Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Here's the thing with that, Talon: Tyranids share the same traits that Taffy ascribed to humanoids.

An extra pair of arms and a natural suit of armour does not negate the fact that Tyranids have long legs for running fast, arms for wrestling, thumbs for holding (even if they are often bio-bonded to weapons), tall posture and forward-facing eyes for finding prey and locating threats.

Even the pseudo-quadrupedal Gaunts are fully capable of 'meerkatting', and the Ravener's standard posture is raised up on its tail to look around.

Yeah, I suppose... So all that we're saying is that tyranids and humanoids share some similar characteristics, not that humanoid is specifically the best form. After all, things like Arachinds from Starship troopers are routinely described as the "apex predator" - althought the fact that they often lack civilisation and stuff leads to their defeat, either through HFY-style antics (Ender's game much?) or superior weaponry invented by species that use their brains for other things than just killing (stuff like inventing things and researching why the universe works the way it works).

In the real world, it could be argued that while humans are the greatest killers, they're probably not the best predators: things like lions, killer whales or crocodiles could be called the greatest predators.

Except we've predatored them to near-extinction so... not so much.

 Talon of Anathrax wrote:
Yeah, I suppose... So all that we're saying is that tyranids and humanoids share some similar characteristics, not that humanoid is specifically the best form. After all, things like Arachinds from Starship troopers are routinely described as the "apex predator" - althought the fact that they often lack civilisation and stuff leads to their defeat, either through HFY-style antics (Ender's game much?) or superior weaponry invented by species that use their brains for other things than just killing (stuff like inventing things and researching why the universe works the way it works).

In the real world, it could be argued that while humans are the greatest killers, they're probably not the best predators: things like lions, killer whales or crocodiles could be called the greatest predators.

Actually, I'm more saying that Tyranids are basically humanoid.

Bro. I can go out and buy crocodile shoes. A crocodile would have to pray to his reptile gods for a stupid human to take a dip in it's waters if it wanted to kill a human. We're not the apex predators. We're the rulers of the planet.

 urbanknight4 wrote:
We're the rulers of the planet.

Said the Llama.

Sorry, but the avatar's face. I just.

But yeah, we're able to outwit pretty much anything on a 1:1 scale, with the right circumstances (i.e, proper physical condition, and it's not arena-style combat), and in our free time we build things that make us better at /whatever/.

 Selym wrote:

 urbanknight4 wrote:
We're the rulers of the planet.

Said the Llama.

Sorry, but the avatar's face. I just.

But yeah, we're able to outwit pretty much anything on a 1:1 scale, with the right circumstances (i.e, proper physical condition, and it's not arena-style combat), and in our free time we build things that make us better at /whatever/.

Kuzco is love, Kuzco is life. Since he and Empy are Emperors, I also conveniently avoid heresy!

While Tyranids individually are very humanoid, as a species they're more like a virus, infecting, devouring, adapting and moving on to a new host/planet.

At the end of the day things like virus's are probably the real top predators.

But that's a completely different subject.

Viruses are not alive, ergo they're not in the running for the top predator pageant. Sorry, virus. The application form clearly says "living being".

 urbanknight4 wrote:
Viruses are not alive, ergo they're not in the running for the top predator pageant. Sorry, virus. The application form clearly says "living being".

You won't be saying that when they replace us all!

Define predator and living? While not predators or living in the conventional sense they still do both things as well as, if not better than anything else in existence.

Because its easier to design and identify with humanoid creatures. Also if your sculptors are used to designing humans then its easier to make different hands and head compared to making a whole new body and legs too. Also concepts like Armour and guns translate a lot easier when a creature is humonoid

Taffy17 wrote:

 urbanknight4 wrote:
Viruses are not alive, ergo they're not in the running for the top predator pageant. Sorry, virus. The application form clearly says "living being".

You won't be saying that when they replace us all!

Define predator and living? While not predators or living in the conventional sense they still do both things as well as, if not better than anything else in existence.

Well, a predator is a being that seeks to consume or use it's prey. This implies at least some intelligence. Viruses... these blokes really only want to make more viruses. Thats really it. They have no minds, no thoughts, no indication that they live. They're basically little nanobots that make more nanos with your cells.

 urbanknight4 wrote:

Taffy17 wrote:

 urbanknight4 wrote:
Viruses are not alive, ergo they're not in the running for the top predator pageant. Sorry, virus. The application form clearly says "living being".

You won't be saying that when they replace us all!
Define predator and living? While not predators or living in the conventional sense they still do both things as well as, if not better than anything else in existence.

Well, a predator is a being that seeks to consume or use it's prey. This implies at least some intelligence. Viruses... these blokes really only want to make more viruses. Thats really it. They have no minds, no thoughts, no indication that they live. They're basically little nanobots that make more nanos with your cells.

You're right, they don't knowingly do anything, but they do have the same basic instincts (if you can call them that) of feeding, reproducing and finding shelter, and they do all those things better than anything else. So although they don't qualify for the top predator pageant i'd say they do it better.

Taffy17 wrote:

 urbanknight4 wrote:

Taffy17 wrote:

 urbanknight4 wrote:
Viruses are not alive, ergo they're not in the running for the top predator pageant. Sorry, virus. The application form clearly says "living being".

You won't be saying that when they replace us all!
Define predator and living? While not predators or living in the conventional sense they still do both things as well as, if not better than anything else in existence.

Well, a predator is a being that seeks to consume or use it's prey. This implies at least some intelligence. Viruses... these blokes really only want to make more viruses. Thats really it. They have no minds, no thoughts, no indication that they live. They're basically little nanobots that make more nanos with your cells.

You're right, they don't knowingly do anything, but they do have the same basic instincts (if you can call them that) of feeding, reproducing and finding shelter, and they do all those things better than anything else. So although they don't qualify for the top predator pageant i'd say they do it better.

They can still run for the top deadliest thing pageant. I wouldn't like viruses to feel left out.

 Talon of Anathrax wrote:
In the real world, it could be argued that while humans are the greatest killers, they're probably not the best predators: things like lions, killer whales or crocodiles could be called the greatest predators.

I think if you're going to play fair, you need to consider animals in the niche that they are adapted for. You mention lions and killer whales, but a lion would be a pretty rubbish predator in the ocean, and a killer whale on land would be even more sorry. Humans are the same, if you deprive them of their tools and information then you will expose a weakness, which large predators (like the ones you mentioned) might be able to exploit. But that doesn't make lions better. In the real world, humans are the by far the greatest predator the world has ever seen, bar none. Humans are able to hunt anything, anywhere, any time, and they are so effective at it that many species just can't cope and go extinct. Survival adaptations that took millions of years to evolve, are sometimes thwarted by humans in mere minutes. There has never been anything like that before on Earth, and other animals certainly weren't ready for it. The term super-predator is probably more apt. Don't let the lack of claws fool you, humans are deadly.

As for humanoid aliens, I think that is one of the things that has always bugged me about science fiction. Even when writers try to make creatures more "Alien" they often end up just being a bit more slimy and disproportionate. I even considered writing my own science fiction to correct this, but I quickly realised that writers face a deeper problem than lack of imagination: stories which are written for humans, kind of need to be relatable to humans. And that might require some "translation". A good analogy would be spoken language. For example: when I watch the movie Gladiator, or even read a 40k novel, for some strange reason all the characters speak English... Now I know that they wouldn't really speak English, the author has taken some artistic licence and translated the story in order to make it accessible. When a story is about other people that's usually all the help we need, but if the story is about something very alien, which might not only have a very different language, but also different gestures, different biological needs, different emotions, different senses, different in the way it experiences reality and attributes importance to things. With something like that we need much more translation in order to make the trials and tribulations of this creature understandable. So now when I see humanoid aliens, I try not to dwell on it too much, for the same reason I don't dwell on why everyone in movies speaks English. It's not so much because that's how it is, it's because that's how we need it to be to make the most sense of it.

If we want to talk about real reasons why an alien race would be humanoid, then I imagine it is extremely unlikely that organisms would evolve that way independently. Even with convergent evolution, things like eyes and heads and legs have only really evolved in the animal kingdom. While fish and dolphins seem quite unrelated... compared to plants and fungus they would be very closely related: both are vertebrates, both share a common ancestor that had a skull, eyes, a hinged jaw, ribs etc... Many of their common features are actually due to inheritance, which might make it more likely that they would converge. Jellyfish, which are slightly more distant, have adopted a very different shape for swimming.

Alien life would be so drastically unrelated that even if we did encounter an organism that superficially corresponded to an "animal" (motile etc...), it might not even have what we would strictly term as DNA. So who knows how it might evolve. It would be quite a coincidence if it had any familiar structures at all, like a mouth or a head. Let alone share an entire body plan with us.

 Smacks wrote:
As for humanoid aliens, I think that is one of the things that has always bugged me about science fiction. Even when writers try to make creatures more "Alien" they often end up just being a bit more slimy and disproportionate. I even considered writing my own science fiction to correct this, but I quickly realised that writers face a deeper problem than lack of imagination: stories which are written for humans, kind of need to be relatable to humans. And that might require some "translation". A good analogy would be spoken language. For example: when I watch the movie Gladiator, or even read a 40k novel, for some strange reason all the characters speak English...

Considering that people often complain that male writers can't write convincing female characters and vice versa it should be no surprise that even fewer writers can manage convincing aliens without somehow making them "human" for the readers.

English, yes. But you can use it so it feels different if you put some thought in it. That's one of the things I really noted with pleasure in the Spartacus TV series - the Romans and others often speak their English lines differently than we'd say those things today. It's not "thank you" but instead "gratitude", for example. And they often leave out some small words when making statements, which also add to the feeling that it's not English but another language at times.

Thats a fair point Spetulhu. A good way to make aliens more alien would be to change how they speak. One interesting example is the Elcor in mass effect. Who communicate in a flat monotone voice and between each other use things like smell and pheremones to express feeling. They cant do that so prefix statements with the human emotions assocated with them.

For example

"Elated, thank you for your help"

Mass Effect has always been quite clever with languages, from the Rachni's psychic song to that one Japanese woman on Noveria whose grammar is stilted because she's using an autotranslator.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Mass Effect has always been quite clever with languages, from the Rachni's psychic song to that one Japanese woman on Noveria whose grammar is stilted because she's using an autotranslator.

And yet, they mostly speak English with a Canadian dialect.

That's an artifact from the previous Reaper Invasion, which was mitigated by an event known only as "The Shatner Effect".

Spetulhu wrote:
English, yes. But you can use it so it feels different if you put some thought in it.

Well language was just an analogy, the point being that for non-verbal communication, such as attractiveness, or body language, the character needs a body that we can relate to. So humanoid aliens could in a sense be thought of as a translation.

When Aliens don't have that, they become sort of uninteresting. For example: even tyranids are alien enough that there isn't any fiction from their point of view. They are stuck being rather one dimensional baddies, even having special characters is difficult. That doesn't mean that they don't have a point of view, it's just not really one that we can understand, in the same we wouldn't understand some alien language (it would just be senseless noise). Translating the language into English helps us understand what is being said, and translating bodies to be humanoid helps us understand what is not being said.

I think creators do try to make aliens "different" to an extent, admittedly some try harder than others (all star trek aliens having a different bone in their forehead wasn't the most creative example). But I think most are still a far cry from what a truly alien lifeform would be like.

Psychic imprint.

Spehss Majikz.

Signet-Powers wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Mass Effect has always been quite clever with languages, from the Rachni's psychic song to that one Japanese woman on Noveria whose grammar is stilted because she's using an autotranslator.

And yet, they mostly speak English with a Canadian dialect.

Well, yes, because that's what Shepherd's translator is set to translate to - because the Systems Alliance Navy is based out of Vancouver!

 zombiekila707 wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Evolution is false.

LOL greatest post ever! Been to Galapagos saw evolution first hand really eye opening experience recommend all people to go there...

I got a genetics degree, and almost all of the stuff to do with evolution is bollocks - it is definitely MOSTLY false - and heavily cherry picked, and certainly "unprovable" (what I mean by that is not only that you cannot "prove" it you can actively "disprove" it by looking at all the available evidence)

evolution does not explain, in fact, pretty much PROHIBITS there being any occurrences of

- the Cambrian explosion
- the occurrence of speciation *at all* in non geographically isolated species (READ: almost all birds, fish and rain forest animals - where you have the most bio-diversity - should not "suffer" speciation at the rate they obviously do)
- the low incidence of ring species in those areas with the massive speciation
- the RNA world hypothesis
(I could easily go on)

in fact even richard dawkins, who is a tosser, but wrote tonnes of books for the man in the street to get whipped up over, thinks aliens in the most likely scenario

http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm

David berlinkski is the best sceptic on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

ConanMan wrote:

 zombiekila707 wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Evolution is false.

LOL greatest post ever! Been to Galapagos saw evolution first hand really eye opening experience recommend all people to go there...

I got a genetics degree, and almost all of the stuff to do with evolution is bollocks - it is definitely MOSTLY false - and heavily cherry picked, and certainly "unprovable" (what I mean by that is not only that you cannot "prove" it you can actively "disprove" it by looking at all the available evidence)

evolution does not explain, in fact, pretty much PROHIBITS there being any occurrences of

- the Cambrian explosion
- the occurrence of speciation *at all* in non geographically isolated species (READ: almost all birds, fish and rain forest animals - where you have the most bio-diversity - should not "suffer" speciation at the rate they obviously do)
- the low incidence of ring species in those areas with the massive speciation
- the RNA world hypothesis
(I could easily go on)

in fact even richard dawkins, who is a tosser, but wrote tonnes of books for the man in the street to get whipped up over, thinks aliens in the most likely scenario

http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm

David berlinkski is the best sceptic on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

One of the first lines is this

Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an “intriguing possibility”

So its quite clear he doesn't think its the most likely option at all according to the link you posted.

Berlinkski has little scientific evidence to back up his claims and works for a think tank trying to further the clearly not scientific theory of intelligent design.

All that said arguments about the scientific evidence for Evolution. (Which is very solid to say the least) are not really on topic to the OP's original question and should probably be a new topic in the off topic section.

 carlos13th wrote:
[
Berlinkski has little scientific evidence to back up his claims and works for a think tank trying to further the clearly not scientific theory of intelligent design.

All that said arguments about the scientific evidence for Evolution. (Which is very solid to say the least) are not really on topic to the OP's original question and should probably be a new topic in the off topic section.

I agree to differ: berlinski has nothing but strong evidence. And it really is preposterous that you should just make in one breath a caret blanche statement about something simply "not solid at all" but calling it "very solid", then in the second breath attempt to close the subject. But then why not offer reason and logic and provide some basic argument for those double breaths? (Because you didn't!).

As to this thread "going OT": Read up these posts 90% of them are about evolution being a causative factor. I am here tell you 90% of posters: you look for yourself it is not a "evolution denial" issue. I assure you.

in fact, in my experience, the only people who seriously believe "evolution is even likely" are obligate believers before the fact: i.e. they like the theory because of a pre disposed world view that it suits - I find no-one (not one) person who as a broader world view admitting the plausibility as even rational. (i.e. you can take religious reasons, ur aliens lovers, all of them or whatever but they provide a pluralistic framework and guess what the struggle to build a world view around evolution's tenability and are as such, rather than deserving scorn, are not "obligate non believers" in evolution the best mind to scrutinise it's worth?)

ConanMan wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
[
Berlinkski has little scientific evidence to back up his claims and works for a think tank trying to further the clearly not scientific theory of intelligent design.

All that said arguments about the scientific evidence for Evolution. (Which is very solid to say the least) are not really on topic to the OP's original question and should probably be a new topic in the off topic section.

I agree to differ: berlinski has nothing but strong evidence. And it really is preposterous that you should just make in one breath a caret blanche statement about something simply "not solid at all" but calling it "very solid", then in the second breath attempt to close the subject. But then why not offer reason and logic and provide some basic argument for those double breaths? (Because you didn't!).

As to this thread "going OT": Read up these posts 90% of them are about evolution being a causative factor. I am here tell you 90% of posters: you look for yourself it is not a "evolution denial" issue. I assure you.

in fact, in my experience, the only people who seriously believe "evolution is even likely" are obligate believers before the fact: i.e. they like the theory because of a pre disposed world view that it suits - I find no-one (not one) person who as a broader world view admitting the plausibility as even rational. (i.e. you can take religious reasons, ur aliens lovers, all of them or whatever but they provide a pluralistic framework and guess what the struggle to build a world view around evolution's tenability and are as such, rather than deserving scorn, are not "obligate non believers" in evolution the best mind to scrutinise it's worth?)

If you're not gonna praise the Emperor or state that humanity's the best body type because we're perfect predators then get off this thread

ConanMan wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
[
Berlinkski has little scientific evidence to back up his claims and works for a think tank trying to further the clearly not scientific theory of intelligent design.

All that said arguments about the scientific evidence for Evolution. (Which is very solid to say the least) are not really on topic to the OP's original question and should probably be a new topic in the off topic section.

I agree to differ: berlinski has nothing but strong evidence. And it really is preposterous that you should just make in one breath a caret blanche statement about something simply "not solid at all" but calling it "very solid", then in the second breath attempt to close the subject. But then why not offer reason and logic and provide some basic argument for those double breaths? (Because you didn't!).

As to this thread "going OT": Read up these posts 90% of them are about evolution being a causative factor. I am here tell you 90% of posters: you look for yourself it is not a "evolution denial" issue. I assure you.

in fact, in my experience, the only people who seriously believe "evolution is even likely" are obligate believers before the fact: i.e. they like the theory because of a pre disposed world view that it suits - I find no-one (not one) person who as a broader world view admitting the plausibility as even rational. (i.e. you can take religious reasons, ur aliens lovers, all of them or whatever but they provide a pluralistic framework and guess what the struggle to build a world view around evolution's tenability and are as such, rather than deserving scorn, are not "obligate non believers" in evolution the best mind to scrutinise it's worth?)

Feel free to say evolution would cause humanoid creatures to be common or to say that a mysterious designer within the world of 40k seeded or created races within 40k and that's why so many are humanoid etc etc. But arguments about the evidence for (or in your opinion the lack of evidence) are not really relevant to the subject in question. Within 40k intelligent design certainly exists for example I believe the Orks were a designed race. As far as I am aware evolution is also a thing within 40k so if either exists on our reality is largely irrelevant to the conversation.

The majority of biologists agree that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet so I find it highly unlikely odd that you think the only people who believe it is even possible is biased people who just believe what ever the feel they have to believe before the looking at the evidence.

Either way feel free to post a topic on evolution with arguments about why you feel its not true the only people who believe it are biased and ignoring what you feel is overwhelming evidence against it but I am not sure this thread is the right place for that.

 carlos13th wrote:

Berlinkski has little scientific evidence to back up his claims and works for a think tank trying to further the clearly not scientific theory of intelligent design.

All that said arguments about the scientific evidence for Evolution. (Which is very solid to say the least) are not really on topic to the OP's original question and should probably be a new topic in the off topic section.

Surprised it took so long between someone mentioning evolution to a denialist popping up. Seems most dakkanites use some sort of evidence based worldview.

Kind of surprised we have not had more 40k background experts chipping in.

ConanMan wrote:
David berlinkski is the best sceptic on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

His comment about dogs is bordering on delusional. Dogs show an incredible amount of diversity and specialisation.


The fact is, if these two animals were found next to each other in the fossil record, they would unquestionably be classed as different species by biologists. Interestingly, most dog breeds, including great Danes and yorkies, were bred within the last ~200 years, and they certainly have a common ancestor within a few thousand years. So we know that in a few thousand years, selection pressure can create an incredible amount of variety. We see it everywhere in domestic plants and animals, even in domestic pests, such as house mice.

If all that is possible within a few thousand years, then it seems fairly obtuse to claim that speciation occurring naturally is "unlikely", given over three billion years and trillions upon trillions of organisms to work on. At those odds, even ten million to one shots become practical certainties, so the word "unlikely" really takes on a whole new meaning.

ConanMan wrote:
- the Cambrian explosion

Something that "may or may not" have happened over 500 million years ago, being a bit of a mystery, is hardly surprising. It certainly doesn't disprove evolution.

ConanMan wrote:
I find no-one (not one) person who as a broader world view admitting the plausibility as even rational.

A person with "a broader world view"? Is that kind of like "a true Scotsman"?

ConanMan wrote:
are not "obligate non believers" in evolution the best mind to scrutinise it's worth?)

No, a critical and rational mind is the best mind to scrutinise scientific theories. Obligate non believers are, by definition, irrational crackpots. That would be like saying flat Earthers are the best minds to scrutinise general relativity. We know the Earth is round, we have seen the photos, we've got working GPS, I have personally been to the southern hemisphere and can confirm that all the stars and the moon appear upside-down. Flat earthers are just irrational idiots who won't listen to reason, and evolution denialists are exactly the same calibre of idiot.