981

THIS IS MY POINT. It's all good criticizing it but come up with features to replaces these, if you can't then it seems humanoids were to ONLY way forward to advance

[Anonymous No.2310999]

>>2310988
form follows function, fagot

[Anonymous No.2311006]

>>2310998
the human form factor is the equilibrium of agility and dexterity

[Anonymous No.2311015]

>>2310963
Let's take the octopus thing and run with it.

Now we've got a species of SOCIAL octopus. They live in small groups of several dozen, cooperate in protecting and raising their young, and hunt collectively. They have individual intelligence incrementally better than octopuses today (which isn't so bad). They communicate through controlled patterns of skin coloration, like some cuttlefish so brilliantly display.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR7Dqf0vzzQ

Because they're social and raise their young, they can develop culture, skill specialization, and technology that is passed down. Could they find a way to farm or "ranch" mollusks? What about agriculture, possibly to support some other farmed animal? And how could they have a form of symbolic language with permanence (some kind of writing)?

[Anonymous No.2311025]

Lets start from the ground up:
-A reliable method of reproduction
-The ability to react to their environment
-The ability to sustain themselves

[Anonymous No.2311026]

>>2311006
Typical species-centric bullshit. Replace "human" with "white" and you sound like Stormfront.

[Horus !!w428ZKI4e/Q No.2311031]

>>2310999

Shut up twat, if that is so how does
>2. Intelligence
and
>4. Instinctive duty to species
affect form?

>3. Communication skills
Well this is all very good, but my point was will they NEED to have a mouth to communicate or would it be possible for some other feature to do this job.

faggot...

[Anonymous No.2311036]

>>2310981

Look at life on this planet. Whats one thing almost all living things with brains have? Arms/Legs, course most dont have arms, but an intelligent alien would need to be able to work with tools, so it will have to have some kind of arms. It will also need fingers to go with those arms. The only real substitute we see for fingers would be tentacles, which seem to be much more rare, so we can expect to see arms and fingers on our alien.

Now lets think about the faces we see on life on this planet. Pretty much all have two eyes, arranged closer to the top, with a mouth below. This is obviously the best configuration and is why almost all creatures look like this. The nose and ears might be up for grabs on their location, they vary a bit more from creature to creature, but theyd likely be close to the head.

Having a huge brain is a huge energy investment. So the rest of our features would have to suffer. So out intelligent being would probably look similar to us. Kinda weak, with big fucking heads, which would likely be up top, with arms and such.

I'm not describing a humanoid, if you picture a humanoid after reading that, thats the fault of your imagination.

[Anonymous No.2311037]

>>2311025
That's for anything living. Good start.

Now for intelligence to arise, it has to be useful.
IMO this means an environment where control/manipulation is useful (fire is nice, but maybe it could work without it). If we don't allow radical genetic memory, the species probably has to be social, because the advantage of intelligence is much more useful there (likely to be favored).

So,
1. Manipulable environment
2. Ability to manipulate
3. Social behavior

[Anonymous No.2311038]

has to be a predator. eating grass requires no problem solving capability

[снайпер No.2311044]

All I know for sure, is that whatever the aliens look like, we will fuck them.

[Anonymous No.2311045]

>>2310988
But it musn't look like this or that. While the humanoid model obviously works very well, I think you have to look at what actually drove us forward as a species.

Ability to handle tools with skill, and the ability to think of objects as potential solutions to problems
Tribes, where the common good is valued over individual gain
and language, which can come in many forms.

Given that, there's no reason why almost any species couldn't become intelligent with evolutionary incentive for it. I'd imagine that any being that becomes intelligent would involve a better than average intelligence animal to involve from, but that's about all I can give you.

Taking a cue from this planet, I'd say you're looking for anything that isn't a carnivore or a pack quadruped herbivore. Something like a scavenging omnivore that gets by on agility and ability to reach spots predators can't. They seem to tend toward more complicated social constructs and sometimes more intelligence. dolphins, primates, and to a lesser extent, octopi. Elephants have no incentive to evolve into an intelligent species because of how strong they are.

That's the best I can do without baseless assumptions.

[Anonymous No.2311063]

>>2311036
You are so goddamned ignorant.
>Whats one thing almost all living things with brains have? Arms/Legs,
No. Dolphins, parrots, ravens

>The only real substitute we see for fingers would be tentacles, which seem to be much more rare
Octopuses, bitch. How do you know what would be "rare" on a galactic scale?

>Now lets think about the faces we see on life on this planet. Pretty much all have two eyes, arranged closer to the top, with a mouth below. This is obviously the best configuration
No, it is obviously an early configuration that branched out into most of the higher organisms. It's a good configuration. Don't pretend you know what is "best".
> and is why almost all creatures look like this.
Now it's "all" creatures? You don't know much biology. The vast majority of creatures don't look like this.
>The nose and ears might be up for grabs on their location, they vary a bit more from creature to creature, but theyd likely be close to the head.
Octopuses don't have either, really. True in a lesser extent with dolphins and parrots.

Dammit, guys, even Star Wars is more creative than this (though not by much).

[Anonymous No.2311065]

>>2311031
I'm
>>2310963
Not this faggot:
>>2310999
I'd say anything that we can eliminate animals with significant natural weapons as a predator, because there's no incentive for superior brain power there. Also, why would they make tools?

Furthermore, I'm not feeling the idea of an intelligent predatory species in the first place. Dexterity in a predatory species is rare, because it's not useful for killing until you develop tools. You're looking for a species that had its roots in picking fruit and eating bugs, or whatever the equivalent of that is in their environment.

[Anonymous No.2311067]

>>2311044
Even if doing so causes genital burning, allergic reactions, and necrosis?

[Horus !!w428ZKI4e/Q No.2311094]

>>2311063

>>Whats one thing almost all living things with brains have? Arms/Legs,
>No. Dolphins, parrots, ravens
Yes these species may be considered intelligent, but will they be able to become as advanced as us with no means of using tools, and more importantly creating tools from other items. If you say yes explain how they can and with similar precision to things with limbs.

>>The only real substitute we see for fingers would be tentacles, which seem to be much more rare
>Octopuses, bitch. How do you know what would be >"rare" on a galactic scale?
Again, similar to my previous comment can tentacles be as good at the jobs mentioned above as arms with fingers on them

[Horus !!w428ZKI4e/Q No.2311103]

>>2311065
Didn't think you were, I was just using your post as an example seeing as that's the post I was quoting.

[Anonymous No.2311107]

>>2311063


>No. Dolphins, parrots, ravens
Yes, and they will never be very good tool makers because of that (notice i said very good, ravens are pretty clever, so are dolphins but i dont think they ever make anything useful)

>Octopuses, bitch. How do you know what would be "rare" on a galactic scale?
Yep, one example, rare.... (squids too), well first off, i dont know what would be common, but the best we can do is make predictions based off all available data, all available data we have is life on this planet, thus my predictions are based off life on this planet.

>No, it is obviously an early configuration that branched out into most of the higher organisms. It's a good configuration. Don't pretend you know what is "best".
I dont know whats "best", but nature usually seems to, evolution has moved body parts of creatures all over the place, but the mouth and eyes dont ever move much, i wonder why....

>Now it's "all" creatures? You don't know much biology. The vast majority of creatures don't look like this.
the vast majority of creatures would have no chance at becoming intelligent, im talking about creatures that fit the mold of being able to make tools, being social, and having a brain with sufficient size.

>Octopuses don't have either, really. True in a lesser extent with dolphins and parrots.
Dolphins and parrots dont have noses or ears? Dont know my octopus anatomy, i know they could be a good candidate for an intelligent race. Im not saying our intelligent race has to have these features, Im just saying they are the most probable since we see them all over the place on this planet.

Dammit, guys, even Star Wars is more creative than this (though not by much).
Yeah, I could get as crazy and creative as I want, but the more "creative" you get the less likely it will actually be so. I was describing creatures we would probably find, not ones that might be physically possible in some distant galaxy.

[снайпер No.2311112]

>>2311067
ESPECIALLY if it causes genital burning, allergic reactions, and necrosis.

Fucking an alien could mean certain death and people WOULD STILL DO IT.

[Anonymous No.2311117]

>>2311094
>how they can and with similar precision to things with limbs.
I agree that dextrous manipulation ability is necessary. But I'm glad you're saying "limbs" now instead of "arms and fingers".

Here's a neat idea - what about a dextrous manipulation center composed of many small mouthpart-like protrusions. See pic. It doesn't have to be located at the mouth, but might evolve that way. Then larger limbs don't need to be covered with dextrous manipulators, although it would be helpful to have the "mouth-like parts" in a place you can see them. Perhaps eyestalks would help.

>can tentacles be as good at the jobs mentioned above as arms with fingers on them
Yes.

[Anonymous No.2311124]

>>2311107
>Yep, one example, rare.... (squids too), well first off, i dont know what would be common, but the best we can do is make predictions based off all available data, all available data we have is life on this planet, thus my predictions are based off life on this planet.
No, not really. It's just a human-centric view. Apes are just as rare as octopuses - from a taxonomic point of view, which is the only one that matters. We're common as a species because we developed high intelligence and culture first, not because it's the only platform that works.

[Anonymous No.2311126]

ITT: Extrapolating from a single data point

[Horus !!w428ZKI4e/Q No.2311155]

>>2311126

Start using your imagination to come up with ideas that could work as well or better, or shut the fuck up...

[Anonymous No.2311161]

>>2311155
No u. I've MADE contributions.

>>2311117
>>2311124
Here. I've realized that I'm talking to people who have nothing interesting to say. Maybe some other time, or with other people, but there's nothing here for me. Good day.

[Anonymous No.2311319]

re all that earth-life-centrism

Why you guys even think that they would have fingers, thumbs or even face? What if aliens would evolve in something like gas-giants? very homogenous space where anything might be comming from anywhere. Completely different sensory organs would have evolved, perhaps even something like radio?
Just look into the oceans here on earth. Some interesting body plans are there as well - e.g. radiata or molluscs.
Radiata are especially interesting. you can move quite fast upwards (jelly), and your mouth is at the centre bottom. "Eyes" are on every tentacle (starfish).So where which place would you call a face?

Here on earth, they are "primitive" but it seems that underwatter intelligence doesnt seem to be able to make that final step regardless the body plan (see dolphins/octopuses)
It took kinda long on surface as well. There might be many other enviroments, where radiata-like animals would have all what is needed.

[Anonymous No.2311598]

>>2311319
>Why you guys even think that they would have fingers, thumbs or even face?

Because only advanced and intelligent lifeforms we know have those features.

[Anonymous No.2311625]

>>2311598
Yeah but our sample size is embarrassingly small. It's like assuming, in 1870, that every futuristic clock would have hands.

[Anonymous No.2311638]

>>2311625
Well you might have to wait a while till we get more samples..

[Anonymous No.2311646]

>>2311638
Fine. Until then I'll refrain from making assumption about what they'd look like and how they'd think.

[Horus !!w428ZKI4e/Q No.2311688]

>>2311319

Good, this is what I'm looking for.

Well the first thing that comes to mind when you mention Gas Giants is how will they be able to expand their knowledge of the world around them, and hence become an "advanced race" as I said in the OP. A lot of our knowledge has come from empirical research, how will they do that if they are just gas blobs?

[Anonymous No.2311718]

Sorry for mis-understanding. by living in the gas giants I ment living on a gas giants - in their atmosphere (if it can be called so)

[BIOFAGHERE No.2311798]

>Communication

No, no no, no, no. Fucking no.

Ants communicate. Bees communicate. Termites communicate. Fucking colony shrimp, fucking minnows, fucking tetras, fucking meercats, all those fucking burrowing colony rodents. They all communicate.

Don't get me wrong, all those animals excel at certain cognitive tasks and are pretty decent learners, but it doesn't make them any less retarded in contrast to the smarter animals on the planet - i.e. elephants, dolphins, apes, octopus.
Social skills require intelligence only because you need to send and receive information between individuals but animals can get damn smart just fine without it. Re-octopus. 3rd or fourth smartest animal on the planet.

There's plenty of reason for selection for smarts without a social factor. Stupid ones get eaten.

Being able to manipulate the environment does help a lot with tool making which is why opposable thumbs are so useful, but their evolution was to complement an insect-eating, tree-branch swinging lifestyle. Its easier to grab bugs and swing from branches if one digit can act as a pincer-stabilizer. But other things work well too -like tentacles and trunks. An elephants trunk has at least as many sensor neuron endings as both our hands together which is why they can perform such delicate movements with them. Same goes to octopus.

The only reason we excel is because we have language and syntax and with it the means to pass on information to proceeding generations so that they can work off of it and build up on it.
If octopus developed social skills they would still be octopus (they would be awesome) and they would still be swimmin around, jus being octopus.

If they maybe gained a higher lifespan and with it the ability to communicate through syntax... then we're talking.

[Anonymous No.2312435]

Bump for interesting discussion.

[Anonymous No.2312580]

>>2310963
im sure you could develope a pretty advanced language with color changing

[Anonymous No.2312598]

>>2312580
Cuttlefish are awesome. Really, go look up some videos. Incredible.

[Anonymous No.2312673]

well, there is communication and communication. Obviously the energy invested in communication (incl organs etc.) has to pay back, otherwise selection would not favor that.
Herd animals usually just use "warning" and "ready mate" signals. It is predators, where it gets interesting. Wolfs, hyena dogs (dunno correct english name, but they are the ultimate predators on this planet - 80 per cent hunt success - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycaon_pictus#Hunting_and_diet)) or even chimpanzee (those creatures are fucking beasts, seems like our cousins are similar to us - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik&feature=channel)) use communication to VASTLY improve their hunt success. It is very worth the extra energy invested for communication.

Thus I have to agree that just social isnt enough. Life style has to be complex enough to support more and more investment in that direction - positive feedback loop.

But this might be just one path out of many, e.g. that damn octopus

[Horus !!w428ZKI4e/Q No.2313239]

Back again.

Everyone keeps coming back to an Octopus-like being possibly being able to rival us in advancedness if things were a bit different. What is the likelyhood of advanced lifeforms form outer space living under water. What are the essential resources that are needed for beings to advance, fire can obviously be ruled out but is it essential as many people before have been claiming. Also another problem with living underwater will be that there will be no way to contain predators underwater, so even if they did build underwater buildings what is going to be able to stop them from being knocked down from hugwhale like creatures?

[Horus !!w428ZKI4e/Q No.2313278]

C'mon /sci/ stop getting trolled by Relegion and Pseudo Science threads and actually have an intelligent discussion about something different.

[Anonymous No.2314476]

>>2312435
THIS.

>1983 shigely

[Anonymous No.2314496]

>>2310950
>talks about "more advanced"
>doesn't understand evolution by natural selection at all

[Anonymous No.2314517]

Whatever the lifeform looks like, it needs to have a long enough lifespan to make the transmission of culture viable. Something on the order of 10+ years at the minimum, I'd imagine. Something that only lives for 2 or 3 years is going to spend most of its time focused on making sure it reproduces.

[Anonymous No.2314544]

Insufficient data to form an opinion.

We don't know enough about the conditions in which intelligence arises to form a conclusive answer to your question. We know of only one instance, and one is hardly enough for a scientific sample.

But here's a thought experiment. We evolved the tools first, and intelligence later, proven by the fact hands, vocal chords, and the like were developed far before the first tools, so it seems that a body must first be made before a mind. I'm not even completely sure of that assertion. Who's to say that conditions would arise that requires complex thinking instead of a reactive body? Such as judging distances, communication, etc.

[Anonymous No.2314545]

>>2310906
I suspect that, if we were to meet aliens which came here on a spaceship, this is what they'd be.

First, as others have said, they need some way to manipulate tools.

Second, they need culture to facilitate science to get the technology to build the space ship. Culture and science requires sufficient communication to pass down ideas and enough intelligence to come up with those ideas.

Thus they'll probably be a social species like us.

[Anonymous No.2315660]

Bumping. What's up with you people? There's a sensible topic here.. for once.

[Anonymous No.2315687]

>sentience/ intelligence
>walk up right
>child
>they would probably have arms and legs, with a recognizable face (two eyes nose mouth ears)
>They would also likely have fingers
>furry mammels

[Anonymous No.2315694]

>>2310906
We only really have one sample... unless you look to the other animals in which case we can go from humanoid to dolphins to elephants.

[Anonymous No.2315693]

>from /v/
>just stopped playing Spore
>find this thread
I would have to say it probably wouldn't matter, seeing as they'd evolve social behaviors that would lead to intelligence and, given the time and resources, would be able to become intelligent

[Anonymous No.2315702]

There are some pretty developed humanoids who have no thumbs at all.

But yeah the humanoid form tends to dominate in intelligence, at least as far as land-walking creatures go. Quadrupeds have trouble with brain development for a few reasons: their head is always out in front, so it can't be very heavy, and it's always vulnerable to attacks. There's also the issue of cooling. The more thinking you do, the more your brain heats up, like a computer; and quadrupeds tend to overheat easily. Most can only run in small spurts before they have to cool off.

So, most smart off-worlders you meet will be bipeds.

[Anonymous No.2315753]

HEY GUYS PAY ATTENTION TO ME
Ive really wanted to know this so ill ask here
are you guys down with the whole "squids are the next people" line of thinking?

[Anonymous No.2315785]

>>2313239
Isnt it the same as what humans had to face? You would be able to do some minor fortification for sleeping facilities (some barricade or sealed building). You can do caves and buildings underwater too. For most of the day you will be farming outside tho, relying on your pointy stick and brain.

>>2315702
Animals cool as much as they need to. (forget dogs, they are artificially bred animal). If the need for higher temperature dissipation arises, animals which are able to cool more tends to survive (i.e. survival of the fittest). You have many species which have polar and mild climate variants (bear, fox, rabbit, wolf...)

It is no big deal to get rid of some fur to be able to cool your brain. Monkeys are hairy too. Yet they got rid of that.

[Anonymous No.2315791]

>>2315753
Octopuses. And I would LOVE to welcome an octopus-descendant species to sapience.

[Anonymous No.2315794]

>>2315753
fire seems to be important thing for our type of civilization. So why not, if they would be able to get out of the water...

Although one interesting thing is that thier arms have high level of autonomy and central brain cant actully control them in full detail, but thats not something which wouldnt few 100 millions year handle

[Anonymous No.2315839]

>>2315785
>If the need for higher temperature dissipation arises, animals which are able to cool more tends to survive
I didn't say they're unable to cool off. How much of that did you read?

[Anonymous No.2315844]

here
>quadrupeds tend to overheat easily.

it is samle like saying that bipedals are slow.
They are but they dont mind it at all. (most of the time ofc.)

[Anonymous No.2315855]

>>2315844
those are two different concepts. And quadrupeds would mind quite a bit if their brain overheated routinely

[Anonymous No.2315891]

>>2315855
How exactly is bipedal better at cooling? E.g. are bipedals using something what quads wouldnt be able to use? something so special?

[Anonymous No.2315958]

>>2315891
the heat just comes off quicker. I'm not sure about the mechanics of it. Humans are one of the very few creatures that can run continuously without overheating. Even a polar bear will overheat if it runs too long.

And again there's the issue of head weight (which I admit is a bit more theoretical). We have enough trouble with posture as it is. Imagine being on four legs all the time and holding your head up. It can be done, but you would either have to rest a lot, or have a really big neck - which leads us back to the problem of cooling.

[Anonymous No.2316254]

>>2311036

That's because most lifeforms on this planet have common ancestors.

[Anonymous No.2316277]

I wouldn't consider xenomorphs "humanoids"
That would be like saying that praying mantises are humanoids

[Anonymous No.2316365]

dolphins are the second most intelligent animal on our planet. What do dolphins look like?

[Anonymous No.2316403]

>>2316365
But they would have a hard time developing a technical culture because in the water there isn't a counterpart to fire. And the control of fire was really huge step for humans.

[Anonymous No.2316425]

>>2316254
This. Seriously, this.

All photosynthesis involves the use of an enzyme called rubisco. Rubisco can only process three molecules per second. Not only that, it actually reverses the process of photosynthesis and does this more as temperature increases. As enzymes go, it is simply terrible. Why, then, is it the most abundant biological molecule on Earth? It evolved early. That's it. The same is true of the eye.

[Anonymous No.2316453]

>>2316425
This man speaks the truth.