# How do we know we're the first sentient species on earth?



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

*not aliens damnit, what I meant is a species evolving on earth and later being wiped out*
You know this is interesting question, how do we know we're the first sapient species on the earth?
Obviously there's no such thing as mole men or such, but what long ago there was a species wiped out in a extinction or such?  Obviously when the moon was created nothing could have survived from before then, who's to say there wasn't something that existed on the earth before then?
Who's to say we couldn't go the way of the dinosaurs?


----------



## GldnClaw (Dec 3, 2011)

we don't know. Depending on one's belief, there could be a wide variety of reasons. In My opinion, I think the earth itself is pretty old.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

GldnClaw said:


> we don't know. Depending on one's belief, there could be a wide variety of reasons. In My opinion, I think the earth itself is pretty old.


Not to mention the earth was originally covered with a crap ton of water before a micro planet crashed into it and over time what rocks didn't fall out of orbit became the moon, back before that happened it could've been teeming with tons of life.


----------



## Namba (Dec 3, 2011)

This is just me, but I believe in a fairly young earth. Interesting thought, but I think it's extremely unlikely.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Obviously buildings and such wouldn't be fossilized or anything, cause buildings don't fossilize.



Think about this for a minute. Even wood and hides can be preserved almost indefinitely in the right conditions, and any intelligent species is going to also use materials far sturdier than wood and hides.

What you're really imagining here is an alien race with essentially godlike power such that its existence is unknowable.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 3, 2011)

What's your definition of sentience? If I may ask.

Also, I would think that some artificial structures would be fossilised as well. I mean, if soft bodied animals and footprints can be fossilised, why not buildings and tools?


----------



## Gr8fulFox (Dec 3, 2011)

Because we're alive and they're dead.


----------



## Namba (Dec 3, 2011)

Honestly if we were to dig up that shit, it would completely change my perspective... But like Onnes said, creationism versus evolution aside, being able to hide any existence of another race would be a tremendous feat.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Radio Viewer said:


> What's your definition of sentience? If I may ask.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sentience


----------



## Kaamos (Dec 3, 2011)

I doubt it, there'd be evidence, shit just doesn't magically disappear, especially entire civilizations or intelligent species. 

NO WAIT, aliens did it. _Ancient _Aliens.


----------



## Swiftz (Dec 3, 2011)

The universe iz really old... like really really REALLY old, so there iz no possible way we are the first intelligent species to arise in the universe. Possibly on earth but no the universe...


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Think about this for a minute. Even wood and hides can be preserved almost indefinitely in the right conditions, and any intelligent species is going to also use materials far sturdier than wood and hides.
> 
> What you're really imagining here is an alien race with essentially godlike power such that its existence is unknowable.


If they existed before the creation of the moon every last trace would be destroyed in a matter of days.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 3, 2011)

We absolutely would find preserved remnants of structures, tools, etc.  And any sentient species can be expected to create such, because intelligence is evolutionarily useless without the capacity to create and use tools and structures.  Really, CF, do you think before you post?


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Lobar said:


> We absolutely would find preserved remnants of structures, tools, etc.  And any sentient species can be expected to create such, because intelligence is evolutionarily useless without the capacity to create and use tools and structures.  Really, CF, do you think before you post?


As I said, what about before the creation of the moon though?
Not much would survive a entire dwarf planet crashing down.


----------



## Zydala (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sentience



There's like seven philosophical definitions to the word 'sentience'; google doesn't cut it. I think it's fair to ask how you're applying it, i.e. Eastern philosophies recognize nonhumans as having 'sentience' while most Western philosophy doesn't. So which are you saying?


----------



## Onnes (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> If they existed before the creation of the moon every last trace would be destroyed in a matter of days.



But to travel to Earth at that time would require extraordinarily advanced technology, the impact of which would be large. Then they would have either had to pack up and leave or carefully disintegrate themselves. Far better to go with the parsimonious conclusion that aliens haven't been here.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sentience


Yes that tells me nothing about what you believe.

If I go by "sentience is the ability to feel, perceive and be concious, or have subjective experiences". Then almost all creatures with some central nervous system is sentient.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 3, 2011)

Lack of evidence, general unlikeness. 

It would take some serious turboevolution to inb4 known fossil records with intelligent life.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Onnes said:


> But to travel to Earth at that time would require extraordinarily advanced technology, the impact of which would be large. Then they would have either had to either pack up and leave or carefully disintegrate themselves. Far better to go with the parsimonious conclusion that aliens haven't been here.


Not aliens, what I've been saying is what if a sentient species evolved on earth and was whipped out during the creation of the moon?


Radio Viewer said:


> Yes that tells me nothing about *what you believe*.


And I damn well keep it that way.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Dec 3, 2011)

Knew who the thread author is before I even clicked.

Sentient and intelligent species aren't very effective for describing what you want them to. An ancient civilization before we even began to evolve into what we are that built shit.
Honestly I wouldn't think so. The fact anything even evolved into sentience is pretty incredible to me, given the complexity of out bodies and whatnot. The likelyhood of that having happened is just incredibly slim. I know the history of the planet is pretty damn long, but I really really doubt this could have happened.

Unless mummies and mayans count. I think they're from before dinosaurs right??


----------



## GldnClaw (Dec 3, 2011)

Maybe God just recycled an old planet and decided to put us on it.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Dec 3, 2011)

By your definition, no I don`t think we were the first to become sentient on this planet. 

The first to utilize technology to this degree perhaps, but no the first to become sentient.


----------



## Onnes (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Not aliens, what I've been saying is what if a sentient species evolved on earth and was whipped out during the creation of the moon?



The Moon came about only some 40 million years after the Earth did. The chance of anything being able to survive on the Earth that soon after its formation is negligible, let alone actually evolve intelligence.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Hateful Bitch said:


> Knew who the thread author is before I even clicked.
> 
> Sentient and intelligent species aren't very effective for describing what you want them to. An ancient civilization before we even began to evolve into what we are that built shit.
> Honestly I wouldn't think so. The fact anything even evolved into sentience is pretty incredible to me, given the complexity of out bodies and whatnot. The likelyhood of that having happened is just incredibly slim. I know the history of the planet is pretty damn long, but I really really doubt this could have happened.
> ...


Not really, from a biological standpoint it's close enough to function.  Are bodies aren't even meant to last 70 years, it's just with the advancement of civilization and advancements in medical technology and such we're able to live that long.


----------



## Zydala (Dec 3, 2011)

Some thoughts:

- The 'living creatures before the mooooon" thing shouldn't actually work out because there wouldn't have been any species that progressed far enough. Earth got it's moon about 4.5 billion years ago, and self-replicating molecules happened 500 million years _after_ that.

- if we're going with the 'sentience = ability to react within emotional capacity' definition, it's been proven that crows have the ability to hold grudges and plan coordinated attacks on enemies up to two weeks in advance. That's pretty much sentience right there which means that there's probably been plenty of sentient creatures on the earth that have never had an evolutionary need to create civilization, which will leave no fossilized evidence. Soooooo there's the exciting answer.

- not having your definition of 'sentient' doesn't help much in this conversation OP


----------



## Fay V (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sentience


you should save dick moves for when you actually understand the words you're using. 
Sentience is actually applied to a large number of species around the world, usually when something is conscious and is able to feel the term is applied. This makes your thread seem like the most obvious question/answer ever. 

Sapience is the word you're looking for if you want to mean a species that expressly has the concept of reason and the ability to apply thoughtful judgment to a situation. 

As for buildings not "fossilizing", we have fossilized trees...heck one of the more basic dwellings are that of rock, something which is prefossilized you might say.

Just a note on the body part as well, there's a decent bit of evidence to show that people could actually live to a rather old age (70s or so) if they made it past childhood deaths and stuff, it's mostly elements or starvation that killed people. The life expectancy went down when people started to live closer together and had open sewers. It went back up with things like covered sewer systems.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Dec 3, 2011)

What Fay said. There were creatures capable of intelligence and emotion well before us, though perhaps not to the same degree.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Not really, from a biological standpoint it's close enough to function.  Are bodies aren't even meant to last 70 years, it's just with the advancement of civilization and advancements in medical technology and such we're able to live that long.


Why is it that I find myself not being able to take you seriously at all.
Oh yeah because you're, like, wrong??? Duh!! I am going to tell Delatrice about this she will FLIP.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Dec 3, 2011)

We don't know. But so far I haven't seen really ancient ruins, rock paintings or signs of civilication before humans


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Hateful Bitch said:


> Why is it that I find myself not being able to take you seriously at all.
> Oh yeah because you're, like, wrong??? Duh!! I am going to tell Delatrice about this she will FLIP.


What I was getting at is that biological complexity doesn't dictate intelligence.


Zydala said:


> - if we're going with the 'sentience = ability to react within emotional capacity' definition, it's been proven that crows have the ability to hold grudges and plan coordinated attacks on enemies up to two weeks in advance. That's pretty much sentience right there which means that there's probably been plenty of sentient creatures on the earth that have never had an evolutionary need to create civilization, which will leave no fossilized evidence. Soooooo there's the exciting answer.
> 
> - not having your definition of 'sentient' doesn't help much in this conversation OP


I've heard about these crows, anybody know the name for the species?


Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> We don't know. But so far I haven't  seen really ancient ruins, rock paintings or signs of civilication  before humans


Could you imagine the reaction by people if that was to happen?


----------



## Fay V (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What I was getting at is that biological complexity doesn't dictate intelligence.
> 
> I've heard about these crows, anybody know the name for the species?



Do you actually have anything to back that up besides a wrong point of fact? From a biological stand point humans aren't meant to last past 120 years, 70 isn't so bad. It's outside factors which cause very low life expectancies. 

_Corvus brachyrhynchos, American crows. _Actually I believe ravens, magpies, and jackdaws have all demonstrated in lab tests that they have empathy.


----------



## Deo (Dec 3, 2011)

Well look at this.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Could you imagine the reaction by people if that was to happen?


I'm pretty sure if we found an ancient underground civilization we'd just leave it for bandits and the dragonborn to plunder for the riches hidden within.


----------



## morphology (Dec 3, 2011)

I only consider a species sentient if they have developed crappy reality TV shows. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Do you actually have anything to back that up besides a wrong point of fact? From a biological stand point humans aren't meant to last past 120 years, 70 isn't so bad. It's outside factors which cause very low life expectancies.
> 
> _Corvus brachyrhynchos, American crows. _Actually I believe ravens, magpies, and jackdaws have all demonstrated in lab tests that they have empathy.


Technically speaking there's no way to measure biological complexity, cause if you go by how long something's genome is well we're out of luck cause even a potato has a longer genome.

What I was getting at is just what you said about our lifespan, preaching to the choir there.


morphology said:


> I only consider a species sentient if they have developed crappy reality TV shows. :V


Well if they made it they're sapient, but those that watched it weren't[/sarcasm]


Deo said:


> Well look at this.


I'm not talking about aliens, you might as well be calling dinosaurs aliens or trees aliens.
I'd make a obvious joke about people here, but then that'd be setting up for a scientology joke.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Technically speaking there's no way to measure biological complexity, cause if you go by how long something's genome is well we're out of luck cause even a potato has a longer genome.
> 
> What I was getting at is just what you said about our lifespan, preaching to the choir there.
> 
> ...



you could always have a look at the variations of phenotypes, or the number of cells, variety of cells, etc. I could make the claim I am more complex than a fish based on the fact that fish don't have certain kinds of nerve. 
You could also have a look at the actual functions it's creating. Going back purely to genes is fairly asinine. Look for instance at the human brain. The human brain is fairly one of a kind considering the absolutely massive frontal lobe. This generally houses the parts of our brain which facilitate the higher level thinking that we associate with sapience. 
We can look at a rabbit brain and recognize that it is less complex it doesn't have the same parts as a human brain. We recognize this without trying to derive it from genes. 

So back to the idea that it's really rare. Of all the millions, billions, trillions of species that have lived on this earth we know of 1 that has sapience. There's arguments for others, I'm rooting for octopuses on this one, but none the less the data is extremely one sided. So the idea is that the earth settled enough for life to grow (unless these things were fundamentally different from life now, that means there had to be an abundance of water at least) then spawned life (something fucking rare and hard to do) had that life evolve, had that live evolve to sapience and not have a distinct enough impact to leave any signs...then it all got destroyed and happened again. 

those are not betting odds.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Fay V said:


> you could always have a look at the variations of phenotypes, or the number of cells, variety of cells, etc. I could make the claim I am more complex than a fish based on the fact that fish don't have certain kinds of nerve.
> You could also have a look at the actual functions it's creating. Going back purely to genes is fairly asinine. Look for instance at the human brain. The human brain is fairly one of a kind considering the absolutely massive frontal lobe. This generally houses the parts of our brain which facilitate the higher level thinking that we associate with sapience.
> We can look at a rabbit brain and recognize that it is less complex it doesn't have the same parts as a human brain. We recognize this without trying to derive it from genes.
> 
> ...


Then we're delving into to nervous system complexity, not biological complexity in it's entire sense.  You could have just said so in the first place.

Actually the earth before it was hit by the dwarf planet had a fuck ton of water.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Then we're delving into to nervous system complexity, not biological complexity in it's entire sense.  You could have just said so in the first place.
> 
> Actually the earth before it was hit by the dwarf planet had a fuck ton of water.


Have you glanced at a timeline? Just wondering because you're not giving this TIME to develop. I'm not saying that there was no water, I'm saying that life needs water so start from the formation of water on the planet. 

So I took a look of wikipedia for the sake of this. Say earth formed 4.54 billion years ago, the moon formed 4.53 billion years ago. You have 10 million years for life to form then evolve to a sapient being. 

Any idea how long ago our last common ancestor developed? 3.5 BILLION years. 
Your idea is not feasible because even assuming it could overcome astronomical odds to create sapient life it does not have the time available to do that before the moon was formed. 

So in an infinite universe with infinite planets it is reasonable to assume more than one form of sapient life. Earth is not infinite and therefore time is taken into account. Life is reasonable to assume outside of earth, but it's insane to think it will happen twice, in two separate sets


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Dec 3, 2011)

Poor thread with even worse wording.
We don't know but we tentatively go with wherever the evidence points. For sentience that means we are definitely not the first. For sapience we're also probably not. We are the most sapient, if that makes sense, but there lots of other species that appear to have the same qualities. http://www.flayrah.com/3753/corvids-reveal-highly-developed-communication-abilities
Finally we will go the way of the dinosaurs at one point or another, if that means extinction or evolution into a new species still remains to be seen.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Dec 3, 2011)

Fay is right in this. We have a fair idea about the age of the solar system, the age of the planet we live on, and the age of life on that planet. We thus have a fair idea about what it takes for life to arise and how long it takes for it to evolve. For it to be feasible to assume that we aren't the first sapient (technological?) species on earth, we'd have to challenge _all of the aforementioned estimates at once._ Furthermore, for a separate evolutionary chain to start from scratch, we need circumstances similar to the young earth; circumstances that can't support any even remotely modern life.

There's simply too much evidence for us being the first sapient species on this planet for it to be anything but laughable to assume otherwise.


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Dec 3, 2011)

_*Neanderthals*_

They were a different species from us, and they are not our ancestors. They were intelligent. Not as intelligent has homo sapiens, but they were intelligent. They died out around when we arrived. And before anyone says anything, no, they didn't just breed with us or we'd have a fuckton more of their DNA in us. I spent a ridiculous amount of hours doing a paper on them last year.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Dec 3, 2011)

Well, our organ structure is very related to that of a lizard, small mammal, a bird, etc. Who says we couldn't have evolved from them? Oh yeah, Darwin.


----------



## Aidy (Dec 3, 2011)

Dragons.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Dec 3, 2011)

Ahh Ramsay called it.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 3, 2011)

We know we were first because we killed the last ones and took credit for everything they made.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sentience



'The ability to feel, preceive or be conscious.' So pretty much all animal life, no matter what the sand neanderthals believed.

Also, it's almost assured that we'll 'go the way of the dinosaurs', the question is when and how.


----------



## Aetius (Dec 3, 2011)

Betty White.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 3, 2011)

The fact that any intelligent life has ever been present in Texas astonishes me

they won't be looking for evidence of pre-human sapience there, to be sure.  must be something dumb in the soil there


----------



## Littlerock (Dec 3, 2011)

Wasn't it only recently (within several months) that dolphins were declared to be sapient, non-human persons?


----------



## Tycho (Dec 3, 2011)

barefootfoof said:


> Wasn't it only recently (within several months) that dolphins were declared to be sapient, non-human persons?



wasn't aware that it had been declared at all

sounds like the kind of thing that would be hotly contested by various elements of society and even parts of the scientific community in general

man is a vain creature, after all


----------



## Littlerock (Dec 3, 2011)

Tycho said:


> wasn't aware that it had been declared at all
> 
> sounds like the kind of thing that would be hotly contested by various elements of society and even parts of the scientific community in general
> 
> man is a vain creature, after all


I must be derping a bit, because the newest anything that I can find is just scientists arguing whether-or-not to declare such, from last year.
http://www.physorg.com/news181981904.html

Either way, elephants, some apes, and pigs were also on the list, if I remember correctly.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

barefootfoof said:


> Wasn't it only recently (within several months) that dolphins were declared to be sapient, non-human persons?


I've heard they've been debating it for years, if they were declared sapient I can see why.


ramsay_baggins said:


> _*Neanderthals*_
> 
> They were a different species from us, and they are not our ancestors. They were intelligent. Not as intelligent has homo sapiens, but they were intelligent. They died out around when we arrived. And before anyone says anything, no, they didn't just breed with us or we'd have a fuckton more of their DNA in us. I spent a ridiculous amount of hours doing a paper on them last year.


Totally forgot about that last night, so I guess the answer to the question is yes.


barefootfoof said:


> Ikr, SEAWORLD IS SLAVERY! :v
> I must be derping a bit, because the newest anything that I can find is  just scientists arguing whether-or-not to declare such, from last year.
> http://www.physorg.com/news181981904.html
> 
> Either way, elephants, some apes, and pigs were also on the list, if I remember correctly.


If they were declared sapient then you would be able to hear the angry screaming from foxnews thousands of miles away.


----------



## Neuron (Dec 3, 2011)

There have been intelligent primates that didn't quite get to our level but had sentience all the same.

I think that there are actually quite a few animals that are most likely sentient, dolphins being one. They just can't build anything and I have to disagree with Lobar's statement that without the ability to build intelligence is quite useless. For all we know, dolphins have as complex a society as us and maybe they even create things we just haven't witnessed them doing it yet. They are certainly sentient enough to understand suicide and the implications of such, which is huge.


----------



## Azure (Dec 3, 2011)

u dumb


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 3, 2011)

Azure said:


> u dumb



p much....

wait what? what are you talking about?


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Azure said:


> u dumb


Did you even read Ramsey's post about Neanderthals? or the one about dolphins being labeled sapient?
While it wasn't was I thought about when making the thread, but we got our answer that we aren't the first or only sapient species.


----------



## Azure (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Did you even read Ramsey's post about Neanderthals? or the one about dolphins being labeled sapient?
> While it wasn't was I thought about when making the thread, but we got our answer that we aren't the first or only sapient species.


None of those other species developed shit.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Azure said:


> None of those other species developed shit.


Just cause a species didn't develop machinery doesn't mean they weren't/aren't intelligent.


----------



## Azure (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Just cause a species didn't develop machinery doesn't mean they weren't/aren't intelligent.


Intelligent enough to be a part of my lunch buffet.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Azure said:


> Intelligent enough to be a part of my lunch buffet.


Had things gone differently neanderthals could have been saying that about us.  They could have been here as the dominate species eating soylent green burgers and consider us cattle.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 3, 2011)

Azure said:


> Intelligent enough to be a part of my lunch buffet.



Are we just friends because we share a fursona species?


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Had things gone differently neanderthals could have been saying that about us.  They could have been here as the dominate species eating soylent green burgers and consider us cattle.



The losers don't write the books. We're in charge now, so they can cram it and get in my belly!


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> The losers don't write the books. We're in charge now, so they can cram it and get in my belly!


Hold on for a second and think about this, you know how many times people have used the argument azure was using?
It used to be a belief that pagans were vermin incapable of thought, people of african descent, native americans, protestants, catholics, muslims, the hindu word describing "undesirables", women and a very obvious godwin's law.
The argument point is a automatic kneejerk intellectual superiority complex used so many fucking times that the dead horse has died, decayed, and completed fossilization.
So really my point is going, "well they didn't <x>" is a very arbitrary way of measuring intelligence of a species and I thought FaF was above arbitrary unsubstantial argument points with no real backing.


----------



## Spatel (Dec 3, 2011)

ramsay_baggins said:


> _*Neanderthals*_
> 
> They were a different species from us, and they are not our ancestors. They were intelligent. Not as intelligent has homo sapiens, but they were intelligent. They died out around when we arrived. And before anyone says anything, no, they didn't just breed with us or we'd have a fuckton more of their DNA in us. I spent a ridiculous amount of hours doing a paper on them last year.



I would've thumbed this post up, because I came here to make it. Unfortunately, it is wrong about a few things.

-Neanderthals were as intelligent as cro-magnons. They had a spoken language, they prepared their food, they had complex societies, and complex tools. The concept that Neanderthals were less intelligent was a product of anthropocentric chauvinism, and had no scientific basis.

-Neanderthals are not a different species anyway, since they interbred with Humans. Humans of Eurasian descent are about 1-4% Neanderthal.

-Sapient hominid species predate homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis by quite a bit. H. Heiderlbergensis and H. antecessor were both sapient. Homo erectus was arguably the first. Skull sizes for H. Erectus got as large as 1100 cm^3, which is in the range of modern humans.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I would've thumbed this post up, because I came here to make it. Unfortunately, it is wrong about a few things.
> 
> -Neanderthals were as intelligent as cro-magnons. They had a spoken language, they prepared their food, they had complex societies, and complex tools. The concept that Neanderthals were less intelligent was a product of anthropocentric chauvinism, and had no scientific basis.
> 
> ...


Well damn, we aren't as special as we think.


----------



## Heimdal (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Hold on for a second and think about this, you know how many times people have used the argument azure was using?
> It used to be a belief that pagans were vermin incapable of thought, people of african descent, native americans, protestants, catholics, muslims, the hindu word describing "undesirables", women and a very obvious godwin's law.
> The argument point is a automatic kneejerk intellectual superiority complex used so many fucking times that the dead horse has died, decayed, and completed fossilization.
> So really my point is going, "well they didn't <x>" is a very arbitrary way of measuring intelligence of a species and I thought FaF was above arbitrary unsubstantial argument points with no real backing.



This argument is not some silly flawed idea, it's a very common sociological tactic. Even culturally, within our own species, the history books are written by the victors. We have always tended to incorrectly associate technological superiority with higher intellectual capacity, but we are superior either way. That, and it's difficult to measure the relative intelligence of dead, except to say that they weren't smart _enough_.

It's valid enough. But it is still a partial derail from the sort of answers you're looking for...


----------



## Spatel (Dec 3, 2011)

Azure said:


> None of those other species developed shit.



neither have you...


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> This argument is not some silly flawed idea, it's a very common sociological tactic. Even culturally, within our own species, the history books are written by the victors. We have always tended to incorrectly associate technological superiority with higher intellectual capacity, but we are superior either way. That, and it's difficult to measure the relative intelligence of dead, except to say that they weren't smart _enough_.
> 
> It's valid enough. But it is still a partial derail from the sort of answers you're looking for...


The easiest way to measure how intelligent a species is the skull and how large a pre-frontal lobe the animal has.  So yes, we can measure the intelligence of the dead.

And those species Spatel mentioned only goes to show how differently things could have gone, even though we are the victor it doesn't mean that those other species weren't intelligent.  It JUST means we won, anything above that is just coming up with balony.


----------



## Aetius (Dec 3, 2011)

Wasn't there a theory that we just committed a genocide against the neanderthals?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 3, 2011)

Spatel said:


> -Neanderthals are not a different species anyway,  since they interbred with Humans. Humans of Eurasian descent are about  1-4% Neanderthal.


Inability to interbreed is a mostly fool-proof way to separate species, but  not perfect. Wolves, coyotes, and certain jackals can all interbreed and  produce viable offspring; mules and jennies are occasionally fertile,  and there was even a case of a tigon (tiger/lion) producing offspring  when bred back to a tiger. There are also a number of viable hybrids in  the aquarium fish trade. (It's a _huge deal_ for killifish  breeders, who tend to focus on species preservation. If you get caught  making hybrids and not isolating them from pure populations . . .  hoo-ey.) There are probably others that I'm not aware of. 

/nitpick Good post otherwise.


----------



## Telnac (Dec 3, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I would've thumbed this post up, because I came here to make it. Unfortunately, it is wrong about a few things.
> 
> -Neanderthals were as intelligent as cro-magnons. They had a spoken language, they prepared their food, they had complex societies, and complex tools. The concept that Neanderthals were less intelligent was a product of anthropocentric chauvinism, and had no scientific basis.
> 
> ...


I think it's fair to say that humans outcompeted our sapient cousins because we had one or more slight edges in technology, mental skill or dexterity that allowed up to wipe out our humanoid competitors.  However, some could argue that our cousins were so similar to us that they could be considered proto-humans, rather than truly distinct creatures.  Regardless, it's pretty clear that we're the first species to build a technological civilization, which is a more impressive distinction than whether or not we are the first biologically sapient creatures on the planet.

We can't even say for sure whether or not dolphins are sapient, and they exist today.  How can we be sure some odd species of trilobite wasn't sapient too?  We're pretty sure their nervous system was nowhere near complex enough to allow for sapience... but can be say that for sure?  No.  We can only infer from comparing features those creatures had that are in common with creatures alive today.  OK, maybe trilobites couldn't possibly have ever been sapient.  What about some species of dinosaur we don't yet know of?

We may not know if we are the first sapient species on the planet, but we can be reasonably sure that no species developed a technological civilization before us.  If underground burrows can fossilize under the right conditions, so could wooden huts, much less more durable things like metal tools (which would leave a tell-tale stain in rocks even if they rusted away over the eons) or more modern things that simply don't break down naturally.  If humanity disappeared entirely today, our cities would be piles of rubble in a few hundred years and reclaimed by nature entirely by 1,000 years.  (I love the "Life after People series, btw!")  But even after our cities reclaimed by nature, there would be billions of pieces of evidence that would survive for millions of years, such as gold wedding bands.  The cubic zirconium crystals in fake diamond jewelry would survive not only billions of years of exposure to the elements but even being subducted several miles by the forces of plate tetonics and being brought back to the surface by uplift or volcanism, and would still bear tell-tale signs in their chemistry that they're of artificial origin.  Evidence of our presence here isn't restricted to Earth, either: lunar landers from the Apollo program are likely to remain on the surface of the Moon almost until the end of the Solar System.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Inability to interbreed is a mostly fool-proof way to separate species, but  not perfect. Wolves, coyotes, and certain jackals can all interbreed and  produce viable offspring; mules and jennies are occasionally fertile,  and there was even a case of a tigon (tiger/lion) producing offspring  when bred back to a tiger. There are also a number of viable hybrids in  the aquarium fish trade. (It's a _huge deal_ for killifish  breeders, who tend to focus on species preservation. If you get caught  making hybrids and not isolating them from pure populations . . .  hoo-ey.) There are probably others that I'm not aware of.
> 
> /nitpick Good post otherwise.


Speaking of this, I know it's continuing your nitpicking, but a species of antelope is being brought back from near extinction after they found out that a completely different taurotragus is able to reproduce with another species to produce the antelope.
It'd be like a duck fucking a hawk and laying a chicken egg, sometimes how nature behaves on the textbooks and in real life differ so much that it just makes you go, "wut?"


Telnac said:


> I think it's fair to say that humans outcompeted  our sapient cousins because we had one or more slight edges in  technology, mental skill or dexterity that allowed up to wipe out our  humanoid competitors.  However, some could argue that our cousins were  so similar to us that they could be considered proto-humans, rather than  truly distinct creatures.  Regardless, it's pretty clear that we're the  first species to build a technological civilization, which is a more  impressive distinction than whether or not we are the first biologically  sapient creatures on the planet.
> 
> We can't even say for sure whether or not dolphins are sapient, and they  exist today.  How can we be sure some odd species of trilobite wasn't  sapient too?  We're pretty sure their nervous system was nowhere near  complex enough to allow for sapience... but can be say that for sure?   No.  We can only infer from comparing features those creatures had that  are in common with creatures alive today.  OK, maybe trilobites couldn't  possibly have ever been sapient.  What about some species of dinosaur  we don't yet know of?\


*facedesk*
What I was saying a earlier post is that sapience isn't reliant on technological advances.  Going, "any species that hasn't built airplanes can't be sapient" is slapping a cock in the face of science.  Yes there are sapient animals out there, and yes there were also other sapiens, get over it, we're not that special.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Speaking of this, I know it's continuing your nitpicking, but a species of antelope is being brought back from near extinction after they found out that a completely different taurotragus is able to reproduce with another species to produce the antelope.
> It'd be like a duck fucking a hawk and laying a chicken egg, sometimes how nature behaves on the textbooks and in real life differ so much that it just makes you go, "wut?"


Ahh . . . hm. That is interesting. Is it really bring back the antelope, or just something like looks like it? For example, the tarpan is a kind of Eurasian wild horse that was declared extinct in 1909. There have been several well-meaning attempts (including one by the Nazis) recreate them by selectively breeding domestic horses and releasing them into the tarpan's old range, but while the resulting horses were similar to tarpans in appearance and behavior, they're not genetically the same animal. 

Although there is some evidence that entirely new species can arise from hybridization. Some scientists theorize that the red wolf originated from wolf/coyote crossings, or at least its development as a species was highly impacted by such crossings. If your story is true, maybe that's where the antelope came from in the first place.


----------



## Kinuki (Dec 3, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I would've thumbed this post up, because I came here to make it. Unfortunately, it is wrong about a few things.
> 
> -Neanderthals were as intelligent as cro-magnons. They had a spoken language, they prepared their food, they had complex societies, and complex tools. The concept that Neanderthals were less intelligent was a product of anthropocentric chauvinism, and had no scientific basis.
> 
> ...


http://io9.com/5822357/confirmed-all-non+african-people-are-part-neanderthal

http://io9.com/5837770/ancient-humans-were-just-having-sex-with-everyone

http://io9.com/5862448/admit-it-+-you-totally-would-have-had-sex-with-neanderthals

We're living in very interesting times, at least from an anthropological standpoint. Where we thought to have found predecessor species of homo sapiens it might turn out they were variants of our species.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 3, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Ahh . . . hm. That is interesting. Is it really bring back the antelope, or just something like looks like it? For example, the tarpan is a kind of Eurasian wild horse that was declared extinct in 1909. There have been several well-meaning attempts (including one by the Nazis) recreate them by selectively breeding domestic horses and releasing them into the tarpan's old range, but while the resulting horses were similar to tarpans in appearance and behavior, they're not genetically the same animal.
> 
> Although there is some evidence that entirely new species can arise from hybridization. Some scientists theorize that the red wolf originated from wolf/coyote crossings, or at least its development as a species was highly impacted by such crossings. If your story is true, maybe that's where the antelope came from in the first place.


The hybrid animal is the almost extinct animal genetically; it doesn't make a lick of sense I know, it violates a dozen rules of biology.


Kinuki said:


> http://io9.com/5822357/confirmed-all-non+african-people-are-part-neanderthal
> 
> http://io9.com/5837770/ancient-humans-were-just-having-sex-with-everyone
> 
> ...


Well that would explain how we came to this point so fast, if they did interbreed their genes would pass to the children, yadda yadda yadda, long story short it'd explain how we became homosapiens in such a short timeframe.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 4, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> *not aliens damnit, what I meant is a species evolving on earth and later being whipped out*
> You know this is interesting question, *how do we know we're the first sapient species on the earth?*
> Obviously there's no such thing as mole men or such, but what long ago there was a species whipped out in a extinction or such?  Obviously when the moon was created nothing could have survived from before then, who's to say there wasn't something that existed on the earth before then?
> Who's to say we couldn't go the way of the dinosaurs?



You're forgetting... whales and dolphins and their ilk have brains bigger and/or more complex than ours, not to mention a highly complex language/form of communication.  They just live in water, and don't use tools.  Who's to say they aren't sentient?




Onnes said:


> Think about this for a minute. Even wood and hides can be preserved almost indefinitely in the right conditions, *and any intelligent species is going to also use materials far sturdier than wood and hides.*
> 
> What you're really imagining here is an alien race with essentially godlike power such that its existence is unknowable.



You're making an assuption that an intelligent species has to have a materialistic society, which would assume that a species can't have sentience if it can't manipulate tools.  See my above comment.




Gr8fulFox said:


> Because we're alive *and they're dead*.



Again, they could be living on this planet right now, with us not acknowledging them as another sentient species, just because they are so different from us.  This would be the difficulty involved in determining if some "alien" species you've encountered on another planet is sentient or not.  Heh... I read a book that dealt a bit with that, a species that wasn't considered sentient until it was discovered they made artworks that humans couldn't perceive... they could see into the ultraviolet, and it wasn't until their works were exposed to "blacklight" that they were visible.  Otherwise, they were so "primative", they were considered just animals.  Even though humans could communicate with them, that apparently didn't qualify enough.  Just like we have the basic ability to communicate with dolphins.




Luti Kriss said:


> Honestly if we were to dig up that shit, it would completely change my perspective... But like Onnes said, creationism versus evolution aside, *being able to hide any existence of another race would be a tremendous feat*.



Not if that race was so "alien" we didn't recognize it as sentient.  Not if it's entire culture/civilization was built on a non-material foundation.  As in, no tech or tools or other "products" of what we consider intelligent life.




Kaamos said:


> I doubt it, there'd be evidence, *shit just doesn't magically disappear, especially entire civilizations or intelligent species*.



They do if their civilization was entirely built on non-material (non-technological) aspects.  Even if we found their bones, if we found nothing else, we would have no way to know, would we?  Other than examining their remains.  Which, from what I remember, has lead to speculation that this one dinosaur had the brainpower (brain to body mass) sufficent for an intelligent/sentient (possibly) creature... but, another thing:  If said creature is sentient, yet is so new to sentience that it hasn't yet developed a civilization far enough to leave any remnants behind (or if those remnants have been wiped out by millions of years of time), then again, we are left with no evidence.




Lobar said:


> We absolutely would find preserved remnants of structures, tools, etc.  *And any sentient species can be expected to create such*, because intelligence is evolutionarily useless without the capacity to create and use tools and structures.  Really, CF, do you think before you post?



You're making an assumption, Lobar.  A complex environment is what spurs the need for a complex brain, and thereby the possibility of sentient intelligence.  Whales and dolphins, due to the needs of their environment, lost any potential for "hands" to manipulate tools with, but they still live in a very complex environment, with lots of mental stimulation.  They could have an entire civilization/culture based on non-material aspects.  We already know about whalesong.




Serpion5 said:


> By your definition, no I don`t think we were the first to become sentient on this planet. *
> 
> The first to utilize technology to this degree perhaps*, but no the first to become sentient.



Which is my thought on the matter, if I haven't made myself clear.




Onnes said:


> The Moon came about only some 40 million years after the Earth did. The chance of anything being able to survive on the Earth that soon after its formation is negligible, *let alone actually evolve intelligence*.



Let alone evolve a massive technological civilization we could dig up after such a long time, considering the entire face of the earth has changed (Pangea, anyone?)...




Zydala said:


> Some thoughts:
> 
> - The 'living creatures before the mooooon" thing shouldn't actually work out because there wouldn't have been any species that progressed far enough. Earth got it's moon about 4.5 billion years ago, and self-replicating molecules happened 500 million years _after_ that.
> 
> ...



Yep, like I said, we could be sharing this planet with other sentient species, without acknowledging that fact.  Simply because they never cut down trees, built houses, made tools or otherwise act and/or think just like us.




Fay V said:


> *Sapience is the word you're looking for* if you want to mean a species that expressly has the concept of reason and the ability to apply thoughtful judgment to a situation.



Oh, yeah!  You're right... silly me.  Even though I'm not CF.




FF_CCSa1F said:


> Fay is right in this. We have a fair idea about the age of the solar system, the age of the planet we live on, and the age of life on that planet. We thus have a fair idea about what it takes for life to arise and how long it takes for it to evolve. *For it to be feasible to assume that we aren't the first sapient (technological?) species on earth*, we'd have to challenge _all of the aforementioned estimates at once._ Furthermore, for a separate evolutionary chain to start from scratch, we need circumstances similar to the young earth; circumstances that can't support any even remotely modern life.
> 
> There's simply too much evidence for us being the first sapient species on this planet for it to be anything but laughable to assume otherwise.



Sapience doesn't necessarily require a technological civilization.  So it is not laughable to assume the possibility some other form of sapient life may have arisen before us... and still may exist on the earth now, if it didn't go extinct millions of years ago.  Or wasn't killed off by our own ancestors ten thousand years ago.




ramsay_baggins said:


> _*Neanderthals*_
> 
> They were a different species from us, and they are not our ancestors. They were intelligent. Not as intelligent has homo sapiens, but they were intelligent. They died out around when we arrived. And before anyone says anything, no, they didn't just breed with us or we'd have a fuckton more of their DNA in us. I spent a ridiculous amount of hours doing a paper on them last year.



Bing!  We have at least this one we're aware of.  And that we may have killed off.  _*kicks self for forgetting this*_




Heimdal said:


> We know we were first because we killed the last ones and took credit for everything they made.



Another consideration, yes?




Lacus said:


> There have been intelligent primates that didn't quite get to our level but had sentience all the same.
> 
> I think that there are actually quite a few animals that are most likely sentient, dolphins being one. They just can't build anything and I have to disagree with Lobar's statement that without the ability to build intelligence is quite useless. For all we know, dolphins have as complex a society as us *and maybe they even create things we just haven't witnessed them doing it yet*. They are certainly sentient enough to understand suicide and the implications of such, which is huge.



Because what they may have created we may not be even able to perceive... certainly not without special equipment set in the right place at the right time.  Even then, we may not recognize it as such.  And it certainly wouldn't have been carved in stone!  Not something preserved for posterity.  Something that vanished as soon as it was made.  Again, refer to my mention of whalesong.




Spatel said:


> I would've thumbed this post up, because I came here to make it. Unfortunately, it is wrong about a few things.
> 
> -Neanderthals were as intelligent as cro-magnons. They had a spoken language, they prepared their food, they had complex societies, and complex tools. The concept that Neanderthals were less intelligent was a product of anthropocentric chauvinism, and had no scientific basis.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the extra info.




Heimdal said:


> This argument is not some silly flawed idea, it's a very common sociological tactic. Even culturally, within our own species, the history books are written by the victors. We have always tended to incorrectly associate technological superiority with higher intellectual capacity, but we are superior either way. That, and it's difficult to measure the relative intelligence of dead, *except to say that they weren't smart enough*.
> 
> It's valid enough. But it is still a partial derail from the sort of answers you're looking for...



Funny, but one day, this very thing may be said of our species by sapient raccoons.




Telnac said:


> I think it's fair to say that humans outcompeted our sapient cousins because we had one or more slight edges in technology, mental skill or dexterity that allowed up to wipe out our humanoid competitors.



Who knows, it could've been pure luck... or some virus/epidemic we proved immune or resistant to.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 4, 2011)

Oh Roose, after reading your very long post I just remembered something.  Proto-continents. Before the massive continents were formed the crust spit up small chunks of land before then, while there's barely any evidence for proto-continents, there's a few still left.  To the naked eye they're just scraps of regular old land, but geologically they predate almost all other pieces of land.  One such piece of land is the Hudson bay in Canada, dated to 4.4 billion years.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Dec 4, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> *not aliens damnit, what I meant is a species evolving on earth and later being *whipped* out*
> You know this is interesting question, how do we know we're the first sapient species on the earth?
> Obviously there's no such thing as mole men or such, but what long ago there was a species *whipped* out in a extinction or such?  Obviously when the moon was created nothing could have survived from before then, who's to say there wasn't something that existed on the earth before then?
> Who's to say we couldn't go the way of the dinosaurs?



Now I'm just imagining God holding a giant whip.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 4, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh Roose, after reading your very long post I just remembered something.  Proto-continents. Before the massive continents were formed the crust spit up small chunks of land before then, while there's barely any evidence for proto-continents, *there's a few still left*.  To the naked eye they're just scraps of regular old land, but geologically they predate almost all other pieces of land.  One such piece of land is the Hudson bay in Canada, dated to 4.4 billion years.



Heh... reminds me of a geological program I saw... well, it dealt with how they were able to match two coastlines on different continents, or something like that.  Can't remember the details, but it was a demonstration of how the land can change, and relevant to the discussion, how any "civilization" evidence could have easily been wiped out simply by the passage of time... and the subluxation of continents.


----------



## Dj_whoohoo (Dec 4, 2011)

Do you mean like the theory that we evoled from microbes that came on a meteorite?


We have probably evoled like all other species...


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Dec 4, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Sapience doesn't necessarily require a technological civilization.  So it is not laughable to assume the possibility[/i] some other form of sapient life may have arisen before us... and still may exist on the earth now, if it didn't go extinct millions of years ago.  Or wasn't killed off by our own ancestors ten thousand years ago.




I didn't intend to imply that sapience is equal to technological development, only to put forward the possibility. You're also quoting me out of context. I'm not arguing that there mightn't have been any other sapient species living on the earth before homo sapiens, only that the notion of such a species arising from _a completely separate and now extinct chain of evolution_ is silly.


----------



## Wreth (Dec 4, 2011)

You mean sapient, all conscious animals are sentient.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 4, 2011)

Wreth said:


> You mean sapient, all conscious animals are sentient.



This was already established.


----------



## Neuron (Dec 4, 2011)

I'd love to see the day that we communicate full on conversations between dolphins and humans. I think it's actually possible. 

The problem is that everyone is aware of the first thing they'll tell us once they have the ability, "*Stop imprisoning us for entertainment value*" and then they'll have to figure out a way to "pay" dolphins for their services if they want the ludicrously huge dolphin entertainment ring to continue in some fashion. 

They've been trying to communicate this for _years_. They commit suicide in the arms of their trainers by choosing not to breath. If you are aware of what a stressed dolphin sounds like, those sounds are all around places like Seaworld and other hellholes of the like. It disturbed me greatly to hear the screeching, sad dolphins in the documentary The Cove, and I cried really hard when I reached into my memories of when I went to sea world, *and those were exactly the heart wrenching sounds I heard at sea world*. When I was a kid, I thought they were crying out with happiness, I mean look at them, they're smiling! ....How dead wrong I turned out to be. They are crying for help, not out of happiness. They are crying out of sadness, of emotions that we could relate to but instead we perceive them with a perpetual smile.

I actually have a strange hypothesis that the gigantic superpods of wild dolphins that are happening globally and the way they seem to intentionally swim on the surface to be seen is actually a really huge attempt for them to communicate something to us. Perhaps they are aware there are dolphins being killed and imprisoned and word got around in the global dolphin community (they have language and what appears to be a huge capacity for memory, remember) because if you study whales you find out that dolphins and whales are regional quite like humans are, they have different dialects and subsets of language. I find it pretty significant that there are superpods forming with many regional varieties and that's why I think it's a massive attempt at communication with the human race.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 4, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I'd love to see the day that we communicate full on conversations between dolphins and humans. I think it's actually possible.
> 
> The problem is that everyone is aware of the first thing they'll tell us once they have the ability, "*Stop imprisoning us for entertainment value*" and then they'll have to figure out a way to "pay" dolphins for their services if they want the ludicrously huge dolphin entertainment ring to continue in some fashion.
> 
> ...


That's a very good point, cause I think at some level we all realize that if we recognize them as sapient, then fuck we've just gone and made ourselves look like assholes yet again.
The problem with trying to understand a language is you have to have some way of translating it, for example the rosetta stone, if there's no way of translating it then you're out of luck.


FF_CCSa1F said:


> I didn't intend to imply that sapience is equal  to technological development, only to put forward the possibility.  You're also quoting me out of context. I'm not arguing that there  mightn't have been any other sapient species living on the earth before  homo sapiens, only that the notion of such a species arising from _a completely separate and now extinct chain of evolution_ is silly.


Actually speaking of which there's some debate over how intelligent some dinosaurs were, cause for example the velociraptor's brain composed 5.8% of their body mass; so that means they were fairly intelligent, but not to fullblown human levels.


Roose Hurro said:


> Heh... reminds me of a geological program I  saw... well, it dealt with how they were able to match two coastlines on  different continents, or something like that.  Can't remember the  details, but it was a demonstration of how the land can change, and  relevant to the discussion, how any "civilization" evidence could have  easily been wiped out simply by the passage of time... and the  subluxation of continents.


Not to mention there could have been other continents that subducted and have been erased by time.


----------



## Neuron (Dec 4, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That's a very good point, cause I think at some level we all realize that if we recognize them as sapient, then fuck we've just gone and made ourselves look like assholes yet again.
> The problem with trying to understand a language is you have to have some way of translating it, for example the rosetta stone, if there's no way of translating it then you're out of luck.


They've actually been cataloguing dolphin calls for about two years now to make a dolphin translator. They are actually finding grammar rules, syntax, and other things that constitute a language. They're just running into trouble with translating it into human words, but once they get enough "dolphin-ese" to send messages to the dolphins and get them back we might start to get somewhere.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 4, 2011)

Lacus said:


> They've actually been cataloguing dolphin calls for about two years now to make a dolphin translator. They are actually finding grammar rules, syntax, and other things that constitute a language. They're just running into trouble with translating it into human words, but once they get enough "dolphin-ese" to send messages to the dolphins and get them back we might start to get somewhere.


Is there any charity we can donate to help the push to create this?


----------



## Wreth (Dec 4, 2011)

I don't think you guys realise just how differently another species might think to humans. People like to imagine other intelligent species would think like us, but that simply isn't the case. It's impossible to really empathise with an animal.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 4, 2011)

Wreth said:


> I don't think you guys realise just how differently another species might think to humans. People like to imagine other intelligent species would think like us, but that simply isn't the case. It's impossible to really empathise with an animal.


Just cause a sapient animal species thinks differently doesn't mean they aren't sapient.  Yes people can empathize with a animal, cause we know what pain, happiness, sadness and other emotions are so we can understand what a animal is feeling.  Ever have a pet?  If people couldn't empathize with animals then we'd just leave animal abusers alone.  If we couldn't empathize we animals then if someone is torturing their dog then we would leave them alone.


----------



## Neuron (Dec 4, 2011)

Wreth said:


> I don't think you guys realise just how differently another species might think to humans. People like to imagine other intelligent species would think like us, but that simply isn't the case. It's impossible to really empathise with an animal.


If you don't believe two different sapient creatures can't feel empathy for one another when we empathize with stupider creatures EVERYDAY, you're being pretty dumb. Just saying.

Perhaps you need to read about Ric O'Barry who was actually responsible for how huge dolphin captivity became, and then later became the most outspoken person against dolphin captivity after his trained dolphin Kathy decided to stop breathing in his arms, committing suicide to show him how unhappy she was in captivity.

I think the kind of empathy that comes from that story is simply incredible and shows in a big way why we might want to start thinking of dolphins as non-human persons.

Also if you don't well up with tears or at least become incredibly sad/disturbed after hearing the cries of distressed dolphins having their babies killed right in front of them, well, you pretty much don't have empathy. Sorry.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 4, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Also if you don't well up with tears or at least become incredibly sad/disturbed after hearing the cries of distressed dolphins having their babies killed right in front of them, well, you pretty much don't have empathy. Sorry.


The thing is people think the cries are cries of happiness.  The dolphins mouth looks like it has a permanent smile on it so even if a person is torturing it, it looks like it's happy.


----------



## Neuron (Dec 4, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The thing is people think the cries are cries of happiness.  The dolphins mouth looks like it has a permanent smile on it so even if a person is torturing it, it looks like it's happy.


If you read one of my recent previous posts, I actually admitted that when I was a little kid at seaworld I made the same mistake and then I had probably one of the most intense breakdowns in my entire life when I realized what it really meant.

At seaworld it's a lot more subtle, as they aren't being violently killed and tortured, but it's still...chilling, realizing that that high pitch squeal you heard as a kid was really, "Please let me out. I don't have enough room."


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 4, 2011)

Lacus said:


> If you read one of my recent previous posts, I actually admitted that when I was a little kid at seaworld I made the same mistake and then I had probably one of the most intense breakdowns in my entire life when I realized what it really meant.
> 
> At seaworld it's a lot more subtle, as they aren't being violently killed and tortured, but it's still...chilling, realizing that that high pitch squeal you heard as a kid was really, "Please let me out. I don't have enough room."


I'm glad I only went to seaworld twice ever, that would have disturbed me as well.  It still disturbs me, I don't want to go to seaworld anymore cause could you imagine being stuck in a cage and made to performs tricks for hundreds of creatures you don't know what they are for food?
If you ask me, to delve into sci-fi for a moment, I think that's why so many people in the scientific field are afraid of aliens.  Not cause there's a high chance of us being wiped out, but could you imagine-
"Honey look at the hairless monkey in the cage, ah isn't he cute.  Jump for the apple, jump higher.  Good boy"
"Isn't it wrong that we're keeping them in cages?  I mean they are sapient"
"Well they didn't develop faster than light travel that means they aren't intelligent".


----------



## Traven V (Dec 4, 2011)

The best argument I have is; just look at the history of the human race, we are barely sentient. Most people still think "animals" "pets" whatever are basically play things without reason or a soul, which their sole purpose is to serve. The human race still kills each other over minor misunderstandings, everything is built on theory... ugh, anyways


----------



## LizardKing (Dec 4, 2011)

Lacus said:


> they'll have to figure out a way to "pay" dolphins for their services



That _Wet Goddess_ guy would have a new job.


----------



## ElectricJackal (Dec 4, 2011)

a few out of place artifacts have been found.

but raptor people would have been fucking awesome.


----------



## Creamsicle (Dec 4, 2011)

Sentience does not denote civilization. 

There are so many animals that qualify for sentience.
Elephants, most apes (and PREHUMANS, hello, _homo erectus _anyone?), whales, some of the brighter dogs, 
I mean, really. 
We *aren't*, it's just that most humans have their heads too far up their asses to look at animals and say HAY, THEY'RE LIKE US TOOOO


----------



## virus (Dec 4, 2011)

There are other sentient species on this planet, human beings simply refuse to recognize them. Both past and present.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 4, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> I didn't intend to imply that sapience is equal to technological development, only to put forward the possibility. You're also quoting me out of context. I'm not arguing that there mightn't have been any other sapient species living on the earth before homo sapiens, *only that the notion of such a species arising from a completely separate and now extinct chain of evolution is silly*.



How so?  Dinosaurs were around for a very long time... far longer than us.  Who's to say their wasn't a sentient species of dinosaur around before us?




Lacus said:


> I actually have a strange hypothesis that the gigantic superpods of wild dolphins that are happening globally and the way they seem to intentionally swim on the surface to be seen is actually a really huge attempt for them to communicate something to us. Perhaps they are aware there are dolphins being killed and imprisoned and word got around in the global dolphin community (they have language and what appears to be a huge capacity for memory, remember) because if you study whales you find out that dolphins and whales are regional quite like humans are, they have different dialects and subsets of language. I find it pretty significant that there are superpods forming with many regional varieties and that's why I think it's a massive attempt at communication with the human race.



I like this hypothesis.




CannonFodder said:


> Not to mention there could have been other continents that subducted and have been erased by time.



Exactly.




Lacus said:


> They've actually been cataloguing dolphin calls for about two years now to make a dolphin translator. They are actually finding grammar rules, syntax, and other things that constitute a language. They're just running into trouble with translating it into human words, but once they get enough "dolphin-ese" to send messages to the dolphins and get them back we might start to get somewhere.



Sounds like a fascinating piece of research.




Wreth said:


> I don't think you guys realise just how differently another species might think to humans. People like to imagine other intelligent species would think like us, but that simply isn't the case. *It's impossible to really empathise with an animal.*



We're animals, Wreth.  Just very intelligent ones.  And yes, different species won't think like humans... that's a given.  You know, since they aren't human.




CannonFodder said:


> The thing is people think the cries are cries of happiness.  *The dolphins mouth looks like it has a permanent smile on it so even if a person is torturing it, it looks like it's happy.*



Reminds me of a sci fi story I read years ago, dealing with an alien race that only smiled when they were distressed.  Humans kept misinterpreting it as happiness, even those who knew what it meant had a hard time responding to it.  Because to us, a smile means something good, not something bad.




CannonFodder said:


> I'm glad I only went to seaworld twice ever, that would have disturbed me as well.  It still disturbs me, I don't want to go to seaworld anymore cause could you imagine being stuck in a cage and made to performs tricks for hundreds of creatures you don't know what they are for food?
> If you ask me, to delve into sci-fi for a moment, I think that's why so many people in the scientific field are afraid of aliens.  *Not cause there's a high chance of us being wiped out, but could you imagine-
> "Honey look at the hairless monkey in the cage, ah isn't he cute.  Jump for the apple, jump higher.  Good boy"
> "Isn't it wrong that we're keeping them in cages?  I mean they are sapient"
> "Well they didn't develop faster than light travel that means they aren't intelligent".*



Reminds me of another sci fi story, one in which an alien race didn't consider humans sapient or even sentient, because to them, to be sentient/sapient required language, and they could only hear sounds in the higher frequencies, so they couldn't hear us speak.  So they kept humans as pets.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 4, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> How so?  Dinosaurs were around for a very long time... far longer than us.  Who's to say their wasn't a sentient species of dinosaur around before us?
> Exactly.
> Reminds me of a sci fi story I read years ago, dealing with an alien race that only smiled when they were distressed.  Humans kept misinterpreting it as happiness, even those who knew what it meant had a hard time responding to it.  Because to us, a smile means something good, not something bad.
> Reminds me of another sci fi story, one in which an alien race didn't consider humans sapient or even sentient, because to them, to be sentient/sapient required language, and they could only hear sounds in the higher frequencies, so they couldn't hear us speak.  So they kept humans as pets.


There's some debate going on how intelligent the dinosaurs were, some of them were damn smart and the only argument against their intelligence is, "well if they existed that far back they must have been less evolved".  Sounds like a good argument, but it'd have a evolutionary biologist reeling.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 4, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> There's some debate going on how intelligent the dinosaurs were, some of them were damn smart and the only argument against their intelligence is, "well if they existed that far back they must have been less evolved".  Sounds like a good argument, but it'd have a evolutionary biologist reeling.



Dinosaurs were around for tens of millions of years... how long have we been around?  No, not a good argument, indeed.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 4, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Dinosaurs were around for tens of millions of years... how long have we been around?  No, not a good argument, indeed.


The only argument against velociraptors being sapient is, "we're the only sapient species on earth, dinosaurs couldn't have been, cause they're dinosaurs".  Everything about velociraptor's skull cavity screams high level intelligence.  If they were here and now, to use compared to human intelligence they'd be a little slow compared to humans, but damn a entire branch of dinosaurs that intelligent is astounding.


----------



## Recel (Dec 4, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The only argument against velociraptors being sapient is, "we're the only sapient species on earth, dinosaurs couldn't have been, cause they're dinosaurs".  Everything about velociraptor's skull cavity screams high level intelligence.  If they were here and now, to use compared to human intelligence they'd be a little slow compared to humans, but damn a entire branch of dinosaurs that intelligent is astounding.



But, but... everything that's older than us must be worse than us! :V


----------



## Tycho (Dec 4, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The only argument against velociraptors being sapient is, "we're the only sapient species on earth, dinosaurs couldn't have been, cause they're dinosaurs".  Everything about velociraptor's skull cavity screams high level intelligence.  If they were here and now, to use compared to human intelligence they'd be a little slow compared to humans, but damn a entire branch of dinosaurs that intelligent is astounding.



I think this article does a very good job of making cases both for and against that idea

seriously you're a fucking idiot CF stop posting


----------



## Telnac (Dec 4, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> *facedesk*
> What I was saying a earlier post is that sapience isn't reliant on technological advances.  Going, "any species that hasn't built airplanes can't be sapient" is slapping a cock in the face of science.  Yes there are sapient animals out there, and yes there were also other sapiens, get over it, we're not that special.


I'm not saying our technology makes up sapient.  But I have to disagree as to whether or not our technology makes us special.  Whether or not humans are the first and/or only sapient species on the planet, we are clearly the first to use that ability to take our capabilities far beyond what nature has given us.  Many species use tools, and many species communicate with their young to teach them skills they will need to survive.  However, the invention of writing made us the first species that can communicate those skills across vast stretches of both distance and time.  I can learn from Plato and read about the conquest of Gaul from Julius Ceasar himself, despite the fact that both of these men have been dead for thousands of years and lived thousands of miles away.

That alone is why our species has been able to take a radical departure from what other species in the natural world can do.  That's why humans have walked on the Moon and not dolphins.  Dolphins may be just as smart as we are, but until they can learn principles of math, science, philosophy and engineering as presented by the greatest minds of the last few thousand years... they'll never progress beyond smart, social animals who like to play in the water.

Think of it: when you take college physics, it's as though you're being mentored by Isaac Newton himself, because it's his ideas you're being taught... even though he's been dead hundreds of years.  When you take geometry and learn that the square of a triangle's hypotenuse is equal to the square of the other two sides, it's as though Pythagoras himself was standing there leading the class, and he's been dead over 2500 years!  What we know has been thought up by the greatest minds of all of history and presented to us, as though we had them as our personal teachers.  That allows us to go forth and use this great body of knowledge and create new things and advance society even more.

So while I'll grant you that when looked at strictly as an individual animal, any given human isn't all that special, together we become participants in a civilization that (although still in its infancy compared to geologic time) gives us access to knowledge and power far exceeding any other animal in nature.  That makes us very special indeed.

That was why I said that we can be pretty sure there never has been a creature quite like us in the history of the world.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 4, 2011)

Telnac said:


> I'm not saying our technology makes up sapient.  But I have to disagree as to whether or not our technology makes us special.  Whether or not humans are the first and/or only sapient species on the planet, we are clearly the first to use that ability to take our capabilities far beyond what nature has given us.  Many species use tools, and many species communicate with their young to teach them skills they will need to survive.  However, the invention of writing made us the first species that can communicate those skills across vast stretches of both distance and time.  I can learn from Plato and read about the conquest of Gaul from Julius Ceasar himself, despite the fact that both of these men have been dead for thousands of years and lived thousands of miles away.
> 
> That alone is why our species has been able to take a radical departure from what other species in the natural world can do.  That's why humans have walked on the Moon and not dolphins.  Dolphins may be just as smart as we are, but until they can learn principles of math, science, philosophy and engineering as presented by the greatest minds of the last few thousand years... they'll never progress beyond smart, social animals who like to play in the water.
> 
> ...


Just keep raising that bar, and eventually nothing will be able to jump over it.
Yes we may be the first species to develop such technology, but as you said we're not unique intelligence wise.  You're trying to find meaning in something that has no meaning, we were victorious and were the first, but that's essentially throwing arguments against a wall until one sticks and claiming a correlation.  Had the asteroid not hit then velociraptors or another dinosaur would have become the dominate race and since it only took us a million years to get to this point, they would have had much more time.  However they were wiped out with the asteroid; a completely random act of nature wipe them out.  Saying we were the first doesn't mean jack shit at all, it just means we were the first.  It could have gone numerous different ways with neanderthals, homo erectus or any other sapient animal.

tl:dr; being first doesn't mean anything, it JUST means you were first and you're looking for meaning in something that has not a single drop of meaning anywhere.


----------



## Ames (Dec 4, 2011)

Sentience is an arbitrary term.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 4, 2011)

JamesB said:


> Sentience is an arbitrary term.


What about sapience?


----------



## Creamsicle (Dec 4, 2011)

JamesB said:


> Sentience is an arbitrary term.


All language is arbitrary. It's just sounds, we give them meaning.


----------



## Rotsala (Dec 4, 2011)

If there has been sentient life before us, they didn't leave enough trash for us to find out about them.


----------



## Wreth (Dec 4, 2011)

Of course, the most annoying thing about biology, is that it doesn't suit to being places into distinct categories. Being humans, we like to set things out neatly, and be able to tell each other that things are in set categories.

However, due to the evolutionary nature of biology there would be no jump from lesser sentience, to sapience. It's difficult enough in the first place to define at at exactly which point a sentient animal becomes sapient.


----------



## SnowyD (Dec 4, 2011)

I knew of a few dinosaurs that drove golf carts, no big. :V


----------



## InflatedSnake (Dec 4, 2011)

I think about this issue a lot, and I personally have come to the conclusion that; if there was a sentient species and as advanced as ours on Earth before humans evolved but they are now extinct, they would have left something behind. There would be some sort of evidence, ruins, you know?

Inb4 Stonehenge.


----------



## Wreth (Dec 4, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Just cause a sapient animal species thinks differently doesn't mean they aren't sapient.  Yes people can empathize with a animal, cause we know what pain, happiness, sadness and other emotions are so we can understand what a animal is feeling.  Ever have a pet?  If people couldn't empathize with animals then we'd just leave animal abusers alone.  If we couldn't empathize we animals then if someone is torturing their dog then we would leave them alone.





Lacus said:


> If you don't believe two different sapient creatures can't feel empathy for one another when we empathize with stupider creatures EVERYDAY, you're being pretty dumb. Just saying.
> 
> Perhaps you need to read about Ric O'Barry who was actually responsible for how huge dolphin captivity became, and then later became the most outspoken person against dolphin captivity after his trained dolphin Kathy decided to stop breathing in his arms, committing suicide to show him how unhappy she was in captivity.
> 
> ...



Uh, you two are misinterpreting me. I never said we shouldn't care for animals. In fact, I find it quite amusing that someone is trying to convince me to care for animals, when i'm a vegetarian(for moral reasons) zoology student thinking of possibly going into conservation.

No, my point was that just because an animal is of the same level of intelligence as us, doesn't necessarily mean it will think like us, and therefore human concepts and social constructs might not be easily communicated.

In sci-fi and fantasy, all human level intelligence beings think and behave like humans, this would not necessarily be the case in reality.

All I meant was that, while animals can certainly suffer,and be happy, their thought process wouldn't need to be the same as ours in order for them to be intelligent, and therefore just looking for animals doing human things in order to detect intelligence is not what it should be limited to. Interactions between humans and another equally intelligent species could also be very difficult, even after crossing the language barrier.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 4, 2011)

Wreth said:


> Uh, you two are misinterpreting me. I never said we shouldn't care for animals. In fact, I find it quite amusing that someone is trying to convince me to care for animals, when i'm a vegetarian(for moral reasons) zoology student thinking of possibly going into conservation.
> 
> No, my point was that just because an animal is of the same level of intelligence as us, doesn't necessarily mean it will think like us, and therefore human concepts and social constructs might not be easily communicated.
> 
> ...


Oh, alright then.

Good point, if we do crack the dolphins' language I doubt very many people would be willing to listen cause it's very obvious what the first words will be and I highly doubt many people would be willing to hear that sort of message cause to many people dolphins are these happy animal that love jumping through hoops for fish with smiles always on their face.  There'd be hundreds of human suicides knowing the reality, knowing that they spent money to cage something intelligent for our own amusement.  Not to mention the religious implications, next to nobody would be willing to admit it.  Also the political implications, it'd be the biggest shit fest in decades.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 4, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The only argument against velociraptors being sapient is, "we're the only sapient species on earth, dinosaurs couldn't have been, cause they're dinosaurs".  Everything about velociraptor's skull cavity screams high level intelligence.  *If they were here and now, to use compared to human intelligence they'd be a little slow* compared to humans, but damn a entire branch of dinosaurs that intelligent is astounding.



Not slow, they would simply think differently, not being human, and therefore not having human sensabilities.  I remember reading, with respect to creating believable aliens, that they needed to think as well as but not _like_ a human.  That wouldn't make them slow, just different.  Non-human.  But sentient/sapient, anyway.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 4, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Not slow, they would simply think differently, not being human, and therefore not having human sensabilities.  I remember reading, with respect to creating believable aliens, that they needed to think as well as but not like a human.  That wouldn't make them slow, just different.  Non-human.  But sentient/sapient, anyway.


Well I know, that.  What I meant is that if they were here and now and knew the exact same thing and could talk and everything, the human would compute something faster, *but not by much. *Like hypothetically let's say the raptor was here and now and knew everything his human counterpart knew, the human would calculate let's say "2+2=" a split of a second faster than the raptor.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 5, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> There'd be hundreds of human suicides knowing the reality, knowing that they spent money to cage something intelligent for our own amusement.  Not to mention the religious implications, next to nobody would be willing to admit it.  Also the political implications, it'd be the biggest shit fest in decades.


I think this is a little out of proportion. Society didn't implode upon itself after realizing _human_ slavery was ethically questionable; I can't imagine this would have a bigger ripple.


----------



## Spatel (Dec 5, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The only argument against velociraptors being sapient is, "we're the only sapient species on earth, dinosaurs couldn't have been, cause they're dinosaurs".  Everything about velociraptor's skull cavity screams high level intelligence.  If they were here and now, to use compared to human intelligence they'd be a little slow compared to humans, but damn a entire branch of dinosaurs that intelligent is astounding.



Clever girl...


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Dec 5, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> How so?  Dinosaurs were around for a very long time... far longer than us.  Who's to say their wasn't a sentient species of dinosaur around before us?



The dinosaurs arose from the same evolutionary chain as we did.



CannonFodder said:


> tl:dr; being first doesn't mean anything, it JUST means you were first and you're looking for meaning in something that has not a single drop of meaning anywhere.



You're posting that in a thread you created, entitled _"How do we know we're the first sentient species on earth?"_.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 5, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Well I know, that.  What I meant is that if they were here and now and knew the exact same thing and could talk and everything, the human would compute something faster, *but not by much. *Like hypothetically let's say the raptor was here and now and knew everything his human counterpart knew, *the human would calculate let's say "2+2=" a split of a second faster than the raptor*.



Heh... that would depend upon the human involved.




FF_CCSa1F said:


> The dinosaurs arose from the same evolutionary chain as we did.



No... dinosaurs evolved into birds, and we evolved into... ?  Not the same Branch of the Tree.


----------



## Melzi (Dec 5, 2011)

If you can't prove it, or disprove it. It's safe to say it's pretty open to discussion.

I have to say it's possible.


----------



## Telnac (Dec 5, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Just keep raising that bar, and eventually nothing will be able to jump over it.
> Yes we may be the first species to develop such technology, but as you said we're not unique intelligence wise.  You're trying to find meaning in something that has no meaning, we were victorious and were the first, but that's essentially throwing arguments against a wall until one sticks and claiming a correlation.  Had the asteroid not hit then velociraptors or another dinosaur would have become the dominate race and since it only took us a million years to get to this point, they would have had much more time.  However they were wiped out with the asteroid; a completely random act of nature wipe them out.  Saying we were the first doesn't mean jack shit at all, it just means we were the first.  It could have gone numerous different ways with neanderthals, homo erectus or any other sapient animal.
> 
> tl:dr; being first doesn't mean anything, it JUST means you were first and you're looking for meaning in something that has not a single drop of meaning anywhere.


If the ability to learn from the writings of the greatest minds in all of history has no meaning for you, then I really wonder what (if anything) you find meaningful.

Humans are animals, yes.  But civilization gives us potential that is limited only by our imagination and the laws of physics.  We have the potential to spread to other planets, and likely even to the stars someday.  If we do that, our civilization may endure long enough to survive the death of the Sun itself.  If no animal on Earth developed a civilization, everything that is here would be burned to ash 5-6 billion years from now and unless an alien civilization stopped by here beforehard, who would even know that the Earth ever existed or that it was populated by a wide variety of intelligent creatures who never made that final leap into developing writing and eventually the technology to escape their doomed rock?

Our civilization and our technology is what sets us apart from other animals.  That opinion may not be popular with many furries, but I hold it nonetheless.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Dec 5, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> No... dinosaurs evolved into birds, and we evolved into... ?  Not the same Branch of the Tree.



Need I elaborate on what the word _from_ means? Our earliest ancestors are the same as the dinosaurs'.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 5, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> *Need I elaborate on what the word from means?* Our earliest ancestors are the same as the dinosaurs'.



No, you needn't elaborate... just note the smiley.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Dec 5, 2011)

Lacus said:
			
		

> They've actually been cataloguing dolphin calls for about two years now  to make a dolphin translator. They are actually finding grammar rules,  syntax, and other things that constitute a language. They're just  running into trouble with translating it into human words, but once they  get enough "dolphin-ese" to send messages to the dolphins and get them  back we might start to get somewhere.



You should read Dolphin Island by Arthur C. Clarke. There's a guy in there studying dolphins and their language who builds a device that can produce a bunch of dolphin words (like left, right, please, thank you etc).


----------



## Volkodav (Dec 5, 2011)

until an animal cuts itself and listens to MCR and then hangs itself, we are the only sentient animal



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> You should read Dolphin Island by Arthur C. Clarke. There's a guy in there studying dolphins and their language who builds a device that can produce a bunch of dolphin words (like left, right, please, thank you etc).


Would be totally unrealistic and hilarious if the guy.. gasp.. made up what the dolphins were saying
especially if two clicks meant like.. "fuck the police"


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Dec 5, 2011)

Soon we can talk to dolphins jsut the way we can talk to eachother. I'm just sayin'


----------



## CynicalCirno (Dec 5, 2011)

The Earth, without a moon, supported life as far as I know. Asteroids have brought everything - elements and other substances such as oxygen and water - then a comparably big asteroid came, crashed into Earth, and took a part of it. It is called "Moon". Only many millions later, maybe even billions, possibly after organic materials were built, and there were optimal conditions, such as in water, life could develop. That is as far as I know, simply.

The early life was closely resembling bacteria, I believe. Development over years, evolution, have caused water creatures to evolve, then earth creatures - Some dinosaurs, some not. What many people believe is that great heat, destruction or eruption, caused planet life to end. Herbivores ceased living, carnivores had nothing to eat - so they all died. All expect certain water creatures that have retained their resources, deeply hidden underwater.

There isn't much evidence regarding societies or communities comparable to humans, before Dinosaurs. There were no optimal conditions before our beloved predeccesor bacteria resembling life.
There isn't much evidence regarding societies or communities comparable to humans, after the Moon. There were no optimal conditions for a very long time after the Moon was created.
Nothing could had been here before, and even if there was some kind of lifeform, I doubt it would be sentient.


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 5, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> You know this is interesting question, how do we know we're the first sapient species on the earth?



First of all, we don't. There's no evidence that suggests we aren't the first, but as we all know a lack of evidence doesn't prove anything (except perhaps that there is a lack of evidence). It's the reality of knowledge. If you keep suggesting that whatever possibly sentient species before us left no traces when it was wiped out, then your question becomes trivial. How _would_ we possibly know of their existence/sapience? I hope you realize that continuing down such a path would lead you to faith and not fact.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 5, 2011)

Melzi said:


> If you can't prove it, or disprove it. It's safe to say it's pretty open to discussion.
> 
> I have to say it's possible.



I am an alien. I was born on another planet. 

Prove me wrong. (Profax, you can't.)


----------



## Telnac (Dec 5, 2011)

Satellite One said:


> The Earth, without a moon, supported life as far as I know. Asteroids have brought everything - elements and other substances such as oxygen and water - then a comparably big asteroid came, crashed into Earth, and took a part of it. It is called "Moon". Only many millions later, maybe even billions, possibly after organic materials were built, and there were optimal conditions, such as in water, life could develop. That is as far as I know, simply.
> 
> The early life was closely resembling bacteria, I believe. Development over years, evolution, have caused water creatures to evolve, then earth creatures - Some dinosaurs, some not. What many people believe is that great heat, destruction or eruption, caused planet life to end. Herbivores ceased living, carnivores had nothing to eat - so they all died. All expect certain water creatures that have retained their resources, deeply hidden underwater.
> 
> ...



When do you think the Moon was created?  The protoplanet that hit the fledgling Earth did so when our surface was barely solid (if it was solid at all.)  That's because the great impact that created the Moon happened shortly after the formation of the Solar System itself.  It's not like a billion years had passed, and the fledgling Earth was teeming with life when *>smack<* reset!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 5, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> I am an alien. I was born on another planet.
> 
> *Prove me wrong.* (Profax, you can't.)



Prove to me _you're_ sentient, let alone sapient.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 5, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Prove to me _you're_ sentient, let alone sapient.



I would, but this post isn't real.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 5, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> I would, but this post isn't real.



Shoot... I just knew I'd missed something.   :V


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 5, 2011)

Telnac said:


> If the ability to learn from the writings of the greatest minds in all of history has no meaning for you, then I really wonder what (if anything) you find meaningful.


Care to give us some names of the 'minds' you refer to here?
EDIT: You did earlier. I find it mildly disturbing you included 'philosophy' alongside 'science' and 'mathematics'.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Dec 5, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I find it mildly disturbing you included 'philosophy' alongside 'science' and 'mathematics'.



What makes you say that? 

It's not far-fetched to argue that ancient philosophy was the forefather to modern science, not to mention how it even today allows us to touch upon subjects that couldn't feasibly be assigned scientific reasoning (morals, for instance).


----------



## Neuron (Dec 5, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Care to give us some names of the 'minds' you refer to here?
> EDIT: You did earlier. I find it mildly disturbing you included 'philosophy' alongside 'science' and 'mathematics'.


Uh.

A lot of philosophers are also scientists...mathematicians...what the hell are you on about? IIRC science and empiricism are pretty closely tied. Durrhurr.

Also what someone else said about it being the original "science"


----------



## Digitalpotato (Dec 5, 2011)

Lobar said:


> We absolutely would find preserved remnants of structures, tools, etc.  And any sentient species can be expected to create such, because intelligence is evolutionarily useless without the capacity to create and use tools and structures.  Really, CF, do you think before you post?



One would also argue that they could have been a little more like a race of hippies who live off the earth...but even nomadic peoples and Amerindians left traces. :V


----------



## Ad Hoc (Dec 5, 2011)

_Yo. _

Anyone interested in cetacean language should check out this website. It's a crowdsourcing thing to help match up whale calls, for the ease of decoding later. It's a little glitchy--make sure the clip actually plays before you try to match them up. If it doesn't play, just skip to the next one.


----------



## Telnac (Dec 6, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> It's not far-fetched to argue that ancient philosophy was the forefather to modern science, not to mention how it even today allows us to touch upon subjects that couldn't feasibly be assigned scientific reasoning (morals, for instance).


That's pretty much what I was thinking.  For thousands of years, science and philosophy were one & the same.  The scientific method was invented by philosophers seeking to find better ways to verify their theories... and in doing so invented modern science.  That wasn't all that long ago!  Modern science has only been around a few hundred years.


----------

