I recently saw a show on the History Channel. I believe it was "The Search for Extraterrestrials". However this show was more about the planets and their moons, and based on the extordinary findings going on, what lifeforms could exist. For example, they talked about finding liquid on Titan, and how methane geyers and rivers have been photographed, etc.

One scientist/astronomer put it this way, when the question of if ETs would look similar to us was proposed:

"We share about 75% of our DNA with squirrels, and yet we do not look anything like them, nor do they look like us. So, what makes us think that any alien lifeform outside of our planet would look remotely like us, as the probability of them sharing any DNA with us is very very unlikely."

So, that is my question... why do we always talk about and supposedly see these little grey humanoids, which have never been proven to be aliens from another planet, and assume that they are just that. Aliens.

As a matter of fact, one scientist/artist on the show created a computerized drawing of a lifeform, based on what we know about Titan and it resembled a floating plant. This is just one example. But it seems to me that we have to expand our minds a little bit and get away from the "little green men" theory, when it comes to aliens from another planet.

So, if these things are real..... what are they?

Maybe there are living intelligent creatures that are not bipedal or have to look anything like us but that doesn't mean there aren't little green men. What if reptilians evolved into bipedal creatures and are able to shapeshift and look like us. are much smarter then us and replace people we love? Maybe these creatures from elsewhere have lived with us for thousands of years. deep within our own planet. You ask us to be more creative and think of other ways for aliens to look like. I'm sure there are endless possibilities but that doesn't mean our little reptilian grey friends aren't real. They have been seen by way to many people for many centuries. They're are drawings all over the world on caves and old structures to suggest they are in fact with us. Sorry.. I don't mean to come off sounding hostile.

I am saying that the possibility of them being aliens from another planet are remote. I even posed the question, "what are they?" Forgive me as well for being blunt, Trog, but your statements sound like something out of a science fiction novel. Your "maybes" and "ifs" are the exact reason for my post... We just dont know.

None of the beings sighted are 'aliens'. They are from the future. Our future. That's why they look like more advanced versions of us.

I do not believe time travel to the past is possible. It violates conservation of energy. Jump into the past and in the present the energy your body contains has just vanished. In the past the universe just gained this energy. This creates a situation where a past point has more energy than the current universe does.

This says that there is not enough energy in the universe to stop or go back in time. All time values must be positive.

Consider the bilogical shape of mammels. One thing that distuingishes them from insects is brain power.

Energy wise the brain is the most expensive real estate there is. Blood sugar or oxygen levels get low and you pass out. Cut off the circulation to your arm and it gets numb. Tingles when it recovers. Not because of the muscles reaction to blood flow loss but the nerves. Do the same to the brain and you die. Heart amd lungs are next in demand but being fluid pumps central location works best.

You need two legs as a minimum for locomotion. Extra legs require more brain power for control. A waste of expensive brain tissue if you want to reserve most of it for intelligence. You need a minimum of two arms for carying objects and manipulating tools. A third hand would be real handy at times but nature dosn't want to spare the brain cells for controlling it.

Consider the eyes. Big optic nerve that needs constant energy. Keep it short or waste a lot of energy powering it. The same theme goes for all the senses but touch. Touch is necessary everywhere for survival but the most sensitive touch senses are concentrated where they are needed. Nerves are somilar to the brain for energy demand. But the brain is by far the most demanding followed by the essential spinal column.

Bottom line is the brain is located in the head for efficiency. Two arms and two legs are the minimum needed.

The humanoid shape is simply the most efficient that we can readily define for a being with an emphises on brain power with locamotion and tool handling ability. And there are sacrifices made for this brain power emphasis. We have more back and hip problems than four footed critters. We have less strength per weight ratio as well. Muscle attachment does not give good leverage.

The human form is simply the best design to maximize brain efficiency and leave as much brain real estate as possible for abstract thought. Strength and durability were sacrificed for brain power. Internal functions may vary but it is likly that any intelligent form developed on a rocky planet will generally develop on this efficient brain power theme. Need minimum of two feet on rocky ground for locomotion. Hands need to be in visual range with arms mounted on stronger frame area that then houses the most essential internal organs. That is the shoulders and rib cage. Flexible neck for visual and hearing focus and these big nerves need to be short so ears and eyes need to be close to brain.

Evolution is all about survival of the fitist. If a creature is going to survive on brain power then only the most brain enhancing design will emerge at the top of the heap.

The general humanoid shape is likly to be a standerd for life that evolves on our theme. That is a theme of all life as we know it exists by exploiting other life as a general rule. Brains are very demanding of energy. Even squirals place it in the head close to the eyes and other sense organs. Same for the ants.

It is not surprising that intelligence will evolve around a humanoid shape regardless of biological background. Liquid water essential to life is probably a universal theme to a class and size of planets that develop complex life.

Bart -

I appreciate your explaination of the humanoid shape as it relates to the efficiency of the brain. However, again, you have made my point by saying that "even squirrels place it (brain) in the head close to the eyes and other sense organs. same as ants". So, why don't aliens look like elephants, or jaguars, or blue whales, who all fall into that same categorization.

The point I am trying to make here, is that all life on earth has some similarities in DNA makeup, yet we are so vastly different in appearance and how we operate, think, socialize, etc. Why would another lifeform from a distant planet, without our DNA makeup look like us? Maybe they are from the future, and have evolved from us. However, my bet is they do not exist at all and are located somewhere in our own psyche.

Squirals don't need to walk upright and free thei hands for tool use.

All species seem to have their brains and eyes close together.

There is no proof of aliens in any shape. But it would not be surprising to find a general humanoid shape as the norm.

Head on neck to keep eyes close to brain and allow visual dexterity. Two arms and two legs for a minimum of brain used for muscle control.

The bottem line is that humanoid shape cannot be used as an argument for or against alien presence here. There might be other shapes that lead to emphises on brain power and interaction with environment.

Until either an alien or time traveler is produced for examination all is supposition. From what we know of physics space travel is far more likely than time travel.

Nature is full of examples of objects moving in space. There are no examples of time travel anywhere in the natural universe that we can find. All of our technologies have an example in nature.

Here is a read for you, Samurai.

http://www.alien-ufos.com/Aliens-Thought-t20448.html

Soul_Drifter -

That is an interesting article. However, the author takes great liberties from saying that amino acids from meteorites share the same basic structure with those on Earth to concluding that extraterrestrial life would share other structural similarities with Earth Life. And again, what Earth life are we talking about? Plants, single cell organisms, Humans? It could be any life.[/b]

It was comets, not meteorites that gave rise to life on earth.Thier compostion is different as is thier rate of speed and impact velocity.All current known life on this planet came from the same bog of chemicals and minerals..it is assumed these vitals acids arrived on a comet.But i agree,it is a little blinkered to assume that all life is carbon based or lives in the visible specturm or even in the same dimension.

First, thanks to those of you who responded to this thread. I would really like to see this discussion continue, as I think the original question begs more insight, as it relates to how aliens look, or if they exist at all. It really hits at the heart of the whole alien phenomena.

However, I feel like maybe more people do not want to add their opinion because they would rather have discussions that sensationalize the UFO/alien phenomena. It is exciting and fun to talk about encounters with little green men flying around in space ships, etc. But when we talk intellectually and logically about how the probability that they look humanoid is next to impossible, no one wants to discuss that. That would give credibility to the fact that they may not fit our little mold, or our ideas of what an alien race should look like may be shattered........

This post has been edited by Samurai: Oct 7 2008, 09:00 AM

I agree with you that the way aliens look like when we imagine them is just because they are "located somewhere in our own psyche."
As for how aliens would look if we assume that they don't share our DNA structure I don't believe we can talk about that seriously, it would all just be guesswork based on earthly lifeforms.

Very true, Wodan. I guess my point is, at least we would be talking about something that may be tangible, instead of all of this sensationalism. In other words, if we are going to speculate that alien life exists, lets do it within the parameters that we are given, and have some logic to our thinking. It would be guesswork, but it would be based on what we know or do not know, and not what we assume to know. In a nutshell, without bringing up a touchy subject, I would just like to steer away from all of the talk of "greys" running around the planet abducting people. It is more likely that alien lifeforms are microbes of some sort in a gaseous moon or planet. I mean, our robots on Mars are looking for proof of water crystals, etc. And Galileo is exploring planets and moons to see what their atmospheres and surfaces are made of, and if they could sustain some form of life. Why not talk about this, as it is tangible and fits within the realm of possibility. To me, this is far more probable than greys invading earth. I hope I am making my self clear, I am having trouble putting down in words what I am thinking at the moment.

just because there can be other lifeformes out there dont mean there cant be humanoid right so you could be right they might be simple looking but there still can be ones who look like us a bit.

I think another factor that may decide the shape and form of an evolving species will be if it has predators.
Lets face it, as predators evolve to become more adapted to capture their prey, so must the prey to evade a predator.
Very quick and agile creatures typically have body designes that are more extreme for evasion verses those of bigger brain size.
When a brain begins to develope enough to use intellect to out smart or think prey, a body must adapt to that. A body with just the right amount of limbs for evasion and dexterity to best serve an evolving brain.
Would a multilegged creature, say four, six eight legs or more evolve into an intelligent creature, that has predators? I do not rule out that somewhere these may be real. But I see too many legs as a hindrence. Think of the added accomodations everything made would have to have, versus less legs, arms or other extremeties.
I see this hindrence equating to a greater amount of time needed for such a species to continue into an intelligent technological race.
We must look at other factors as well...., do they fight among each other and how often? how many predators must they evade and how often? How different are these predators fronm each other in how they attack them? How stable is their environment? Must they relocate, often?

I feel the two leg and two arm with grasping fingers the ideal form.
But lets say you have a life form that has little to no predators on their world(but how likely is that)then many other shapes and forms are going to be possible.
One must keep in mind the natural advantage and hindrences each shape may pose in the developement, fabrication and use of various machines and technologies.

Planet type and climate will have major role's in affecting the genetic development of E.T.'s.

Also, if they are super advanced, they will probably have manipulated their own genes to create a perfectly suited creature.

If we lived on a planet before this planet then it was dying then we sent of parasites etc. to other planets to grow (we didn't move because these parasites would grow to suit the planet.) then that would explain why there might be some that look similar, but I know what your getting at like if you play spore everyones creatures look totally different.

I understand where you are coming from, but the problem is that the humanoid form seems so good to us because it works here. We use our brain to adapt the environment to us, so when our humanoid shape seems to work so great with our lifestyle, it is only because we made it to fit our shape.
So I would not agree that more then 2 legs or arms would be a hindrance to other advanced species, as they would adapt their technology to their shape, not ours.

The sheer number would pose a hindrance.
Yes they would have to adapt. But to adapt, would require more...more room, more exotic wear for bodily protection, more effort in the fabrication of all items and things that are to accomodate their shape.
All I am trying to get at here, is that it would require more time to evolve and adapt.

I disagree, I think your statement only holds true if we apply it to our own environment and our own technology.