File :-(, x, )
Xenobiology/astrobiology Anonymous
Hey, I hope this is an alright topic to post here, I think you guys would be the best to go to. I'm looking for links, books, documentaries, concept artists, anything you can give me on the topic of Xenobiology/Astrobiology. The plausable animals that could exist on other worlds.
Skywhales, floaters, sinkers, that kind of stuff.

Most of the stuff I find is little tidbits here and there, and just kind of post-script to other, more broad topics, and I want to focus on this particular area of study to learn about.

Can you guys help me?
>> Anonymous
"Cosmos" by Carl Sagan has stuff about that. IIRC, the book has speculation about life inside a gas giant.
>> Anonymous
I'm interested in the very same field. One thing I found to be interesting is using various open source evolution programs and altering the source code to make interesting things.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>215243
OP here, could you direct me to some of those? I've been looking for those too, what are some of those programs called?
>> MiMi
>>215245

... *Peer* They're either tongues or genitalia, but I'm not sure which. Be interesting to get sauce on that pic, read about them.
>> Anonymous
>>215248
http://www.nemoramjet.com/snaiad.html

This guy makes his own world with it's own biology and puts it in the perspective of space-colonists. Pretty cool reading about the creatures.
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
I know what YOU want.
have an Unth.
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
And again.
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
Better yet, howbowt 2 of em?
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
Letsee here. . .
We have an Emperor Sea Strider
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
. . .Or what's left of one.

We also have a gulper and spadenose
>> MiMi
>>215255

How strange! And interesting. .. It really would be fascinating if these things existed. The genitalia is in what appears to us to be the 'head', and the schlong-looking things coming out of the chests are usually the heads.


... How odd. Would they look like they're making out, when they procreate? lol
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
>>215280
I'm disappointerated. . .I tried to access the art files, but I haven't figured it out yet.

Anyway, the critters I'm posting are all from the book "Expedition," by Wayne Barlowe. There was a Discovery Channel special called "Alien Planet" based on it.

Have a rimerunner, with icecrawlers.
>> Anonymous
You know I wonder. If we sent explorers to an alien world would we want to give them swords? Certainly they'd need some way to defend themselves and depending on how long their stay was bullets might start to be prohibitively heavy to bring a long.
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
A Keeled Slider
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
>>215283
I'd suggest a LONG, LONG surveillance, to figure out what made the ET's tick. Then maybe set up a camouflaged post, sort of like a duckblind. One thing, though. . .If the ET's were even semi-sentient, contact would be a NO NO.

Have a Prismalope and a Butchertree.
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
Rayback
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
And again, chasing a veldtwing.
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
Rugose Floater
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
A Springwing
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
Some Thornbacks being chased by an Arrowtongue
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
A littoralope
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
AND PHYNALLY:

The Northern Pronghead.
Enjoy!
>> Guodzilla
     File :-(, x)
Oops! Forgot one!

(Throws a bladderhorn into the thread)
>> Anonymous
I fucking LOVE Wayne Barlowe. Nice to see others know of him as well.

Also, the film Fantastic Planet contains a huge variety of exotic alien creatures. I recommend it.
>> Anonymous
>>215304
I own an original copy of Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestials :'D
>> Anonymous
>>215305
SCAN THAT SUCKER!
>> Anonymous
>>215305
I still own one
>> Anonymous
>>215306
I wish I had a scanner. There's some cool aliens in there. I've read the entire thing three or four times.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
screw skywhale, BIOBLIMP
>> Anonymous
>>215283
I would think tazers would be more prcatical, you could recharge the "ammo" with solar and it is less leathal to the native life.
>> Guodzilla
>>215328
That reminds me. . .Does ANYBODY know whether "Extraterrestrials" from National Geographic (Also known as "ALIEN WORLDS" from the BBC) has already or WILL EVER come out on DVD!??
It had really gnarly ET's like Skywhales, Gulphogs, Trackers, and stuff like that there.
>> Anonymous
>>215373
I'm sure it will eventually.

Also, yeah tasers make more sense.

I should offer that to TG though, for one of their silly "how I can have both guns and swords/axes in my RPG?"
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Are there any online communities for this topic?
Forums? Or a site that explains possible evolutionary convergence between planets?
It still seems difficult to find resources for this specific topic. :/
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>OP's pic
>> Anonymous
The lifeform concepts by Wayne Barlowe are complete shit and unrealistic in many ways, regardless where those beings would life.

Also his drawing-skills suck.

This has nothing to do with xenobiology or astrobiology it's like someone asked Salvadore Dali to draw extraterrestrial lifeforms.
Meh...
>> sage sage
>>215913
YOU do better, then.
OR, mention a better/more scientifically accurate artist then, genius.

(Friggen troll)
>> Anonymous
>>215913
1/10
Also Yves Tanguy would be more appropriate to draw an analogy for Barlowe's work.
>> Anonymous
I'm not a fucking troll, tell me what's good about those pictures then?
Do you think they are realistic or possible?
Hahaha, think again.
>>215917
Anyone who doesn't draw shit like that?
Like...realistic lifeforms that wouldn't crumble under the force of evolution the instant they would begin their existance anywhere in this universe?

Anyone who is able to think at least a bit logical would understand that those concepts could never work.

I mean, have you really looked at those things?>>215278
wtf

Allright, if you want creativity, go on, you can praise him as much as you want but this is so unrealistic.
I mean, what are those things on top of "the gulper"? wings? wtf.
And what's that "spadehead" next to it?
How and what would that thing eat? IT CAN'T.
Also: It has no fucking eyes! (NONE of his creations have eyes! Yes I know, eyes aren't actually needed for life to evolve but without eyes, nothing would evolve like THAT!)
And no, don't come with "it has other senses", then it wouldn't evolve into a four-legged dinosaur with a spade as a head. This is completely useless and impractical.


>>215282
What the FUCK is that!?
It has one leg and flies, also it has dinosaur-like skin and bone structure?
It doesn't have a mouth but something like gills although it's floating in mid-air? What does it feed from? Cosmic radiation?
Even if yes (which is complete shit) why would it have evolved into THAT!? As you can see, ironclad bugs sit on the ground next to it, it doesn't fit at all.

>>215286
Those things would crumble under their own weight, even if not (because of low gravity or whatever his idea behind that was) something like this wouldn't evolve, as it's just impractical (especially because you can see smaller life-forms).
>> Anonymous
>>215928
Also
>>215290
What the HELL is that? How do they float? Gas inside them? They have to be very light then. What do they feed from? They obviously have a mouth. If they are so extremely light that they can float although they are that big, how do they hunt? They can't move fast then!
Do they wait for something to fly into them? How can something like this evolve then? Hell no.

He based his concepts obviously on terrestrial lifeforms still he wants to use this concepts on other planets and fails miserably as none of these beings would be allowed to live by nature.
Also he must have a serious case of I-don't-like-eyes and I-love-narrow-heads syndrome.
Those things are randomly drawn freaks and most of them are not possible.

Some science-fiction painter who learned how to draw gone wild with these pics.
Those things are FANTASY. (I'm not having anything against him as an artist, I'm only talking about the impossibility of those creatures)

Go learn some biology (and other nature sciences) instead of calling me a troll or whatnot.
>> Anonymous
>>215928
>>215929
Dude.
That's a great wall of text you have there, but your point would have much more weight if you gave us an example of what DOES pass in your opinion.
>> Anonymous
>>215913
The concepts in Wayne Barlowes are just aliens from science fiction. It's not supposed to have anything that is "theoretically possible".
>> Anonymous
>>215950
I didn't know who Barlowe was until now.
I was just critizising his work regarding the topic of the thread:
>>I'm looking for links, books, documentaries, concept artists, anything you can give me on the topic of Xenobiology/Astrobiology. The PLAUSIBLE animals that could exist on other worlds.

He might be a decent painter of fantasy animals, but a single-legged velociraptor without ears and eyes, holes in its body, gills and a yellow thing (eye? "fishing rod"?) in front of its "head" is not very plausible.

Same with the three legged creatures.
Nature doesn't like body parts that you can't use in PAIRS or as a SINGLE organ. Three-legged/armed/eyed or whatever creatures are not very plausible, as it's not only impractical, it's also completely useless. It doesn't help with the "stability" and it won't help you becoming faster, it's just useless.

Also, if that's really a fishing rod thing (>>215282) like some deepsea fishes use.
Obviously all of his creatures use some kind of echolocation or pressure-sensors to find their prey (they don't have ears nor eyes) so you can't hunt by swinging a little candle around, they would see you anyway. And especially those moon-like "floaters" are just impossible!


And yes, I would design better creatures together with my friend, but non of us can draw as good as Barlowe.

Most of all I would invent eyes, ears (as that's what's easiest to evolve), legs, PROPER MOUTHES and a better body design to fit the environment for my creatures.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
As the floaters are the most implausible creatures imo (they lose matter? wtf. they are big and have such tiny mouthes? what do they eat? wtf!?) I will quickly write what I would design on such a planet.

We want a big creature that can fly.

1. The planet has low gravity. To float I obviously don't need much.
If I want to use gas: First of all I would become globular shaped and produce a bit lighter gas to fit in the upper center of my body. As every fucking thing on this planet has no eyes and and is strong as shit, I can't keep up with them, I need to become a vegetarian.
I would use 2-4 sticky tentacles to gather vegetables from the ground I fly across.
Because I'm vulnerable (I have to be light so I can fly, so I can't have too much armor) I need some kind of escape mechanism, best would be if I can escape aloft.
I would develope myself some kind of chute, so I can use it to press myself up into the if someone tries to reach me. This chute should also work in the other direction, low gravity could blow myself too far up.
Also, I should develope fins, so I can direct myself to my food.

Pic related as a possibility of a floating lifeform.
Of course that's only what I just came up with concerning "the floater", critique is allowed.
>> Anonymous
>>215959
Giant floating jellyfish attack! D:
>> Anonymous
>>215960
I said it was a vegetarian (a hueg liek xbox floating animal can't be a fucking predator), so it won't attack you, unless it considers you to be a fruit.
>> Anonymous
>>215962
That wasn't meant negative, I like your giant enemy jellyfish. ^^
>> Anonymous
>>215959
i think that thing would be dead the first time a predator develops flight
>> Anonymous
>>215963
Ah, also I wouldn't call it jellyfish.
It floats in the air with some kind of gas, it can't be made out of like 98% water like a jellyfish, it would dry out completely.
It's more like the skin of a bird or an octopus with a wax-like substance covering it.

It also needs a bit of a lotus-effect, so water can run off from it, otherwise if too much water drips on its "head" it would become too heavy.
>> Anonymous
>>215966
Yes, it would.
Like every other creature that's floating. ^^

You obviously don't understand.
Someone wanted me to develope better ideas than Barlowe and that is one.
It's the most plausible big floating creature on such a planet.

It can't be a predator itself.
It has to be able to flee (which is pretty hard if you FLOAT and are BIG) and if not somehow needs to prevent itself to be eaten.

That's why I designed it like this.

It can't be only a plant itself, it needs to consume other things.
It can use the substances it gathers to produce poison, so it would have a decent protection from predators. No one likes things that kill yourself when you eat them.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>215966
You rang?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
THESES XENOS MUST BE PURGED!!
>> Anonymous
>>215273

Great book. Bought it a few years ago. I've always been interested in this subject myself, I own some other alternative evolution books as well.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
It really freaks me out how often xenobio-artists create aliens with no eyes. And not just some bland-looking primitive aliens from lightless planets, but complex creatures with obvious bodily coloration living on brightly illuminated worlds with NO FUCKING EYES! How the hell do they reason something like that could ever evolve? This bugs me to no end.

Also, found this image in this gallery with some other xenobionts: http://www.elfwood.com/art/a/u/aumala/aumala.html
>> Anonymous
Try the 40k guide to aliens book scary shit
>> Anonymous
>>216042
I agree, Barlowe was mentioned in this thread. His creations are all not very plausible.

If you "believe" in nature sciences, there's no way you can assume SUCH things to exist. Maybe so of their body parts but not in those hilarious combinations.

But I wouldn't say the creature you posted is more plausbile either.
At least it HAS EYES AT ALL but those eyes stand in contradiction to the rest of its body.

Its eyes indicate a flight-type (not both eyes in the fron but left/right) but its hands and arms indicate a hunt- oder mixed-type.
To use his hands (thumbs, etc), which are obviously built to make use of tools, to pick up things, to grab for things, you would need a good view to your front.
This guy must have a terrible spatial awareness. He can't think of the things he grabs for in a suited 3D-perspective and the eye-position also indicate a blind spot directly in front of its face, which means he can't make use good of his four hands at all.

If he had such an eye-position, I would say that you should add 2 more eyes, so he either controls his hands one-eye-at-a-time or have two different 3D-perspectives at once.

Also I'd say that its head is too small. Concerning the fact that its eyes are located in the head, you need to assume that its brain is also contained in it.
To control four arms, two legs and two eye that need to cordinate those things, you would need some kind of a bigger central organ.
>> moop
dude, wat if ther is aliens on this rite now and they are getting information on how to camoflauge themselves to be very unobvios because the way we think they look and they are going to take over!!!!!
>> Anonymous
>>216059
Of what use were such informations?
Make them "unobvious"?
ANY lifeform we don't know would be attracting attention.

The only way to become "unobvious" is to look like something we know, like a human or dog or whatever.

But you don't need to study how humans think aliens look like to figure that out. >_>
>> Anonymous
>>216042
They could have crazy internal sense of some kind
>> Anonymous
>>216063
then their bodies were completely unuseful regarding their ability to sense things.

also: l2/biology/

How would something like such a thing as "crazy internal sensors" evolve?
Yes, it would be an extra that developed after other sensoric abilities such as light, receptors, smell or sound evolved first.

Even if they now use such "crazy internal sensors", you'd still see rudimentary leftovers of the privious organs.
Which those things have not. They don't have noses or ears or eyes.
Instead they have HOLES in their head. haha, oh wow.

Nature always uses the most practical evolvements to reproduce itself ("survival of the fittest").
Those things Barlowe drew are not very plausible in THIS universe, as we have some constants that are CONSTANT. Oo
>> Anonymous
>>216057
Just a weird random thought inspired by your rant: do cephalopods actually ever see anything with both eyes?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Just get SPORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Anonymous
>>215243


care to enlighten me on how to do such? i'm very interested!
>> Anonymous
Dunno if this is what the OP is after, but my favourite concepts of alien life come from Ian Banks.
In The Algebraist there are the Dwellers, large, generally good humoured intelligent floating blobs with multi-million year lifespans living in the atmospheres of gas giants.
Dwellers are great, but in Look to Windward, he comes up with something even better, Dirigible Behemothaurs, kilometres long collective lifeforms/ecosystems with "animal" and "plant" components in integrated consciousness, sort of like self-aware mini-Gaias. They live in huge, apparently artificial structures called Airspheres, and IIRC can mate and evolve into Gigalithine Globular Entities.
>> Anonymous
>>216073
I don't know much about cephalopods but I would say, yes, they do.
Why would they not?
>> Guodzilla
People, the artwork within this thread is IMAGINARY!!!! Think outside the box, for chrissake! There are OTHER worlds out there, and OTHER ways of solving problems A through Z. WHY do lifeforms on other worlds, TOTALLY INDEPENDENT of earth, HAVE NO CHOICE but to follow the SAME norms as terrestrial life?
>> Anonymous
>>216177
gb2/physics/
>> Anonymous
>>216177

Scientists now believe that given the right circumstances(IE a situation comparable to our own) Evolution would be predictable. Despite the creatures being noticebly different, the same niches are going to be filled.
>> Anonymous
>>216182
STFU & GTFO
Fucking troll.
>> Guodzilla
>>216189
Okay, but that's only if we want lifeforms which have evolved convergently with terrestrial lifeforms. There could be lifeforms just as alive as we are, which bear little, if any, resemblance to known lifeforms on earth. One reason for this would be base elements. One of the most fundamental base elements on earth is carbon. Every lifeform we've encountered on earth to date has been carbon-based, from the tallest trees and largest animals to the smallest microbes. However, another element which has strikingly similar molecular capabilities as carbon is silicon. With all of the billions of stars and perhaps trillions of planets, I think it's absurd to think that ONLY carbon lifeforms (with their associated chemical properties) could exist. What about silicate lifeforms? There's no predicting what THEY might look like.
>> Anonymous
>>216228
there's no prediction what they would look like but you can predict what their abilities are.
it doesn't matter what kind of substance they are based on, every life in this universe still needs to adapt to the same natural constances.
(light, gravity, sound, movement, electromagnetic fields, pressure and what else)
And evolutional constances: To reproduce you need to feed on something, either you only use chemicals around (which would be pretty retarded as you eat and eat until your whole race dies out because there's nothing left; nature would end such life pretty quickly if there's nothing to compensate for it), you need to eat others (natural selection = less choices in evolving your body) or you use light or warmth to recreate yourself.

and you:>>216224
stfu yourself, as he was right and you suck.

Life is predictable if you know the circumstances where it evolved.
Also: Most of the artwork in this thread is NOT plausible regardless of were it would have evolved.
>> Anonymous
Evolutionary constants, is this what I heard about Evolutionary Convergence? When nature finds a way to solve the same problem in different ways? This happens on earth, but what do you think about other planets with different environments?
We're all familiar with the 5 senses, but is it possible to have more specialized senses on other worlds? Organs for detecting to certain chemicals they need, maybe using different spectrums of light for different atmospheres?

It boggles my mind, I can't wrap my head around it. We have convergence here on earth, but is it the exact same convergence we'd find on other worlds? Or is it an entirely different set of rules with the same materials? Or maybe different materials (not carbon-based). Maybe we DON'T need water for life, so what if species didn't start evolving under water?
>> Anonymous
>>216189here

>>216228
I was thinking about a silicon based biosphere earlier today, actually.

At the bottom of the food chain, we have autotrophic "plants". While terrestrial plants take in carbon dioxide gas to release oxygen, Silicon plants act more like corals or fungi. Attaching to Silicon dioxide solids that have been stock piled in the soil over millions of years through various means. Also like terrestrial plants, they release oxygen(after digesting the silicon using a solvent, of course)


Silicon Animals breath the oxygen released by the silicon plants, but constantly excrete silicon dioxide "pellets" as a waste product formed during the respiration process. They of course get nourishment from eating the plants.


Yeah, it's crap I know, but I like to write about this type of stuff.
>> Anonymous
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/boron-based_life.html

I'd like to draw attention to this site. It says "lol no" for almost everything, but it's quite informative.
>> Anonymous
>>216166
I'm pretty sure most cephalopods lack stereoscopic vision. Squids have their eyes on the sides of their he... bodies. An octopus might be able to look forwards with both eyes, since it's so flexible, but cuttlefish don't seem much better in this respect than squids.

Also, parrots have the same eye arrangement as most birds, and have to twist their head to see something with their both eyes. Dunno about crows. Anyhow, the point is that stereoscopic vision helps if you're going to become sapient, but I don't think it's a necessity for it to evolve, and most definitely it's not just going to miraculously evolve in a bat of an eye when a near-sapient takes the neurological leap to sapience.

Never assume that all things must have the same abilities as you just because they are somewhat similiar. Nature works with whatever it has been given.
>> Anonymous
>>216074
September 7, 2008
I'm not looking forward to this wait.
>> Anonymous
would aliens have DNA? If they did, it's reasonable to assume they have the same kind of living conditions that we do. So I think they wouldn't actually look very different.
>> Anonymous
>>216376
Different from what? Nautiluses, spiders, manta rays, humans and rhubarbs have DNA, and they all look very different from each other.
>> Anonymous
>>216367
You misunderstood me.
I understand the term "to see with both eyes at the same time" as...seeing with both eyes at the same time. "Seeing with both eyes" doesn't mean you see the same thing with both eyes. As in...you are not able to see 3D images.
You are just repeating what has allready been said in this post:>>216057
and are only supporting it with what you have said, so I don't know how you want to critique it.

I think you didn't understand the point.
Of course different and unknown abilities can evolve, still they can't be completely unplausible, like most in this thread. And evolution always works logical, things who evolved although they are contradictory to other abilities or which are inpractical go extinct.
Nature doesn't like freaks it lets them be eaten. :)
>> Anonymous
>>216381

different from the things on earth you shit
>> Anonymous
>>216426
Well, your English isn't exaclty very easy to follow. How can something with two eyes not see with both eyes, unless one of them is closed, or blind? What is the point of stating that someone sees with both eyes if not to refer to something it sees with both eyes at the same time, or at separate times? You are confusing me. What IS your big argument here?

I was saying that a lot of creatures that grasp and manipulate things with their manipulatory organs (be they tentacles, arms, legs or beak) lack 3D-vision because their eyes face to the sides, not to the front. 3D vision generally only evolves to predators mainly relying on vision, or arboreal animals that do a lot of jumping from tree to tree. It is not an adaptation to sapience.
>> Anonymous
>>216438
I'm sorry, I don't speak English very often.

"What is the point of stating that someone sees with both eyes if not to refer to something it sees with both eyes at the same time"

Because you can see defferent with two eyes.
Either you see with both of them at the same time or you additionaly see the same things with them.

Humans for example see with woth eyes in the same direction, seeing similar things with both eyes, this allows them to see 3D images.

If you just "see" with both eyes but in different directions, like a horse (pic related), you are able to see more but you are not able to make complicated use of your hands.
You have a blind spot directly in front of you (the point were you put your hands together) and you have no 3D vision (you need a crossed view for something like that).
Experiment: Close one of your eyes and try do handle little things with your hands directly in front of you, it will undoubtedly become more difficult.
>> Anonymous
>>216471
The point is, nature would never evolve something like this>>216042.
Because it is impractical.

For this you first have to understand how hand-eye coordnation works. This concept is impractical.
The alien on that pic has hands who are built for complex movements (they have a thumb, a hand plate and long fingers) which need a 3D-view to be useful.

Things like cephalopods or whatever do not need this for they don't work with tools, need to grasp something to work with it or what else.
Have you seen how a cephalopod uses its tentacles?
It "jumps" on it's prey and is entangling it or it uses the tentacles to touch things randomly to be aware of its sorroundings.

>>It is not an adaptation to sapience.

No one said that, I don't know what you are getting at here.
I think you don't quite realize why things "evolve". Things evolve to allow the most practical use of the body in regard to its environment.
Mutations occur "randomly" and gets specialized in a complicated process of interaction with nature.

Those hands are built for usage of complicated movements, actions and tools. The eyes are suited for a animal the flees from predators and doesn't need to coordinate complex movements that rely on eye-view like grasping PRECISELY.
Those too abilities doesn't fit together. Esepcially not because it has four of them that eem to be able for such movements, taht have to be coordinated by towo fleeing-type eyes.
Like I said, nature doesn't like such evolutions and it would die out pretty quickly as its life is...difficult.
You can't assume something like this would evolve without a certain competition regardin its survival. ;)

Life could be built like that through genetic engineering but we are talking about evolution of life not about experimental freaks.
The abilities and body parts could evolve on their own but wouldn't be concentrated in such a combination.
>> Anonymous
>>216472
Uhh, are you retarded or something? That thing is not manipulating tools. In fact it's not manipulating anything. It just stands there, looking stupid. And as you pointed out, it can't be sapient since it has no space for a big brain in such a small head. So why are you insisting?

Thumbs make animals sapient? Well, I have news for you: koalas have two thumbs but that doesn't make them double-sapient. In fact they are among the dumbest lumps of fur on this planet. Birds have grasping feet. Pandas have grasping hands. Giant ground sloths had grasping hand-thingies. Chalicotheres had grasping arms. None of those are/were sapient or use(d) tools, and most of them don't even have 3d vision. It seems like you decided that the alien HAS to be sapient tool-user because it happens to be bipedal and its arms can be used to grasp stuff. Well, I can come up with an alternative explanation for those arms: they are for moving food into its mouth, which it obviously cannot move closer to its food, since it's located in its chest. That requires neither sapience nor perfect eye-arm coordination. Hell, it doesn't even require vision.

As for life producing things that are logical, I think you need to read some more about human anatomy. We are full of sub-standard "design" as a result of our evolutionary ancestry. Most of our anatomy is actually horribly impractical compared to a lot of other species. It makes no sense to assume that alien lifeforms would be any better.
>> Anonymous
>>215239

Back to the OP's topic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I

Ever since seeing this incident I've thought that it's possible for biology to exist in space, or at least planetary orbit. The UFO's in this video and other videos of the same incident seem to behave like moths swarming to a lamp.
>> Anonymous
I think we should archive it as the first archived thread of Animals & Nature.
>> Anonymous
>>216228

Silicon does have some similar capabilites as carbon, but silicon would not form the same kind of organic molecules carbon forms almost spontaneously, thus silicon life is not very likely. Silicon is much more abundant on Earth than carbon, still carbon based life was what evolved and no trace of silicon based life has ever been seen. It would be very hard to imagine silicon based life as structures such as proteins, lipids, etc. would not be able to exist with silicon instead of carbon.
>> Guodzilla
>>216597
(sigh) Well, I guess the thing I'm griping about is when people think of "extraterrestrials," they almost automatically fall into the "Star Trek" trap: eg, green skin, pointy ears, horns or extra (fingers, eyes, etc.) but all essentially humanoid. One really good book I've read is the book "extraterrestrial life," (Or some title like that), illustrated by Adolf Schaller. He proposes the idea that life can possibly exist in MYRIAD different biological setups, from hypergravitational earthlike planets, to gas giants, to even interstellar nebulae. He does it without the pointy ears, green skin, etc.
An earthtype planet need not have a sapient race which is humanoid. . .A race could evolve with tentacles that have a cartilage core, or some kind of exoskeleton, or whatever.
I just had an idea. If you want to see something about REAL extraterrestrial-type organisms, research the Precambrian Age on earth. There was liquid water, and some very strange lifeforms, with an atmosphere similar to (but MUCH cooler than) that of Venus. The earliest lifeforms were reefbuilding microbes called "stromatolites," which came into being when the earth was "only" 1 1/2 billion years old (There may very likely have been earlier lifeforms, but they left no fossils as we know them). Then came the Vendian and Ediacaran ages, with some WEIRDASS critters, some of which blow sci-fi out of the water.
>> Guodzilla
The book was "extraterrestrials: A Field Guide for Earthlings," by Adolf Schaller.
>> Anonymous
The Bible says God created Heaven and the Earth and doesnt mention aliens so any aliens that do exist were creations of Satan so there's no reason we should study them because it would lead our souls toward temptation instead of "xenobiology" spend some time reading God's Word and pray to Jesus.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>216769

Lolwut
>> Anonymous
>>216769
Troll. I hope
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
why hello thar...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>216580
Requested, we have 4 total requests, we need 1 more for auto-archival.
>> A
Er, how do I make the request?
>> Anonymous
get idea, the big ass floaty thing doesnt need to flee from preditors because

ITS POSINOUS!!!!!

bam there it doesnt need that crazy ass chute anymore =D
>> Anonymous
>>216797
go to 4chanarchive, go into request interface, and put in 215239 for the thread ID
>> Anonymous
>>216471
uh no wokring with one eye is just as easy as working with 2 eyes the field of vision is smaller
>> Nagi
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~dbensen/Spec/Index.html

Slightly similar concept to>>215255, except instead of speculating what life on another planet is like, it speculates what life on this planet would be like had the non-avian dinosaurs not gone extinct.
>> Anonymous
>>216482
>> In fact it's not manipulating anything. It just stands there, looking stupid

Are YOU retarded or something?
I'm not the guy you were responding to, but you need to read something or learn about biology.
You have to look at that picture and then interprete. I guess you don't have any scientific education? Or like to think about how things work when you see them?
Your way of thinking might be good in general but the way on how you think this works is stupid.

Your comment was just so dumb.
What the hell? The way you responded to the text is irritating. No one said that thumbs make you sapient, where did you read that? Oo
Your comment just confuses me to no end, what do you want to talk about if you don't even like to think or know about how those things work?
Why do I have to explain to you what some guy wrote in the first place? He's right and you call him retarded?

Yeah, you know...that's not a "thing" on that picture, like you said, that's colored light that your monitor emits and forms a picture in your head. /sarcasm (if you didn't get that either)

I'm SO confused right now. You tell him to read something about anatomy and has no idea what he's are talking about and drag him down to your level? Hey, guess what: The things you are talking about weren't even mentioned the way you are responding to them.
Where the hell did you read that someone said hands = sapient? WHERE!?

Wow...
Sometimes I just want to...
facepalm.jpg


And you:
>>216944
Did you even get the point?
How do you interprete those things in the text you just read?
WHERE did he mention "working with one eye is harder than with two"?

lol oh wow. What IS this thread? Are you serious?

That was one of the few actually good posts in here and you try to disprove him with arguments that have nothing to do with what it said?
Are you retarded?
>> Anonymous
>>217408
Haha, oh wow! I'm not sure if you just got trolled of if you ARE a troll.
>> linth
>>217419
He got trolled and feeds it.
This thread is full of nerds who think their gay-coloured fantasy-animals could actually be reality. At least reality (some day) will prove them wrong.

I was keeping quite, for I know where this discussion always leads with people who never worked with evolution, logic and possibilities.
It is sad as this thread is alive for so long now and the topic interests me, still I don't like to contribute to this shit.

Here's my opinion about this thread:
It doesn't matter how you discuss this here in this forum, the trolls think creativity is a synonym for possibility or evolution.
Seriously, those bullshit-aliens are just born from such ideas that get/got spammed all over the media like "nature is full of impossible designs", "nature creates things you might never think of" or "evolution is random and full of creative ideas". That may be true on one hand...but not on the other one (the one the trolls are misinterpreting into it).

Don't exxagerate evolution, prease.
The only thing people want from this thread is a contest on who can make up the most fucked up creature.
But hey: Barlowe is not a FANTASY author for no reason. So why destroy the illusion of the possibility behind it? Those creatures are pretty creative, they use known characteristics paired in impossible combinations. It IS art after all. I liked to do this in Kindergarten, we had cards were we could exchange the head/body/legs of animals, it was fun.
>> Anonymous
>>217427
>this discussion always leads with people who never worked with evolution, logic and possibilities.

OP here, the reason I made this topic is so I could learn whats possible and what isn't. I want to create my own creatures, but within the limits of nature, I wanted to learn about different kinds of life and what-could-be.
Thats why I requested books and documentaries and that kind of stuff, but sofar it's been some good information here and there, and back-n-forth bickering.

Forget the trolls, I still think there's hope for good resources here, I'm really enjoying
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~dbensen/Spec/Index.html from>>217397
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>217443
>>http://www.bowdoin.edu/~dbensen/Spec/Index.html

This thing deserves its' own thread. Baleen squid FTW!!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>217457
hah, I agree, I found those particularily interesting
>> Anonymous
PURGE THE UNCLEAN !!!!!!!!!!