/r/science won't allow it so here 're my questions

Your phrasing and writing style are a little erratic, so perhaps that's why you're not getting a good response elsewhere. You might do more editing before you post if you'd like to get taken more seriously. But I think the questions are reasonable ones.

Neither of your questions can be fully answered. Until we've seen a bunch of kinds of life, it will be hard to generalize. It's like trying to theorize about languages in general if you've only ever heard one. It's a lot easier to think about if you have a bunch of examples.

Regarding the first bit, I understand that's a topic of quite a bit of disagreement. Early AI pursued a brain-in-a-jar approach, implying that physicality was irrelevant. Others differ. If you dig up the great documentary "Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control" you can see robot scientist Rodney Brooks talking about how intelligence and embodiment are very much related. (Since he went on to found iRobot, he's clearly no slouch.) I haven't kept up, but I'm sure there's a lot of interesting work that's still being done in this area.

Regarding the different bases for life, again, we can't say. There's been a lot of speculation of other ways life could be, but we've only got one kind to look at so far, and it's pretty hard to just go and check out a few thousand other planets to see what has cropped up.

it's 3am, here. up from 10am. so i'd request pardon my language, i was being bit lazy, and obviously english is not my first lang.

It's interesting., other guys have agreements and disagreements over it, since science wasn't my major, so until now, i used to believe it's only me. and sometimes too scared to ask it at the risk of for being too stupid.

I can't believe, if we had a physical body like snake, elephants, we could ever had come thus far. at best we hv had an advanced jungle but nothing more than that. perhaps I could be wrong, but this just doesn't settle with me.

As for the 2nd part, why we look anywhere else, Why we don't have life on lets say Mars. If we can understand the 'essence' or whatever, of Evolution theory, then we must have our martians cousins too no?.

"We are perhaps the only intelligence species that exists or have existed on earth." Citation needed. Tool use, language, and many other "human" features have been observed in nature. What is definitely true is that humans are the only species that we are able to reliably communicate with. Note that while snakes and elephants are physically incapable of using tools, doing so doesn't necessarily require hands (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlh0cS2tf24).

by intelligence i meant, reaching to mars, moon. even a dog is pretty intelligent, so is chimp. but as we know, chimp haven't invented a wheel or bicycle as yet, at their own.

If you're setting the bar for intelligence at "reaching the moon", then aren't you saying that there were no intelligent species on the planet at all until July 21st, 1969?

You need to set your terms much more clearly before there can really be a discussion. It seems like you're trying to say that invention is a hallmark of intelligence; well, how do you define invention? Is it just taking an object and using it for a purpose other than it's natural one? Crows do that; there are documented incidents of crows using sticks as tools to solve puzzles. Crows were flying before humans were; by your own logic, that seems to indicate that crows are actually smarter than we are.

So you are saying chimps or dogs can make their own space shuttle let's say in next 50,000 years? or for that matter any other species of animal.

Yes, of course -- there's nothing special about humans that sets us apart from other animals except a few accidents of evolution. In the right circumstances, any other animal could take our place. But not in 50,000 years, more time would likely be required.

I'm confused; first you said that reaching the moon was a hallmark for intelligence, and now you're saying that reaching the moon within the next 50,000 years is a hallmark for intelligence?

If we find life in another solar system, are you going to deem them not intelligent because they haven't reached our moon?

The point that I'm trying to make here is that you're setting a very arbitrary flag in the sand when you say "Everything to the right is intelligent, everything to the left is not". You need to define your terms much much more clearly and unambiguously; you need to point to specific attributes that humans display which no other animals display and say "This is the mark by which I judge us intelligent". Saying "Well we got to the moon" doesn't do it, because obviously we were intelligent long before we got to the moon. And if we were intelligent long before we got to the moon, by what right do you have to say a chimp or a dog isn't intelligent until they do? Maybe chimps just don't care; maybe dogs are afraid of heights.

Silly; chimps and dogs haven't a fraction of the concentration, mental modeling nor communications skills needed. That part is unambiguous. Those things are often measured as part of measuring intelligence in humans. Ergo, chimps and dogs are not as intelligent as humans, by far.

Sure; I'm not arguing that they are. If you say that chimps and dogs fail to display specific attributes that humans do (e.g. concentration at a certain level, mental modeling, sufficiently advanced communication skills), I won't argue with you because my knowledge of BCS isn't high enough for me to participate at a meaningful level.

But the OP didn't do that; he said that dogs and chimps aren't intelligent because they haven't gone to the moon and until he starts defining his terms in the same clearcut way that you have, it's impossible to really discuss the point he's trying to make.

edit: Also, the original point the OP made wasn't "Dogs and chimps are not as intelligent as humans", the point was "Humans are the only intelligent species on the planet". And while you can make an argument to say that dogs and chimps are not as intelligent as humans, I would contest your saying that dogs and chimps do not display intelligence, full stop. And I would further contest (as I've been doing) the statement that the boundary for intelligence vs. however you'd describe a vacuum of intelligence is the arbitrary point of landing on the moon, or even being within 50,000 years of doing so.

Yeah OP was silly, agreed. There are humans that opt out of technology, and not because they're dumb.

Technology is result of our wisdom, if one does not uses technology, that does not mean, that human is not intelligent,. The topic was intelligence and our physical body that apparently is perfect to support the intelligence we have.

Same could be said of any animal? And just because animals don't express our sort of technology doesn't mean they can't.

do we have to redefine intelligence and technology :) or should we stick to the definition we all know :)

All I could make of your comment, other animals are like us, but they are not nerds. :)

Say we discover dolphins are doing something amazing and complicated under all that water. Its not hospitals or lasers, but pretty cool. So are they intelligent? Not like us surely, but their environment would mold their inventions to look very different from ours.

I rather gave an example of chimp which is not only our relative but also i guess the most intelligent animal other than us.

But something is evidently clear, i am not talking in religious terms, rather layman. I am not the sort of animal as other are. Why is it so. Lets figure it out. But when we do, we will have to look beyond the basics of evolution theory, Evolution theory itself, is not completely wrong. But if you instead start analyzing that Nedenethals were actually the prototype for the end product 'homo sapiens'. It may solve all the mysterious that surround the evolution theory. And the final part was, I am not willing to believe 'life' sparks at its own as says Evolution theory, It was sparked. If it did spark at its own, what is keeping it from on mars., as I was of the view, self-starting life can begin at its own, according to the atmosphere of its planet.

On the other hand, if when someone say 02 and h202 are the standard for life. don't you think it proves the religion point, a standard was intentionally set so that life could not take place on other planets. as we are the only 'visible' intelligent, there are two other intelligent species other than us according to religion. angels, and jinns but both are invisible according to the religion.

I wonder since religion says Jinn are as intelligent as humans beings are and were created zillions ago than human being, what they have been cooking up, if they really exist, when I tell they are the alien, everyone would dismiss me as being a lunatic. :) But if you can believe in aliens why not in jinn being the alien which religions validates too, and there is no validity of any kind for aliens most people talk about. :)

what?

You didn't address my point about albatrosses and dynamic soaring. Why do you think that our physical body has adapted to perfectly support our intelligence, as opposed to our intelligence adapting itself to our bodies?

And you still haven't given an adequate definition for intelligence; just saying "the result of our wisdom" (what is wisdom?) doesn't cut it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals#Elephants, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110819-eleph...

I also wouldn't call snakes physically incapable of using tools.

I don't know why I'm responding, this topic is pretty clearly dead, but here's another thing for you to consider. Your point 1 mentions how "the physical body we have, totally support our intelligence, is it mere coincidence" [sic]. We adapt to the bodies we have; other animals adapt to the bodies they have.

Albatrosses use a technique called dynamic soaring and can fly across literally the entire ocean without flapping. They've pretty clearly adapted to their bodies; do you feel the development of that technique doesn't indicate intelligence?