From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 10:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Archived: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:59:16 -0400 Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? >From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 21:08:57 -0400 >Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:58:48 -0700 (PDT) >>Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? >>It is clear from their books (which I have read) and their >>articles and lectures which I have reviewed, that they >>essentially never review the UFO evidence such as the 5 large >>scale scientific studies, the many multiple witness radar visual >>cases, the physical trace cases involving reports not only of >>flying saucers on the ground, but the 15% of those cases >>involving reports of humanoids.They know nothing about national >>security. >Where are these humanoids? I've never seen one. I saw a flying >saucer once; I definitely believe my own eyes. But I've never >seen a humanoid alien. And I've got to say, the speculative >arguments made by evolutionary biologists _against_ the notion >of so many reports of different bilateral bipedal aliens make a >lot of sense. The Pre-Cambrian explosion is just one example of >how weird the morphology of biological forms can take. Life >found in and around hydrothermal vents are another example of >life taking form and sustenance in ways that belie the notion of >repeating bilateral bipedalism throughout the nearby galaxy. >There is simply no reason to assume that life repeats form >across environments in that manner. From my perspective, those >scientists have a strong point. The UFO community offers nothing >to refute these arguments but testimony from alleged witnesses. >So, the division here is: informed speculation vs. unverified >testimony. Who wins? This point keeps coming up, that there are supposedly strong scientific arguments that (biological) space aliens would not be humanoid but some other unimaginable form. These arguments are neither strong, informed, nor particularly scientific, at best highly speculative, and also at odds with what we observe evolution creating here on planet Earth, where natural selection forces in particular environmental niches produce many examples of convergent evolution of form. Or as the jingle goes, form follows function. Rather than rewrite the many counterarguments to the "they can't possibly look like us" argument, I'll quote from myself from just last year. Notice a major constraint in all this is that we are dealing with a _technological_, space-faring race able to build machines that can get them here. Thus you can automatically eliminate any life-form that cannot possibly develop a technological civilization at some point, even if they were very intelligent. Therefore, don't expect organic space aliens visiting us to look like octopi or porpoises or sponges or worms around underwater thermal vents. (However, all bets are off for the form of cybernetic intelligent beings not subject to normal evolutionary forces that shaped us.) ------ http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2009/may/m01-005.shtml From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 12:24:15 -0700 Archived: Fri, 01 May 2009 16:30:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Debunkers & ETH >From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:02:31 -0400 >Subject: Re: Debunkers & ETH >2) Reports of various alien physiologies are too >anthropocentric. This ignores the fact, observed on many species on earth, that particular evolutionary niches have a limited number of optimized morphological forms for survival, resulting in parallel evolution of form, or "form follows function." Thus flying insects, pterydactyls, birds, and bats, with very different evolutionary histories, all have wings and forward looking heads and eyes with feet for landing, are bilaterally symmetric, etc. Cephalod (squid, octopus, etc.) eyeballs are almost identical in structure to vertebrate eyes, though the lines diverged hundreds of millions of years ago when the "eye" was nothing more than a primitive pigmented optic pit. A few weeks ago I was in central Nevada at Icthyosaur State Park, up at 7000 feet. There are the fossilized bones of dozens of icthyosuars, marine reptiles dating from 220 million years ago, when North America was still attached to Pangea, there was no Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Coast ran through present-day Nevada. The icthyosaurs looked almost identical to present day porpoises, which are mammals. Both are believed to have evolved from land animals and gave birth to live young. Yet they evolved 200 million years apart from very different evolutionary lines. Why is this so? Because both are marine predators relying on speed for basic survival. Thus they have similar streamlining, dorsal fins, tails, large eyes, long snouts with teeth, blowholes between the eyes, and so on. Form follows function. Sharks, barracudas, our submarines, etc., have similar steamlined shapes and features. Or consider car "evolution", where constaints on fuel economy, safety, and missions (carry people and cargo) have led to very similar designs (similar streamlining, front and back crush spaces and places to put motor and cargo, etc.). It's often hard to tell one line of car from another. So why shouldn't space-faring aliens have basic hominid features, such as large heads (big brains=intelligence), major senses (eyes, ears) close to the brains (for speed of high- bandwidth data processing), forward-looking binocular vision (for good depth perception, valuable in tool-making and hunting), arms with tool-manipulating appendages or hands (how else are they going to build a technical civilization leading to space-ships?), legs for locomotion (bipedal frees up two other limbs for manipulation or other tasks, such as bipedal birds with wings. Internal skeletons that grow with the animal allow for larger animals (all exoskeleton animals are relatively small) and you can't have intelligent beings who can build spaceships unless they have larger brains, which require larger bodies. Don't expect space aliens to look like crabs with exoskeletons or octopi with no internal skeletons at all. You also need a skeleton to be a land animal, and you need to be a land animal to build fire, smelt metal, and eventually build a technological civilization. (Another reason alien space octopi will not emerge from a UFO, even if they are smart and can finely manipulate materials with their tentacles.) Bilateral symmetry arose in the oceans and is a characteristic of all mobile species (radial or spherical symmetric species move around slowly or not at all). Bilateral symmetry is also energy efficient, minimizing friction in the water (streamlining) and energy to move in a given direction (otherwise have to expend energy to keep from going in circles). Bilateral symmetry = minimal motion energy = speed = survival. Bilateral symmetry also conserves DNA information, since symmetrical left and right sides are just copies off the same genetic blueprint (minor left/right specialization arose later). Heads with brains, main sense organs, and mouths are going to be up front in the direction of motion and where the food is. When you think about it, all our rapidly moving ships, water and air, adopt the same streamlined, bilateral symmetrical form. Why? Because it is an optimal solution. Form follows function. The eyes, brains, and control of an airplane (the pilots) also sit up in the front of the airplane (the head), not the tail, because this is the optimal place for them to be, just like it is for insects, birds, bats, and pterodactyls. So why shouldn't at least some aliens resemble basic human form? The big point here is that not everything goes when it comes to form for an intelligent space-faring race. We shouldn't expect alien starfish or sea urchins or dolphins to emerge from UFOs, because they would never be capable of building a technological civilization, much less space-flight. ----- David Rudiak Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp