![]() |
Re: Alien, I mean really Alien.
Quote:
JLC's web page [ March 25, 2004, 15:57: Message edited by: Parasite ] |
Re: Alien, I mean really Alien.
The platypus sits well as a mammal, as it has mammaries. It's not a 'placental' mammal, it is instead a 'monotreme', and is only one of three known species of monotremes.
hmm... shouldn't talk science without a spellcheck, but I will anyway. |
Re: Alien, I mean really Alien.
Quote:
Animals, Plants, Fungi, Prokaryotes, and Protists Yes, the Last two are microscopic organisms only. |
Re: Alien, I mean really Alien.
Actually... I think the consensus amongst the biological community is that there are at least 7 kingdoms now, one of which is halobacterium. The stuff that lives in moisture on top of really high salt content salt flats and such.
|
Re: Alien, I mean really Alien.
Quote:
And the platypus does not have mammaries, which is one of the characteristics that makes it a monotreme. It simply 'sweats' milk out on its belly and the baby laps it up. The distinct mammary gland comes later with 'true' mammals. |
Re: Alien, I mean really Alien.
Quote:
Does anyone know of the dicovery where fossils from a billion years were found. Now we are one "form" in so far as we have a Skeletal system AND a backbone AND symetry (2 arms, 2 legs, 1 on each side). I am no expert so I will say in my example there are 5 forms of animal still living, we mammals and 4 others (such as worms, with no backbone or skeleton etc). Anyway in the example I mentioned there were 20 "forms" of animal found. Thats the 5 current ones, and 15 "types" that are extinct. basically 1 billion years ago there were 20 possible templates for the creatures that would occupy the earth but 15 got covered with a landslide and only the other 5 survived (I am simplifying this a lot, and my numbers might be wrong, but I am trying to point out something). So what if instead of the 5 that survived, 5 others survived. The earth might be populated by animals with no backbone and 3 legs and a head with an extendable mouth. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You need to get the details and 'unsimplify' so we can figure out what is being said. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I gather that some very old fossils showed variant types of animals but the details would be important. Were some of them NOT symmetrical? |
Re: Alien, I mean really Alien.
Randallw, have you seen some of the ocean-bottom life forms that have been discovered fairly recently using submersibles? (The Blue Planet series has a spectacular episode on them, for example.) Lots of ancient and bizarre stuff there.
PvK |
Re: Alien, I mean really Alien.
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I guess I don't understand your definitions of terms very well. We seem to mean very different things when we each say "totally alien." One one level, sure, anything from this planet is not totally alien. On another, I can relate to and recognize in myself many of the behaviours exhibited by animals. I don't really follow your example of alien dolphin-like animals, either. Of course scientists would study the heck out of any alien life form. Scientists study dolphins, too. Other scientists do preposterous things like tell a dog not to eat food, then leave it alone with the food, and get excited to discover that the dog will go eat the food when humans aren't looking. This German study made the BBC world news a year or two ago. Meanwhile, non-scientists who know dogs generally know this anyway. What that demonstrates to me is that many scientists, like when I studied cognitive science a bit a decade ago, are severely confused about animal intelligence. Quote:
Any life form that benefits from living ina society will evolve bonds with others within its society- friendship, love, comradeship, pack mentality- call it what you will. ...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well the difference is that these animals evolved on the same planet we did, in the same environment, with the same kinds of conditions and competitors, and from common ancient ancestors. Humans, animals, fish, reptiles, insects, all have eyes, brains, spines, nervous systems, mouths, digestive tracts, limbs for locomotion, sexual reproduction, etc. Not all environments require running away. Not all ecologies involve predation. Not all imaginible life forms even have "societies". Not all societies need have the same elements, even if human ones, or human and animal ones, tend to. Yes there are some situations that seem like they would exist or need to exist in most environments. But even life on this planet shows that there are many solutions to most problems. PvK [ March 25, 2004, 17:56: Message edited by: PvK ] |
Re: Alien, I mean really Alien.
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you say so. You haven't defined "social behavior" though, and I would think that "social behavior" could still be extremely different. Defining "social behavior" as an extremely broad term just gives it plenty of room for extremely different types of behavior within that term. Meanwhile, on the gas planet Ugwahuk, perhaps the intelligent life there acts like a planetary gestalt, with no individuals, just a flow of life an consciousness spread throughout the Ugwahsphere. That probably defies any definition of "social behavior". Quote:
Quote:
PvK |
Re: Alien, I mean really Alien.
oh man...
this discussion looks like its getting to the "if a tree falls in a forrest" stage... heh the buggers in enders game I thoguht were quite well done. and I think they mentiond annother race that after meeting the humans just all decided to die. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.