Can we make any educated guesses on what an Alien life form would look like?

Go you!

Environment influences genetics and in the case of intelligence, it isn’t an automatic advantage like bigger fangs are, you need to work at it. Surely you can recall times in high school when you found yourself about to be pummeled by the school bully and realized at that moment the fact that you were smarter than him wasn’t going to help at this point in time?

Sigh. I said that I phrased it poorly, you however, seem to have latched on to the idea that I was verging on saying something else. Now, let’s look at how this scenerio plays out if I continue with it.

1.) I stick to my guns about the matter, you continue to chase me around with a Bible calling me a liar, a thief and a coward.

2.) I say that I meant “low” compared to a humming bird, you will either accuse me of lying or berate me for comparing a primate species to a non-primate species.

3.) I say that I meant “low” compared to a sloth, and you will:
[ul]
[li]Accuse me of lying, or[/li][li]Berate me for comparing a non-primate species to a primate species, or[/li][li]Point out that this is wrong and pat yourself on the back for being cleverer than I am.[/ul][/li]
This is really like when Ford Prefect and Arthur have the discussion about the Garden of Eden and Ford says that when you’re dealing with someone who enjoys putting bricks under a hat, you’re screwed no matter what you do, so the best thing to do is not deal with that person. It seems to me, that aside from my botched phrasing of my statement, we’re really on the same page of the matter, but I doubt that you’d agree, and I really don’t have the time to hash this out until you see that I’m not trying to throw evolutionary theory out the window here.

I could be really snarky here and ask why the sudden switch to a third person and inquire if that did not mean that you were having someone else write this for you, but that’s a cheap debating tactic and I’m not really fond of those. I will plead guilty again to not being clear in my phrasing. What I mean was, “If a reptile could evolve intelligence and remain a reptile, we would see examples of it.” AFAIK, reptiles, despite being on this planet longer than we have, are still considered to be pretty dim.

Oh, I got it. The increase intelligence is not a goal of evolution, merely a “side effect” as it were. It “just happens” provided conditions are right (if conditions aren’t right, then the species goes extinct). At some point, however, greater intelligence becomes such an evolutionary advantage that it becomes the driving force in evolutionary change, rather than things like physical prowess or the best tail feather display.

True, but some things are of such a low probability as to not be bothered with. For example, it’s entirely possible that aliens will land, revive Marilyn Monroe and send her to my place to have sex with me today. The actual possibility of that happening, however, is pretty much zero.

Sigh, as I said, I phrased things poorly. I am not, in any way, trying to rewrite evolutionary biology. Whenever I have the time to fully hash the idea out, if it does not fit the established facts of evolutionary biology, I will toss it out. Believe that or not, I don’t care.

Eh, I don’t really care if I do or not.

Assuming, of course, a mod had read the posts in question.

Why don’t you just call me a “liar”? Why bother with the oblique phrasing? Frankly, you can call me anything you want it doesn’t matter to me.

Let’s see here, you’ve also said that you don’t have much time, and you’ve also said that if I didn’t provide cites to your satisfaction in my last post you were done with me and yet here you are. I really shouldn’t be spending the time that I am on this, and I certainly don’t have the time to go around digging up cites and lord knows that can turn into a “game” where one of us makes a claim which is a commonly recognized fact (like the sky being blue) and the other one cry “Cite!” I think I speak for both of us when I say I have more important things to do than that.

Okay, I plead guilty to being so imprecise in my thinking as to lump humans and neanderthals into the same broad general species category.

You know, my memory on the theory is a bit fuzzy at the moment as to what all happened. Did we start moving out on to the savannah after our brains began to grow or before? I don’t remember. In either case, would you not agree that there was a bit of a feedback loop in that as we took advantage of energy dense food because of our developing brains, this enabled our brains to develop more, so we were then able to make better use of energy dense food, thus allowing our brains to grow even larger?

“Known facts”? Unless I miss my guess, the only way it can be a “known fact” that human-like intelligence can exist in a non-bipedal species would be for us to encounter one. AFAIK, that hasn’t happened yet.

So you’re saying that it has been proven? Great! When and where?

So if I said to you I’d just created warp drive, you’d be completely wrong in asking me to prove it? :dubious:

I didn’t know I had any.

Okay, let’s see here, I mentioned a cite earlier which you failed to acknowledge (and let me quote it, just so we’re clear on eveything)

and you have cited

Off-line sources, and, quite frankly, I wouldn’t consider Science of Discworld to be any more valid than the fanwankery excuse filled The Physics of Star Trek, which does a lot of handwaving backed up by phrases like “while current theory says that this is impossible, it may turn out that it’s possible due to some as yet undiscovered principle” and now you want an on-line source? Meh. IAC, I’ll plead guilty to being stupid on that point. I really like Douglas Adams, and he certainly was an intelligent person and interested in things like the environment, biology, etc., but he’s no evolutionary biologist AFAIK, so just because he said that a slime mold could evolve intelligence doesn’t mean that one can.

So, you’re telling me that you’ve never posted something in GD that you thought would pretty much go unnoticed? Or that if it did get noticed it’d either be quickly dismissed or given mild acknowledgement? Because that’s really what I figured would happen, not that someone would latch on to every single word I posted and begin parsing them as if their very life depended upon finding a flaw in what I said.

Yeah, and when you’re a mod, I’ll do just that.

You have no idea who Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen are, do you? Or what *The Science of Discworld * is about, either. Comparing it to a Physics of Star Trek book is…ignorant.

Even though The Physics of Star Trek book has an introduction by Stephen Hawking?

Who cares who wrote the introduction - it’s a total non-sequitur. You’d have been better off pointing to the CV of Krauss, the author. Which was beside my point, anyway - you clearly thought that TSoD was about scientific explanations for the stuff in Pratchett’s books, similar to TPoST - a “what if” scenario writ large. You were wrong.
And the Discworld is Terry Pratchett, not Douglas Adams, BTW.

So you’re saying that Hawking would just write the introduction for anything with Star Trek in the title? While I don’t know Hawking personally, I’d be willing to bet that isn’t the case. If it is the case, then I think I’ll write a slash fic with Bones and Spock doing the nasty and get him to write the intro to it just for shits and giggles.

Which was originally what I was going for, but then I noticed that Hawking wrote the intro and figured I’d point that out.

Yeah, so? The Cartoon Guide to Physics by Larry Gonick tackles physics in a manner similar to how your Wiki link describes TSoD, but if I was wanting someone to take me seriously in an argument, I wouldn’t cite it as a source.

No kiddin’. Show me where I credited it to Adams. Blake brought up both Douglas Adams and Pratchett, if you’ll notice.

No, I’m saying that who writes the intro for a book has squat to do with the content. You came back to me referencing Cohen and Stewart with a reference to Hawking - when the former are the co-authors, and Hawking just wrote a blurb?

And yes, Hawking is a massive SF fan, I wouldn’t be surprised.

You were going for Argument from (Higher) Authority? Brave man.

Why not? Anyway, what you said was (my bolding):

which makes it quite clear you had no clue what SoTD was about.

Sorry, I must have missed that bit. All I had was the quote by you about SoTD and a mention of Adams without a mention of Pratchett, so I did 1+1 and got 3, it seems.

Should I point out that you’re implying a cripple would allow his name to be attached to just anything or that one of the brightest scientific minds of our times would do so? Hmm, decisions, decisions.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Again, I don’t think that too many scientists would find fault with what Gronick puts in his books, but if I were trying to be taken seriously in a discussion I wouldn’t cite it as an authorative work.

Yup, you did, as Blake brought up both, I merely responded to his comments.

This would be the same guy who appeared twice in The Simpsons. I don’t think his senses of humour or geekery are crippled.