Every single life form on Earth today had exactly the same time to do its evolution in. Us, bats, dolphins, tapeworms, birch trees, amoeba, mushrooms, all of that had exactly the same chance(s) in the same time span.
And we don't even know if and how mushrooms and trees communicate, let alone if they "think", for our near-sighted definition of thoughts. We don't even know what to make of birds, e.g. crows, with respect to the size of their brains and what they can do.
Is our planet, taken as a whole, alive, in some form of the Gaia hypothesis? The correct answers as of this time are either "we don't know" or "it depends on the definition of alive."
That Star Trek trope of "everything in the Universe is just like us with different faces" really needs to be put to rest.
Even H.R. Giger was boring and unimaginative with regards to how he envisioned the Alien. That's clearly a creature influenced by Earth-ism - a quadruped, with a single head and mouth and a flexible spine and claws, it's basically a weird cat.
Budget constraints aside, Star Trek aliens were used as a prop to explore extremes of terrestrial human behaviour and culture from an outside perspective - take a human and remove emotions and have them governed purely by logic, you get a Vulcan. Take a human and exaggerate their tendencies towards violence and honour, you have a Klingon, and so on.
Even in the original series there were truly alien aliens - for example the Squire of Gothos was a being of pure energy who just assumed human form, Devil in the Dark had a silicon-based creature, and the Tholians were an intelligent crystalline species who could only exist in high temperatures.
The premise is wrong. The premise here is that intelligence is the only factor. Physics doesn't allow dolphins to enter the bronze age. Hell, even if dolphins grew arms and hands they couldn't enter the bronze age. They're probably smart enough to do so, but there are other factors limiting them.
We have looked at Earth. We can look to the stars at the same time. It isn't an "or" operation.
I don't think we should label dolphins as un-intelligent just because their physical environment doesn't allow them to smelt metal.
My point is - I'd like to avoid judging something as (not) alive or intelligent just because it is (or isn't) similar to our daily life.
I think this is fair, but I also think when people say "detect intelligent alien life" it is shorthand for "intelligent and technologically capable life that would also be able to develop things like radio and interstellar travel." The latter is pretty cumbersome. I don't think dolphins are unintelligent, I don't think an ant is either. But in this context that's not what we're talking about. Language has limits and we use shortcuts like this all the time. Let's just be clear what page we're on and let's try not to inject another page just because the same word is used to mean multiple things.
When the franchise came into being, you're probably right. But in all fairness, the back story and the biological concepts in the Alien universe has been refined since then. For example, the human-like qualities of the xenomorph creature is now explained by the biological merger of an alien substance with the host. When a human was infected, the substance developed into a parasite that took-on characteristics of the host.
Fundamentally, the black goo (i.e. the substance) we saw in Prometheus was pretty much the source of all the alien creatures. It was basically an instrument that deconstructed existing life forms and rebuilt weaponised variants of them.
This is patently false as these species have very different places within the phylogenetic tree. Emphasis on tree, since their adaptivity experiments did not have a linear timeline either; we didn’t evolve to have speech from scratch, we’ve adopted existing partial solutions, e.g. having a tongue, to develop it.
And we don’t need to delve into phenomenology of being a mushroom, adaptivity gives us an observable proxy to the “intelligence” of an organism; how general and efficient of a problem solver they are, the ultimate problem being surviving genes onward. Turns out humans do exceptionally well, for the problems they’ve encountered so far. We’ll see if/how we can solve anthropogenic coordination problems of our day.
> That Star Trek trope of "everything in the Universe is just like us with different faces" really needs to be put to rest.
You need to cook a "complex adaptive organism" solution with the same periodic table and a handful of forces. It's like coding a CRUD application with slightly different sub-requirements and the exact same programming language. How different can they be?
If you need more creativity you have to break apart from physical requirements and the right genre for that is fantasy.
By that logic the most intelligent animals is a cockroach
Viruses and prions reproduce, not only are they not intelligent, they are not even alive.
Firstly, please notice the quotes around intelligence; clearly we’re playing with a fast and loose definition.
Secondly, if humans had driven themselves into extinction with nuclear warfare, that would as well have been true.
Intelligence is not mere symbolic processing, nor symbolic processing is guaranteed to be adaptive, as evidenced with its failure modes in our perennial irrationalities.
> Viruses and prions reproduce, not only are they not intelligent, they are not even alive.
I know one particular virus twisting humanity’s arm these days, and in a way that is not fully intelligible to us yet. I wouldn’t readily diminish the internal logic that’s going on there.
> There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”
On earth's carbon based life forms you mean. Its a huge blindspot, basically monkeys looking for other monkeys. If we believe our life is sufficiently compelex biochemically, it figures that other "life" may have the same complexity but with very different structures.
So the argument for ET life to have almost exact homologs of terrestial life is bordering on naievete at best, and dangerously intolerant at worst.
It is your kind of fantastical thinking that life somewhere else somehow isn’t subject to the same physics as life here that is naive. It’s not wanting to be bound by boring concepts like chemical reactions, gravity, perceiving your environment in some way, etc. We don’t take people seriously that say that stars in other galaxies are actually the heads of long bright snakes and us thinking they are just boring balls of gas is our “blindspot”.
We don't know factually if a beetle can think and remember.
We know about proteins.
We don't know how some aquatic life can survive in the mariana trench.
Biochemistry is indeed chemistry but it isn't as straight forward as we'd like to imagine. Till this day there are cell structures we are uncertain of and would be completely wandering in the dark were it not for cheap but powerful computation available 24/7.
Lets go smaller and things get blurry. The standard model looks...hmmm.
What does this mean? We don’t know the exact capacity of the mind of a beetle. We don’t know how its subjective experience compares to our own. But we know that the structure of neuronal tissue allows information to be stored, just like we know that the structure of DNA allows information to be stored. The relay on chemicals, temps, and pressures where weak chemical bonds and be reliably broken and made.
> We don't know how some aquatic life can survive in the mariana trench.
Again, what does this mean? This feels like the misunderstanding when we say “we don’t know how the pyramids were built” which means we don’t know everything about the exact methods used, but we understand the general technological levels of the time. While people take it as “the ancient Egyptians had a secret technology” or “they couldn’t have built them”. We haven’t been able to observe certain behaviors or exact mechanics or feeding habits for some animals, but we understand how they survive.
> Biochemistry is indeed chemistry but it isn't as straight forward as we'd like to imagine. Till this day there are cell structures we are uncertain of and would be completely wandering in the dark were it not for cheap but powerful computation available 24/7.
Understanding the exact mechanisms is not the same as understanding why cells would be round, or why a semi permeable membrane is important, or why they need energy to resist entropy, or how they need a reliable way to encode and store information,etc.
Understanding very specific and exact biological processes is not the same as understanding basic constraints placed on all matter. If its too cold for chemical reactions to regularly take place, that is a constraint. If a material does not have a structure that can be broken down and remade, that is a constraint. The inverse square law is true everywhere, which is why we can say we won’t see giant flying dragons on any planet.
What are those constraints? Can you enumerate some of them?
Also, physics and chemistry change under certain environments.