Weightlessness & Greys

[paigetheoracle]

Seeing a piece in the paper about the effects of weightlessness on human anatomy, I wondered if this could explain the description of Grey Aliens? Weightlessness affects bone structure - maybe this is why they have thin, wispy forms? Weightlessness affects fertility - could this reflect their alleged breeding program?

 

Of course it could be argued their is no proof they exist at all but I'm arguing from the standpoint of the phenomena displayed and what it might indicate about these beings, should they be proved real (We and other animals developed the bodies we did, to solve living problems and to adjust to the environment, we found ourselves in and theoretically I was wondering what such back science could indicate about the shape these beings are alleged to take).

[King Author]

There is really nice and informative post. I am totally agree with you. I would like thanks to you that you share this post here with us. According to me if you want to loss your weight you should concentrate on your diet and exercise. Make sure that you take low fat and carbs in your diet. But with that you must take some cardio exercise. I think cycling and swimming is best for this purpose.

[Moontanman]

I question why they would be humanoid at all unless they are imaginary... and breeding programs? you would be more likely to be able to mate with a pine tree... at least you have 4 billion years of evolutionary history with a pine tree, you have none with any aliens..

Edited April 7, 2013 by Moontanman

[Lancewen]

I question why they would be humanoid at all unless they are imaginary... and breeding programs? you would be more likely to be able to mate with a pine tree... at least you have 4 billion years of evolutionary history with a pine tree, you have none with any aliens..

 

Then you are assuming our DNA is unique to earth life and has no relationship to any life elsewhere in our galaxy? There has been much speculation about our life originating outside our solar system. The science fiction scenarios seems to be endless on this topic.

 

As to being humanoid, what shape would you think might be better to develop into an advanced technological species? I can't really think of a single one.

[Moontanman]

Then you are assuming our DNA is unique to earth life and has no relationship to any life elsewhere in our galaxy? There has been much speculation about our life originating outside our solar system. The science fiction scenarios seems to be endless on this topic.

 

As to being humanoid, what shape would you think might be better to develop into an advanced technological species? I can't really think of a single one.

 

 

Other chemicals can be used to create similar chemicals to DNA

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threose_nucleic_acid

 

It may just be by chance we got the chemicals we now have.

 

 

As for shape, have you ever kept octopus in aquariums?

[Lancewen]

 

As for shape, have you ever kept octopus in aquariums?

 

No, but I did watch a program about octopus intelligence that made me glade they have a very short life span. However it takes a lot more than high intelligence to make a technological species. For instance being a water creature, means you would never master fire. Where would we be without fire? A highly intelligent porpoise without arms and hands will never become technological. The humanoid form satisfies a lot of requirements needed for a species to become technological besides just being intelligent.

 

I don't really believe we have alien visitors, but some programs that claim our government has alien bodies would mean someone knows about alien DNA. If that were true, I'd sure like to hear the truth about it.

[Moontanman]

No, but I did watch a program about octopus intelligence that made me glade they have a very short life span. However it takes a lot more than high intelligence to make a technological species. For instance being a water creature, means you would never master fire. Where would we be without fire? A highly intelligent porpoise without arms and hands will never become technological. The humanoid form satisfies a lot of requirements needed for a species to become technological besides just being intelligent.

 

I wasn't talking about our octopus, I am suggesting that vertebrates aren't the only option. land dwelling inverts could evolve intelligence.

 

don't really believe we have alien visitors, but some programs that claim our government has alien bodies would mean someone knows about alien DNA. If that were true, I'd sure like to hear the truth about it.

 

Again, even if aliens used the same DNA we do it wouldn't mean they look us or would be compatible, as I said you share 4 billion years of evolution with a pine tree, do you really think any breeding program is gonna make human pine tree hybrids?

 

Even if by some outrageous coincidence they do look like the DNA is still 4 billion years out of tune, do you think a ichthyosaur and a dolphin are gonna be genetically compatible just because they are shaped similar?

[Buffy]

No, but I did watch a program about octopus intelligence that made me glade they have a very short life span. However it takes a lot more than high intelligence to make a technological species. For instance being a water creature, means you would never master fire. Where would we be without fire? A highly intelligent porpoise without arms and hands will never become technological. The humanoid form satisfies a lot of requirements needed for a species to become technological besides just being intelligent.

I've always believed that dolphins were great proof that "technology" is not necessarily an evolutionary "advantage", at least not in the sense that it's imperative to not just survival but being well positioned at the top of the food chain. Their brains are physically larger than ours, they evidence sophisticated communications and highly complex social interactions making them in those respects, every bit our equals, and perhaps our superiors (they haven't gotten as close to destroying themselves as we have!).

 

Octopi on the other hand have evolved tremendous manual dexterity as a result of their arms along with highly sophisticated problem solving ability. Given what appears to be less social sophistication (which as you probably have guessed by now I consider a much more important evolutionary trait than technology), we might consider ourselves superior to them, but unlike dolphins, I think they do have the ability to pursue technology precisely because of their ability to manually control their environment.

 

And while I agree that fire is a key enabler of technological advancement, I'd argue that the key is not fire itself (we use it less and less as technology accelerates) that is important but rather *any* source of power. So while it's obviously impossible for sea creatures to directly take advantage of fire, there are sources of heat (thermal vents, river outlets), motion (currents, waves, and again river outlets), and chemical (methane!) energy that are easily accessible.

 

Sometimes half the fun of figuring out stuff like this is to imagine that the way that man happened to do it in our history *is all wrong*....

 

Any sufficiently advanced bureaucracy is indistinguishable from molasses, :phones:

Buffy

[Moontanman]

Give hima brain and he could use tools I bet...

 

[Lancewen]

I've always believed that dolphins were great proof that "technology" is not necessarily an evolutionary "advantage", at least not in the sense that it's imperative to not just survival but being well positioned at the top of the food chain. Their brains are physically larger than ours, they evidence sophisticated communications and highly complex social interactions making them in those respects, every bit our equals, and perhaps our superiors (they haven't gotten as close to destroying themselves as we have!).

 

Octopi on the other hand have evolved tremendous manual dexterity as a result of their arms along with highly sophisticated problem solving ability. Given what appears to be less social sophistication (which as you probably have guessed by now I consider a much more important evolutionary trait than technology), we might consider ourselves superior to them, but unlike dolphins, I think they do have the ability to pursue technology precisely because of their ability to manually control their environment.

 

And while I agree that fire is a key enabler of technological advancement, I'd argue that the key is not fire itself (we use it less and less as technology accelerates) that is important but rather *any* source of power. So while it's obviously impossible for sea creatures to directly take advantage of fire, there are sources of heat (thermal vents, river outlets), motion (currents, waves, and again river outlets), and chemical (methane!) energy that are easily accessible.

 

Sometimes half the fun of figuring out stuff like this is to imagine that the way that man happened to do it in our history *is all wrong*....

 

Any sufficiently advanced bureaucracy is indistinguishable from molasses, :phones:

Buffy

 

The reason why technology is a main point in this topic is talk about aliens and their physical form. For aliens to be here on earth they would have to be very technological.

 

Octopi besides not being very sociable only have about a 3 year life span. I would guess that a little mutation could change all that, but still the important thing about fire was the smelting of metals and cooking our food. I just can't imagine any way for that kind of thing happening in sea water a few miles deep where thermal vents can be found. If humans lived in water I don't think we would have technology today or maybe never.

Edited April 8, 2013 by arKane

[Lancewen]

Give hima brain and he could use tools I bet...

 

 

That's a very strange looking crab, but what kind of tools do you imagine it could use and would it ever be able to make those tools?

[Moontanman]

That's a very strange looking crab, but what kind of tools do you imagine it could use and would it ever be able to make those tools?

 

 

My point here is that invertebrates do not have to be water creatures or small, coconut crabs are land dwelling, they are large and strong, if he used tools he would evolve his own way to make them. We need to stop thinking of Earth evolution, there is no reason to assume that another planet would have vertebrates much less vertebrates like ours or humanoids, they could be centauroid. The main thing that keeps arthropods smallish is that vertebrates suppress them. Vertebrates radiated out into all the large body plan niches before invertebrates could adapt. Take away vertebrates and the game is reset with different rules. You could even have internal skeleton animals without backbones, echinoderms are an example of this.

[Moontanman]

Why couldn't cephalopods evolve into land animals? The octopus shape is what I'm on about, not that underwater creatures could build star ships...

[Lancewen]

Why couldn't cephalopods evolve into land animals? The octopus shape is what I'm on about, not that underwater creatures could build star ships...

 

Off hand I don't know. However, I can't think of any examples of land animals with tentacles. There must be a reason why evolution hasn't produced any?

[Moontanman]

Off hand I don't know. However, I can't think of any examples of land animals with tentacles. There must be a reason why evolution hasn't produced any?

 

 

One word... elephant..

[Lancewen]

My point here is that invertebrates do not have to be water creatures or small, coconut crabs are land dwelling, they are large and strong, if he used tools he would evolve his own way to make them. We need to stop thinking of Earth evolution, there is no reason to assume that another planet would have vertebrates much less vertebrates like ours or humanoids, they could be centauroid. The main thing that keeps arthropods smallish is that vertebrates suppress them. Vertebrates radiated out into all the large body plan niches before invertebrates could adapt. Take away vertebrates and the game is reset with different rules. You could even have internal skeleton animals without backbones, echinoderms are an example of this.

 

When you say large, I would guess you are talking only a few pounds. There is a good reason why creatures with an exoskeleton can only get so big as land animals. Even with a high oxygen atmosphere they would still be very limited in the size they could attain. But then nothing says intelligent social species has to be large. But if they could be not so good to eat, maybe they would have the time they need to develop into a technological society.:rolleyes:

[Lancewen]

One word... elephant..

 

I never thought of a trunk as a tentacle, but I suppose it could pass for one. I even watched a program where elephants were taught to paint pictures using that trunk. They were very good even if they didn't have the detail a human could do.