/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5568722]

There was a discussion on /v/ about what sort of morphology alien organisms would have to have to become sapient and develop a civilization as humans have done.

Some people said that for a species to be sapient it is almost certain it would look humanoid, other people said differently.

What does /sci/ think about this? Personally I used to think it unlikely that aliens would look human, but since one anon said that since they would need a digestive system, with sensory organs around the mouth, and as few limbs possible whilst retaining two to manipulate things... I'm not so sure.

[Anonymous No.5568728]

>>5568722

This is assuming that these aliens live on a earth like world.

I highly doubt an alien organism that uses something similiar to DNA, but not DNA, will be humanoid.

[Anonymous No.5568769]

>>5568722
Depends on the gravity of the situation.

[Anonymous No.5568788]

>>5568769

I c wot u did dare m8

[Anonymous No.5568807]

Human anatomy is the fittest and most advanced survivor on this earth. If there was a better being with more adapted anatomycal system, they would be ruling the world now.
So if the alien planet is similar to earth, it would be logical to assume they have a similar anatomy to humans.

[Anonymous No.5568819]

No there is no reason to think aliens would look like us. We are discovering new species all the time that look completely alien.

[Anonymous No.5568836]

>>5568722
Have you ever thought the possibility of mechanical organisms / life? I'm not talking about transformers & stuff, but I mean the universe is infinitely expanding, & if the chemicals and conditions are right, even on a microbial scale, mechanical organisms could evolve? Although, I'm no biologist, thoughts?

[Anonymous No.5568847]

>>5568836
Organisms as we know them are essentially mechanical. Structures of molecules responding in predetermined ways to specific molecules.

[Anonymous No.5568851]

>>5568807
there could potentially be a better adapted organism that never evolved, just because something is possible doesn't mean it will happen on any given planet.

[Anonymous No.5568860]

>>5568807
> it would be logical to assume they have a similar anatomy to humans.

You don't have evidence for this. Evolution is not a map that will tell us where are we going or how we're going to be in the future. Different organism adapt to different situations, and we were lucky that mammals developed higher intelligence and it became more advanced for the human species.

I do not doubt alien species may be composed by cells, but it will be surprising if we find out they are chordated and specially quadrupeds.

[Anonymous No.5568868]

>>5568851
> adapted organism that never evolved
Whut's evolution m8?

Do viruses evolve?

[Anonymous No.5568869]

Creatures won't develop intelligence unless they lack any form of defense.

so they'll look normal. no huge claws or teeth or wings. Have their sensory organs located near the top of their body, close to the brain, and have localized limbs, some specifically for walking, some specifically for manipulating objects.

They would probably have only one set of arms and legs, because large creatures with large limbs are unfit for survival on limited resources.

So yeah, they probably will look a hell of a lot like us. The Greyhound and the Cheetah look similar because they both fill the same niche, sapience is more than likely the same.

[Anonymous No.5568874]

>>5568868
I didn't explain that well, i meant something that had the potential to arise but never actually did.

[Anonymous No.5568883]

I love this subject, it's speculative- but we can definitely go in-depth all we want- creating a science fiction that can be supported in areas of 'what ifs' and 'hows'

[Anonymous No.5568891]

>>5568722
I don't think the aliens must be humanoid to be able to develop a civilization.
There are some parameters they must meet to do so, though; for instance they have to be able to operate tools (which doesn't mean they must have a set pair of arms with hands).
Also they must obviously be capable of communicate between them and form groups (and of course this doesn't mean they must communicate sounds).
So far it sounds pretty obvious, but as you can see so far none of this sound that must be necessarily "human".
But here is a very interesting consideration I read some time ago:
No underwater life could evolve to develop a civilization simply because they won't be able to use fire.

So yeah, no Hanar.
Also, no omnisexual blue aliens which suspiciously and improbably look like the females of our species.

In fact, you know what? No aliens tits at all (which makes space exploration so much less exciting, I know)

[Anonymous No.5568897]

>>5568869

I also imagine the chemistry will be quite similar. There is little to no chance of any complex life forming in a complete anerobic environment. Co2-O2 production will evolve and the resulting forms of life will use the free oxygen as it is an incredibly efficient fuel source.

Their chirality might be different. But it's not like the chemistry on earth happened entirely by chance. Life took the best options and ran with it.

[Anonymous No.5568909]

>>5568897

Life didn't take any options, and the chemistry on earth did happen by chance.

The first self replicating organism didn't choose anything. It was a product of the enviroment.

[Anonymous No.5568919]

>>5568891

>I don't think the aliens must be humanoid to be able to develop a civilization.

The humanoid form is the most efficient on the planet. Nothing can out run a human being. Life always evolves to use less energy to survive. The intelligent species will have as few limbs as possible or it simply will not have the energy to grow a large brain.

>(which doesn't mean they must have a set pair of arms with hands).

Not true. The structures for walking and grasping are different. Physically you could not have dextrous hands that you also walk on.

>Also they must obviously be capable of communicate between them and form groups (and of course this doesn't mean they must communicate sounds).

Sound is the most likely, however, because it is the most efficient for a variety of reasons.

>No aliens tits at all

Why is it impossible for alien life to use an efficient means of feeding their young? It's better than eggs for a reason.

They will even think like us. They will have wars because resources are not infinite, and they will have religions because nothing enters the universe with a complete understanding of it.

Evolution is not creative. It's efficient. Again, there is a reason why the greyhound looks like a cheetah.

[Anonymous No.5568931]

>>5568909
>It was a product of the enviroment.

The environment being dictated by the R and S-process of stellar nucleosynthesis that is universal.

There will be Co2 because there will be volcanos. Anything that breaks the co2 for the energy will release oxygen. All complex forms of life need oxygen because of how much energy it contains.

It did not happen by chance. Chemically speaking, it's bound to happen given the right circumstances.

[Anonymous No.5568943]

The only thing you can assume with any degree of confidence is that they'll have some means to manipulate objects around them, which means some kind of centralized body plan and connected limbs.

You can't tell number. For instance, the Octopus is pretty goddamn smart, and it's got multiple grasping limbs.

I'll need some kind of digestive tract, circulatory system, and respiratory system, just by the way the math works out - the energy needs for the brain alone mean you need specialized absorptive organs, and passive diffusion isn't enough to sustain anything bigger than a fly.

Beyond that - whether they're skeletal, where the skeleton is, arrangement of limbs, size and shape - you can't tell.

[Anonymous No.5568939]

>>5568891

>No underwater life could evolve to develop a civilization simply because they won't be able to use fire.

Why is fire necessary for civilization?
If you need heat why not just use thermal vents on the ocean floor?

As for OP, I assume they

-Need to be a social species
-Have a way to move there bodies willfully (not just be carried around by environmental forces)
-Be able to manipulate objects with high accuracy

and other things I haven't thought of.

[Anonymous No.5568946]

>>5568939
>If you need heat why not just use thermal vents on the ocean floor?

You can't smelt metals on the ocean floor. Metal forging is critical to any real civilization.

Cooking food is just one aspect of brain evolution. If we didn't cook meat, we never would have had the sufficient protein to support our energy-hungry brains.

Which is why vegans are so vacuous.

[Anonymous No.5568949]

>>5568943
>You can't tell number. For instance, the Octopus is pretty goddamn smart, and it's got multiple grasping limbs.

It lives underwater. It doesn't have the same energy penalties that a large multi-limbed land animal would have.

>Beyond that - whether they're skeletal, where the skeleton is, arrangement of limbs, size and shape - you can't tell.

It won't be an inefficient monster design.

[Anonymous No.5568955]

>>5568949
Yes, and? OP specified a sapient civilization, not necessarily a terrestrial one.

[Anonymous No.5568958]

>>5568955

You cannot have civilization without metal forging.

At best you can have loose tribal groups.

[Anonymous No.5568965]

>>5568958
A tribal-based civilization using stone tools is still a civilization.

[Anonymous No.5568980]

>>5568965

>Effective working definition (especially by archaeologists): a grouping of at least several thousand people with a common culture, usually a common language, usually a geographic locale, some significant (usually monumental) buildings and architecture, and a political structure that is not necessarily unified” (Blaha 2002 and provided for this review).

It would really be stretching the definition. Most anthropologists seem to agree that civilizations require cities. Not small tribes.

[Anonymous No.5568997]

I definitely argue that such a species would be very similar to humans, for example, if humans were cold blooded, we would risk infection by fungi (the same stuff that warps the mind of ants to make them suicide in an appropriate position to reproduce) which tends to regulate the populations of smaller insects.

I also doubt that they would be an aquatic species because water is really good at destroying and degrading structures, and also makes it exceedingly difficult to utilize electric power.

[Anonymous No.5569035]

>>5568919
I don't think you can extend the meaning of what's "efficient" here on earth to the whole possibilities in which life could form and evolve.
For example, let's think about a planet with higher-than-earth gravity; in this case the "erect posture" won't be recommendable, therefore whatever species that evolved in there must need more than four limbs to move (or simply not fall on the floor) while it's manipulating objects.

[Anonymous No.5569054]

>>5569035

The extra gravity would prevent them from having the energy resources to commit to a large brain, and the large gravity would make predation extra risky.

Sentience would never evolve on a high gravity world. Predation might not even evolve.

You're greatly misunderstanding evolution if you think everything has a chance of sapience.

[Anonymous No.5569124]

>>5568980
>The Iroquois weren't a civilization
bahahahahahahah

[Anonymous No.5569139]

>>5569124

>knows this little about the Iroquois

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#Government

They had their own fucking system of government and large cities. What fucking thanksgiving day cartoons have you been getting your historical facts from?

[Anonymous No.5569161]

>>5569139
Exactly you fucking retard which is also what >>5568965 said.

[Anonymous No.5569163]

>>5569054
That's an interesting point, could you please expand on how would the extra gravity would prevent them from having the energy resources to commit to a large brain?

Anyway, we should first define the boundaries of the niche in which a life could develop a civilization.
The narrow these margins are then the more characteristic we will have in common with the alien civilization ('cause, hey, convergent evolution, amirite?).
I'd say to beging with the parameters of life as we know it and go from there, so:
Temperature, pressure, radiation, osmolarity, pH, water activity

[Anonymous No.5569209]

>>5569161

They were unified tribes making metal. They were not stone-age you fucking racist.

[Anonymous No.5569212]

>>5569163

>That's an interesting point, could you please expand on how would the extra gravity would prevent them from having the energy resources to commit to a large brain?

It's harder to move around. You might need additional limbs for support. Resources are limited so it could only eat so much. Especially with not being able to move very fast i wouldn't think it'd have the metabolism for sentience.

[Anonymous No.5569215]

>>5569212
How does a high gravity world additionally limit resources? I agree with your other points, but don't see the logic on this one.

[Anonymous No.5569224]

>>5568722
>Some people said that for a species to be sapient it is almost certain it would look humanoid

That is drastically, ignorantly arrogant.
Such people might say (in the face of direct evidence proving otherwise) that a hand is the perfect manipulator, two legs is superior to any other number, legs are the best locomotion, and having a separate head with brain inside is the only smart way to be.

I would hope everyone else in that discussion saw that those assumptions are stupid.

[Anonymous No.5569225]

>>5569209
They weren't making metal you unbelievable fucking dolt. There were a tribal civilization that worked with stones. You said they weren't then agreed with my example of a stone using tribal civilization which invalidated your original shit statement. Stop doubling down on bullshit retard, you don't need to work metal to be a civilization.

[Anonymous No.5569234]

>>5568807
>Human anatomy is the fittest and most advanced survivor on this earth. If there was a better being with more adapted anatomycal system, they would be ruling the world now.


This is not correct.

You seem to be assuming that all variations of all possibilities were tried, and that this one won out.
That's clearly not true -- not even close.
There were millions of mitigating factors affecting evolution on Earth -- and most of them don't have to be true anywhere else, but even if they were, a different animal could have risen.

Their conclusion is EXACTLY like people saying, 'since I dropped the penny and it was 'heads,' that must have been the only possible result.'

[Anonymous No.5569237]

>>5569209
>native americans
>working metal
Bro, the access to worked metal tools and utensils like pots and kettles that the European colonists offered the NAs was a major factor in their trade relations.

[Anonymous No.5569238]

>>5568847
>Organisms as we know them are essentially mechanical. Structures of molecules responding in predetermined ways to specific molecules.

That is a metaphorical 'mechanical' -- he clearly meant actual machines.

YOU know what machines are, you know what people mean when they write 'machine' -- don't be a dick.

[Anonymous No.5569239]

>>5569234
>implying determinism isn't true

[Anonymous No.5569245]

>>5569239
> mu pilot wave

[Anonymous No.5569248]

>>5569239
> muh pilot wave

[Anonymous No.5569260]

>>5568851
>there could potentially be a better adapted organism that never evolved, just because something is possible doesn't mean it will happen on any given planet.

No, not 'potentially could be' --
NECESSARILY MUST BE alternative intelligent forms.

There is absolutely no reason at all to assume humanoid structure, even in vague terms, is common or better than other forms.

The fact that it developed here is a 1/(unknown number) statistical datum -- so no one can say that it usually happens, or should.

[Anonymous No.5569265]

>>5569248
>>5569245
> muh quantum entanglement

[Anonymous No.5569272]

>>5568949
It doesn't have the same energy penalty as a multi-limbed land animal on earth. What about some other planet with lower gravity? Just how much gravity do you need for life to develop?

[Anonymous No.5569300]

Let's add some actual science to this discussion.

Humans are capable of having big brains because we've evolved sufficient cooling mechanisms for them. Now, that's not to say you couldn't have an efficient distributed nervous system (like how the octopus and presumably other coeloids have separate processing units for each arm), but if you're restricted to a single chunk of matter for thinking, then you have to be able to get resources to it and waste from it.

Relative to other members of Hominidae, we have elongated, hairless necks. This cools the blood going into the brain and allows for more efficient heat dissipation as it comes out. We have sophisticated sweat glands which help out, and a variety of other features which serve to help us cool ourselves. (In parallel with this, we have the ability to perform feats of endurance that most other animals can't. The two are linked in some way: efficient cooling benefits both. But that may be just a coincidence of our environment.)

In terms of getting resources to the brain, we cook food and eat a very limited number of things so we don't need to expend energy on breaking it down. Intelligence implies specialization, at least in some ways.

Nothing implies bipedalism, and it doesn't even mean they'd be terrestrial, or even elongated. The cooling mechanisms could be numerous folds, like a fan, between which water or air are allow to flow or even pumped.

[Anonymous No.5569308]

aliums wil luk lyk skelington

[Anonymous No.5569312]

>>5568869
Such broad assumptions. Did they feel good to write (they should have)?

>Creatures won't develop intelligence unless they lack any form of defense.
Creatures could develop intelligence just from having effective predators around. Or a challenging environment. Or to use their own defenses better. Or so they won't have to use the defenses they have.
Your first assumption: ridiculous in the face of variations.

>so they'll look normal.
I can hardly wait to see what 'normal' has to be.

>no huge claws or teeth or wings.
Why not? we know that unnecessary features are present in all other creatures; these aren't prohibitively expensive to retain.

>Have their sensory organs located near the top of their body
You can't think of any reason an sense might be lower? I think I could name a hundred environmental ways touch, taste, and smell would be beneficial lower.

>close to the brain,
for the sake of simpler mutated variation, probably -- but as I just suggested, most of the senses could be much lower.

>and have localized limbs, some specifically for walking, some specifically for manipulating objects.
yes, this is one of the most humanoid-recognizable traits. But, you didn't just say anything that makes most intelligent animals bipedal or manipulate with fingered hands on former legs.
You've just permitted tentacles, suction cups, grasping feelers, legs in any number, sessile forms, armored structures, etc.

>They would probably have only one set of arms and legs, because large creatures with large limbs are unfit for survival on limited resources.
I guess you mean one pair of each, but don't you recognize that many animal forms survive lack of food, water, nutrients much better than humans? Insects are great at it. Fish are quite good. Birds do better.

>So yeah, they probably will look a hell of a lot like us. The Greyhound and the Cheetah look similar because they both fill the same niche, sapience is more than likely the same.

[Anonymous No.5569334]

>>5568897
>But it's not like the chemistry on earth happened entirely by chance. Life took the best options and ran with it.

Look, that's just entirely wrong.
You cannot assume that the processes that happened here are the best ones, the most effective, or even the most likely, just because they happened here.

You need to recognize that much of those interactions were governed by chance, alone.
That means other things could have happened, both in chemistry and in the environment, to change the directions.

Worse, some of you seem to be saying that mammalian life is automatically superior for intelligence. There is no reason to assume that.

[Anonymous No.5569359]

I'll throw something off my mind. We people are so damn narrow-minded that it's only rational that we cannot even begin to understand evolution or life.

So, what if the aliens operate on totally different elements ? No gases or liquids. No energy. Or maybe dark energy. They may not use light as a visual tool. What if we are talking about totally out of our world things here ?

I'd like to think that this is not all there is to our universe.

[Anonymous No.5569363]

>>5568919
>The humanoid form is the most efficient on the planet.
Not even remotely true, but in what way? Food efficiency? long life? expenditure of effort to feed and nurture itself?

>Nothing can out run a human being.
Except for dozens of animals, all birds, all fish if in water, etc.

>Life always evolves to use less energy to survive.
Almost correct -- within the restrictions of each form, very nearly correct.
Mammals are not the form which uses the least energy of animal choices. (Probably birds use most, then mammals... might be insects that use the least energy.)

>The intelligent species will have as few limbs as possible or it simply will not have the energy to grow a large brain.
That assumes the limbs use a lot of energy, and they need not -- or it might have no limbs, and use its body for locomotion.

>>(which doesn't mean they must have a set pair of arms with hands).
>Not true. The structures for walking and grasping are different. Physically you could not have dextrous hands that you also walk on.
Again, you're presuming mammals and endoskeletons. Even so, the great apes have wonderful grasping, walk on their hands, and most swing well from trees. Large limbs, large brains, too.

>>No aliens tits at all
>Why is it impossible for alien life to use an efficient means of feeding their young?
Did you just assume breastfeeding is efficient after comparing it to no other choices at all?

>They will even think like us. They will have wars because resources are not infinite, and they will have religions because nothing enters the universe with a complete understanding of it.
That is not something anyone can presume.
There are also many social structures of people that have nothing to do with war or competition and spend almost no time on belief.

>Evolution is not creative. It's efficient.
it is also restricted to choices that appear in its environment, and the main thing different in this question is environment.

[Anonymous No.5569367]

>>5568919
Having a hard time accepting that someone who seems to have a decent grasp of the issues also thinks so narrowly.

Humanoid and mammal are not the obvious best choice for evolution to intelligence.
the best that you can say is that we don't know enough to assay the likelihoods.

[Anonymous No.5569368]

>>5569334
>You need to recognize that much of those interactions were governed by chance, alone.
Define chance, if a random variable has a 1 in a billion billion billion of being outcome A, otherwise it is outcome B, is it chance that it is outcome B?

>Worse, some of you seem to be saying that mammalian life is automatically superior for intelligence. There is no reason to assume that.
To make such a strong claim "mammalian" obviously not, for example the very strong condition being a deuterestome "the blastopore (the opening at the bottom of the forming gastrula) becomes the anus", that every mammal (and every fish, worms, birds) share is not a requirement. What is meant is that it would probably be human/mammal-like, we would expect a social, warm blooded, dexterous, intelligent... type of creature.

[Anonymous No.5569371]

>>5569359
I think it's evident there are blind sentient species since all it requires is for them to evolve underground, which probably isn't that rare.

[Anonymous No.5569375]

>you must have sth to manipulate objects and it must be exactly two hands with opposing fingers
>you must have extra limbs to walk on - exactly two
>you must sensory organs near the brain like ears, noses and eyes - exactly two of them - except for the nose
>the brain must be in a separate limb that is very exposed and far away from the heart
>you must walk on land - fire is necessary - fuck animals that have natural electricity
>any kind of flying is a waste of energy
>cooking is absolutely necessary - there is absolutely no other way to get enough energy for a brain otherwise
>of course mouth, heart and brain have to be far apart, silly
>finger nails are necessary for scratching - just fingers is not enough manipulation
>of course the butthole needs to be hairy
>no a tail is a waste of energy, evolutionary illiterate

[Anonymous No.5569376]

>>5569371
Go one step deeper. What if their actions are fueled by dark energy? Maybe they are from a different dimension.

[Anonymous No.5569377]

>>5568931
>There will be Co2 because there will be volcanos. Anything that breaks the co2 for the energy will release oxygen. All complex forms of life need oxygen because of how much energy it contains.


Not true; many planets are known to have much smaller hot cores, and would therefore have far shorter hot periods.
We also know plenty of materials sequester gases; it's not like we can assume the atmosphere of any other planet to be similar.
We know of many simple compounds that contain energies; oxygen doesn't have to be the natural choice, and it probably would not be if it were in low abundance.

>It did not happen by chance. Chemically speaking, it's bound to happen given the right circumstances.
So, you find you MUST couch these in chance, even if you don't like it?
And the question is not 'given the same environment and circumstances.'
The thread is not trying to build an argument that people are the best, even if you clearly are.

[Anonymous No.5569393]

>>5569375

You have no idea why those assertions are correct. Don't question them.

>>5569377

>Not true; many planets are known to have much smaller hot cores, and would therefore have far shorter hot periods.

No vulcanism = no magnetic field or life.

>We also know plenty of materials sequester gases; it's not like we can assume the atmosphere of any other planet to be similar.

yes we can. The volcanoes on Io spit out the same shit that ours do.

>We know of many simple compounds that contain energies; oxygen doesn't have to be the natural choice, and it probably would not be if it were in low abundance.

Oxygen can be freed by carbon dioxide which will be universally prevalent. Name another free radical with the energy content of oxygen.

>And the question is not 'given the same environment and circumstances.'

I didn't say the same circumstances. I said the circumstances that would lead any planet to having a chance of being habitable. A stable star, a large molten core for magnetic field and Co2 production, etc etc.

When these come together, the chemical reactions that lead to life are all but inevitable. Other factors will determine if sentience has any chance, but chemically speaking life is pretty likely.

Abiogenesis has come a long way in the 20 years since the 90's.

[Anonymous No.5569395]

>>5568722
>sapient

That word is meaningless. It isn't a scientific concept, not testable, not observable and not relevant to any explanation By using it all you achieve is showing off that you're an uneducated high schooler who mistakes fiction for science.

[Anonymous No.5569396]

>>5569377
>The thread is not trying to build an argument that people are the best, even if you clearly are.

The human form is the most efficient that a sentient organism could be. Nothing can out think us, and nothing can out run us.

That's enough.

[Anonymous No.5569400]

>>5569393
>You have no idea why those assertions are correct. Don't question them.
I do. It's because that's how humans are and there is no other civilized species.
>biology
>hard science

[Anonymous No.5569402]

>>5569395

Sapient - Like Humans.

That's all it means.

[Anonymous No.5569406]

>>5569400

Goddamnit if you had taken a single anthropology course in your life...

It's going to take me forever to explain and basically give you a crash course in anthropology.

[Anonymous No.5569407]

>>5569402
That's not what it means. If you meant "like humans", you would of said "anthropomorphic". "Sapient" is a word used by spiritualists, dualists and religiontards to make themselves believe humans are special for having a magical soul. Such nonsense has no evidence and is utterly ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.5569409]

>>5569395

Instead of acting like a pretentious fuckwit, why don't you contribute positively to the thread?

[Anonymous No.5569411]

>>5569409
This isn't a science or math thread. It's a terrible abomination of kindergarten fantasy bullshit without basis in reality.

[Anonymous No.5569412]

>>5569407

sa·pi·ent (sp-nt)
adj.
Having great wisdom and discernment.

One google search. One google search is all you needed to do to not look like a complete dipshit.

[Anonymous No.5569415]

>>5569396
>The human form is the most efficient that a sentient organism could be. Nothing can out think us, and nothing can out run us.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/sports/physics/animal-kingdom-top-marathon-runners-humans#slide-3
dogs travel more than 1000 miles in 15 days, non stop.

Humans are only the best in certain conditions (hot weather).

[Anonymous No.5569416]

>>5568949
>It lives underwater. It doesn't have the same energy penalties that a large multi-limbed land animal would have.

Why is a spider not possible?
It's multilimbed, could have good grasping, has great energy efficiency, and is drastically different from human.
Is it really so hard to imagine a way for a spider-like creature to evolve intelligence?

>>Beyond that - whether they're skeletal, where the skeleton is, arrangement of limbs, size and shape - you can't tell.
>It won't be an inefficient monster design.
Oh, well, if everything that isn't humanoid is a monster, I guess I see why you have some determination.

It doesn't have to be an inefficient monster design -- which humans are, definitely.
All we are talking about is different kinds of animals, but if YOU can't get beyond the idea that anything else is monster, you may be beyond hope.
I mean, you automatically dropped in the word 'inefficient,' which is totally unjustified given that you weren't talking about any specific animal form!

[Anonymous No.5569418]

>>5569411

Are you saying you don't believe in extraterrestrials? Statistically you would be incorrect.

[Anonymous No.5569419]

>>5569395
you're that guy that gets sapient and sentient mixed up aren't you

[Anonymous No.5569420]

>>5569412
Thanks for confirming that is it in fact an unscientific untestable bullshit concept.

[Anonymous No.5569421]

>>5568965
But arguably has peaked as far as intelligence, which is our criterion.

[Anonymous No.5569423]

>>5569375
>>you must have sth to manipulate objects and it must be exactly two hands with opposing fingers

It must be as few limbs as possible. No less than two. The more limbs, the less energy for growing a brain assuming limited resources.

>>you must have extra limbs to walk on - exactly two

Human beings can outrun any animal on earth because we only have to power two limbs to do so. Less limbs = more energy for other shit.

>>you must sensory organs near the brain like ears, noses and eyes - exactly two of them - except for the nose

The number is kept low for the energy demands on the body and the organs are kept high for better coverage and they are near the brain to reduce latency for survival benefit.

>>the brain must be in a separate limb that is very exposed and far away from the heart

So that it can be near the sensory organs which need to see above obstacles to threats.

>>you must walk on land - fire is necessary - fuck animals that have natural electricity

Are you saying moray eels could form a civilization?

>>any kind of flying is a waste of energy

If you can fly, why would you need great intelligence to survive? Birds seem to have found a niche between being very smart and flying.

>>cooking is absolutely necessary - there is absolutely no other way to get enough energy for a brain otherwise

According to all evidence of paleolithic diets, yeah. Cooking is what gave us access to more proteins in the meats.

>>of course mouth, heart and brain have to be far apart, silly

The taller you are the more of your surroundings you can see. Multiple hearts would be a waste of energy.

>>finger nails are necessary for scratching - just fingers is not enough manipulation

No idea where this came from.

>>of course the butthole needs to be hairy

Ah i see you became ambivalent.

>>no a tail is a waste of energy, evolutionary illiterate

It is when you're on the ground and have a good inner ear and don't need the tail for the extra balance.

There. Happy?

[Anonymous No.5569425]

>>5569418
That's so retarded, it hurts. Show me your statistics. Show me one confirmed case of an extraterrestrial being observed.

[Anonymous No.5569427]

>>5569407

So a spiritualist named us Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

Fascinating.

[Anonymous No.5569429]

>>5569415

The dogs would stop. The humans would not.

For thousands of years our only hunting method was to simply chase something until it could no longer run anymore and poke it with sticks. Didn't matter if it was horses or dogs or gazelles. They overheat and have to rest because they have two additional limbs to power.

[Anonymous No.5569430]

>>5569427
0/10

[Anonymous No.5569431]

>>5569427
ignore the spergtroll. if you respond a thread gets derailed, which is what he wants

[Anonymous No.5569432]

>>5568965
A foraging Formicidae civilization gathering insects is still a civilization.

[Anonymous No.5569433]

>>5569054
>The extra gravity would prevent them from having the energy resources to commit to a large brain,
That's only assuming energy resource accessibility is difficult. What if it is easy?
What if, as has been true very often in Earth history, food access is not difficult?

>and the large gravity would make predation extra risky.
No, predation habits would be different because of the different environment. Again, don't assume something to be the same as on Earth.(Instead of chasing predation, maybe trapping or deceit is a more common tactic.)

>Sentience would never evolve on a high gravity world. Predation might not even evolve.
>You're greatly misunderstanding evolution if you think everything has a chance of sapience.

That isn't what anyone has said.
The question is just whether humanoid is the only likely form for intelligence.
I think that assumption is ridiculous in the extreme.

[Anonymous No.5569434]

I think aliens would just be bacteria.

[Anonymous No.5569435]

>>5569419
Is that what he's doing? That makes sense.

[Anonymous No.5569438]

>>5569433
>That's only assuming energy resource accessibility is difficult. What if it is easy?

Then they have no reason to develop intelligence if they can just sit there like a cow and chew unlimited food.

>No, predation habits would be different because of the different environment. Again, don't assume something to be the same as on Earth.(Instead of chasing predation, maybe trapping or deceit is a more common tactic.)

It becomes entirely too risky for survival when a misstep could lead to broken bones in the higher g environment. you don't get carbon fiber bones like in avatar. I can see passive predation like pitcher plants though.

>I think that assumption is ridiculous in the extreme.

Based on very little, from what i can tell.

[Anonymous No.5569440]

>>5569429
You are missing the part about the water; humans carried their water and could drink while running while their prey could not, so they (we) would run them down until they dehydrated then poked them. That strategy doesn't work well in arctic conditions.

[Anonymous No.5569446]

>>5569440

>That strategy doesn't work well in arctic conditions.

Humans didn't evolve in arctic conditions.

[Anonymous No.5569451]

>>5569440

I don't think they had pottery or any sort of container tech at the time. Pretty sure they just went for fucklong times between watering holes.

Oh. And people back then could run at 32mph, so a slow trot was nothing to them.

[Anonymous No.5569460]

>>5569212
This was a good list; easy to address where we have differences.

>It's harder to move around.
Right, but moving around doesn't have to be so critical.

>You might need additional limbs for support.
Indeed, or softer limbs, or sturdier limbs, or none. Why would that matter?

>Resources are limited so it could only eat so much.
Why are resources so limited? They only have to be expansive enough for the life there, and we aren't assuming it's a desert.

>Especially with not being able to move very fast i wouldn't think it'd have the metabolism for sentience.
This is one of your strongest points, but locomotion doesn't determine metabolism (not alone, anyway).
Other demands may drive up the need for processing; and other brain chemistries would be able to improve processing rate (for instance, almost any brain chemistry with more metals).

[Anonymous No.5569464]

>>5569139
The civilization games are not cartoons man. Get your facts straight.

[Anonymous No.5569465]

>>5569446
>Humans didn't evolve in arctic conditions.
exactly, wasn't qualified in
>nothing can out run us.

>>5569451
>Oh. And people back then could run at 32mph, so a slow trot was nothing to them.
citation needed, 32mph is 14m/s which is a 100 meter sprint in 7 seconds, puts usain bolt's 9.58 to shame.

[Anonymous No.5569476]

>>5569460
>Why are resources so limited? They only have to be expansive enough for the life there, and we aren't assuming it's a desert.
without limiting resources, or harsh conditions, there is no evolutionary pressure. Most life tends to be able to reproduce exponentially, that would get to unrealistic numbers quick if they are not limited by something.

[Anonymous No.5569485]

>>5569368
>>You need to recognize that much of those interactions were governed by chance, alone.
>Define chance, if a random variable has a 1 in a billion billion billion of being outcome A, otherwise it is outcome B, is it chance that it is outcome B?
I was expressing the reason for the many different things that contributed to developing life: that they happened by chance, and that we know other things could have happened. That would provide everything differently, so we have to assume many differences.
I was not expressing how likely ANY of the chances were, and there are hundreds of valid differences that would be different.

>>Worse, some of you seem to be saying that mammalian life is automatically superior for intelligence. There is no reason to assume that.
>To make such a strong claim "mammalian" obviously not, for example the very strong condition being a deuterestome "the blastopore (the opening at the bottom of the forming gastrula) becomes the anus", that every mammal (and every fish, worms, birds) share is not a requirement. What is meant is that it would probably be human/mammal-like, we would expect a social, warm blooded, dexterous, intelligent... type of creature.

Well, partly. Intelligence is our basic requirement in the thread, and dextrous and social may be necessary to that.
But mammal-like, humanoid, warm-blooded -- these were the QUESTION.
And I don't think you've shown those to be important, let alone required.

[Anonymous No.5569510]

>>5569393
>>Not true; many planets are known to have much smaller hot cores, and would therefore have far shorter hot periods.
>No vulcanism = no magnetic field or life.
No, significant volcanic activity comes from a shallow crust. Magnetic field comes from large spinning core.
You can easily have a large spinning core AND a thick crust (no goddamn fake cheese inside!)

>>We also know plenty of materials sequester gases; it's not like we can assume the atmosphere of any other planet to be similar.
>yes we can. The volcanoes on Io spit out the same shit that ours do.
OK; do ALL of the local rocky planets and moons also have the same atmosphere? If not, we CANNOT assume the atmosphere to be the same.
You cannot show the range of all likely planetary atmospheres by showing me one more that has a similar one.
I'll say it again, maybe you'll read it better: "we cannot assume the atmosphere of any other planet"

>>We know of many simple compounds that contain energies; oxygen doesn't have to be the natural choice, and it probably would not be if it were in low abundance.
>Oxygen can be freed by carbon dioxide which will be universally prevalent. Name another free radical with the energy content of oxygen.
You're arguing wrongly; it isn't about what has the best content, or what is more common. The topic is whether there is ANOTHER choice. That's why I argued that there could be low oxygen and abundant other compounds of worth.

>>And the question is not 'given the same environment and circumstances.'
>I didn't say the same circumstances. I said the circumstances that would lead any planet to having a chance of being habitable. A stable star, a large molten core for magnetic field and Co2 production, etc etc.
>When these come together, the chemical reactions that lead to life are all but inevitable. Other factors will determine if sentience has any chance, but chemically speaking life is pretty likely.
Still looks like 'when the same thing happens as happened here.'

[Anonymous No.5569513]

>>5569396
>The human form is the most efficient that a sentient organism could be. Nothing can out think us, and nothing can out run us.
>That's enough.

It's also wrong, and not the point, and ignores all of the variations that are possible.

It sounds like you are saying 'Since humans did evolve, they must be the best possible variation.'
Even when anything else is different, even when we know of a hundred things the human form is bad at.
And you still write garbage like 'most efficient' and 'nothing can outrun us.'

[Anonymous No.5569518]

>>5569400
>there is no other civilized species.

But that assumes that ALL other variations, in ALL other variations of environment and worlds, were all tried under the same conditions and only humanoid won.

That's ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.5569523]

>>5569396
nope. possibly true given the environment we have, but still unlikely.

[Anonymous No.5569521]

>>5569402
>Sapient - Like Humans.
>That's all it means.

not even close.
And since the word 'sapient' wasn't the main topic, not particularly successful.

[Anonymous No.5569529]

>>5569407
>"Sapient" is a word used by spiritualists, dualists and religiontards

No, it is used by lots of other kinds of people, and for several other reasons, because it is the generally-accepted description of the human condition.
Even if it seems to insult your own BELIEF about the universe.

>to make themselves believe humans are special for having a magical soul.
Nope, sapience has nothing to do with 'soul' or with 'magic.'
And humans are inarguably special, for very obvious reasons. You may have trouble fitting that into your BELIEF about the universe, but it is there, just the same.

>Such nonsense has no evidence and is utterly ridiculous.
It has TONNES of evidence -- it's just evidence that YOU decide has no value.
Almost everyone else DOES accept the evidence, and DOES believe it has value.

[Anonymous No.5569531]

>>5569518

+1

Considering how close mankind came to extinction during its evolution (and more than once at that) - we have no idea how many other potentially dominant species have been wiped out somewhere along the way before they could reach a recognizable level of culture or civilization.

[Anonymous No.5569534]

>planet full of water
>all fishes and other sea crap
>implying intelligent life on that planet would look like humans

atheists 1 : 0 other guys

[Anonymous No.5569537]

>>5569411
>This isn't a science or math thread. It's a terrible abomination of kindergarten fantasy bullshit without basis in reality.

It is a particularly scientific thread.
There is nothing 'kindergarten' here; most of us are not making broad or wishful 'what if' statements.
They are informed, substantial and relevant 'what if' statements -- the EXACT provenance of science exploration!

[Anonymous No.5569540]

>>5569537
Fantasies about "what if aliums hurrr" are not science or math. Please educate yourself. Go to school, grow up and stop shitting up /sci/ with underaged garbage.

[Anonymous No.5569543]

>>5569510
>when the same thing happens as happened here.'

Because life on earth took the path of least resistance. It's reasonable to assume that any life anywhere would do the same.

[Anonymous No.5569545]

Are any of you faggots actually gunna watch some real alien footage? Don't give me that crap about how the government wouldn't ever lie to us because it's 2013 for christ sake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4OZWkzIdBw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpFaPJVBsks&list=UUBZkUkJvIGhJzeMZUnTE0Aw

[Anonymous No.5569548]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson%27s_Puppeteers

for your consideration...

[Anonymous No.5569553]

>>5569545
Yes, this. They always capture me when I get drunk and then are they sending me back days later sleeping on a random park bench

[Anonymous No.5569555]

>>5569460

>Right, but moving around doesn't have to be so critical.

Plants don't need intelligence because they don't have to move. If you don't need it, you don't develop adaptations for it.

>Indeed, or softer limbs, or sturdier limbs, or none. Why would that matter?

Extra limbs all need extra energy.

>Why are resources so limited? They only have to be expansive enough for the life there, and we aren't assuming it's a desert.

Resource competition. If there is no competition for resources then there is vanishingly little evolution.

>This is one of your strongest points, but locomotion doesn't determine metabolism (not alone, anyway

Mm, would you agree that locomotion sets limits on metabolism?

> and other brain chemistries would be able to improve processing rate (for instance, almost any brain chemistry with more metals).

But then they require a diet heavy on metals, which might work but i think the organic processing of the metals would limit it's effectiveness.

[Anonymous No.5569561]

>>5569518

Have you seen the genus homo lineage? A whole fucking lot of human permutations were tried and did not make it.

[Anonymous No.5569570]

[Anonymous No.5569590]

>>5569543
>Because life on earth took the path of least resistance.
That's a physics principle, not a biological principle.
But, accepting it for the moment; it also presumes that all of the possible choices were explored, and that the one with the least resistance to growing was selected.
You know that that isn't true -- not all choices were presented, not all environments were presented, and that both combine to show a resulting successful animal.

>It's reasonable to assume that any life anywhere would do the same.
Would do the same IN THE SAME SITUATION.
We know that situation would be different in nearly every way, even if you insist it is by tiny amounts (which it wouldn't be).

Note: this thread isn't asking if another animal evolved on Earth at the same time and in the same situation as humans did. It's asking if there could be other successful animals -- and it should seem obvious that there should be.

[Anonymous No.5569596]

>>5569553
You poke fun but what do you do if UFOs are real?

[Anonymous No.5569601]

>>5569590
>Note: this thread isn't asking if another animal evolved on Earth at the same time and in the same situation as humans did. It's asking if there could be other successful animals -- and it should seem obvious that there should be.
The answer to that question IS obviously yes, the same answer to most could questions.
Q. Could there be a purple were-walrus that juggles 4 green balls?
A. Well there could be...

[Anonymous No.5569609]

>wait a thousand years
>all humans dead
>dolphins are building cities and destroy the environment
>thread on dolphin-4chan pops up
>'would all intelligent species look like dolphins?'

[Anonymous No.5569622]

>>5569609
How would dolphins type? In binary?

[Anonymous No.5569632]

>>5569622
Ternary, because of the fluke

[Anonymous No.5569633]

>>5569609
>>'would all intelligent species look like dolphins?'
They would almost certainly be dolphinoid.
Land animals are too bound by gravity to efficiently move - let alone construct buildings that weigh tons.
Also a fin opposite to the head is the most efficient propellant. Dolphins outswim every other species.

[Anonymous No.5569636]

>>5569555
>>Right, but moving around doesn't have to be so critical.
>Plants don't need intelligence because they don't have to move. If you don't need it, you don't develop adaptations for it.
Correct; they can get their sustenance from staying in place.
Because of that, they also developed a structure that (whether passively or strategically) keeps them in place.
What about toads? Alligators? Hippos? Chameleons? Trapping spiders?
None of these move very much, they are all successful. (food generally just gets in reach)

>>Indeed, or softer limbs, or sturdier limbs, or none. Why would that matter?
>Extra limbs all need extra energy.
Only if you assume the limbs are the same size. A millipede, cockroach or octopus don't use tonnes of energy.

>>Why are resources so limited? They only have to be expansive enough for the life there, and we aren't assuming it's a desert.
>Resource competition. If there is no competition for resources then there is vanishingly little evolution.
Competition with other animals in the same niche is one demand; challenging environment is another. What if they don't compete, but they have to do something extraordinary to feed? or to reproduce (like human males do).

>>This is one of your strongest points, but locomotion doesn't determine metabolism (not alone, anyway
>Mm, would you agree that locomotion sets limits on metabolism?
>> and other brain chemistries would be able to improve processing rate (for instance, almost any brain chemistry with more metals).
>But then they require a diet heavy on metals, which might work but i think the organic processing of the metals would limit it's effectiveness.
I'm just thinking that a brain chemistry with more metallic pairs of compounds could be faster across cells, because they could reduce synapse gaps.
Nothing like very high-number metals; maybe just more Mg or S or F or Br in the environment.

[Anonymous No.5569643]

>>5569590

>That's a physics principle, not a biological principle.

Biology is chemistry. Chemistry is pretty simple.

>But, accepting it for the moment; it also presumes that all of the possible choices were explored, and that the one with the least resistance to growing was selected.

In essence, yeah. There were anerobic lifeforms before plants came along, but the anerobic life was very very sluggish and never did anything nor could it do anything.

Oxygen gave life it's only real chance for complexity. It's like saying we could run a car off argon as well as gasoline.

>We know that situation would be different in nearly every way, even if you insist it is by tiny amounts (which it wouldn't be).

Why would other planets be composed of completely different elements or amounts of the elements? Do you know how Stellar Nucleosynthesis works? What we have in the solar system is elementally identical to all other solar systems. I'm sorry you're out of the loop on this.

>It's asking if there could be other successful animals -- and it should seem obvious that there should be.

Not if they evolved to utilize a crappy energy source. Life could never have reached the complexity it now has on any gas other than oxygen.

For the same reason we know there are no green stars, we know the elemental composition of planets in the universe.

[Anonymous No.5569646]

>>5569636
>Only if you assume the limbs are the same size. A millipede, cockroach or octopus don't use tonnes of energy.

Insects use hydrualics to move their exoskeleton. The reason they are small and not fuckhuge is because their hemolymph can't absorb enough oxygen.

Octopus have water to support them. Doesn't count.

[Anonymous No.5569651]

>>5569636

>What if they don't compete, but they have to do something extraordinary to feed?

Then they won't live very long and if the species survives it will be because it adapted to have a more efficient means of eating.

[Anonymous No.5569655]

>>5569609
Depends on the bouyancy of the situation.

[Anonymous No.5569656]

Octopuses are a great candidate too. As long as there are appendages for fine use of tools it is plausible.

[Anonymous No.5569661]

>>5569561
>Have you seen the genus homo lineage? A whole fucking lot of human permutations were tried and did not make it.

Yes, and we can assume magnitudes more that we can not know.
But that doesn't mean a substantial range of all that is possible, and it is still limited just to the Homo mammal.

Knowing that an established animal can easily knock down inferior numbers, regardless of whether those low numbers are better or not, would you really say that all variations of all animals for Earth were tried, comparatively?

Let me put it differently: if you set 10k of every variation of human across the Earth, competing against each other and all different environments, are you saying that the only one that would survive is H. sapiens sapiens?

I would put ALL of my money on the vast unknown variations -- the ones never tried, which might include just about any mutation of human mammal. I can imagine variations completely possible and clearly superior: better lung capacity, drier and more variety of lung cell sizes, a better mouth, and better set of eyes, fewer bones in the foot, longer feet, two thumbs, stiff cartilaginous thoracic protection, a meta-kidney filter, shorter intestine, stiffer hairs in some places, overlapping skin layers, bouncier spinal discs, firmer connective tissue there, etc.

Humans have lamented a lot of things that are not true about our bodies, which could have been.
Can you not imagine that some of those untried things would have improved us?

(And if that is so with humans, wouldn't it be clearly so for less-successful animal forms?)

[Anonymous No.5569670]

>>5569601
>Q. Could there be a purple were-walrus that juggles 4 green balls?

Coincidentally, I saw one last night, outside my window.

But the question requires 'successful,' which in this thread means 'able to develop intelligence.'

[Anonymous No.5569675]

The fact a large part of our bodies anatomy is for the purpose of releasing energy via respiration surely means that if a different organism was to use a different chemical process to release energy or whatever, it would have a very different anatomy.

[Anonymous No.5569732]

>>5569643
>>That's a physics principle, not a biological principle.
>Biology is chemistry. Chemistry is pretty simple.
>>But, accepting it for the moment; it also presumes that all of the possible choices were explored, and that the one with the least resistance to growing was selected.
>In essence, yeah. There were anerobic lifeforms before plants came along, but the anerobic life was very very sluggish and never did anything nor could it do anything.
>Oxygen gave life it's only real chance for complexity. It's like saying we could run a car off argon as well as gasoline.
But we already know for certain that we can operate cars on other fuels. Even other combustible fuels, even in nearly the same engine.
Yes, in our case, and given the environment and chemistry at that time, binding oxygen changed the game.
But we know there can be environments heavy in He, Cl, F, S, N, Ar -- and we know for certain that the reverse of breathing O, breathing CO2, can give enough energy, also. (We do have few common compounds that can match the usefulness of C, though).

[Anonymous No.5569751]

>>5569643

>>We know that situation would be different in nearly every way, even if you insist it is by tiny amounts (which it wouldn't be).

>Why would other planets be composed of completely different elements or amounts of the elements? Do you know how Stellar Nucleosynthesis works? What we have in the solar system is elementally identical to all other solar systems.
No, consider: a denser group of local stars provides a very different makeup and varying radiation, with every distance variation.
A local nebula can change it, too. A nova that happened fairly close can provide different amounts of compounds.
But, more to the point, the actual time and variations of events on the surface of even the identical planet to Earth would drastically change the things that have a chance to develop.
Particularly the amount of water, solutes, how hot it gets and when (geologically speaking), how dense the atmosphere is and when (chemically speaking, related to bacteria and algae forms)

Earth's life-supporting history is not a deterministic norm; we have no reason even to think it is common.
But we also know that specific minor events changed the life on Earth, many times. the Yucatan meteor, for instance (KT), changed how many animals developed.
That meteor definitely should not be assumed to occur with all other Earth-like planets at that particular geologic time; but it obviously was significant.

[Anonymous No.5569756]

>>5569670
Oh, the neighbors just correct me; it was a rabid otter in a vampire costume.
My only excuse is that it was dark, and I didn't invite him in for drinks.

[Anonymous No.5569760]

>>5569675

Correct, and while respiration is probably a very common solution to the exchange of compounds, there are many ways to do it, even in existing animals.
(gills, skin, transport compounds)

[Anonymous No.5569776]

>>5568807

Fittest, and most advanved. Bullshit! Only being very smart and needing relatively little sustenance, is human able to compensate everything else that is shit mostly shit compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, and in time became what you could say, GREATLY overcompensating.

You can't say survival pressure like that does'nt make the most excellent cocktail for evolution to lead in beings capable of developing a civilization one day.

[Anonymous No.5569786]

>>5568807
That's bullshit, the only superior part of our body is our brain and that's really all we need to be fittest.

[Anonymous No.5569792]

>>5569760
>Correct, and while respiration is probably a very common solution to the exchange of compounds, there are many ways to do it, even in existing animals.
(gills, skin, transport compounds)
gills only work underwater, skin is limited by the oxygen content in the air.

You are making correct statements, however you are missing the point of likely hood.

A. Large creatures need a respiratory system because skin cannot absorb enough oxygen.
B. What if the oxygen levels were higher, then skin could
A. no shit.

[Anonymous No.5569800]

This is all assuming the organism even requires oxygen. Or food. Or water.

How do you know it isn't composed of dark energy or whatever.

Or maybe it derives its motor energy from heat, so it thrives on incredibly hot planets.

Or maybe it floats around as dark energy compositions.

The universe is so strange you can't say shit about life forms.
We are but one form

[Anonymous No.5569855]

>>5569416
>>It lives underwater. It doesn't have the same energy penalties that a large multi-limbed land animal would have.

Oxygen % would limit spider size.

>>5569465

Ancestors were faster.

Presume they were not, however, presume they were indeed slow. Now try to prove that assumption wrong.

[Anonymous No.5569857]

niggers

that is all

[Anonymous No.5569890]

Hey /sci/
I'm a first year chemistry student, and I realized that I'm a little behind from not preparing correctly for a science program (I wanted to be a musician, decided it wasn't for me at last minute).
Anyway, I'm considering taking o-chem over the summer, the whole year in 12 weeks.
I'm wondering if anyone has experience with something like this. Is it a good idea?
Because for some reason people on /sci/ care about this, I'm very bright, I'm just worried about it being too much too fast, especially because I want to know the information being covered, because it's in my major.

[Anonymous No.5569898]

>>5569890
sorry bad post

[Anonymous No.5570165]

>>5569890
Ochem is a really dense subject, but if you apply yourself and work REALLY hard, you could do alright.

But you can't afford any distractions if you don't want to fall behind.

[Anonymous No.5570184]

>>5569890
Isn't that the class that makes all the pre meds commit suicide?