What Factors would Likely Govern the Degree of Similarity between Intelligent Aliens and Humans?
Premise
Let me begin by citing the intellectually charged and equally comical banter between physicist Brian Cox and "Doctor Who":
(aliens appear on console)
Dr. Who: "That's a silent; you gotta admire a monster who puts on a tie."
Cox: "An intelligent bi-pedal lifeform, that's a near impossibility!"
That's the premise; in so many words, anyway. Specifically, in the sci-fi community it is not uncommon to see human-like physiology among intelligent aliens. However in the scientific community there is a certain level of skepticism about this portrayal, as is reflected by Cox's remark above.
Of course there could be aliens of any ecological niche, but I'm setting the scope to intelligent life only, in keeping with human's "niche". Moreover, I'm trying to gather information for a counter-argument to the human-like skeptics. I'm not sure if there will be a sufficient basis in the end, but I already have a few promising findings. One of which being that within our biosphere, eyes/proto eyes have evolved independently hundreds of times. The trait of a photo-receptive organ has proved to be a vital adaptation for life as we know it and can be found in many distant species as a form of convergent evolution.
Question
How similar can we expect intelligent aliens to be? Would factors would likely govern the degree of similarity?
Further Clarification
- Intelligence: near our own, perhaps more advanced than our own. "Simple" life is out of scope
- Physiological Features Comparison: which do we share, which would likely be different? (i.e. both have eyes, but aliens may lack tongues)
- Theoretical Distribution: Imagine the number of features shared on the X Axis, and the number of different alien species on the Y Axis. What shape do you see the distribution being? (no math proof is needed, but please explain your logic) In other words, the likelihood of very, very similar aliens vs the likelihood of slightly similar aliens.
- Environment: no restrictions are imposed here, but knowing how robust the similar physiological features would be to different environments might help answer the question.
This post was sourced from https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/88653. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
1 answer
Like Humans Are: I'd expect them to be rather weak and inept in the wild, former prey for bigger, stronger, more vicious animals, big brained that gained their dominant status through better insight, building protections, planning (like hunting, farming) and invention.
They don't need opposable thumbs; but they do need ways to grasp natural objects and transform them. Sticks, rocks, dirt, hair, bones and fur, to start.
They would almost certainly require sight and hearing; these are too ubiquitous and useful to imagine they don't evolve independently.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads