Did all alien life in the galaxy evolve from a common ancestor?

[Adam Reynolds]

Compared to my other odd idea this is relatively straightforward. In reality, the reason that vertebrates and many other animals all have bilateral symmetry is that we all evolved from a common ancestor.

In Star Wars, everything from Geonosians to Hutts also share this trait. While that is obviously to make them easier for humans to empathize with and understand, it doesn't necessarily make sense if they evolved on different worlds. It could still be possible, I believe Richard Dawkins made a few points in favor of the advantages of bilateral symmetry in one of his books, but it still seems odd that nothing else has evolved. Even on Earth we have things like starfish.

It is also odd that the majority of the life seen is humanoid. At least everything with approximately human level intelligence is anyway. And as Neil Degrasse Tyson pointed out in one of his speeches(not specifically talking about Star Wars), it is also odd that all sentient life has roughly human intelligence. In reality, chimps have 99.9 percent DNA in common with us. A four year old has more intelligence than even the smartest chimp. Imagine that difference in another direction. Why would alien life all have roughly human intelligence?

Loosely combining this with my theory that The Force is an AI*, it is possible that all life in the Star Wars galaxy was guided on the path that it was by The Force. That would explain why all sentient life has roughly the same level of intelligence.

* Though this point would work with the Force as a natural phenomenon as well.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is possible that a lot of species came from a common ancestor. Certainly I think humans, Chiss (if we include the old EU anyway- I don't know if Chiss exist in the new continuity), Twi'leks, Ashoka's species, and Cad Bane's species, and probably some others, all originate from the same point.

In fact, I think I read something official along those lines somewhere, but I can't recall the details.

[Purple]

At least the intelligence bit is easy. We do see animals in SW. We see the big fish, various birds etc. But when it comes to actual characters with speaking roles there is a required minimum level of intellect. A species of space chimps is probably not going to make for a good character source other than as a lovable pet.

[Adam Reynolds]

At least the intelligence bit is easy. We do see animals in SW. We see the big fish, various birds etc. But when it comes to actual characters with speaking roles there is a required minimum level of intellect. A species of space chimps is probably not going to make for a good character source other than as a lovable pet.

But that doesn't answer the question of why none of those aliens are smarter than humans. At least no so much smarter as to be beyond humans. Obviously the out of universe answer is that it is because it would be impossible to write, but that doesn't give an in universe explanation.

[Lord Revan]

To be honest we know that humans are a signifigant majority within the Galactic Republic/Empire not mention that in the Legendaries a signifigant portion of the aliens were actually sub-species of humans.

So it could be possible that we see aliens with roughly human like body shape because most of the tech is designed with that bosy shape in mind, so speicies with more exotic body shapes don't become as prominent as those with roughly humanoid body shape.

[Purple]

At least the intelligence bit is easy. We do see animals in SW. We see the big fish, various birds etc. But when it comes to actual characters with speaking roles there is a required minimum level of intellect. A species of space chimps is probably not going to make for a good character source other than as a lovable pet.

But that doesn't answer the question of why none of those aliens are smarter than humans. At least no so much smarter as to be beyond humans. Obviously the out of universe answer is that it is because it would be impossible to write, but that doesn't give an in universe explanation.

Aren't they? Just how much have we genuinely seen of the other species out there? We know that the Hutts although very low in number have successfully constructed a criminal and in the old EU territorial empire. We also know from the old EU that the Twilek newer amounted to much in that respect as even as far back in the KOTOR era they are mostly seen as dancers and some times slaves, newer the slave owner or empire builder. And we know humanity beat most other species out.

But even this is all circumstantial because we really don't see much character development for any of them. The closest thing to an alien lead we ever had were Yoda and Chewbaka. And neither of those gave us much insight into their species as a whole.

[Adam Reynolds]

But they are still loosely in the same range of human intelligence rather than absurdly high or low. That makes little sense given the species that have evolved on Earth.

[Metahive]

*never mind, wrong thread.

[Purple]

But they are still loosely in the same range of human intelligence rather than absurdly high or low. That makes little sense given the species that have evolved on Earth.

Species which have an absurdly low intellect don't count as intelligent species but as animals. We see plenty of those in SW.
As for a higher IQ there is as I said no real way of measuring it. The SW galaxy has been in this state for thousands of years and is a virtual melting pot of culture and technology and everything. How do we know what came from where? Maybe the Hutts are actually hyper intelligent and have invented most of the stuff used in the setting? Maybe the droids came first and made them in a lab because they were bored? We don't know and can't tell. And the only way we could even attempt to glimpse at it is through characters with speaking roles. But again, not many of those. Certainly not enough to get any meaningful measure of interaction with the main cast to the point where we could infer anything. The setting plain and simply does not give us any means of observing it all.

[Q99]

There's definitely a couple groups, but no, not all.

I mean, heck, look at Dac. The Quarrens and Mon Cal obviously are pretty far separate from each other, and in turn very separate from humans. And they've got a long on-world history.

Then you get the Kel Dor, Plo Koon's species. They look very different from humans, and our atmosphere is poisonous to them.

As for intelligence, I think that's where in SW intelligence naturally converges/levels out. Though some species are definitely better at some aspects than others. And yea, the Force may help guide things to that zone.

Certainly I think humans, Chiss (if we include the old EU anyway- I don't know if Chiss exist in the new continuity), Twi'leks, Ashoka's species, and Cad Bane's species, and probably some others, all originate from the same point.

Chiss, Twi'lek, and a number of others are classified as near-humans, yes.

Cad Bane's species is Duros, which is not noted to be related to humans... but *does* have it's own offshoots, like the Neimoidians (the Trade Federation leadership).

[Zwinmar]

My theory is that they all originate from the same point back in history. They were engineered for their particular worlds after terraforming was a partial failure. It just didn't work as advertised so it was easier to mess with the genetics than the planet.

[Q99]

I can see some being of the same source, but plenty seem convincing unrelated to me.

[Elheru Aran]

If you venture into Legendaries canon, and do some *really* deep digging... I don't know if the Dawn of the Jedi stuff is still canon, but before even that point (something like hundreds of millennia before the OT) there were precursor super-races in the galaxy. It's not improbable that the SW version of the human race, and any number of alien species, were engineered by some such. IIRC, Curtis Saxton had a list of near-human races in SW and speculated as well upon a common ancestor.

[Galvatron]

The final season of The Clone Wars had an episode that touched upon this very topic...

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Destiny_%28episode%29

[Q99]

If you venture into Legendaries canon, and do some *really* deep digging... I don't know if the Dawn of the Jedi stuff is still canon, but before even that point (something like hundreds of millennia before the OT) there were precursor super-races in the galaxy. It's not improbable that the SW version of the human race, and any number of alien species, were engineered by some such. IIRC, Curtis Saxton had a list of near-human races in SW and speculated as well upon a common ancestor.

The Precursors races- Celestias, Kwa, and Rakatan- definitely did some picking up of species and depositing them around, sometimes with modifications, other times just in environments different enough that notable change happened in the following tens of thousands of years.

[Simon_Jester]

Compared to my other odd idea this is relatively straightforward. In reality, the reason that vertebrates and many other animals all have bilateral symmetry is that we all evolved from a common ancestor.

In Star Wars, everything from Geonosians to Hutts also share this trait. While that is obviously to make them easier for humans to empathize with and understand, it doesn't necessarily make sense if they evolved on different worlds. It could still be possible, I believe Richard Dawkins made a few points in favor of the advantages of bilateral symmetry in one of his books, but it still seems odd that nothing else has evolved. Even on Earth we have things like starfish.

There definitely ARE alien lifeforms in Star Wars that aren't bilaterally symmetric, especially if we look at the old EU. Things like dianogas are... it's hard to say if they're symmetrical. However, none of the dominant intelligent races exhibit anything other than bilateral symmetry.

Which does suggest that panspermia is a valid explanation- that is, most complex life in the Star Wars galaxy was seeded from a single source at some unimaginably distant time (as in, something on the order of a billion years in the past).

Alternatively, in much more recent times, someone went around methodically uplifting bifurcate creatures to full intelligence while ignoring other types or organisms.

It is also odd that the majority of the life seen is humanoid. At least everything with approximately human level intelligence is anyway. And as Neil Degrasse Tyson pointed out in one of his speeches(not specifically talking about Star Wars), it is also odd that all sentient life has roughly human intelligence. In reality, chimps have 99.9 percent DNA in common with us. A four year old has more intelligence than even the smartest chimp. Imagine that difference in another direction. Why would alien life all have roughly human intelligence?

Because evolution works away from lethal vulnerabilities, not towards some abstract goal.

Early in their evolution, intelligent creatures benefit by using their intelligence either for strategizing that increases their chances of reproducing, or by using it to create tools and tactics that protect them from their environment.

Once you're as smart as a human, most probable physical environments don't pose much of a threat- and if they do, then the odds are you will have to meet those threats with physical adaptations. Being ultra-intelligent isn't going to make you more survivable on a death world where the main threat is being eaten alive by fungal spores, whereas having an ultra-strong immune system is going to help.

So the remaining reason for beings to evolve greater intelligence is if there is some sort of 'arms race' going on in which the most cunning members of the species are most likely to breed. And as we observe in our own world, that kind of arms race tends to break down when people become intelligent enough to discover technology. If you look at humans alive today, while there isn't necessarily a negative correlation between intelligence and number of surviving fertile offspring... there isn't much of a positive correlation either.

So either way, evolution won't produce alien species much more intelligent than a human, unless they emerge in a very very strange environment where super-intelligence is actually an asset that increases reproductive fitness.
_________________

And for that matter, some sentient creatures in Star Wars are more intelligent than humans, or at least possess mental powers humans lack. The Hutts are sometimes portrayed as smarter than a human- but have other weaknesses such as being physically semi-sessile. That the only Hutt we ever see in the main movie series is immune to Jedi mind tricks that work on most intelligent lifeforms tends to support the idea that they have unusual mental abilities.

Among the more obscure Star Wars races, the Givin have superhuman mathematical abilities. The Cereans and the Muun are both portrayed as "very intelligent" (i.e. smarter than the human average). And that's just off the top of my head.

[Q99]

Some also have mental abilities other than intelligence that are noteworthy. Some have superior memory. Others have extra senses that give them a 3d sense of their surroundings, and they can process that.

Some species are naturally telepathic without having to train as Jedi first.

[Simon_Jester]

Right.

So basically, there is a fair amount of old EU evidence of species that are mentally superior to humans. In the sense that, oh, Wookiees are physically superior to humans. There's even some movie evidence.

However, as we might expect, these species have their own strengths and weaknesses. Wookiees are stronger than humans, but show little evidence of being more dexterous, having greater stamina, or being better at manipulating tools.

Likewise, a Cerean might be better at manipulating abstract concepts than a human, but not be better at social manipulation (a key application of intelligence when among other intelligent creatures). Or at navigating a complex environment on a battlefield. Or at resisting psychological stress.

[Adam Reynolds]

That actually reminds me of the way humans are portrayed in Mass Effect. They are the most average.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Humans being "average" suggests they are the most adaptive. There are stronger species, there are faster species, there are airborne species, there are smarter species and so on. But there isn't a spcies that is faster, stronger, better aware than humans all in one. Humans can do almost everything reasonably well, even if they don't excel in many areas. As a result they are effectively the dominant species in an entire galaxy of intelligent life.

It's kinda like the Space Marines in 40K, they're jack-of-all-trades.

[Elheru Aran]

That might merit some exploration as far as tropes go. It would be interesting if someone wrote a SF (or fantasy actually, that could be interesting) story which *didn't* depict humans as 'average'. I wonder why it's such a common notion. Hell, even in Trek, it almost seems sometimes like humans are more common than the other alien species out there.

[LaCroix]

They also might have a different scaling of intelligence. We see several races that seem intelligent, but are rated as 2nd or 3rd class species...

Or as a Member of the Elite put it:

[Adam Reynolds]

That might merit some exploration as far as tropes go. It would be interesting if someone wrote a SF (or fantasy actually, that could be interesting) story which *didn't* depict humans as 'average'. I wonder why it's such a common notion. Hell, even in Trek, it almost seems sometimes like humans are more common than the other alien species out there.

Probably because it's a way of letting humans be important and still let other cool species show up that do things that humans cannot possibly match. In a fantasy setting it might be interesting for humans to be smarter and more scientific while a group like elves was less so because they had magic. Meanwhile humans would be in the process of beginning an industrial revolution. So technology is about to massively outpace magic.

In a science fiction setting you could have an alien race that is somewhat physically weak because they evolved in a low gravity environment. They would also do worse at handling the G forces of acceleration in space travel. That was something that annoyed me in Avatar. If it is a low gravity world creatures on it should be weaker, not stronger. Humans would also be capable of greater accelerations on the planet by doing things like jumping higher. But we never saw anything like that. Humans were just crap by comparison to the perfect alien utopia.

[Simon_Jester]

That might merit some exploration as far as tropes go. It would be interesting if someone wrote a SF (or fantasy actually, that could be interesting) story which *didn't* depict humans as 'average'. I wonder why it's such a common notion. Hell, even in Trek, it almost seems sometimes like humans are more common than the other alien species out there.

Common variations on this... hm.

One is that humans are more violent than most alien species (e.g. John Ringo, Alan Dean Foster), about as violent as an intelligent race can possibly be and still develop civilizations and space travel without massacring itself back into the Stone Age. This obviously lends itself to war stories.

Another is related- that humans are more determined or persistent than most alien species, more prone to persevere in the face of adversity (e.g. Clarke's Rescue Party).

Also related is the idea of humans being relatively technologically primitive, but at the same time also being robust and resourceful and being good at improvising crude but effective "outside the box" solutions to problems that other races have 'solved' long since and no longer seriously evaluate their own solutions for.

Hm...

One of the reasons, I think, why this doesn't get more play is precisely because it got so much play in the Golden Age of SF (thanks in part to Campbell's biases). At some point people realized that the "humans are superior lifeforms destined to dominate the universe" ideas uncomfortably echo the notion of "manifest destiny" and innate racial superiority on Earth... and those went far, far out of style after World War II.

[Sea Skimmer]

Concerning the original topic, I see no reason why Star Wars requires a common ancestor any more so then all carbon based life would 'need' one. The Force is such a fundamental power that its origin would need to be linked to that of the universe, and thus should be more or less equal averaged across the entire Star Wars universe. Any other explanation is going to be a lot more subjective and complex.

That might merit some exploration as far as tropes go. It would be interesting if someone wrote a SF (or fantasy actually, that could be interesting) story which *didn't* depict humans as 'average'. I wonder why it's such a common notion. Hell, even in Trek, it almost seems sometimes like humans are more common than the other alien species out there.

Very simple answer to that. Its easiest. By placing humans on the middle scale of biology story writing you have an easy baseline, and a relatable one for the audience too. One is free to project a range of inferior and superior species in very simplistic (or very elaborate) manners. If humans are placed nearer the top or the bottom it will inherently be harder to create a range of diversity for the universe. You'll have to put much more thought into how one piece of fiction is superior to the other, instead of how it relates to the universally understood human baseline. That's annoying, its simply going to consume more time and the fact is if you are a published, commercial , author you almost always have finite time. Only radically successful people like R. R. Martin can afford to simply waste as much time as they want between books or scripts.

As others are saying it a middle baseline also does tend to favor humans being portrayed as innovative but flawed, which we certainly are by any rational standard. It favors the idea that advantages in biology are diverse and can work against each other, which is also true. But that should be true of a lot of things.

I favor a mildly different approach though when I write, which is more akin to once you control for physical size (who doesn't want 10 foot tall trolls after all?) all technological species are actually very similar at a species level, but all have an extreme variation from the best to worst specimens.

My basing for this is just that their is no reason to think that radically different physical appearances would actually lead to radically different brain function. The basic requirements for survival are the same, and once you achieve the intelligence required to create a significant metallurgical industry the general output of this kind of thinking should be similar. Physics and chemistry are still the same for everyone, at the biological and the manufactured level.

Of course this can be changed from real life via introducing sci fi/fantasy elements like telepathy or unusual minerals but that kind of thing usually isn't actually earth shattering. Would mere telepathic communication for example really change how humans interact today, when we can text message across oceans while driving? Actual mind reading might, but all the same it wouldn't remove one's needs for food-shelter either. So when you start getting past mere biological differences, into universal differences, your really just jumping off a cliff into the implications of such changes, and seldom is anyone willing or able to think stuff like that through to the bitter end. If you go far enough it'd be all but impossible. Which doesn't mean you can't still make something worth consuming, but it's an awful good way to write yourself into a corner too. The question then is will people ignore that or not.