Alien in Denver...(Cue Twilight zone music)

[Loon]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/28/purported-ufo-video-be-shown-friday/

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/29/expert-says-ufo-tape-no-fake/

Kinda interesting, seems to have gotten a bit far compared to other alien stuff.

 

[the Interceptor]

Is the video available on the internet yet?

 

[Sage]

Same old lousy stuff we’ve seen before.

Anyway: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/05/30/shocker-alien-video-is-useless/

 

[Joey D]

What I always find humourous is that we think extraterrestrial life will look just like humans but with big heads and big eyes. That's all sci-fi crap, and while it is fun to believe there are similar looking creatures out in the universe it's not really all that plausible since evolution more then likely took a very different course on another world.

I'm a big supporter of the idea that intelligent alien life exists and I do think they have visited earth...but for the most part these videos and eye witness accounts and typically a bunch of rubbish. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....and a bunch of southern, rednecks saying they got probed while driving their Ford truck through the hills isn't really my idea of evidence.

 

[Famine]

What I always find humourous is that we think extraterrestrial life will look just like humans but with big heads and big eyes. That's all sci-fi crap, and while it is fun to believe there are similar looking creatures out in the universe it's not really all that plausible since evolution more then likely took a very different course on another world.

From a biological standpoint, that's not really accurate.

Take a quick glance at life on Earth. A lot it shares common ancestry with a starfish - 5-spoke radial symmetry, no central nervous system - but has separately developed pretty much the same body patterns as each other - central nervous system in a well-developed, well protected "head" and spine with 4 limbs. A lot of the most successful creatures have been bipedal, with the other limbs serving a different function. The flying stuff diverged hundreds of millions of years before it started flying - birds with their origin in the reptiles, bats with their origins in the rodents/mammals, and the insects - but all developed pretty much the same method of flight, quite separately.

It seems as if the basic recipe for success is human-shaped. Maybe not human-looking, but four limbs, two legs and a cranium.

 

[Danoff]

Alright Famine, riddle me this....

Why is it that aliens are always hairless? I suppose if it were a primate-like being that developed from something more like a lizard it could be hairless, but then I'd expect it to be cold-blooded and have scales instead of looking like a human with all of its skin removed and eyes stretched.

And what are the odds that such a creature could breathe our air?

 

[the Interceptor]

Alright Famine, riddle me this....

Why is it that aliens are always hairless? I suppose if it were a primate-like being that developed from something more like a lizard it could be hairless, but then I'd expect it to be cold-blooded and have scales instead of looking like a human with all of its skin removed and eyes stretched.

We developed from primates, which have hair all over as you know. Science says that humans won't have any hair in the future, simply because we don't need to anymore. So we're gonna be hairless many years in the future as well. The only reason we still have hair is that evolution takes its time.

 

[Famine]

Why is it that aliens are always hairless?

I've never seen one... I wouldn't know

And what are the odds that such a creature could breathe our air?

The odds of any alien creature being able to exist in our atmosphere are either nil or practically guaranteed. Nil if you assume that life can pretty much crop up anywhere, practically guaranteed if you assume that sentient, advanced life requires certain conditions (such as an Earthlike planet).

 

[Danoff]

We developed from primates, which have hair all over as you know. Science says that humans won't have any hair in the future, simply because we don't need to anymore. So we're gonna be hairless many years in the future as well. The only reason we still have hair is that evolution takes its time.

Except that we're not evolving anymore (not in any particular direction - such as hairless anyway). Evolution requires natural selection, and when practically the entire population is capable of finding mates and breeding, no natural selection is not occurring.

I've never seen one... I wouldn't know

Heh. Sure you have! You've seen them on the x-files, and in the movies, and even in this thread.

The odds of any alien creature being able to exist in our atmosphere are either nil or practically guaranteed. Nil if you assume that life can pretty much crop up anywhere, practically guaranteed if you assume that sentient, advanced life requires certain conditions (such as an Earthlike planet).

Even on our own planet the atmosphere has existed in varying concentrations of gasses. Life has evolved to fit the atmospheric composition. I imagine that there is very little chance the atmospheric conditions would be suitable for something that evolved on another planet.

 

[Venari]

Why is it that aliens are always hairless?

I've never seen one... I wouldn't know

Well, the last Klingon I met was pretty hirsute. No table manners, though, but he liked to party.

 

[Sureboss]

Even if someone had undeniable video proof of an 'alien', I'd like to see them prove that the animal comes from another planet. Would it be deemed to look like it comes from another planet, because it doesn't look like it's from earth? There are so many creatures on this planet that we haven't discovered.

There are so many creatures on this planet that many would deem as aliens.

Chances are, aliens exist. Chances are, they would never survive out atmosphere. Either breathing it, or slowing down coming through it.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

It's a tee shirt hanging on a line blowing in the wind by the window.

It looks like some form of the Punisher logo. There are so many variations on that particular logo.

 

[Famine]

Even on our own planet the atmosphere has existed in varying concentrations of gasses. Life has evolved to fit the atmospheric composition.

And vice versa - the atmosphere has evolved according the life using it.

I imagine that there is very little chance the atmospheric conditions would be suitable for something that evolved on another planet.

As I say, if you assume that life has fairly narrow requirements and sentient life has even narrower requirements and that life shapes the atmosphere, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that sentient life from other worlds might be able to breathe our atmosphere. We only really interact with 21% of our atmosphere - the rest of it is pretty inert for our needs - but we can tolerate up to 95% and down to 12% oxygen. That's quite a variance.

 

[the Interceptor]

Except that we're not evolving anymore (not in any particular direction - such as hairless anyway). Evolution requires natural selection, and when practically the entire population is capable of finding mates and breeding, no natural selection is not occurring.

That's correct, but natural selection is not the only way of evolution. We're constantly adapting to the changes of the world we live in, so over the generations, we are going to change. And if nature realises we don't need body hair anymore, we are going to get rid of it.

 

[Danoff]

That's correct, but natural selection is not the only way of evolution.

It's the only "natural" method of evolution. I mean, there is the hitler approach... but...

Unless people with body hair aren't reproducing, it isn't gonna happen.

As I say, if you assume that life has fairly narrow requirements and sentient life has even narrower requirements and that life shapes the atmosphere, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that sentient life from other worlds might be able to breathe our atmosphere. We only really interact with 21% of our atmosphere - the rest of it is pretty inert for our needs - but we can tolerate up to 95% and down to 12% oxygen. That's quite a variance.

That is pretty impressive. But there are a bunch of gasses that cause us problems, but which we likely could have evolved to not have problems with. Even given aliens from a planet with a 20% oxygen content, they may not be able to handle the nitrogen, or maybe they require something else (I'm a little out of my element when it comes to chemistry - and yes that was a pun). If their atmosphere was methane rich, perhaps they use that to get energy and would die without it. Of course, with a good mixture of methane and oxygen, I suppose there are other problems.

 

[Rykon Zero]

*boom*

 

[Famine]

Well, quite. That's pretty much the reasoning behind the original statement.

The odds of any alien creature being able to exist in our atmosphere are either nil or practically guaranteed. Nil if you assume that life can pretty much crop up anywhere, practically guaranteed if you assume that sentient, advanced life requires certain conditions (such as an Earthlike planet).

 

[Sage]

There’s also gravity and atmospheric pressure to worry about, as well as radiation.

If their atmosphere was methane rich, perhaps they use that to get energy and would die without it.

Are you trying to drive me crazy? Three mismatched tenses in one sentence!

 

[Jim Prower]

Don't you guys think that, if they have the transportation technology to GET here, that they'd have tech to protect themselves? We have our space suits; granted, the best they could do is probably let us walk around on Mars.

By the way, I must be going against this "hairless" thing, 'since if I had any more on my body...I could call it fur.

((Waits for the heads 'sploding from that one...))

 

[Danoff]

Are you trying to drive me crazy? Three mismatched tenses in one sentence!

And yet, for some reason, each tense makes sense to me.

Edit: Just checked with grammar queen wife who says that even though it sounds quite wrong, it may be correct.

Allow me to clarify my original sentence:

If their atmosphere [used to be] methane rich [when they departed their planet for Earth], perhaps they [currently] use [methane] to get energy and would die [were they to set foot on Earth without a spacesuit].

The odds of any alien creature being able to exist in our atmosphere are either nil or practically guaranteed. Nil if you assume that life can pretty much crop up anywhere, practically guaranteed if you assume that sentient, advanced life requires certain conditions (such as an Earthlike planet).

Do you see any reason to expect different atmospheric requirements for sentient life as opposed to non-sentient life of similar size and mobility?

 

[Sage]

Don't you guys think that, if they have the transportation technology to GET here, that they'd have tech to protect themselves?

Being able to travel in space for a specific period of time doesn’t necessitate the ability to live indefinitely on another planet. For example, if we were able to travel to Mars, that doesn’t mean that the astronauts could live out the rest of their lives on Mars. There’s a significant resource problem that you have to overcome.

And yet, for some reason, each tense makes sense to me.

It’s a hypothetical statement, so (I believe) the entire sentence should be written in subjunctive form. I.e., If their atmosphere had been methane rich, perhaps they would use that to get energy and would die without it.

 

[Pako]

I don't know... Another twist on this is that it seems the atmosphere we have was created specifically for the creatures breathing it. It was created with a purpose to sustain life. If that purpose is to also sustain life of Alien origins, then our atmosphere is probably adequate, otherwise it probably isn't....all this assuming alien life with interstellar travel ability.

 

[Sage]

Well, mostly you’re assuming that “life” needs ATP and works through glycolysis and all those pathways. There’s no magic bullet to water or oxygen – I bet that a very smart chemist or microbiologist (who could that be?) could, with some effort and a lot of time, hypothesize more than one simple chemical pathway to deliver chemical energy to a living, replicating organism.

Life as we now if is really just two things: the ability to take the energy stored in chemical bonds and use it, and the ability to replicate. I’ve already outlined here how simple it is for a replicator to naturally come into being (and using molecules beyond what we currently use), and as I just stated above, I bet people can come up with alternative pathways for delivering sustainable chemical energy.

 

[Famine]

Do you see any reason to expect different atmospheric requirements for sentient life as opposed to non-sentient life of similar size and mobility?

The problem is that we only have the one reference point.

We already know that life can stick its face up pretty much anywhere and tolerate pretty much anything - archaeabacteria can live in environments so toxic that a mouthful of it would kill us, and tardigrades can survive unprotected in space. We also know that there's big stuff on our planet which thrives in an atmosphere made entirely of liquid water and at massive pressure. But from our point of view, the smart stuff seems to be like us, as far back as the fossil record can see.

It's pretty much the reasoning behind our trying to find Earthlike extrasolar planets - we don't think that the intelligent life we seek can exist on non-Earthlike worlds (though we're pretty sure that life can). Earthlike isn't just small, rocky and the right distance away from a star, but also with an atmosphere containing at least water vapour. Though finding any extrasolar planets is a good thing, it's only the more Earthly ones that get the attention (and their own Wikipedia category)...

 

[the Interceptor]

It's the only "natural" method of evolution.

Then how about mutation?

Anyway, people are still evolving from generation to generation, it's just that natural selection only plays a minor role in it anymore. Evolution has just changed the way it works.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1043228620071210

 

[Danoff]

Then how about mutation?

Mutation only becomes evolution in the presence of natural selection. Human beings have pretty much eliminated natural selection as it pertains to their species, though it has only been dead for a hundred years or so (maybe 200, but I'm fuzzy on the history of medicine).

In short, in order for human beings to evolve into not having hair, people with lots of hair need to stop having babies. That's the only "natural" mechanism that I know of. Otherwise we'd have to genetically engineer it out.

Anyway, people are still evolving from generation to generation, it's just that natural selection only plays a minor role in it anymore. Evolution has just changed the way it works.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1043228620071210

That article is talking about timescales that dwarf modern medicine. Evolution may have been rampant 5000 years ago, even 1000 years ago. But modern medicine has largely eliminated it in the last hundred years or so.

But from our point of view, the smart stuff seems to be like us, as far back as the fossil record can see.

Dolphins?

I don't know... Another twist on this is that it seems the atmosphere we have was created specifically for the creatures breathing it.

If that were true then it was recreated for dinosaurs and then recreated again to eliminate dinosaurs and favor mammals. Unfortunately based on the fossil record (and geology) it appears as though life tracks atmospheric changes rather than the other way around.

It’s a hypothetical statement, so (I believe) the entire sentence should be written in subjunctive form. I.e., If their atmosphere had been methane rich, perhaps they would use that to get energy and would die without it.

Fair enough.

 

[Famine]

Dolphins?

Air-breathing. Also, four (pentadactyl at the front) limbs. Just clad in a shiny grey suit and with a penchant for swimming.

 

[Danoff]

Air-breathing. Also, four (pentadactyl at the front) limbs. Just clad in a shiny grey suit and with a penchant for swimming.

...and singing.

 

[Touring Mars]

Of course, with a good mixture of methane and oxygen, I suppose there are other problems.

Yes, perhaps we should ask CAMikaze about that

Another twist on this is that it seems the atmosphere we have was created specifically for the creatures breathing it.

Indeed it might seem that way, but nothing really could be further from the truth.

It's interesting to think that if a planet exactly like Earth (physically, anyway) were to suddenly appear at exactly the same distance away from the Sun and with an identical orbit to Earth, BUT it possessed no lifeforms, then human life would never arise on that planet...

What's more, even if Earth II had formed at the same time as Earth I 4.55 billion years ago, and both were the same as Earth I actually was back then, the first human to set foot on Earth II would probably have been Neil Armstrong (well, a human from Earth I, that is...). There is a simple yet mind-boggling concept that NASA scientist Mike Russell mentioned to me a few years back - he dubbed it "The Poker Law"... For any given planet, there are innumerable points in time where two (or more) possible outcomes are exactly as likely to occur as each other. As such, over time, you end up with a chain of events that is virtually impossible to reproduce - just as a sequence of coin-tosses might be. Hence Earth II, even given an identical start to Earth I, would probably look nothing like Earth I today, because these moments in time exist.