The Welcoming Idea

[psyche101]

None of the crashed flying saucer legends I've read involved them flying in storms. The first iteration of the Roswell legend (reported in "The Flying Saucers are Real") described two flying saucers which apparently collided.

And that version lives within the Roswell myth too........

Some UFO proponents theorize events are best explained by a mid-air collision between two alien spacecraft. The first completely fragmented and its remains were found at Mack Brazel's ranch. The second, according to witnesses and people who uphold this theory, landed a short distance away. Allegedly four extraterrestrial entities were found - one alive, one dying, and two dead and were witnessed by many people, including a university professor and his class, who were going on a field trip.

LINK

[Sweetpumper]

And then there's this:

Mr. and Mrs. Dan Wilmot apparently were the only persons in Roswell who saw what they thought was a flying disk. They were sitting on their porch at 105 South Penn. last Wednesday night at about ten o'clock when a large glowing object zoomed out of the sky from the southeast, going in a northwesterly direction at a high rate of speed. Wilmot called Mrs. Wilmot's attention to it and both ran down into the yard to watch. It was in sight less then a minute, perhaps 40 or 50 seconds, Wilmot estimated. Wilmot said that it appeared to him to be about 1,500 feet high and going fast. He estimated between 400 and 500 miles per hour. In appearance it looked oval in shape like two inverted saucers, faced mouth to mouth, or like two old type washbowls placed together in the same fashion. The entire body glowed as though light were showing through from inside, though not like it would be if a light were underneath. From where he stood Wilmot said that the object looked to be about 5 feet in size, and making allowance for the distance it was from town he figured that it must have been 15 to 20 feet in diameter, though this was just a guess. Wilmot said that he heard no sound but that Mrs. Wilmot said she heard a swishing sound for a very short time. The object came into view from the southeast and disappeared over the treetops in the general vicinity of six mile hill. Wilmot, who is one of the most respected and reliable citizens in town, kept the story to himself hoping that someone else would come out and tell about having seen one, but finally today decided that he would go ahead and tell about it. The announcement that the RAAF was in possession of one came only a few minutes after he decided to release the details of what he had seen. (Brookesmith148 )

LINK - Chapter 1: FLASHES IN THE NIGHT

Jesus, when are people going to stop using white text on colored backgrounds? I'm still blind after only two paragraphs.

[psyche101]

Jesus, when are people going to stop using white text on colored backgrounds? I'm still blind after only two paragraphs.

In this instance, I have to agree completely.

It's like he is trying to outdo UFO Chronicles or something.

[DONTEATUS]

Theres always sumptin to complain about in the Good Old U of M , now for the News ! : THe Welcoming Idea, now has just lost its welcome !

[spacecowboy342]

Just harsh, low temps, no oxygen or high temps, or other things like the aforementioned heavy gravity. Just to survive such extreme conditions takes up all a species effort. We managed free time due to bipeadalsim, and intelligence offering better predation methods. If a planet is immersed under such conditions due to size, proximity, planet rotation, or similar, then all life is going to struggle to hang on and free time will be at a minimum. Also, things like freezing temps might prevent a species from mastering fire. Only one species on earth manages to overcome nature out of 50 billion. Every other species is tailored to suit the environment.

I see the personal attributes of planets as shaping life, just as you mention below, but things like fire underwater are just not going to happen, and I realise that we can then see things like chemical reactions to take the place of fire, but that strikes me as more complex than simple lightning starting a grass

Indeed we do, and that's when we get mass extinctions. Hominoids experienced a severe bottleneck about 70,000 years ago, the Wolllemi Pine suffered even worse, it possible got down to a mere two specimens. At least 5 major mass extinction's have happened, but there have been quite a few more than that on smaller scales.

If we look at other planets in the solar system, and their moons, it does indeed seem very ideal, we have very mild weather patterns when compared to any other planet in the solar system.

That's why crashed Saucers make little sense. Any such ET would be flying past Jupiter to get here, and observing storms in the magnitude of thousands of times worse than the most devastating storms we have had here on earth. It's not something I can even envisage a space traveler being unaware of.

I do not think that "we" own this shape any more than a Thylacine could make claim to it over a Wolf. I think nature set that bar well before we were a twinkle in the big bangs eye. We had to measure up to it, and it took thousands of millions of years to get here. Under harsh conditions, if intelligence was to arise, I do not see how it would become advanced quicker than we, even with a good a couple billion years head start. If it found the opportunity to rise to intelligence at all. Just eating other animals served the Dinosaurs well for millions of years, and sharks and Crocodiles I feel are still somewhat recognisable to their ancestors, or as mentioned the Giraffe has evolved to suits it's niche so perfectly, I cannot see how any further adaptations would serve it well, yet Giraffes are not mastering fire. I think Scowl is right in that if life exists within our possible parameter's, that intelligent life would be extremely rare, if it exists at all. With the building blocks for life being abundant, I recognise the seemingly good odds of the possibility of life, but there are so many hurdles for life to jump to simply maintain existence that I feel the possibilities have been somewhat zealously presented by the greater astronomical community via the media.

Yeah, but before there was life this planet had 0 oxygen and an extreme environment. Life terraformed the earth even as it evolved to live here

[psyche101]

Yeah, but before there was life this planet had 0 oxygen and an extreme environment. Life terraformed the earth even as it evolved to live here

Exactly, and indeed the point here. Earth had very little oxygen, and barely nothing arose, very simple organisms. When these organisms produced oxygen, most of it was sucked up by the earth itself, it took about 200 million years for Cyanobacteria to flood the earth with enough oxygen to have free oxygen, which triggered the first major extinction event. All life that was thriving here died, and gave way to new life. The demands placed upon the original inhabitants was just too much. These demands are what evolution responds to. All life did not much more than keep up with the environment for the next couple billion years, then we show up, and with all the right tools, manage to do what nothing else could in what is a very tiny geological time scale. And it seems, all due to this shape that has been tinkered with over many experiments by nature to produce a final winning shape. With all those billions of years, nothing comes close to an Industrial Revolution.

[scowl]

Exactly, and indeed the point here. Earth had very little oxygen, and barely nothing arose, very simple organisms. When these organisms produced oxygen, most of it was sucked up by the earth itself, it took about 200 million years for Cyanobacteria to flood the earth with enough oxygen to have free oxygen, which triggered the first major extinction event. All life that was thriving here died, and gave way to new life. The demands placed upon the original inhabitants was just too much. These demands are what evolution responds to.

Evolution doesn't really "respond" any more than clouds respond to our need for water by producing rain. It only gives life a mechanism to attempt to adapt to changing conditions. This may or may not rescue life in times of global change.

All life on Earth could have died off at that point. This would have been a case of life consuming planetary resources and exterminating itself. It was mere luck that life on Earth was able to survive.

[spacecowboy342]

Exactly, and indeed the point here. Earth had very little oxygen, and barely nothing arose, very simple organisms. When these organisms produced oxygen, most of it was sucked up by the earth itself, it took about 200 million years for Cyanobacteria to flood the earth with enough oxygen to have free oxygen, which triggered the first major extinction event. All life that was thriving here died, and gave way to new life. The demands placed upon the original inhabitants was just too much. These demands are what evolution responds to. All life did not much more than keep up with the environment for the next couple billion years, then we show up, and with all the right tools, manage to do what nothing else could in what is a very tiny geological time scale. And it seems, all due to this shape that has been tinkered with over many experiments by nature to produce a final winning shape. With all those billions of years, nothing comes close to an Industrial Revolution.

It wasn't that the demands of the original inhabitants was too much. They polluted there environment with oxygen, to the point where lifeforms that were better able to exploit an oxygen environment arose. Still the most successful evolutionary branch is the bacteria

[psyche101]

Evolution doesn't really "respond" any more than clouds respond to our need for water by producing rain. It only gives life a mechanism to attempt to adapt to changing conditions. This may or may not rescue life in times of global change.

Yes, thanks, that is exactly the point I was trying to make, I was referring to the adaptations that life has to make when the environment changes. I was meaning that evolution "responds" in that those who can make or have the adaptations to utilise the available resources will survive. Everything else will die.

All life on Earth could have died off at that point. This would have been a case of life consuming planetary resources and exterminating itself. It was mere luck that life on Earth was able to survive.

It was, but with so many extermination events in our history, life seem fairly resilient. It just keeps bouncing back.

[psyche101]

It wasn't that the demands of the original inhabitants was too much. They polluted there environment with oxygen, to the point where lifeforms that were better able to exploit an oxygen environment arose.

Would you not consider producing oxygen a demand? They must do so to survive.

The forms that could exploit the oxygen rich atmosphere were carbon based - again showing that life is a slave to the environment. Silicon based life would not compete. If the temps cool down, one needs to adapt to cope with that, and that is what every species other than us do. Or the die out. Of the 50 billion body shapes across all time, only one overcame the environment.

Still the most successful evolutionary branch is the bacteria

But will never reach intelligence simply because it does not have the tools.

[Whisperer]

No not a welcome mat, a parley mat first then parley for at least 200 years, that should be enough time to dig a few hidy holes....

[DONTEATUS]

I say throw out the Welcome matt ! All they can do is Help us,eat us ,or never find us ! Its a No loose event. After the first bite the rest is all down the hatch ! Or We trolley off into the Vastness !

[spacecowboy342]

Would you not consider producing oxygen a demand? They must do so to survive.

The forms that could exploit the oxygen rich atmosphere were carbon based - again showing that life is a slave to the environment. Silicon based life would not compete. If the temps cool down, one needs to adapt to cope with that, and that is what every species other than us do. Or the die out. Of the 50 billion body shapes across all time, only one overcame the environment.

But will never reach intelligence simply because it does not have the tools.

How does life being carbon based make it a slave to the environment? The environment shapes life and life shapes the environment. Mutations are random and I think assuming evolution would follow the same forms on an alien planet when we know nothing of their environmental factors is fallacy

[Hawken]

I don't think we are capable of being 'welcoming'. We can't even treat each other right, let alone our otherworldly neighbours.

So true. It's obvious in these threads. Right P Balboa?

[DONTEATUS]

WOw ! a carbon based life form will always be a slave to its environment ITs the way to be Happy ! Just ask a minion !

[psyche101]

How does life being carbon based make it a slave to the environment?

It outdoes any other form as the easiest bond to create. All life adapts to the environment or it dies.

The environment shapes life and life shapes the environment.

Life does not shape the environment to it's needs though, as with the earlier life we were discussing, it dies if it cannot adapt to the environment. We are the only species that can control an environment, and that is only because of an industrial revolution. Now we can change the environment, but we had to adapt to it to get to this point. We had to be slave to the environment, now we control it. In harsh conditions like extreme cold, or high gravity, all lifes resources are geared toward surviving those extremes, which is why life never evolved past very small instinctual creatures next to oceanic vents. We see life in all sort of inhospitable places, but it never evolves into notable sizes, because it takes all it's time and energy put into staying alive. You will see tiny bugs that can withstand extreme weather, or eat man made materials, but nothing that has evolved past tiny little creatures.

Mutations are random and I think assuming evolution would follow the same forms on an alien planet when we know nothing of their environmental factors is fallacy

Mutations gave creatures the ability to deal with these factors over long period of time. Again, convergent evolution tells us that a useful shape will be reutilized, and it gives us a clear record of 50 billion shapes that did not rise to intelligence, and we can see why looking back at the small advantages this shape gave man over time, the opposable thumb, bipedalism stance, stereoscopic vision, and a brain with enough sections to understand everything around us.

Why would evolution not follow the same path it did here, and why would it not result in similar species?

[spacecowboy342]

It outdoes any other form as the easiest bond to create. All life adapts to the environment or it dies.

Life does not shape the environment to it's needs though, as with the earlier life we were discussing, it dies if it cannot adapt to the environment. We are the only species that can control an environment, and that is only because of an industrial revolution. Now we can change the environment, but we had to adapt to it to get to this point. We had to be slave to the environment, now we control it. In harsh conditions like extreme cold, or high gravity, all lifes resources are geared toward surviving those extremes, which is why life never evolved past very small instinctual creatures next to oceanic vents. We see life in all sort of inhospitable places, but it never evolves into notable sizes, because it takes all it's time and energy put into staying alive. You will see tiny bugs that can withstand extreme weather, or eat man made materials, but nothing that has evolved past tiny little creatures.

Mutations gave creatures the ability to deal with these factors over long period of time. Again, convergent evolution tells us that a useful shape will be reutilized, and it gives us a clear record of 50 billion shapes that did not rise to intelligence, and we can see why looking back at the small advantages this shape gave man over time, the opposable thumb, bipedalism stance, stereoscopic vision, and a brain with enough sections to understand everything around us.

Why would evolution not follow the same path it did here, and why would it not result in similar species?

Why would evolution follow the same path it did here unless it had the same environment to deal with? And even then what do you suppose the odds are that the same random mutations would come about. We only ended up the way we are through a confluence of unlikely events. How evolution might go somewhere else is something we just don't have enough information to figure.

[scowl]

It was, but with so many extermination events in our history, life seem fairly resilient. It just keeps bouncing back.

Well, life on Earth anyway. The "extermination events" have been relatively mild. Earth was fortunate to be mostly covered by water which has helped reduce the impact of meteors. It also has formed very strong cycles which has prevented some events from becoming more destructive. For example our storms dissipate after a month or two instead of lasting for years or decades.

[psyche101]

Why would evolution follow the same path it did here unless it had the same environment to deal with?

Why would it differ? Are we not speaking of intelligent life - life as we know it? This is exactly why scientists feverishly search for "earth like" planets is it not? We do have an array of moons here that could have allowed life to develop, but it did not achieve intelligence, if any life has developed at all. The moons of Jupiter and Saturn are bathed in deadly radiation, possibly only the water moons enceladus and titan might offer enough shelter for microorganisms to develop, but the best and most optimistic hopes for life that science holds there is perhaps a small fish, or squid like creature. The most that environment can produce. Or take the Gliese system, the planets there are cold and dark. Why would evolution take a fast track in that environment when the basic elements for life are thin by comparison to an environment such as this one we enjoy? The elements that make this world up are scattered across the galaxy, it seems highly unlikely that this world would be unique in composition and the life upon it. With the same rules such as gravity, light, heat, water and the same building blocks, why would evolution not take the same paths? What other paths do you envisage exist?

And even then what do you suppose the odds are that the same random mutations would come about.

Highly likely. The same development under gravity has to be overcome, any light will be taken advantage of as it offers better predation methods, which helps any creature attain top position and enjoy the benefits that has to offer. Light is generally around when heat is, which allows liquid water to exist, which gives life a start and the resources to continue such as shelter and atmosphere. Barren planets are no good to life, so from a common ancestor a food source has to exist - plant life. Evolving cells learn to access quicker nutrient by absorbing this material that has already evolved. Plant life leads to bigger stronger organisms that taker another shortcut and start eating each other - direct proteins. We are proof that carbon based life can develop into intelligence under these conditions, and we know that even Mars and Venus which are still inside the Goldilocks zone did not offer the same, so this environment is "life friendly" Therefore, why would this type of environment not offer any life form the best opportunities to develop quickly, and as such, be what we are seeking with regards to "intelligent life"? And in turn be the most likely species we encounter? As well as the most common form (anthropomorphic), if not the only one, of intelligent life in the Universe?

Convergent evolution is a powerful example of why things might work the same way in other places as they do here. Not just the Thylacine and Canine, convergent evolution has offered million of examples not only from exterior shape, but to internal organs as well. The building blocks for life are common. the elements are the same, and conditions that are friendly to life must be abundant due to sheer numbers alone. Why would nature not repeat successful patterns like it does within our environment on a grander scale?

We only ended up the way we are through a confluence of unlikely events.

I do not agree, I think we are still here not only due to sheer luck, but a tenacity that is powerful. Makes me think life "developed" everywhere, not from a single point. I think it still goes on in nature, we just do not know what we are looking at. Evolution followed a gradual path from organism to arthropod which took sea creature to land animal to us. That seems a branch of logical steps that work with environments that are conducive to life as we know it as the planet begins to harbour life in conditions that according to statistics must exist elsewhere in great numbers in this Universe, and offer every advantage to evolution. I think our pool of one with 50 billion body shapes has many lessons to observe with regards to the development of life, and how it adapts to any environment.

How evolution might go somewhere else is something we just don't have enough information to figure.

We do know what life requires to exist, we do know what conditions life needs, we have moons and planets here that are devoid of life, and we have an abundance of examples showing the different paths life can take, and what evolutionary advantages offer a species. As such, I do feel we are qualified enough to take an educated guess. I quite like the Mockumentary "Alien Planet" which explores some interesting extremes, yet still, the imaginations of Professor Hawking combined with the talents of George Lucas still offered what I thought was much familiarity.

, there is an experiment these people do that show what an evolutionary advantage a light receptor is to a predator. Edited March 4, 2014 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Well, life on Earth anyway. The "extermination events" have been relatively mild. Earth was fortunate to be mostly covered by water which has helped reduce the impact of meteors. It also has formed very strong cycles which has prevented some events from becoming more destructive. For example our storms dissipate after a month or two instead of lasting for years or decades.

Exactly my good man, I could not agree more! This is why "this form" is likely to be the most abundant, if not the only one that eventually achieves intelligence. It's easier. And when I say "Abundant" the next intelligent species might be all the way over in the Sombrero Galaxy, if any exist yet at all, or ever will, that is the part that I agree we just do not know. If it does, anthropomorphic shapes would be what I feel is the "best guess" for intelligent life.

Great example too, if an organism had to deal with such severe weather, that makes simply existing all the harder, and not offering the great opportunities man has had in order for us to take full advantage of this body shape. Carl Sagan's floaters would never have the need to a TV or a spaceship, just catching food like our own Whales would be a full time job to feed the demands their body places upon them.

[scowl]

Earth is strange that there's constant change but rarely drastic change. The atmosphere circulates but doesn't scour or flood the land masses. The atmospheric pressure is very constant. The temperatures even in the extremes are not at all extreme by astronomical scales. Even within these narrow ranges there is a wide variety of conditions for different species to survive and adapt. The more I think about it, the more I doubt we're ever going to find another planet that's anything like it.

[spacecowboy342]

Why would it differ? Are we not speaking of intelligent life - life as we know it? This is exactly why scientists feverishly search for "earth like" planets is it not? We do have an array of moons here that could have allowed life to develop, but it did not achieve intelligence, if any life has developed at all. The moons of Jupiter and Saturn are bathed in deadly radiation, possibly only the water moons enceladus and titan might offer enough shelter for microorganisms to develop, but the best and most optimistic hopes for life that science holds there is perhaps a small fish, or squid like creature. The most that environment can produce. Or take the Gliese system, the planets there are cold and dark. Why would evolution take a fast track in that environment when the basic elements for life are thin by comparison to an environment such as this one we enjoy? The elements that make this world up are scattered across the galaxy, it seems highly unlikely that this world would be unique in composition and the life upon it. With the same rules such as gravity, light, heat, water and the same building blocks, why would evolution not take the same paths? What other paths do you envisage exist?

Highly likely. The same development under gravity has to be overcome, any light will be taken advantage of as it offers better predation methods, which helps any creature attain top position and enjoy the benefits that has to offer. Light is generally around when heat is, which allows liquid water to exist, which gives life a start and the resources to continue such as shelter and atmosphere. Barren planets are no good to life, so from a common ancestor a food source has to exist - plant life. Evolving cells learn to access quicker nutrient by absorbing this material that has already evolved. Plant life leads to bigger stronger organisms that taker another shortcut and start eating each other - direct proteins. We are proof that carbon based life can develop into intelligence under these conditions, and we know that even Mars and Venus which are still inside the Goldilocks zone did not offer the same, so this environment is "life friendly" Therefore, why would this type of environment not offer any life form the best opportunities to develop quickly, and as such, be what we are seeking with regards to "intelligent life"? And in turn be the most likely species we encounter? As well as the most common form (anthropomorphic), if not the only one, of intelligent life in the Universe?

Convergent evolution is a powerful example of why things might work the same way in other places as they do here. Not just the Thylacine and Canine, convergent evolution has offered million of examples not only from exterior shape, but to internal organs as well. The building blocks for life are common. the elements are the same, and conditions that are friendly to life must be abundant due to sheer numbers alone. Why would nature not repeat successful patterns like it does within our environment on a grander scale?

I do not agree, I think we are still here not only due to sheer luck, but a tenacity that is powerful. Makes me think life "developed" everywhere, not from a single point. I think it still goes on in nature, we just do not know what we are looking at. Evolution followed a gradual path from organism to arthropod which took sea creature to land animal to us. That seems a branch of logical steps that work with environments that are conducive to life as we know it as the planet begins to harbour life in conditions that according to statistics must exist elsewhere in great numbers in this Universe, and offer every advantage to evolution. I think our pool of one with 50 billion body shapes has many lessons to observe with regards to the development of life, and how it adapts to any environment.

We do know what life requires to exist, we do know what conditions life needs, we have moons and planets here that are devoid of life, and we have an abundance of examples showing the different paths life can take, and what evolutionary advantages offer a species. As such, I do feel we are qualified enough to take an educated guess. I quite like the Mockumentary "Alien Planet" which explores some interesting extremes, yet still, the imaginations of Professor Hawking combined with the talents of George Lucas still offered what I thought was much familiarity.

, there is an experiment these people do that show what an evolutionary advantage a light receptor is to a predator.

It wasn't tenacity or survival skills by mammals but an asteroid that took out the dinosaurs. You want to know what would have happened if that asteroid had hit last week instead of 65mya? It still would have wiped out the dinos, and there still wouldn't be any mammals bigger than a cat. I think all life will share certain similarities, in that chemistry works the same everywhere but to say we are the epitome of evolution because we lucked out on this planet is hubris. If aliens turn out to be furless primates I would call that evidence for intelligent design. Natural selection is too random to predict such results

[spacecowboy342]

Earth is strange that there's constant change but rarely drastic change. The atmosphere circulates but doesn't scour or flood the land masses. The atmospheric pressure is very constant. The temperatures even in the extremes are not at all extreme by astronomical scales. Even within these narrow ranges there is a wide variety of conditions for different species to survive and adapt. The more I think about it, the more I doubt we're ever going to find another planet that's anything like it.

Yeah, I wouldn't say never but I think you are right that they will be extremely rare. Were it not for a perfect chance strike that formed our moon it wouldn't be that way here.

[psyche101]

Earth is strange that there's constant change but rarely drastic change. The atmosphere circulates but doesn't scour or flood the land masses. The atmospheric pressure is very constant. The temperatures even in the extremes are not at all extreme by astronomical scales. Even within these narrow ranges there is a wide variety of conditions for different species to survive and adapt. The more I think about it, the more I doubt we're ever going to find another planet that's anything like it.

Amazing how spaceships crash here all the time. Like having a car accident in the desert or something.

We do not know, for sure, but the elements that make this planet are so abundant, and the number of planets so astoundingly high, I feel the odds are in favour of there being quite a few planets like this, but due to the very nature of space, they could be galaxies apart, which means they will never know abut each other, and therefore may as well not exist. But I think it would be to early to call us a loner yet. If science manages to confirm one single planet just like earth, then the odds would open more I feel.

[psyche101]

It wasn't tenacity or survival skills by mammals but an asteroid that took out the dinosaurs. You want to know what would have happened if that asteroid had hit last week instead of 65mya? It still would have wiped out the dinos, and there still wouldn't be any mammals bigger than a cat.

That too is an unknown. We might still be here just like we are now. With the Dinosaurs gone, every species had a crack at top predator, birds, cats, you name it, we won. Not because we are powerful or fierce, but because of intelligence.

Man faced Sabre toothed cats, giant reptiles every bit as scary as a T Rex with Megalania, Haast's Eagle would eat smaller humans, in the end, we ate them. They are gone, we are here. We beat every single predator we faced, Dinosaurs might have fallen at the hand of man instead of a relatively quick death with the impact, however, most scientists agree that the Deccan Traps had weakened the Dino population already, and the impact was simply the final blow. In which case, things still would have most likely turned out the same as they have today.

Had we not made it, perhaps a branch of Bosei might have had more luck, or the Neanderthal, or the Denisovans, or the many other contenders in that race. It seems hominids were going to take the top predator position no matter what.

I think all life will share certain similarities, in that chemistry works the same everywhere but to say we are the epitome of evolution because we lucked out on this planet is hubris.

You are still looking at it the wrong way. Not hubris at all, not even close. There is no personal aspect whatsoever with an efficient design. This shape is conducive to intelligence. That is where the relationship ends.

If aliens turn out to be furless primates I would call that evidence for intelligent design.

Even if they can offer you an evolutionary record like we have?

Do you consider the Thylacine a product of Intelligent Design?

Natural selection is too random to predict such results

I think Darwins Finches would disagree?

Edited March 4, 2014 by psyche101