# Other Intelligent Races



## Ranwulf (Apr 27, 2008)

Our race is one million years old. The Earth has been habitable by large mammals for 1.5 billion years.

Would we even know it if a society like ours existed a billion years ago before going extinct? What if there were medieval-like kingdoms 200 million years ago, would we be able to find evidence?

Maybe they even knew magic and stuff haha.


----------



## mosaix (Apr 28, 2008)

Depends whether or not you believe in evolution.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 28, 2008)

mosaix said:


> Depends whether or not you believe in evolution.


 
I think I personally might change that to "accept the validity of the evidence for evolution", as belief has little to do with it, unless one calls it belief to accept the workings of the natural world and the laws of physics....


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 28, 2008)

Finding evidence - fossils and the like - is a bit touch and go, a lot of luck comes into it. If you are talking about a society belonging to a "failed branch" of the human evolutionary tree, I guess it would be feasible to a point. I'm not sure how long metal artifacts would survive in the ground? But I think pottery artifacts would last for a long time - they are the oldest evidence of "civilisation" so far - but once again, I don't know the use-by date of fired clay fragments.

Julian May wrote an interesting (and very entertaining) series of novels about a one-way time gate into the past (I remember it was the Pliocene Era but I can't remember the numbers purportedly involved) and the civilisation that developed as a result. The Saga of the Pliocene Exiles, I think the series was called - it started with a book called The Many-Coloured Land. You'd probably like it, Ranwulf.


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 28, 2008)

The Procrastinator said:


> Julian May wrote an interesting (and very entertaining) series of novels about a one-way time gate into the past (I remember it was the Pliocene Era but I can't remember the numbers purportedly involved) and the civilisation that developed as a result. The Saga of the Pliocene Exiles, I think the series was called - it started with a book called The Many-Coloured Land. You'd probably like it, Ranwulf.


 
A fine and thought provoking set of books. I think it was set around six million years ago. 

On the original point: I suppose even fossils have a finite existance so the chances are (I believe) that the evidence is probably long gone if such a civilisation existed (although it would probably have to be much longer than 200 million years ago for such evidence to be erased completely). 

Just my totally unqualified thoughts on the matter


----------



## Lioness (Apr 28, 2008)

Ranwulf said:


> Our race is one million years old. The Earth has been habitable by large mammals for 1.5 billion years.
> 
> Would we even know it if a society like ours existed a billion years ago before going extinct? What if there were medieval-like kingdoms 200 million years ago, would we be able to find evidence?
> 
> Maybe they even knew magic and stuff haha.


 

I dunno...I can see a civilised life form somewhere in the past...that perhaps went too far and blew up something major that wiped them all out...


----------



## The Ace (Apr 28, 2008)

Maybe the dinosaurs were wiped out by a nuclear winter.


We'll probably never know


----------



## Happy Joe (Dec 6, 2008)

> Would we even know it if a society like ours existed a billion years ago before going extinct?


 
Evolution does not preclude the possibility of now extinct intelligent creatures on our planet. If you mean a highly technological civilization... IMO, the odds are against it. In spite of a few items that might reflect such a civilization. The Iron hammer (London artifact) embedded in a limestone like concretion and the alleged electronic connector (couldn't find a link) found a few years ago embedded in stone may reflect such a possibility... or may not.
The London Hammer: An Alleged Out of Place Artifact

There have been many allegations of out of place artifacts over the years; including a gold chain and iron pot supposedly found in chunks of coal; but as of yet few seem to be convincing and most seem to disappear mysteriously after "discovery".

At this point it is definitely on the fringe; fun to speculate and read about but no convincing evidence.

Enjoy!


----------



## Scifi fan (Dec 6, 2008)

There's no evidence one way or the other, but I don't think anyone on either side of the evolution debate would rule out the idea that dinosaurs may have used stone tools way back when. 

Apes do so now, so it's very possible dinosaurs could have done so. As to whether they build rockets to land on the moon, well, that's harder to accept, but not impossible.


----------



## Nik (Mar 14, 2009)

IIRC, there was much commotion over stone tools found in ancient strata overlying a coal seam. Very careful archaeology found the tools were in hand-hewn tunnels which had subsequently collapsed. 

Analogy would be the recent exploration of ancient copper mines under Great Orme, NorthWales(UK). 
Great Orme Mines
A recent documentary ventured into parts that were collapsing, and would soon become impassable. Given a century or two for debris to settle, you'd be pressed to find those 'lost' workings...

Hopefully equipment abandoned in contemporary mines will not bewilder future finders...


----------



## Dave (Mar 14, 2009)

The Ace said:


> Maybe the dinosaurs were wiped out by a nuclear winter.
> We'll probably never know


No reason at all why intelligent, bipedal dinosaurs, with binocular vision, and opposable thumbs, could not have evolved and then been wiped out by the mass extinction - only that we have no fossil evidence.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Mar 14, 2009)

Happy Joe said:


> Evolution does not preclude the possibility of now extinct intelligent creatures on our planet. If you mean a highly technological civilization... IMO, the odds are against it.
> 
> There have been many allegations of out of place artifacts over the years; including a gold chain and iron pot supposedly found in chunks of coal; but as of yet few seem to be convincing and most seem to disappear mysteriously after "discovery".



Of course, they have to hide their tracks.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 14, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> I think I personally might change that to "accept the validity of the evidence for evolution", as belief has little to do with it, unless one calls it belief to accept the workings of the natural world and the laws of physics....



Speaking only for myself, I've never handled the fossil evidence and don't have the scientific background that would enable me to authenticate it or (probably) draw scientifically plausible conclusions if I did.

So yes, I would call it "belief" that I'm willing to accept that the scientists are telling the truth about evolution and that it isn't all one gigantic hoax.

When people don't have the knowledge or the skills to disprove what they are told, and yet we believe it because we've been _taught_ to believe by those we recognize as authorities, how is that different from individuals who put their faith in church teachings because _they've_ been instructed to believe in much the same way?

Sure, the theory of evolution sounds "rational," but so might any number of other theories if presented in a similar fashion, backed up with all sorts of purported evidence that few of us would be capable of actually verifying.

I _do_ accept the theory of evolution but I'm not going to pretend that in doing so I'm displaying some sort of intellectual superiority to those who believe something else.  I could read a thousand books on the subject, but I'd still be taking it all on faith, because every bit of evidence comes to me at second, third, or umpteenth hand.

If someone whose credentials I was inclined to trust were to present me with equally convincing evidence that man's origins lay in a completely different direction, I'd be willing to consider it.  I might not believe it, because it's hard to shed long-established habits of thinking, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. 

I'd say that most people "believe" in the theory of evolution.  At least those of us who aren't paleontologists and have never taken a stab at carbon dating.  (Which I'm pretty sure isn't something you learn to do in High School science classes.  Or if it is, the facilities at the school I graduated from were seriously lacking ...)

On a somewhat lighter note, I've always like the idea of civilized dinosaurs.  My grandsons have a series of books with titles like "How Do Dinosaurs Clean Up Their Rooms" and "How Do Dinosaurs Say Goodnight."  The stories, by Jane Yolen, are highly amusing, but even better are the pictures of harassed-looking human parents with beautifully illustrated dinosaur "children."


----------



## reiver33 (Mar 14, 2009)

My wife is a devout Christian and Creationist so I've kinda learned to keep silent on the matter, although I don't see any problem equating 'let there be light' with the 'big bang' theory. 

Evolution stumps some people when you see the mind-boggling complexity of many creatures (man included), a complexity which seems impossible to explain through random development and/or natural selection given an incremental perspective. Hence it is more comforting? to consider 'intelligent design' as a solution, although I really riled someone once by pointing out the function of the monolith in '2001' as being 'Godlike'.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Mar 14, 2009)

> Teresa:
> 
> Speaking only for myself, I've never handled the fossil evidence and don't have the scientific background that would enable me to authenticate it or (probably) draw scientifically plausible conclusions if I did.


 
The problem with this level of scepticism is that you can take it even further. I've never been to India or Hong Kong though I have seen some convincing evidence that they do exist. I've never seen anything not even the remotest tiny smidgen of evidence that a god exists.

I have seen evidence and subsequent exploitation of the way man is prepared to self delude, con and fool others for their own advantage.

As for London Hammers I would have though a few simple tests on the surrounding rock would soon reveal it to be one of the common limestone artifacts that are often left in stalactite forming caves. I've seen photographs of chairs pick axes pans and all sorts of artifacts left in such places for the amusement of future generations. They get coated quite quickly. 


I am unable to accept that an intelligent life form lived on this planet millions of years ago. A billion years on the other hand would give enough time to sub duct all the evidence into geological oblivion.

However, I would be much more prepared to think that this was a possibility given no evidence whatsoever and be prepared to embrace it wholeheartedly rather than to believe in the suggestion that against all rational thought that there was a overseeing, controlling, manipulative, uncaring heartless deity involved.


----------



## Ursa major (Mar 14, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Speaking only for myself, I've never handled the fossil evidence and don't have the scientific background that would enable me to authenticate it or (probably) draw scientifically plausible conclusions if I did.


 
Fossils aren't the only evidence of evolution, Teresa.

The "natural selection" part of the theory of evolution is in operation (pun kind of intended) even as we type. For example:



> *Antibiotic resistance* is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of antibiotics. It is a specific type of drug resistance. Antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection acting upon random mutation, but it can also be engineered by applying an evolutionary stress on a population.


 

From Antibiotic resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Mar 20, 2009)

To be technically correct one does not actually see "Evolution" on a day to day basis.  One sees: _Natural Selection_.  The theory of Evolution posits that by way of natural selection an engine of organic development is driven.  Evolutionary psychology and punctuated equilibrium are additional postulates that addend how science views the theory of evolution (model behaviors became instincts as behavioral success was incorporated; great changes accompany only great shifts in ecosystem.  _paraphrasing said ideas_).


Evolution has its problems (otherwise it wouldn't still be a theory; it would be a law right along side gravity).  Evolution is incomplete as regards the start of life (how do molecules preferentially select organic modes of organization: quantum physics has some interesting possible answers to this problem, but its not something your average person would be able to differentiate from divine influence).  Evolution also lacks a complete unbroken fossil record during periods of geologic/ecological upheaval; if you understand punctuated equilibrium, then this only makes sense (all the living creatures were too busy changing or dying out for an unbroken fossil record to be left behind), but to a lay person this smacks of "cop out."



A billion years ago if there were creatures of human level intellect we certainly couldn't know it, but the earth very likely couldn't support something of the size of humans at that point (what would they eat?).  Human level intellect means large but compact brains (humans with small brain disease very quickly lose abstract thought capability after about the 50-60% size level), and large brains means needing lots of food...

A million years before us and there should be some fossil record (assuming that this race had bones like every other land based creature on this planet) so long as they existed for a certain amount of time.  Without knowing more about paleontology I can't give any definite time span, but if said species was only around for 50 years and then wiped out completely by disaster, then it is entirely plausible for them to have existed.  But any kind of substantial period of time (many thousands of years), and something would be left.



And are we seriously comparing the qualifications for speculation between scientists and theologians?  I haven't personally seen Neptune, but I know it exists.  I've looked through a telescope and seen the bright spot that scientists say is Neptune.  I've seen the charts that map its motion and sure enough they map onto the "bright spot" that is Neptune pretty well.  I've seen pictures of Neptune taken by satellites.  I've read the briefs describing Neptune's features and it meshes well with my understanding of the solar system.  So I do more than just accept on faith the existence of Neptune: I take it as a given that it exists and is located in the solar system where is.  And if any of you personally aren't able to go as far as I in your analysis/understanding of the evidence, then perhaps you should trust those who can?  It's not like everyone is expected to be their own car mechanic, right?  Or is it also an article of faith to assume that your car mechanic knows how to fix cars?

Whereas when it comes to theologians what evidence is their to back up dogma?  What reason is there for the Bible to be the word of God?  What evidence is there to corroborate the Bible?  I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran.  The Bible was the absolute truth because it was the word of God.  The Bible was the word of God because mommy said it was.  That was evidence enough for me when I was 7.  But as I got older my need for additional evidence grew, and as such so did my understanding of God and the need for religion and spirituality.  Faith is a good thing in the right proportion, and some times truth is something other than pure fact.  Let their be light and the Big Bang are a good equivalence for someone of faith.  But just because one can map the Bible onto the real world in some parts doesn't mean everything has to be factually true.  The Genesis account, if one were to look at its entirety, looks not unlike a parable; recounting the folly of disobedience to authority and how insidious evil can be and that innocence once lost can never be regained.  This is a truth.  Does it need to be more than that?  Why should it be?  The seventh day adventists seem to think it needs to be; for them: every scientist's conception of time and scale is wrong, and not only did people live for hundreds of years 5,000 years ago but they were also supremely intelligent as a result of their faith and invented genetic engineering thousands of years ago and they all built the dinosaurs (they were all failed projects) that were then wiped out by the flood of Noah.

But if on the other hands this seems right to you... well then that's    If it is really part of your faith, then so be it.  But faith by itself doesn't make things true.  If it did you would have to acknowledge the existence of deities from every pantheon that has ever existed.  But on the other hand faith does by itself make some thing a kind of truth.  It matters not whether or not Noah's flood actually happened if the tale imparts wisdom and you live a better life as a result of it.  That "truth" cannot be given or taken away and can only be found within the growth and development of one's self.



Back on the topic at hand:

I don't see why it would matter, except from a purely investigative standpoint, that a previously intelligent humanoid developed, when they left no evidence or lasting effect on the world.  I mean it would shed additional light on the biological history of earth, but if they didn't do anything of note, then how is it relevant for the purpose of practical application of biology?  It's really not.  It makes great story fodder (I mean everyone wants to romanticize cave paintings and egyptian heiroglyphs), and sparking the imagination is important to be sure, but I won't start looking for evidence of things just because my imagination says it would be cool.  I think it would be cool if element 556 (Unobtainium) could be found and mined on the moon, but I don't think I will start my search there.  I think I will start my search in a solar system sized particle accelerator and work from there.

MTF


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Mar 20, 2009)

Nice post MTF. You have a delightful turn of phrase.


----------



## Nik (Mar 20, 2009)

Nicely put, MTF. 

If I was feeling wicked, I'd quote you on another board I frequent: Several of their persistent posters routinely segue from eg error-bars in sub-atomic physics to Ayuvedic (sp) philosophy by way of 'brane' theory. And, yes, along the way, they usually manage to perpetrate several basic science howlers per paragraph...

{FX: Shakes head at their ignorance of their ignorance of their ignorance... }


----------



## Interference (Mar 20, 2009)

Excellent summary, MTF.


----------



## Ursa major (Mar 20, 2009)

ManTimeForgot said:


> I don't see why it would matter, except from a purely investigative standpoint, that a previously intelligent humanoid developed, when they left no evidence or lasting effect on the world. I mean it would shed additional light on the biological history of earth, but if they didn't do anything of note, then how is it relevant for the purpose of practical application of biology? It's really not. It makes great story fodder (I mean everyone wants to romanticize cave paintings and egyptian heiroglyphs), and sparking the imagination is important to be sure, but I won't start looking for evidence of things just because my imagination says it would be cool.


 
Quite right. Although I would add that, there could be no real investigation: with no evidence, there can only be speculation.


----------



## Interference (Mar 21, 2009)

Self destruction notwithstanding, ther's a high probability that studies of history in situe will one day be available to us.  There may never be a time machine that will take people back, but there may be a way of remotely viewing history, either psychically or with specifically attuned equipment.  Then a considerable wealth of knowledge will be open to us, from the origins of the Universe to the truth behind religions and the likelihood of smart dinosaurs.  The successes of any previous dynasties will then impact on the progress of our own.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 22, 2009)

"another" intelligent race???
You obviously have never come to Holland
_H> sapiens_ is a bit of a misnomer


----------



## Interference (Apr 2, 2009)

Just been reading about more alien artefacts being found on the moon and it occurred to me, probably not for the first time and probably not uniquely, that if there had been an intelligent and advanced civilisation on Earth millions of years ago, any extant evidence for their existence will be on the Moon or on Mars.


----------



## Nik (Apr 2, 2009)

Um, what do you mean "More" alien artifacts ??

Even the hint of something with potential MilSpec usage would have kept the US space program in overdrive after Apollo...

We Certainly would not have seen the faffing around in low orbit with the Shuttle, nor the fumble-fingered Orion/Ares retro-design that *may* fly before the Chinese equivalent...

Be a Cruel irony if the last of Apollo's dozen Moonwalkers do not live to see another lunar mission...


----------



## Interference (Apr 3, 2009)

The latest photos I cited were from a Russian Moon survey.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Apr 3, 2009)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> The problem with this level of scepticism is that you can take it even further. I've never been to India or Hong Kong though I have seen some convincing evidence that they do exist.



But I'm not being skeptical.  I don't doubt the theory of evolution.  I trust the scientific authorities that tell me these things are true.  Which to me sounds like just the reverse of being skeptical.

But I don't consider my acceptance of these theories as making me more logical or rational than the people who believe something else.  It just means that I rely on different authorities than they do.  Are _my_ authorities more logical and rational than _their_ authorities?  Of course I think so.  But I have to be honest and say they could be completely hoaxing me and I wouldn't know the difference.



> And if any of you personally aren't able to go as far as I in your analysis/understanding of the evidence, then perhaps you should trust those who can?



But that's exactly what I'm doing MTF.  I don't think trust is very scientific however.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Apr 3, 2009)

Have faith, Teresa, have faith


----------

