Do you think we are alone or they are out there? (not alien organisms but going farther than that intelligent alien species)

Personally, I think there are millions of alien civilizations out there at any one time, the building blocks of life are found in abundance in deep space, plus the c0mplexity of organisms has only two directions it will either stay the same or it will increase in c0mplexity but it can never decrease in c0mplexity, so over time there eventually will be a growth in maximum c0mplexity in atleast one ogranism. The fittest will survive while the weak gets "weeded out" over time, the more "fitter" an organism is the more complex it has to be (they go hand in hand) and when there are alot of "fit" organisms there will be an arms race and that will lead to an explosion of c0mplexity, when the more simpler niches are filled that will make way for more complex niches to be filled. Lets say organism one can survive in environments A and B but organism two can survive in environments A,B and C...over time who do you think will get "weeded out" and who do you think will thrive. So there is a little bit of direction in evolution.

Survival of the fittest, the more adaptive specie will survive and thrive.

And once there are creatures like the animals have emerged, then there is a great chance that atleast one of those animals will evolve into an intelligent bunch.

Myself, I tend to think of intelligence as runaway specialization in the evolution of a certain organism. As far as we can tell right now, certain climatological and geographical circumstances combined to favor an upright ancestor, but one that was, shall we say, likely unintelligent. However, that upright posture freed the hands and allowed them to become manipulative organs, which in turned spurred on great brain growth in order to control those hands more and more finely. Eventually the brain became large enough for the beasites to one look up and... wonder.

Okay, that's really simplistic, I know! But my point it, I think that it was *not* a foregone conclusion that intelligent life evolved on Earth. The Dinosaurs were around for over 180 million years, with little sign of intelligence in them. Mammals evolved without Dinosaurian interference for 60-some million years before Man began to poke his head into the fray. But when he did begin to evolve, it was a scant 5 million years to go from a semi-arboreal animal to a Moon landing.

There have been studies out there (which did NOT use the Drake Equation, thank you) that estimate intelligent, space-faring species in the Galaxy (and I believe space faring meant interstellar travel of one sort or another) may number around 3 or 4 at any given time. Of course, other studies hint that we may be the first in our Galaxy. And still others suggest that we are the latest in a long line of rising and falling civilizations.

Myself? I think that we are not alone, and that somewhere out there in this Galaxy there are at least a small number of technically advanced civilizations. But then, I also tend to think that life on any level (especially the microbiological level) is as common as, well, dirt.

...John...

__________________
"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'."
-- Larry Niven

"Scientists believe that the ratio of dinosaurs’ brain size to their body weight increased as the animals evolved. As a result, their behavioral flexibility increased from a level comparable to that of modern crocodiles, in the primitive dinosaurs, to a level comparable to that of modern chickens and opossums, in some small Cretaceous dinosaurs." - This shows that if the dinosaurs werent wiped out they may have been given the chance to evolve into a more intelligent species, although they were doing it quite slowly.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_.../Dinosaur.html

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_quest...B7809EC588F2D7 - talks about increased brain sizes over time.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/brai...rainevol2.html - brain size and evolution

1. Are brains, in general, bigger now than they were 60 million years ago?
2. Do both the median and maximum brain size steadily increase with time?
3. Does this trend show up in multiple evolutionary paths (i.e., not just the ape family)?

It seems that answer to these three questions are "yes", and that brain size increase is not unique to just humans but humans were just the fastest to gain intelligence, I am not saying that intelligence is the outcome of evolution I am just saying that it is not as rare as most people think it is.

Michio Kaiko also said on Discovery Channel's Alien Planet that give the octupus a couple million years and they might be the species that is ruling the planet.

"Professor Ian Stewart, a mathematician at the University of Warwick, and reproductive biologist Dr Jack Cohen have joined forces to figure out what life might be like if it has evolved on other planets. What they’ve found is that natural selection inevitably throws up a diverse and complex arrangement of living entities.
Because natural selection, the engine of evolution, essentially fits life to its environment, one might expect that a single lifeform would come to dominate its home planet as the single best fit. But Ian Stewart has discovered a mathematical law that states otherwise. The diversity engine is best described by analogy to a pendulum.

A swinging pendulum can suddenly switch from one pattern of swing to a totally different one without apparent interference or warning. What’s going on is that invisible stresses have built up in the system causing rapid change. Similarly, evolution jogs along in the same way for a while, and then passes some threshold that causes it to change state. These state changes are the source of diversity in life, in a pendulum swing, or in just about any system.

What this actually means is that anywhere that life evolves, it will diverge into a complex ecosystem, not unlike our own. ‘These phenomena are universals, they are things that are going to happen anywhere they can happen,’ explains Ian Stewart. The diversity engine is an inevitable drive towards complexity that has other startling implications for alien lifeforms, since, says Stewart, ‘some of them, surely, are going to go right through to intelligent creatures and very intelligent creatures."

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...rewealone.html

"Scientists believe that the ratio of dinosaurs’ brain size to their body weight increased as the animals evolved. As a result, their behavioral flexibility increased from a level comparable to that of modern crocodiles, in the primitive dinosaurs, to a level comparable to that of modern chickens and opossums, in some small Cretaceous dinosaurs." - This shows that if the dinosaurs werent wiped out they may have been given the chance to evolve into a more intelligent species, although they were doing it quite slowly.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_.../Dinosaur.html

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_quest...B7809EC588F2D7 - talks about increased brain sizes over time.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/brai...rainevol2.html - brain size and evolution

1. Are brains, in general, bigger now than they were 60 million years ago?
2. Do both the median and maximum brain size steadily increase with time?
3. Does this trend show up in multiple evolutionary paths (i.e., not just the ape family)?

It seems that answer to these three questions are "yes", and that brain size increase is not unique to just humans but humans were just the fastest to gain intelligence, I am not saying that intelligence is the outcome of evolution I am just saying that it is not as rare as most people think it is.

Michio Kaiko also said on Discovery Channel's Alien Planet that give the octupus a couple million years and they might be the species that is ruling the planet.

"Professor Ian Stewart, a mathematician at the University of Warwick, and reproductive biologist Dr Jack Cohen have joined forces to figure out what life might be like if it has evolved on other planets. What they’ve found is that natural selection inevitably throws up a diverse and complex arrangement of living entities.
Because natural selection, the engine of evolution, essentially fits life to its environment, one might expect that a single lifeform would come to dominate its home planet as the single best fit. But Ian Stewart has discovered a mathematical law that states otherwise. The diversity engine is best described by analogy to a pendulum.

A swinging pendulum can suddenly switch from one pattern of swing to a totally different one without apparent interference or warning. What’s going on is that invisible stresses have built up in the system causing rapid change. Similarly, evolution jogs along in the same way for a while, and then passes some threshold that causes it to change state. These state changes are the source of diversity in life, in a pendulum swing, or in just about any system.

What this actually means is that anywhere that life evolves, it will diverge into a complex ecosystem, not unlike our own. ‘These phenomena are universals, they are things that are going to happen anywhere they can happen,’ explains Ian Stewart. The diversity engine is an inevitable drive towards complexity that has other startling implications for alien lifeforms, since, says Stewart, ‘some of them, surely, are going to go right through to intelligent creatures and very intelligent creatures."

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...rewealone.html

I've actually been considering having an intelligent Dinosaur species as a part of the background for my ArcBuilder setting, although they were short-lived. But as for the fate of the Dinosaurs had they not gone out... I firmly believe that, eventually, an intelligent species might have evolved. Certainly the Dromaeosaurs, and more likely the Troodontids, were moving in that direction. I think some estimates put the Troodon close to the level of parrots. That might be a little generous, though, I'm not sure.

But I don't think brains are the only factor in intelligence. Certainly brian size grew hand in hand (no pun intended) with the ability to use are hands to manipulate objects and eventually construct tools. I wonder what other biological factors of our bodies aid in intelligence? Any thoughts?

I've heard a few folks wonder about this. I suppose that it is possible if there were sufficient reason for octopi to move from the ocean and adapt to terrestrial life (I forget if such a reason was given in "The Future Is Wild"). But if they didn't move on to land, could they still develop sapience? *Can* intelligence exist without the ability to make tools? Or are the two mutually required? And I'm assuming here that a technical intelligence is not possible without the use of fire.

So many unknowns!!

...John...[/url]

__________________
"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'."
-- Larry Niven

bud do all species need to develop an advance intelligence?
if there is a alien life form that live on a planet where the surface is 98% made of water it doesn't have any use for fire and won't develop it. it might be extremely good at keeping its environment unpolluted, something we aren't so good at.

I think we evolved because there was a need to do so. we started using fire because it made it easier to digest meat. but if you don't eat meat, you don't need fire...

__________________
GCS/S d(+) s+:+ a--- C++(+++)>$ W+++>$ L>+ M+>++ w++ P+>++ tv@ PS b+ DI+ G e-> h! r-- !z+

~Jorge Schrauwen

I'm not sure that we learned to control fire in order to cook meat. That might have been an unexpected bonus, as it were. More than likely, we developed fire for protective means. Cooking meat may have come about relatively soon after, though, after we learned that meat prepared this way is more nutritious (at least, that is what I've heard).

...John...

__________________
"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'."
-- Larry Niven

I don't think brains can evolve to be much larger without major redesign of the female pelvic reason. in fact, the reason childbirth is so much harder for human women than most other animal species is that big ol' brain. (and my daughter's head didn't change shape, so I know what I'm talking about.) in fact, human babies are less able to survive than most other species immediately after birth because their brains have to keep developing after birth in order to allow their heads to still be small enough to pass through the birth canal.

I also don't think that complex=better; if that were true, wouldn't there be way fewer bacteria on Earth? complex may be better for certain evolutionary niches, but it isn't for others.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Yes, species evolve because of environmental pressures (they evolve to fit the environment), if there were none then the species would not really evolve. But I would think most environments would have environmental pressures.

"but if you don't eat meat, you don't need fire..." - Or we could have just evolved into a herbivore type of species.

I dont think so to, but as more simpler niches get filled over time that opens the way up for complex niches to get filled. But as I said before complexity will either go laterall or increase but it cannot decrease so over time and as evolution happens we will likely to see an increase in maximum complexity.

I think you've got a good point here. We may have a tendency to overestimate the value of intelligence in evolution. Would a lion that's slightly smarter than the other lions necessarily do better? In all likelyhood, a less intelligent lion that could run slightly faster and smell slightly better would be a better hunter, thus surviving to maturity and spreading it's genes throughout the species.

On the other hand, a smart primate may have realized that, thanks to his opposable thumb, he could just pick up a rock and throw it at a critter rather than chasing after it. He has a greater chance of survival not just because he's smarter, but also because he's got the proper hardware. Otherwise, he might have no better chance of survival than his less intelligent peers.

And maybe intelligence is an outgrowth of dealing with a changing environment. I imagine fire looked pretty attractive when the Ice Age came on, or even on a cold night on the savannah. I think this is the "punctuated equilibrium" theory of evolution, as opposed to the steady growth kind of idea.

Could be.

We must not overlook the importance of language in the development of an intelligent race or advanced civilisation.
Yes, the development of manipulatory organs (which could be hands, feet, tentacles, pincers, mouthparts, tusks, perhaps even cilia or mobile hairs of some sort) is very important, but a species could be vey dextrous without developing civilisation or even self-awareness.

Language, however, has become fantastically complex in humans, and we are able to dicuss things that happened in the past, and future as well as imaginary and completely abstract concepts.
Our language ability is far more comprehensive than is required for a gather-hunter existence; what use is the ability to discuss curved space-time to an omniverous upright primate? It seems that language is the trait which has become fantastically overdeveloped in evolutionary terms; we suffer from a gigantism of language.

If an ocean-going species develops such a language gigantism then it would perhaps develop a fantastically involved verbal culture; the dolphins for instance might constantly swap endlessly elaborated stories millions of years old and have amore complex social structure than ourown; but without hands they could never write it down, and without fire they could never have a technological society.

Without a technological society, a sea dwelling language-rich society could not have developed an Internet. Obviously our own species has developed long distance communications, and perhaps more important a myriad forms of data storage and retreival; our libraries and records on paper and in electronic form define human civilisation in many ways.

The most advanced alien civilisations are likely to have language gigantism as well as dextrous manipulatory abilities, I expect.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

How about something other than language, like maybe a sonar-type of communication but more complex.

Even if these hypotheitical aliens use pheromones or FTP, that is still a language.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

What other than Language and Manipulation? Couldn't a plan evolve such things? I'm thinking Venus Fly Trap and Trees. Mobility in plants could evolve along the lines of manipulation organs and it's been shown that plants release asprin into the air in order to 'alert' nearby plants about danger; I saw a study specifically related to Ash trees and Tobacco, quite interesting... (digress) I also see no reason plant's couldn't evolve optical sensory organs of some sort, kind of an off-shoot of photosythesis...?
At any rate, without movement from a rooted position, how intelligent would these plants become? How could they expect to be 'aware' of, say, an ocean miles away, without it being 2nd hand?
I think mobility is a key factor here, otherwise, how space-farring could potted orchids be?

NOTE: Also, there are dramatic cases of devolution and of decreased complexity in the biosphere many, many times over. Extinction.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

i think our development of languages had to do with out huting technieks.

It is easier to work in groups. Communication is vita. if i can tell person a the pray is going his way he can prepare and other can go and help him.

this may have also allowed to to think in the past and future.

Person B telling me that the trick i want to try won't work. becouse the pray can swim for example.

And we could plan more complex hunts before hand might elso have been usefull. If we for example learn that there will be pray in the vally every time the sun is at its highes. we don't need to go huting and looking for non existing pray very early in the morning for example.

__________________
GCS/S d(+) s+:+ a--- C++(+++)>$ W+++>$ L>+ M+>++ w++ P+>++ tv@ PS b+ DI+ G e-> h! r-- !z+

~Jorge Schrauwen

Thats true TravisM, the extinction events decrease the complexity but those that survive are even more complex than before.

Actually, random mutation can be as well to wards more complex as to simpler forms.

It is just that there is a limit to how simple an organism can be.
Below that limit it wouldn't be alive.
There is however no such limit to how complex a organism can be.

Therefor over time more and more complex organisms will evolve.

When it comes to the development of intelligence, we don't really know.
So far it has all been speculation.
So there is no telling how likely it is to happen.
Still 100% of all observed cases though.

There are rare occurance of an organisms increasing in simplicty, but like I said its rare, for some theres no way to go but up.