# What are the odds an alien species would be similar to us physiologically **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 26, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-an-alien-species-would-be-similar-to-us-physiologically/708213 "2014-12-26T15:36:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2015, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-an-alien-species-would-be-similar-to-us-physiologically/708213/61 "2015-01-10T20:44:58Z")
> [@Gilgaflesh](#): > > I suggest you get some books on prehistoric living and read what it took for humans to survive against all odds… how adaptive they had to be to be able to get food from every possible source, how adaptive they had to be to physically adjust against any demands the environment put on them. The notion of a diet-restricted quadruped colossus (or even room sized creature) to accomplish anything close with a single sensitive tentacle which can lift objects by squishing its ends is madness… Hmm; I doubt this is correct. A species with a trunk that develops language and a sophisticated civilisation would have an entirely different developmental path to humans, so there is no reason to expect them to pass through every stage that humans did, any more than we would expect to pass through every stage that trunked sapients would. > [@](#): > > I can already envision elephants making spears with just a trunk. Carefully knapping spearpoints… with a trunk. Wrapping binding around the point and attaching it to a shaft… with a trunk. Throwing it without binocular vision… with their trunk. And they can’t even eat the meat of their prey! Obviously a herbivorous sapient would not need to kill prey animals. But they might desire to control the population of other animals, especially if they are in competition with them. Competition and co-operation between individuals in the herd is likely to be the most likely route to linguistic sophistication, so they could use the same strategies to eliminate competitors from other species as well. These hypothetical trunked sapients could start to use simple tools, such as primitive clubs or hammer stones, as part of their competitive behaviour. Or the trunked species might start to use tools to help them obtain food; elephants have tusks, as well as trunks, which they use in their feeding behaviour. > **[File:2010-kabini-tusker-bark.jpg](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010-kabini-tusker-bark.jpg)** A trunked species that does not develop tusks might develop tool use as a substitute for these useful implements. Over time these tool using creatures could evolve ever more dextrous trunks, just as apes became more dextrous over time. On our world the African elephant has evolved an extra digit compared to the Indian elephant. [![](https://funny-jokes.com/fun_pictures/elephant_trunk.jpg) ](https://funny-jokes.com/fun_pictures/elephant_trunk.jpg) a highly dextrous trunk could include numerous digits, and even branches. Assuming that the original ancestors had two nostrils, these paired nostrils could easily have a trunk each. > [@](#): > > Oh well at least they can sow clothing from the fur so they can expand their empire even further into cold regions! Sow clothing, with a trunk… I would expect a herbivorous sapient to use vegetable fibres rather than fur, although they might have a quantity of pelts available if they have eliminated a few other large animals from the environment. They could use their hypothetical dextrous trunks to fashion clothing from these pelts, assuming that their trunks are considerably more capable than those of their less dextrous ancestors, just as our hands are much more dextrous than those of the apes. > [@](#): > > No sorry, we are going to have to agree to disagree here. Frankly I think you are being overzealous in your belief that intelligence is the main limiting factor. Sure; on our world there are many species with quite considerable abstract intelligence, as the [quote] [Mirror test - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test)]mirror test seems to indicate. Most of these are handicapped by an absence of dextrous limbs. I tend to think that there are many worlds in the universe that hold such handicapped species, and these species will rarely develop civilisations; but give then an appendage, or two, or twelve, and the sky is the limit. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand why, perhaps you really like elephants. Perhaps you watched too many old scifi movies. I like them too, but solely for entertainment. If you know of any old sci-fi movies that include trunked sapient species, I’d be quite interested to hear about them. Most old sci-fi movies use humanoid aliens for a variety of fairly obvious reasons. > [@](#): > > Frankly if you took a human and chopped off one arm, removed the hand from the other arm, and left them with some bulges of muscle on the end that they can used to squeeze and hold light objects with, they aren’t going to be very good in the manual labour department. Let alone fine engineering. Now imagine genetically engineering a few thousand humans this way and tossing them back into the stone age… oh yeah and they are all strict vegans, aren’t capable of jumping or climbing or deep diving and have bad eyesight. Not that this matters match since they can’t look ahead of them anyway. Good luck with that. As has been pointed out, elephants are used for heavy lifting in some countries. But I think this is limiting the conditions to species which closely resemble elephants too closely. To state the case a little more clearly - there are no elephants on other worlds, so we need not limit our considerations to what elephants can or cannot do. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-an-alien-species-would-be-similar-to-us-physiologically/708213/62 "2015-01-10T20:46:22Z")
This generalisation can be expandedinto an astrobiological mantra, which I always like to trot out in threads like this. There are no elephants on other worlds outside the Earth. There may be organisms that vaguely resemble elephants, but when examined closely they will have some or many significant differences. There are no humans on other worlds outside the Earth. There may be organisms that vaguely resemble humans, but when examined closely they will have some or many significant differences. There are no mammals on other worlds outside the Earth. There may be organisms that resemble mammals, but when examined closely they will have some or many significant differences. There are no animals on other worlds outside the Earth; that is there are no members of the kingdom Animalia. There may be organisms that resemble members of the Earth kingdom Animalia, but when examined closely they will have some or many significant differences. When considering species on other worlds, we would do well to remember that each species will be entirely unrelated to life on Earth, and will have a completely different ancestry. Coupled to that is the fact that every planet will present a unique physical environment, we will be lucky to see even the most basic similarities between humanity and intelligent species on those worlds. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-an-alien-species-would-be-similar-to-us-physiologically/708213.md?page=3)