#24452: Jenn — 05/09  at  08:29 PM
Cool! Oh, you mean -those- aliens. Bah.

#24453: — 05/09  at  08:35 PM
Do these CGI Aliens pass through the design filter?

#24454: — 05/09  at  08:57 PM
Silly...a bunch of chimeras...obviously designed...no common ancestry...with a little luck Barlowe can start a religion. It has lowered my opinion of many of the "consultants".

#24455: PZ Myers — 05/09  at  09:03 PM
The alien artwork clearly relies on vertebrate models, that's for sure.

#24457: Andrew A. Gill — 05/09  at  09:40 PM
Looks like the sort of thing you'd expect to find in the <a href="http://130.132.81.124/VOYNICHIMG/size4/D0023/1006224.jpg">Voynich Manuscript</a>

#24458: — 05/09  at  09:55 PM
Very poorly designed those imagined Alien animals. No imagination. All simple and sexless. The forces pushing evolution in our planet seem to be absent in Alien Planet - no sexual selection leading to brilliantly coloured feasants or chattering apes, no co-evolution of two or more species like the graceful gazelle and the beautiful leopard, no social animals like termites, etc. Metaphorically speaking, their Master Designer has much to learn from "our" Jehovah.

#24459: — 05/09  at  09:57 PM
" The alien artwork clearly relies on vertebrate models, that's for sure."

But with mismatched anatomical elements PZ. The kind of things that look individually designed. I would have hoped on a planet named Darwin that obvious signs of common descent would be illustrated.

#24460: — 05/09  at  10:50 PM
OGeorge, I'm not sure what "obvious signs of common descent" you'd like to see, but having read Expedition, I think I understand where Barlowe was coming from. His book (IMHO) is a story about the importance of biological diversity, rather than a pro-evolution lesson. This makes sense for an artist: it's more interesting for the book to portray as many different creatures as possible, as opposed to examples of common descent, co-evolution, sexual selection, etc. In other words, it's more of an art book than a science book. And that makes me wonder where exactly Discovery is going with this tv show of theirs. Maybe I should get cable....

#24463: — 05/09  at  11:39 PM
The forms look too random to me. If there is any selection at work surely it would constrain those wandering curves and sharp angles a little more (I mean look at the Bladderhorn).

I guess the avoidance of hair and feathers is a deliberate attempt to make them look more alien, but in a way they just end up looking like weird reptiles. In my opinion the only way to do effective aliens is to concieve of an original type of coating that makes them visualy distinct from reptiles, mammals and birds.

I like the Unth though.

#24464: — 05/09  at  11:58 PM
Roadtripper said: "OGeorge, I'm not sure what "obvious signs of common descent" you'd like to see,..." ANY obvious sign. On our planet common descent IS absolutely obvious. That’s what makes sense to this artist. I have no problem with Barlowe's art, and I’d have no objection to the show if it were on the SciFi channel. But he’s called the planet Darwin and it’s on Discover. I probably do expect too much.

Yes, I do expect too much. It's a TV show, probably better than most, and it's easier to find fault than do something constructive. It'll be fun.

#24466: John Wilkins — 05/10  at  12:29 AM
They look like parts of terrestrial animals put together by H. R. Giger for no reason other than they look cool.

http://www.hrgiger.com/alien.htm

But Jack Horner's definition of life was pretty good - there's the usual definition in terms of metabolism and reproduction, but then he says, of life on earth, "anything more closely related to me than to a rock". That's not half bad...

#24467: — 05/10  at  12:33 AM
hmm, interesting. A while back PZ and I argued on usenet about the range of expected shapes of technological xenomorphs (eg that had mastered the smelting of metals w/o outside help).

I rejected the assertion that we have no information on this and thus the distribution of technological xenomorphs should be random and/or that the humanoid form should be rare in this population; I argued that the successful sample would not be random and that the most common xenomorph that had mastered smelting metals *could very well likely* be humanoid in body plan, for some simple reasons:

1) Humanoids on earth were the first AFAWK to master smelting, that's good for something, we have one known trial (the Earth) and the humanoid form finished first by a long ways

2) Aquatic species are going to have a hard time mastering fire, a necessity

3) brainsize appears important, so vertebrates have the advantage over exoskeleton creatures wrt body scaling

4) I also argued that our greek root for technology is /hand/, and that grasping appendages may indeed have some deep influence on the development of intelligence, and clearly influence/encourage the development of metalcraft and smelting.

I recall rejecting the Gouldian argument wrt contingency and argued that form follows function and function is universal regardless of developmental contigencies.

I think in the end my argument was defeated more or less by the null hypothesis that everything is random and that there is no pattern to anything, but that wasn't a satisfactory outcome to me.

I wonder what you guys think of this; I am correct in thinking the humanoid form, far from being unexpected to be replicated via independant trials among the stars (looking at all the separate examples of aliens with self-developed technology), could actually be well-represented, ie that our humanoid body plan could very well incorporate form(s) that has/have overcome gating conditions wrt the development of technology?

I'd argue that just because we /can/ imagine wacky forms doesn't mean our own form doesn't literally incorporate a lot of inherent self-logic wrt form following function.

#24468: — 05/10  at  12:45 AM
Are you guys kidding me? Barlowe's DarwinIV creations are awesome. Screw the DC's gallery, Go to Barlowe's own website and find under the projects heading a much more impressive gallery of the creatures from this show. They are much more than weird reptile/mammal/bird wannabies. As for an original type of coating, how's biolights for original? Go to his web site. With that said, I still wholy expect the DC to fuck this up.

#24472: — 05/10  at  01:56 AM

the successful sample would not be random and that the most common xenomorph that had mastered smelting metals *could very well likely* be humanoid in body plan

As Dawkins observed, re-runs of evolution tend to produce similar results: the wolf and the Tasmanian devil are similar, eyes with lenses were developed several times, etc. Therefore, I agree with Troy. Technological aliens may be similar to us. Poor devils.

Regarding Aliens not showing a common descent, the fact that we here are all based on DNA chemistry does not eliminate "diversity" in other environments. The question is if the best chemical machine of Darwin eliminated ab ovo all the other chemical machines, as was probably the case on Earth, or several chemistries developed paralelly without actually meeting and competing for the same source of energy.

Isnt it funny that the Designer of those Aliens is much less accomplished than old Jehovah? We could set up a Creation consulting business.

#24474: — 05/10  at  05:20 AM

Technological aliens may be similar to us.

Depends what you mean by similar. Close enough to pass for human? Probably not, not even with Hollywood levels of prosthetics and make-up. Homiform aliens look likely to me (though I could be biased), i.e. with two legs and two arms, more or less the same length, and a sensory cluster on top, with the brain nearby. Endo-skeletal, almost certainly. But there is room for so much variation even with those limits, that on meeting an ET, I feel that there would be no doubt in one's mind that one was facing an alien; there would be almost certainly be some detail that would be entirely strange to earthly eyes.

And there's always the chance that some small feature that survived the ET's version of the Cambrian could make a profound difference to the development of the present-day ET.

Isnt it funny that the Designer of those Aliens is much less accomplished than old Slaartibartfast?

Corrected your spelling.

#24475: — 05/10  at  05:47 AM
Depends what you mean by similar

Like what some UFO witnesses here on earth have reported...:

I feel that there would be no doubt in one's mind that one was facing an alien; there would be almost certainly be some detail that would be entirely strange to earthly eyes.

Sure. The topic came up in arguing with UFO skeptics that witness reports of 'humanoid' aliens here on earth were less believable <b>because</b> the description was so relatively close to humanoid, as opposed to some random assemblage of body parts like 3 arms or what have you. I just found this logic to be unsupportable, and if anything I think if science as anything to say on this witness reports describing vaguely (but not exactly) humanlike creatures would be <b>more</b> believable, not less, for the reasons I stated above.

#24478: — 05/10  at  06:06 AM
Hmm, I tend to agree with the skeptics on that particular example, Troy. That is not only close to human, but also close to whatever human archetype is expressed by anime. Grey skin, big eyes and no nose hardly counts as alien to my eyes.

And, I have to say, even if the humanoid form is indeed the optimal form for tool-using intelligences, that wouldn't preclude less-optimal forms (centauroids, squidoids, whatever) from existing.

#24481: Alon Levy — 05/10  at  06:24 AM
I agree with the view expressed here that the aliens don't look credible. Why are there no arthropods, squid, motile plants, nitrogen-based creatures, or even dolphins?

By the way, while we're on the subject of xenobiology, should I buy Mission to Gravity?

#24484: — 05/10  at  06:37 AM
I think there's a law stating Michio Kaku has to appear in anything "sciencey." Apparently "string theorists" have a lot of free time.

#24485: — 05/10  at  06:43 AM
And there's always the chance that some small feature that survived the ET's version of the Cambrian could make a profound difference to the development of the present-day ET.

I tend to think the surviving body plans emerged victorious from the ur suppe for good (universal) reasons and that contingency at this proto-animal stage is overblown. Plus the intervening 400M-odd years of evolution getting to the first known bipedal animal forms with higher EQ would seem to winnow out any macroscopic differences.

This reminds me where the argument went on usenet:

Nobody, but nobody, is claiming that evolution is deterministic. Here's John Maynard Smith's comment on Gould:
In Gould's "replay from the Cambrian" experiment, I would
predict that many animals would evolve eyes, because eyes have
in fact evolved many times, in many kinds of animal. I would
bet that some would evolve powered flight, because flight has
evolved four times, in two different phyla; but I would not
be certain, because animals might never get out on the land.
But I agree with Gould that one could not predict which phyla
would survive and inherit the earth.

I was simply stunned by JMS's quoted statement in bold, that animals might never get out of the ocean on such a (seemingly) benign planet as the Earth. Taking 100, 200, 500M years, sure, but "never"???

#24486: — 05/10  at  06:50 AM
but also close to whatever human archetype is expressed by anime. Grey skin, big eyes and no nose hardly counts as alien to my eyes.

Reports of strongly humanoid aliens predate modern anime by a decade or three.

The common ancestor between homo sapiens and the most developed bipedal dinosaurs (which IMV could easily evolve into the xenomorph resembling that picture) doesn't look anything like anime, so "convergent evolution" arguments wrt technological aliens apply IMV.

And, I have to say, even if the humanoid form is indeed the optimal form for tool-using intelligences, that wouldn't preclude less-optimal forms (centauroids, squidoids, whatever) from existing.

Sure, I just wouldn't expect them smelting metals or piloting their own spaceships. Something of a threadjack I admit.

#24489: — 05/10  at  07:23 AM
Mission of Gravity is a classic, which is to say it was a great influence on the xenobiology and alien environments of the next generation of SF writers. And the characterisation, as I recall, was a little paper-thin. So you may find yourself reading it and thinking, "So what's the big deal?"

But if you can put yourself in the mind of an SF reader of fifty years ago, I think it's worth a read.

#24490: — 05/10  at  07:26 AM

And, I have to say, even if the humanoid form is indeed the optimal form for tool-using intelligences, that wouldn't preclude less-optimal forms (centauroids, squidoids, whatever) from existing.

Yes, that would certainly preclude others fighting for the same niche from existing. Vide our cousin the Neanderthal and the long list of humanoid creatures that somehow didnt make it.

Troy, you made me realize that since witness reports of UFO encounters and kidnappings are so similar, it may in fact a point in favour of their authenticity. Most describe humanoids with an interest in female anatomy and fertilization. It was thought that these descriptions showed mass hysteria, but maybe the Aliens look like us and are sex crazy as H. sapiens is.

#24492: UrsulaV — 05/10  at  07:34 AM
I'd encourage people NOT to look at a couple of preview images on the TV website and thereby assume that Barlowe must know nothing of common descent--I mean, if I picked five drawings of life on our planet, and chose a mushroom, a horseshoe crab, a shark, a giraffe, and a barrel cactus, based on "what are the best drawings of the bunch" (as a designer of websites would be likely to do) and seeing only some vague similarities in terms of bilateral symmetry for a couple of 'em, one might conclude that there was no common descent obvious on the planet earth.

Barlowe's book "Expedition" is really quite enjoyable. The critters look weird and freaky, sure--but I didn't find it totally random. He's one of the few artists I can think of who work hard to show alien life as potentially purely, truly alien, not the Star Trek "slap some makeup on people" model. Obviously a lot of it's neccessarily made up out of whole cloth--an artist can't exactly check their work against all those other aliens we've found--but I'd just urge people not to dismiss the guy's body of work as unworthy because of the Discovery channel's selection of concept sketches.

Now, finding them incredibly UGLY is another matter...*grin*

#24494: — 05/10  at  07:35 AM
Jaimito:

"As Dawkins observed, re-runs of evolution tend to produce similar results: the wolf and the Tasmanian devil are similar"

I hate to be pedantic, but you mean the Tasmanian wolf, aka the thylacine, _Thylacinus cynocephalus_. The Tasmanian devil is the short, black badger-wolverine-y guy, aka _Sarcophilus harrisi_.

FWIW.