i was wondering,humans have eyes,mouth,etc,in the place we do because of cells and all that.so what are the chances of aliens having face parts in the same spots as us?

Well, if we were indeed "seeded" here, I'd say very good, since we would probably end up resembling our creators the more we evolve.

If our being here is by accident however, and visiting extraterrestrials have nothing in common with us other than to pick up materials and to "discover", then pretty low.

two cents.

Look at the variety of life on this planet. Viruses, bacteria, algae, plants etc. animals are just one of the kingdoms, now within that you have fish, insects, reptiles, birds, mammals etc. How many look significantly like us? Just few mammals.

Now consider that other planets will have different conditions to our own, it doesn't seem very likely they'll look just like us.

"Just" like us, I agree. Not too likely - though still possible. Very much like us however, I have no problem believing. Prehensile digits for an intelligent species so that they can actually fabricate goods and items is almost a must. An upright walking ability is also highly likely - as well as dramatic cerebral performances in comparison to other animals.

In addition, when you look at the ensemble of the human race, we're really not that good looking, so an alien race looking very much like us is also just as likely to be way more good looking on average than our average human beings, though their standards might also be different - or not. Maybe the universe has some type of "code" in terms of the way higher Beings aspire to become.

For some reason, I can't stop thinking about Elves in comparison to humans on this topic...hmmm...

For eyes to deliver detailed vision quickly, they must be close to the brain.

The mouth should be somewhat close to the eyes, in order to see what one is about to eat. But not too close, because eyes can be delicate, and they might be damaged in the act of eating.

A sense of smell may be more effective if it is being breathed through, increasing exposure to scents. So a nose. And if it is close to the mouth, then it can share it's duties with the sense of taste.

Maybe the human arrangement makes enough sense that advanced lifeforms may have something similar? It is already shared with many other earth lifeforms.

I think there's probably survival value in having the eyes as high as possible, in order to have a better view of your surroundings. The rest, I'm not so sure about.

Convergent evolution is a well documented process, but I don't see much reason to believe that the humanoid form would be particularly favourable among intelligent species.



But there really are endless possibilities, when this subject comes up people think too linearly, they try to draw comparison with humans when they needn't do.

Many aliens would not have brains at all, many terrestrial species do not; others may have many. Some species of octopuses, for example, have a CNS that is divided up in to eight different brain-like clusters.

They may not have mouths; look at starfish, they feed by turning their stomachs inside out and pulling it outside of their body, when they're full up they pull it back in. They may not have to breathe, air could be diffused across their entire body surface.

Butterflies have taste receptors in their feet.

They all look just like us, but with some possible minor pigmentation effects and/or forehead ridges. Also they speak perfect midwestern American English.

Don't forget the long blond hair and the 36cc breasts.

I'd say chances are very high, if you're talking about these sensory receptors' proximity to the brain. Closer proximity means faster relay and less chance of interruption or potential damage to the pathway.

The problem is, we need to think of our senses differently, without human interpretation: they are not eyes, they are apparatuses that allow for the capture and interpretation of energy waves of certain frequencies. It is not a nose, it is a structure with chemoreceptors that detect trace elements in the fluid medium of the environment. They are not ears, they are a means of detecting vibrations through said fluid medium.

There is little chance of that happening when you consider how much evolving
it took to get us to this point and how many circumstances (light, air...etc) even
surrounding life (prey, adversaries) made us adapt uniquely
remember all life here can be traced to a common ancestor
unless that alien came from the same ancestor and evolved under the exact
same conditions as us it would have evolved uniquely to it's own environment

About the same as apes and monkeys, I'd guess.

There seem to be several reason why this became inaccessible though:

1. they talk of four groups of alien races' encounters (better assume bunk for this) - shows that optical simlilarities are no good material at least no non-religious reasons. One E.T. type is supposedly rather similar to today's human. So what remains is our own fantasy...no relyable facts

2. to have a look at the 1995 footage debunk, they talk of genitials and their positions.

3. actully hard to say by pure scientific reasoning, two theories - origin of life by chance, artificial origin of life.
If happened by chance then things run balanced by chance and purpose. If artificial then this question would presumely be obsolete as
most things would be arrangable...

4. To believe in a specific humanoid pattern in the universe that we use as a basic.

This is what I collect at the moment. What do you mean?

To look like us aliens would have had to have evolved from fish on a planet with almost exactly the same gravity, chemistry and atmospheric and water composition as Earth. Maybe such a planet exists in some galaxy or other. But the coincidence of such aliens just happening to find Earth are so massive as to be zero.

Heh.

Personally I think this completely fails to realize or to be ever explained. I have doubts. With today's scientific equipment one would assume that a perfect human-like E.T. can only be a product of high-tech genetics - from today's logic. If they are to similar even in detailed view then there must be total manipulating - my personal opinion.
The other possibility would be, that the human genetics pattern would be more fundamental in the universe than scientists are ready to accept. I personally do not see any useful proof that there is such a pattern.
The story that there are 4(or even more) E.T. races that secrets' are already aware of came from Bob Dean(Part 1-3) in the Project Camelot interview.
He says he had seen one guy not to be sure what he was, but assuming it to be E.T.

Otherwise it is extremely difficult to make sense of it.

But you are right. Today gravity does not affect most chemical processes. But in the beginning some reactions, conditions and results are would be highly dependent on gravity. And finally there are also several degrees of freedom in which gravity can act and within this "soup" the reactions occour. So this increases the freedom of the whole system and decreases the capability of life to be formed.
A better answer does my limited mind not produce. I am not E.T.

People who claim to have seen aliens show a distinct lack of imagination. The chances of an alien entity from a different planet having the same physiological attributes as ourselves would be astronomical (excuse the pun). We are a product of our enviroment, think of all the aspects of the enviroment that have made us what we are.
For a species on another planet to evolve the same way as us would require their home planet to be the same size, mass, distance from there nearest star (sun), the same atmosphere (never heard a description of a grey wearing a helmet), with the same elements, the same cloud formations creating the same fresh water from the same seas etc etc
The reason people who claim to have seen 'greys' is because their only point of reference is the world around them, & popular culture. I find it unsurprising that descriptions of space craft are pertinent to the era in which they are observed. In the fifties most 'observations' were of silver saucer or cigar shaped objects (the day the earth stood still generation) in the eighties the 'observations' were of lights or fast orbs & grey aliens (the close encounters generation) & now we have triangular ojects ( the x-files generation)

Prehensile digits, upright walking ability, and advanced cerebral output and processing capacity - absolute musts for intelligent lifeforms.

So the topic is about the chances of the outcome. Maybe the question if the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen combination of earthlike beings of humans is unique or not!
So assuming that on Hangar 18 some people actually saw an alien, they called it bluish-green coloured, wasn't it?
Remember the fact that can be derived from the external implications. Doctors decide by the colour of your skin a lot of diagnostic threats.
So if E.T. are alive then the colour of the skin would have a reason, whatever how abstract it is.

And with this thoughts back to carbon-based E.T.s
If they are carbon-based organisms and do nevertheless have coloured skin then we have an biophysiological system that works presumely different from others, showing that human system is not unique.
If they are not carbon-based organisms and do nevertheless look coloured then this would of course be even more difficult and to be not familiar with known humanoid systems.
But one thing seems to be sure, the colour of the skin is in my opinion a direct hint to deeper biophysiological mechanisms of the lifeform. So if they look bluish-green(grey aliens) then maybe the physiologic system is an alternative functioning genetic possibility that also shows that known earth-humanoids are not neccessarily unique and not fundamental on universe's scale.
I can not say more. What do you mean?

The odds so far are about 1 in every other planet that may contain life in the universe.

To simply put it the odds are so stacked against an alien world experiencing the exact same events and it's life evolving exactly like ours it's almost virtually impossible.

Now aliens like humans will have to share certain traits for example the ability to create language, limbs like hands, tenticles, claws etc to manipulate their surrounding environment, organs to sense their surrounding environment like eys, ears, antennae etc.

There are so many possible ways an intelligent alien species can evolve we will not know what they look like until we find them or vice versa. Let's also not forget that aliens may not evolve on a world like ours... Who knows they breathe ethane and drink liquid methane and may not even be carbon based or have DNA either.

Who knows maybe they dont even have brains like we do but rather are set up more like a Jellyfish who's body rather then having a brain have a complex nervous system spread through out their body.

I dont think life in another planet would be much different from earth, they would evolve in different creatures but still under the laws of physics and nature.

So it must have, plants, insects, viruses, bacterias and small animals, and some would be predators of the small ones.

For intelligent life, i bet for a human-like-thing, the humanoid is the most efficient body for a intelligent (need to fix babylon...) like us.

While I am sure life on other worlds will share some similarities they would have evolved on a planet with a completely different history. This mean that they won't be like us, in regards to physics gravity and atmospheric density can drastically alter how life on another world evolves. No planet will be identical to Earth and while our physical attributes are the most efficient for us it wont be for other various species that likely exist.

If their organisms include Silicon in addition to Carbon (goes against the scientific grain, I know), then perhaps they are far more flexible in terms of appearance than we might think. In fact, if they are really that far ahead of us, I see no reason why they shouldn't be shapeshifters, teleporters, mind readers, etc.

Heck - maybe some of them are UFOs themselves.

Cant be so different from earth, maybe a little bigger or small, to life exist must have conditions for it to sustain and evolve.

Also one of the (pre requisitos) isnt that should have water, and with water we have oxigen in atmosphere?

When you're dealing with the universe.. the odds are either tipped against or in favour for. Is there anything bigger?
At present.. I agree with anarkhy. I think there will be more constants in the formation of life than we first thought possible.
Chemical reactions, evolution... intelligence etc...

That's the problem... the people do show a distinct lack of imagination, if abductions are the results of imagination/ psychological culture influence alone- you'd expect to see a greater variety-such as spider aliens.



I hear what your saying.. and used to agree with the cultural influence argument; on the surface it does look like the answer.
However it's based upon the assumption... that 'the cultural traffic' is only traveling in one direction..ie from films pop culture to the people
yet Encounters of the third kind..used 'real' cases (Such as the Police car chase) and so did the X-files (first series).
The first grey appeared in the film Earth Vs the Flying Saucers

Earth vs. the Flying Saucers is a black and white 1956 science fiction film directed by Fred F. Sears. It was ostensibly suggested by the non-fiction work Flying Saucers from Outer Space by Donald Keyhoe, and the flying saucer effects were created by Ray Harryhausen.



Major Donald Keyhoe wrote several more books about UFOs. Flying Saucers From Outer Space (1953) is perhaps the most impressive, being largely based on interviews and official reports vetted by the Air Force. The book included a blurb by Albert M. Chop, the Air Force's press secretary in the Pentagon, who characterized Keyhoe as a "responsible, accurate reporter" and further expressed guarded approval for Keyhoe's arguments in favor of the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

All life regardless of primary hardware (sugar bases, protein bases, silica bases, whatever it may be) and of software (consciousness, interpretation and ordering of signals from some form of receptors of the outside environment to the body proper ) would have the same basic features due to the law of the survival of the fittest. The models of life that were unsuccessful or wasted to much energy for to little gain would be caste away by others that were more successfull and spent less energy for equal to greater gain. This is why we have done so well. Our particular model has the qualities necessary to dominate our environments.

Since our only model is our world, the odds of having aliens, if they exist, that seem similar to our own would actually be more likely rather than less likely. Unless it is proven that water anc carbon are unessential for life. If that is the case and water and carbon are unneccessary ingredients than all bets are off. They may not have mouths, noses, ears, or any thing else that is identifiable as sensors and or matter retrievers or hardware and software as we understand it. In my opinion the odds are very good that advance beings would have features that would be somewhat recognisable to our own. As long as they are based on water and carbon.

The odds are all speculative anyway. Both ends of this arguement can be justified.

I think the chance is good for them to be similair to us. No doubt they will be tall (relative to their planet) like us and have sensory inputs centred around a brain. Its also pretty important that the life form can move those sensors around effeciently and quickly, so i assume they will have a neck of some sort attaching the "head" to the main body. Intelligent life also must not be phsyically dominant, otherwise there really is no reason to evolve to be smart. So i expect them to be weak (like us) but have relatively good stamina, atleast enough to support their inteluctual ability. They need atleast one limb with the ability to manipulate objects, two is prefered because it provides balance to the structure and gives more support. More than 2 complex limbs for grabbing things might be a little to complicated and require too much brain power, however its not out of the realm of possiblity.

So basically, they need a head like us, which is the main centre of the being. A body that allows them to produce/consume energy, atleast 1 appendage to manipulate the environment and have the ability to move around for a reasonable amount of time.

I think the discovery of life on other planets, such as bacteria etc. would be a massive breakthrough with regards to alien evolution theories. Even the smallest life forms can lead us to make some big conclusions.

Yes, and the question to asked for is if carbon based life is only possible in one stable genetic outcome that leads to a variety of further stabilities. This question can not be answered from our point of view because it assumes a god (super watcher) position.
But translating this down to simpler systems(below human) and assuming that everthings scales perfectly one is lead to assume that there are always several possibilies for nature to solve, depending on the sum of all circumstances...
But in reverse this would mean that human is one functioning possbility that proved to be stable in time but the origin would be by chance.
Give up this thing would would mean E.T. initiated origin.
What do you mean?

We're assuming it [the EBEs] are carbon based.

Well, eye's being near the brain make sense since that means less time between the eye's seeing something and the brain processing it. Mouths being above the stomach makes sense because then the digestive system can have help from gravity in processing food. Ears are perhaps a bit strange, and mouths and noses are strangely positioned on humans (putting gills nearer to the lungs with a separate pathway rather than the same one that is used for food would make sense)....

Yes, I understood that. But I argumented in that way that even and maybe due to a yet mysterical capability distribution other lifeforms basing on other PT elements would be true. This is huge, of course, but I assumed it largely that way. Maybe in the very future we know that there are only 1% Si based E.T. and up to 99% carbon based E.T., do you know what I mean?

And assuming this I argumented like I did in the previous box.

Yes, and the question to asked for is if carbon based life is only possible in one stable genetic outcome that leads to a variety of further stabilities. This question can not be answered from our point of view because it assumes a god (super watcher) position.
But translating this down to simpler systems(below human) and assuming that everthing scales perfectly one is lead to assume that there are always several possibilies for nature to solve, depending on the sum of all circumstances...
But in reverse this would mean that human is one functioning possbility that proved to be stable in time but the origin would be by chance.
Give up this thing would would mean E.T. initiated origin.

The chances are near 100%. In order for a species to truely evolve, such as ourselves, they would at least at the beginning, need to be preditors. To be a predator, sound would be key sense to have, as well as sight and smell. Placement of all these sensory devices is not just coinidence that they are on our head. They are on our head because it is closest to our brains. This ensures the shortest communication time between senses and processing. Now in nature, things do tend to have a duality. One half being copied of the other half. Hence two hands two feet two arms two legs. As far as being looking like us. Probably there would be some noticible differences, but I think that life in general in the universe will tend to follow a certain path, that of what works. Evolution to the highest. We on our planet are the sum of this process, near what life would see as an ideal form. This form in similarity, only changed by enviroment can be expected to be found in other planets. Life is not chaotic, it has order. And with this order we can expect to find it on other planets also. Might not look like us but we'd be able to see the similarities very easily.

silicon based life forms would be so different than us that we probably wouldn't even recognize it if we saw it. Also if they did have a material form they would never be able to come to earth and survive so speculating this is futile.

Yes , and there are other evolution factors that would decrease chances.
It would be the combination of elements. Maybe SILICONs do not like oxygen, but methane and so on.

But the question was if there would be theoretically(from a inaccessible god-watcher perspective) more ways of human evolution?

I wouldn't be so sure.

If monkeys Can have them in the same spot why not them there are many animals that have them in the same spot assuming aliens were real there is a slight chance that they would have them in the same spot depending on the conditions of there world and there evolution. I might Sound dumb but o well u know what i mean... Pce SunKist

Stop looking at me.

silicon based life forms need extreme heat in order to survive, and a an atmosphere that would kill us in a nanosecond. So yes they can't be here and we can't go there )

LIfe requires a container to exist. Therefore it will have a form of "skin" or membrane. This is recognisable. It is not incomprehensible. Perhaps silicon or pyrite based life may seem like crystals or clouds, but in either case they would be a self contained system. They would have a shell or a membrane. Those forms of life are complete speculation however, for me. Perhaps one day someone will create a silicon based lifeform. (Self aware robots...wow!!)

All life on this planet is not that different from one another. We all share the same basic characteristics due to the simple fact that all life here has evolved from a self contained unit.The homeostasis of the organism must be contained and sheilded from the external environment.

If life is carbon based and of water, then this will remain true. Sensors and appendages are inevitabilities ,if the beginning single cells are given enough time and forced to change by either competition for space and/or environmental factors. No matter how strange thier environment manipulaters are, they will be recognisable by us as "something that grasps", or "something that it uses to sense with". Even the platypus , one of the strangest creatures to exist on this planet has recognisable features. Granted they are those of other animals, and why wouldn' they be? Those designs (a duck bill - similar to birds, ampulae of lorenzeni - simliar to sharks, venom - similar to reptiles, etc...) re occur because they are so effective. The platypus is a horder of efficient appendeges and organs. But those alone has not granted it dominance of this world, and for good reason.

The belief that intelligent life out there needs to be something incomprehensible is not based on what we know of life as of now. It may be amazing and jaw dropping, but its unlikely it will be completely incomprehensible. If it too starts with a cell , then it too would yeild , through evolution, appendages and organs that are recognisable by us to some degree due to survival of the fittest and evolution.

There may be "alien" (that which is not sugar based) life forms on this world right now but we dont have detectors to discover them. Time will tell that tale, but for now its all just speculation.

Besides, if extra solar life lives,then it dies. It struggles. It evolves. Things we certainly share in common.

Yes, and therefor back to my question. How fundamental in universe is the earth-originated humanoid genetical outcome that proved to stable in time? This is huge, of course, and it even fails because one can not put yourself in a godwatchers(superwatcher) perspective to make decisions, and therefore at this point this question might even be as difficult as some current HEP questions, or time paradoxes and closed timelike curves if you are familiar. But this is only an analogy. The real question is on the topic of how stable and how fundamental this "humanoid solution" and it's genetic outcome would be. With other word the burning question, the hot topic if there are any similarities among all lifeforms? If yes, then my question is answered!!!!!!!!!
Isn't is interesting?

That's good.
At least your question is answered because I don't think many people understood it.
I didn't...

A little quantum observer problem:

I am talking about that kind of theretical problem that today every theoretists has to enconconter when he tries to guess gods mind, he plays a dice. For his theretical questions and even for the purpose to check all possibilities in all logical directions he has to think like a god, but on the other hand he itself is a product of one of these outcomes. The theoretists calculates possibilities or is at least familiar to some special important theoretic outcomes, but he know that there are actually more but only one can be true. And therefore I am talking of a temporarely godwatchers perspective, really quantum observer problem as it comes historically, that the theoretists actually uses to solve his problems theretically. But in our case it would be the same if we try to decide what lifeform is fundamental ever, starting from capabilities there is no way out of this.

If you allow manipulating genetics during regular evolution(E.T.'s involved in human genetic evolution) then the above mentioned is wrong and even useless.

In Summary: When we use our logic to predict the habited universe and ask if the humanoid solution, the genetics setup, would be
correct in it's basic construction(a DNA, amino acid, proteins), then we maybe do apply in wrong way our
expectations to other E.T. systems.

Isn't it, the temporarely super observer perspective assumes that there is a fundamental basic concept, in our case the question if the habited universe has a unique constructive basis, of all observable lifeforms?

Still too much humanity there. Upright stance is only needed if the apparatuses to be used for manipulation came from apparatuses used for locomotion. Upright stance is not a requirement. Manipulative apparatuses could evolve from other things, such as mouthparts, or anything else no used for locomotion.



The movie Evolution speculated about nitrogen-based lifeforms. But personally I can't comprehend anything not carbon-based. Chemical interactions in the body are SO specific, incredibly so, and involve many, many different elements that affect each other so intricately that I doubt humans could really comprehend the whole picture at once. Carbon has very specific properties, and there are things like density you would need to deal with too. And then there's water, amazing water, so underrated by the average Joe. I'm not sure it's plausible for another set of elements to react in the same way.

Ah yes, I get it now.
Goop point

The point is that our scientific logic tries to find system that bases on our ground principles of science.
The idea is of course that the whole universe work in that way. This is stongly constrained within our whole
science, whereever you look, best place is maybe physics. But for the question of EBE also biology and chemistry.
But making an estimate from super observers' point of view might be even to far, because this assumes that these systems do actually work
like we think and obey our laws of natural science. So in that way I got the idea to ask if we wouldn't also assume instrinsically that there are systems and mechanism that are similar to what we learned from human evolution.
So searching for EBE would therefore contain some intrinsically assumed details of how EBE and E.T would be able to work basically.
Do you know what I mean?

And to aswer the question of a unique basis in genetics/biology is like asking for the cosmic code of biology.
I did not want to say more, especially no bunk...

Obviously I have no idea. But as far as "genetical" outcome that is also complete speculation, but it is all I have to go by based on what little I know of life as of now.

I was trying to be more abstract and begin with the most basic concept of life. Life has a container that contains it's internal environment from the external environment. If life evolves from this stage it may add appendages, etc, etc. The points made earlier such as electro magnetic sensors (eyes) positioned close to the information processing and distribution organ (brain) , etc, is logical if life does indeed exist else where based on the clear advantages of those posistions, as well as of spending the least amount of energy for the most amount of gain. Of course there is "luck" to it all ( whiping out the dinosaurs so that we could come to dominance)and sometimes a rock is just a rock(Does that small spot on that fish actually mean anything at all? Or does it have nothing at all to do with the fishs survival?). This is not science ...much like quantum mechanics ...its just philosophy. Perhaps not as useful as quantum mechanics but none the less ...

I agree though, the question is : is life an inevitability from the very nature of space/time itself or is it extremely rare and in need of very specific events to create it? Is it relatable?

I'm an optimist so I believe life is an inevitability of the universe, but i could be wrong.

Isn't a bit more complicate to discuss complex effects of signal transfer and signal processing than to talk about a much more relyable construct like quantum capabilties? That's just what everybodey learned in school and I also meant this philosophically? Actually I seems to me that both couldn't even be separated from each other. If you talk of one of these then you need the other.
In summary: I have problem predicting eyes mouth and noses positions and therefore I tried to fix it on a higher level. I asked if there are reasons to believe that universe's lifeforms are unique at any position of DNA. And therefore again this question is equal to the "cosmic code" question.