UPSB v3
Serious Discussion / Validity of evolution
-
Date: Fri, Jan 1 2010 03:27:45
Simply enough, evolution is a fact. Evolution is as much a fact as the earth rotating around the sun (heliocentric theory) or our bodies being made up of cells (cell theory). Not only has a huge amount of evidence been collected in support of evolution, but both micro and macro evolution (the same thing but on different scales) has been physically observed inside and outside the lab[1][2].
The only reasonable excuse for someone to disagree with the fact of evolution, is that they simply do not understand evolution. Other than that, there will only be a few rare instances where someone does understand evolution and yet still holds their beliefs above reality. It is a fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyjufVuQZ48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnTGYdasDu0...feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler: -
Date: Fri, Jan 1 2010 16:30:29
uh ok?
-
Date: Fri, Jan 1 2010 16:33:40QUOTE (Zombo @ Jan 2 2010, 12:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>uh ok?
That's the best validation ever! -
Date: Mon, Jan 4 2010 12:46:28
This thread isn't generating enough interests as intended, is it?
-
Date: Mon, Jan 4 2010 18:01:41
lol, saying "I am right. PERIOD." isn't discussion. Why do you feel the need to post it? Unless you're willing to discuss, nobody cares.
-
Date: Mon, Jan 4 2010 18:09:52
I actually am not that certain that evolution is correct as we know it, and I think it's kind of silly to believe so strongly that it is
There is an incredible amount of things we don't understand and personally I do not believe evolution is the full story... The problem arises when people like you have an infatuated belief that your idea is right.
I will say there is an incredible amount of "evidence" for evolution, and many arguments against it have been "disproven" however there is still a lot of hazey area that makes me not a little careful before casting my ballot that evolution is in fact real and as large as many people make it out to be.
Another people many people tend to forget is that species aren't made "better" through evolution, species change with nature and adapt. ( Regarding people against evolution as an fact.)
After learning about evolution and many different aspects of it I'd still say that it's to soon to just jump at the idea when there is still so much we need to learn about Dna and the other building blocks of life... -
Date: Mon, Jan 4 2010 21:17:39
For one, Evolution is in direct violation on Cell Theory which states "all cells must come from living cells". How then, did the first cell arise? Experiments have been carried out which result in the creation of nucleic acids and proteins needed to create a cell however the jump from a "chemical soup" to a living, organic cell?
Second, Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I do not know how to word it correctly (please look it up on your own), but it states that in a system, energy etc will tend towards greater entropy. That is, energy etc will eventually become unorganized and unusable instead of gaining in organization, as "evolution" states it does. Again, it's correct definition eludes me. Please check it out yourself.
Your first statement seems to say "evolution is fact, and there is no room for discussion". That is where you are wrong. -
Date: Mon, Jan 4 2010 21:30:03QUOTE (PillarsOfValhalla @ Jan 4 2010, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>For one, Evolution is in direct violation on Cell Theory which states "all cells must come from living cells". How then, did the first cell arise? Experiments have been carried out which result in the creation of nucleic acids and proteins needed to create a cell however the jump from a "chemical soup" to a living, organic cell?
Second, Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I do not know how to word it correctly (please look it up on your own), but it states that in a system, energy etc will tend towards greater entropy. That is, energy etc will eventually become unorganized and unusable instead of gaining in organization, as "evolution" states it does. Again, it's correct definition eludes me. Please check it out yourself.
Your first statement seems to say "evolution is fact, and there is no room for discussion". That is where you are wrong.
evolution does not answer questions about the origin of life. evolution is concerned with how life evolves, not how it was first created. so what you just said is outside of the scope of discussion. -
Date: Mon, Jan 4 2010 21:42:40
Evolution presupposes that life came from non-life though, since that's the only option if you exclude a Creator.
-
Date: Mon, Jan 4 2010 21:57:14
no, thats a fallacy. simply because most people who believe in evolution don't believe in God, does not mean that evolution denies the existence of God.
Evolution is merely concerned with how current species exist through a process of natural selection from the original life. Where religion clashes with evolution is not with the fact that evolution denies the existence of a creator, since it actually states NOTHINg about it, but about the process of natural selection. Christians will deny that our current species are an evolution of a primitive life form, but rather that we were created in our current state from the beginning. evolution says nothing about how the original life comes about, there is no stated evolution transition from non-life to life, theres nothing about tihs.
if ther was a religion that said God created a primitive living organism, then evolution would be perfectly compatible because it would say that this god-given organism evolved into our current human form.
you're arguing on the wrong points.
"The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began." -
Date: Mon, Jan 4 2010 22:36:59
@PoV,
i thot u were done with debating on evolution 
-
Date: Mon, Jan 4 2010 23:04:56
i dont think i know what rotation is but ya. and im with zombo "what"
-
Date: Tue, Jan 5 2010 08:16:13QUOTE (PillarsOfValhalla @ Jan 5 2010, 05:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Second, Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I do not know how to word it correctly (please look it up on your own), but it states that in a system, energy etc will tend towards greater entropy. That is, energy etc will eventually become unorganized and unusable instead of gaining in organization, as "evolution" states it does. Again, it's correct definition eludes me. Please check it out yourself.
Since Zombo has already refuted your 1st paragraph, I shan't bother.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with closed system (i.e. energy transfer only within the system). That said, life is not a closed system, and neither is planet Earth for that matter. Therefore, your argument is invalid. -
Date: Tue, Jan 5 2010 08:23:30QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 4 2010, 01:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>lol, saying "I am right. PERIOD." isn't discussion. Why do you feel the need to post it? Unless you're willing to discuss, nobody cares.
i don't recall saying the PERIOD part, if people want to discuss something that's fine. As you can see by the follow up posts, people are always willing to discuss this lol. I'm sorry if I sounded pompous, it was not intended.QUOTE (EssenceOfLife @ Jan 4 2010, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I actually am not that certain that evolution is correct as we know it, and I think it's kind of silly to believe so strongly that it is
There is an incredible amount of things we don't understand and personally I do not believe evolution is the full story... The problem arises when people like you have an infatuated belief that your idea is right.
Well there is a huge amount of evidence for evolution, more than virtually any other subject in fact. If you go to pubmed and enter in "evolution", thousands upon thousands of articles will come up. The processes of evolution can be debated, but the theory that genetic material changes within a population over generations is undisputed. I mean, you might say that we will learn that we were wrong on some things in the future, but the earth will remain a globe over the next thousand years.QUOTE (EssenceOfLife @ Jan 4 2010, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I will say there is an incredible amount of "evidence" for evolution, and many arguments against it have been "disproven" however there is still a lot of hazey area that makes me not a little careful before casting my ballot that evolution is in fact real and as large as many people make it out to be.
Every argument against the theory of evolution has been debunked, frankly with nearly every one of them being from misinformation or ignorance.QUOTE (EssenceOfLife @ Jan 4 2010, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Another people many people tend to forget is that species aren't made "better" through evolution, species change with nature and adapt. ( Regarding people against evolution as an fact.)
Sure, just saying something is "better" in general is subjective.QUOTE (EssenceOfLife @ Jan 4 2010, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>After learning about evolution and many different aspects of it I'd still say that it's to soon to just jump at the idea when there is still so much we need to learn about Dna and the other building blocks of life...
I'm sorry but what more do you need? If your requirements are so strict that you won't believe one of the most well founded theories on the planet than I have to wonder whether or not you actually think the earth rotates around the sun or if your suspending your judgment until further understanding of dark energy.QUOTE (PillarsOfValhalla @ Jan 4 2010, 04:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Evolution presupposes that life came from non-life though, since that's the only option if you exclude a Creator.
Have you ever heard of Theistic Evolution? Considering that Catholicism and Orthodoxy both take this position, I'm fairly certain that most Christians believe in evolution but actually do think god created the first form of life, but that is abiogenesis and as Zombo said, not relevant to the discussion. "In the natural sciences, abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time."QUOTE (Zombo @ Jan 4 2010, 04:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>simply because most people who believe in evolution don't believe in God
I wish this was true lol... -
Date: Tue, Jan 5 2010 16:19:24
ok let me reword that:
"Just because most atheists believe in evolution, does not mean evolution favors atheism"
Association fallacy -
Date: Tue, Jan 5 2010 16:37:19QUOTE (Zombo @ Jan 5 2010, 11:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>ok let me reword that:
"Just because most atheists believe in evolution, does not mean evolution favors atheism"
Association fallacy
yes, very true. -
Date: Tue, Jan 5 2010 16:41:18
fwiw, i'm christian and believe in evolution (and all other observable sciences, seeing as i'm a physicist xD)
-
Date: Tue, Jan 5 2010 17:20:12
How is making living things not increasing chaos?
-
Date: Tue, Jan 5 2010 17:57:27QUOTE (Zombo @ Jan 2 2010, 01:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>uh ok?
Zombo right away with these comments.
Well evolution doesn't deny the existence of god. Evolution deny many of the religion though. -
Date: Tue, Jan 5 2010 21:45:07QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jan 5 2010, 12:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Zombo right away with these comments.
When Zombo said that it was in response to my questioning on whether or not the topic should be allowed because of the possibility of controversy. If you go to my first post and look at the spoiler box you will see the comment he was responding to.QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jan 5 2010, 12:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well evolution doesn't deny the existence of god. Evolution deny many of the religion though.
But so much of religion is up to interpretation. No Christian can interpret everything literally in the Bible because some of the language is clearly intentionally figurative. If you were to consider it all literal it would soon contradict itself: at one point in the bible it appears to be stating that the earth is flat, and at another section it seems to be claiming it a globe. -
Date: Tue, Jan 5 2010 21:54:35QUOTE (Sadistic @ Jan 5 2010, 04:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>But so much of religion is up to interpretation. No Christian can interpret everything literally in the Bible because some of the language is clearly intentionally figurative. If you were to consider it all literal it would soon contradict itself: at one point in the bible it appears to be stating that the earth is flat, and at another section it seems to be claiming it a globe.
you're going off-topic on your own topic, this is about validity of evolution, theres another topic for religion -
Date: Wed, Jan 6 2010 00:46:25QUOTE (Zombo @ Jan 5 2010, 05:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>you're going off-topic on your own topic, this is about validity of evolution, theres another topic for religion
Sorry, I didn't intend to side-track the conversation. I'm trying to express that it is not needed to interconnect religion with this topic by specifically mentioning that such things are up to interpretation. -
Date: Wed, Jan 6 2010 02:31:54QUOTE (Sadistic @ Jan 6 2010, 06:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>When Zombo said that it was in response to my questioning on whether or not the topic should be allowed because of the possibility of controversy. If you go to my first post and look at the spoiler box you will see the comment he was responding to.
I know. It was just funny. non-sarcastically.QUOTEBut so much of religion is up to interpretation. No Christian can interpret everything literally in the Bible because some of the language is clearly intentionally figurative. If you were to consider it all literal it would soon contradict itself: at one point in the bible it appears to be stating that the earth is flat, and at another section it seems to be claiming it a globe.
exactly. -
Date: Wed, Jan 6 2010 13:02:15QUOTE (Sadistic @ Jan 1 2010, 11:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Simply enough, evolution is a fact. ... ...I won't certainly say so. Evolution, the observed phenomenon of changes in genetic material of a population over generation, is a fact, that's right. However, that humans and other modern great apes share a common ancestor is, at best, a theory, albeit a very well-founded one. It is a conclusion from countless studies, but has never been observed directly. Has it?
... ...It is a fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. -
Date: Wed, Jan 6 2010 21:39:45
Ummm, being logical people you all seem to be.
I would like to have the biggest advocates of evolution here on the board also argue why it may be false, or holes in the theory.
As all of you people know science doesn't prove anything it only disproves and then tries to extend our knowledge.
As with my view I believe evolution through nature, "Darwin and wallaces" isn't the full story, IMO...
And if you really think the theory is spotless and believe in it 100 percent that probably means you're not thinking logically either (just as bad as the religious people who try to advocate creationism)
SO yah, just asking whoever, what are some REAL and TRUE holes, or spots about evolution we should still probably or need to confirm/ know more of, or do you truley believe evolution is rocksolid and we can know explain so that a reasonable person would have to say its real, and at such a major scope and if you don't accept it you're just uninformed. -
Date: Wed, Jan 6 2010 23:35:55QUOTE (yxTay @ Jan 6 2010, 08:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I won't certainly say so. Evolution, the observed phenomenon of changes in genetic material of a population over generation, is a fact, that's right. However, that humans and other modern great apes share a common ancestor is, at best, a theory, albeit a very well-founded one. It is a conclusion from countless studies, but has never been observed directly. Has it?
Of course that hasn't been observed, that evolutionary change took millions of years. Observation is not even the best form of evidence; in fact in court, witnesses testimony is one of the very weakest forms of evidence you can have because of how unreliable human observation is. The probability of humans sharing so many ERVs with chimpanzees is so disgustingly small unless we shared common ancestry, as this video can explain:QUOTE (EssenceOfLife @ Jan 6 2010, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Ummm, being logical people you all seem to be.
I would like to have the biggest advocates of evolution here on the board also argue why it may be false, or holes in the theory.
As all of you people know science doesn't prove anything it only disproves and then tries to extend our knowledge.
As with my view I believe evolution through nature, "Darwin and wallaces" isn't the full story, IMO...
And if you really think the theory is spotless and believe in it 100 percent that probably means you're not thinking logically either (just as bad as the religious people who try to advocate creationism)
SO yah, just asking whoever, what are some REAL and TRUE holes, or spots about evolution we should still probably or need to confirm/ know more of, or do you truley believe evolution is rocksolid and we can know explain so that a reasonable person would have to say its real, and at such a major scope and if you don't accept it you're just uninformed.
The theory of evolution has as many holes in it as the theory of the earth revolving around the sun. If we were to send out a spacecraft with a video feed, and that video feed showed the sun revolving around the earth, we would need to rethink the copernican theory. If we were to find fossils from a mammal that is 3.8 billion years old, we would have to rethink the theory of evolution.
The only things that we can prove "100%" are mathematical theorums, everything else can just be likely, but thats not to say i'm going to jump out a third story building because we don't know that gravity is "100%" true. -
Date: Thu, Jan 7 2010 11:09:37
no mathematics aren't 100% neither.
but I would probably believe evolution more than "god created humans", only because it's more logical -
Date: Thu, Jan 7 2010 15:25:57QUOTE (Sadistic @ Jan 7 2010, 07:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Of course that hasn't been observed, that evolutionary change took millions of years. Observation is not even the best form of evidence; in fact in court, witnesses testimony is one of the very weakest forms of evidence you can have because of how unreliable human observation is. The probability of humans sharing so many ERVs with chimpanzees is so disgustingly small unless we shared common ancestry, as this video can explain:Ah, yes. I'm not saying otherwise, am I? But as yet, we haven't identified who this 'common ancestor' is. So I don't think it's appropriate to call it a fact yet.
Spoiler:
I'm not so sure why it's difficult for you to accept this concept as a theory. It is not certainly a negative thing. In science, a theory is 'a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observation'. Scientific theories are the closest explanation to the truth that we can get. Our typical meaning of 'theory' in everyday usage is closer hypothesis, which is way further from being a theory in the scientific sense. See: http://www.notjustatheory.com/ -
Date: Thu, Jan 7 2010 16:33:09QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jan 7 2010, 07:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>no mathematics aren't 100% neither.
I would say that logical axioms (as opposed to non-logical axioms) are "100% true", because the human mind is incapable of imagining something beyond what we perceive to be cognitive realities, but as I found with Shadow, this can be a rather hefty topic on its own.
If you want to continue this particular discussion further, you could make another thread, or perhaps I will. If you want further explanation of this philosophy concept I'm getting at you can follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom (Just remember though, I'm making the claim for "logical axioms", not "non-logical axioms", as defined by this page)QUOTE (yxTay @ Jan 7 2010, 11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Ah, yes. I'm not saying otherwise, am I? But as yet, we haven't identified who this 'common ancestor' is. So I don't think it's appropriate to call it a fact yet.
I'm not so sure why it's difficult for you to accept this concept as a theory. It is not certainly a negative thing. In science, a theory is 'a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observation'. If there is a hierarchy, theories will be the closest explanation to the truth that is currently accepted by the scientific community. Our typical meaning of 'theory' in everyday usage is closer hypothesis, which is way further from being a theory in the scientific sense. See: http://www.notjustatheory.com/
We can discover that someone has been murdered without discovering the actual murder (And in this case, your asking too much, because finding such a thing would be beyond all of our resources).
btw, I never said it wasn't a theory, I just said it was a fact, which does not contradict being a theory by my definition(it seems we are just arguing semantics here lol). -
Date: Thu, Jan 7 2010 19:47:35QUOTE (EssenceOfLife @ Jan 7 2010, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>And Math is just another way that we understand the world as we know it, it's just how we think, it could be all 100 percent false and just figments of our imagination and us TRYING to grasp understanding out of the world, we would never know and couldn't ever know... (idk if this is what you said Sadistic, or something along those lines.... = \)
math is not a natural science, we can use math in other disciplines, but math itself does not relate to reality. -
Date: Thu, Jan 7 2010 20:36:29
which country believes in evolution chart
Evolution chart -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 00:21:37
Did anyone actually watch the videos I posted?
QUOTE (yxTay @ Jan 7 2010, 08:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The discussion of God and Theism has taken the thread off it's original topic of discussion haven't it?
A few times, but some of the posts are still genuinely interested in attempting to discuss the validity of evolution, so I'm not sure why your posting this. -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 00:22:15
new thread: http://www.upsb.info/forum/index.php?showtopic=23476
-
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 06:38:21QUOTE (Sadistic @ Jan 7 2010, 07:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Did anyone actually watch the videos I posted?
A few times, but some of the posts are still genuinely interested in attempting to discuss the validity of evolution, so I'm not sure why your posting this.
Out of curiosity, what's your reasoning for the fact that humans are the "most evolved" or however you want to say it. Clearly we VASTLY overcame the rest of the "animals," nothing else is even close. By strictly the theory of evolution, what's the explination for this.
To be clear, I'm simply wondering, you seem to know the most about this lol, I'm not arguing or anything. -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 09:20:04QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 8 2010, 02:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Out of curiosity, what's your reasoning for the fact that humans are the "most evolved" or however you want to say it. Clearly we VASTLY overcame the rest of the "animals," nothing else is even close. By strictly the theory of evolution, what's the explination for this.
To be clear, I'm simply wondering, you seem to know the most about this lol, I'm not arguing or anything.
Well I'm not sure if "most evolved" is the best phrasing, because evolutionary distinctions are only relative to the environment in which the distinctions are being made for. You could say that humans are the "best evolved" in terms of living on the planet earth. We have total dominance over other all other species (eliminating competition outside of our species) and we have the ability to increase our life expectancy beyond what would be naturally occurring. We don't know what the future holds, so we can only speculate, but I would like to hope that in the humans will not destroy themselves and will eventually be able to claim a greater chance of survival in nuclear attacks than even cockroaches. Again though, making a statement like "most evolved" or "best evolved" is pretty speculative in any circumstances.
Please don't refrain from arguing just because I can be a little full of myself though lol, science would be useless if it could not accept mistakes and correct them. -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 09:44:46QUOTE (Sadistic @ Jan 8 2010, 05:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well I'm not sure if "most evolved" is the best phrasing, because evolutionary distinctions are only relative to the environment in which the distinctions are being made for. You could say that humans are the "best evolved" in terms of living on the planet earth. We have total dominance over other all other species (eliminating competition outside of our species) and we have the ability to increase our life expectancy beyond what would be naturally occurring. We don't know what the future holds, so we can only speculate, but I would like to hope that in the humans will not destroy themselves and will eventually be able to claim a greater chance of survival in nuclear attacks than even cockroaches. Again though, making a statement like "most evolved" or "best evolved" is pretty speculative in any circumstances.
Please don't refrain from arguing just because I can be a little full of myself though lol, science would be useless if it could not accept mistakes and correct them.
Right, none of that answered the actual question though. Regardless of what you call it, why are we "it" an nothing else is?
Lol that whole paragraph was entirely unrelated -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 02:27:36
IMO, it really starts with 4 things: we live in social groups, exploit tools, have good memory (all known to be not unique to humans) and most crucially, the evolutionary advantage of speech. With speech came spoken language, an efficient way for information transfer. Spoken language allows humans to develop complex tools as we are able to share knowledge, unlike other tool-exploiting animals, which will have to develop tools individually, and, therefore, can't come out with complex tools. When humans developed writing tools (paint, etc.), written language is inevitably invented. This is a more efficient way of knowledge sharing as information can held through generations, instead of being shared just between individuals. With these, we are able to make use of the full potential of our brains. Knowledge and tools become more and more complex, leading us to today.
-
Date: Sun, Jan 10 2010 19:55:13QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 8 2010, 05:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Right, none of that answered the actual question though. Regardless of what you call it, why are we "it" an nothing else is?
Lol that whole paragraph was entirely unrelated
Not quite sure what your asking then. Why are humans more intelligent? -
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 22:46:38
I'm asking, over the course of all of time, why are we the only species to have civilizations? To become "modern" if you will. We haven't existed on Earth all that long, why weren't there some before us? Also, why aren't there TWO or even more advanced species? Is it mutually exclusive? Only one species at a time?
It seems that Darwin's Evolutionary Theory on its face would imply that over the course of the age of the earth, several species would get to the point that we are, yet none as even reached the point that our Neadnertals were. Why is this? -
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 23:11:56QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 11 2010, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm asking, over the course of all of time, why are we the only species to have civilizations? To become "modern" if you will. We haven't existed on Earth all that long, why weren't there some before us? Also, why aren't there TWO or even more advanced species? Is it mutually exclusive? Only one species at a time?
It seems that Darwin's Evolutionary Theory on its face would imply that over the course of the age of the earth, several species would get to the point that we are, yet none as even reached the point that our Neadnertals were. Why is this?
Ancestors of humans became intelligent because higher intelligence, in relation to the environment they lived it, reaped higher survival rate. This particular field of evolution actually has quite a bit of time attributed to it. Here is an explanation video of how intelligence would develop by evolution:
The reason that humans are the only species with this level of intelligence is because our particular ancestors happened to live in a structure that reaped more benefits from being intelligent than their fellow species (For example, if monkeys lived in a organization in which the smartest ones were less likely to die before breeding, intelligence would be bred for). The time from when our species diverged from that of modern apes was some 5-7 million years ago, while a species of our level of intelligence has only existed for 50-100 thousand years. Other species nearly as intelligent as humans were likely wiped out due to environmental conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_humans -
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 23:47:37
We just occupy the niche and there is no more "room" for other intelligent beings. There used to be others but our ancestors were "better".
About the whole discussion:
Spoiler:
The only reason we have to argue about the validity is because there are these strange people who say it's false even though they no scientific proof for their theories. Right now evolution is the best way to explain what we see so everyone should accept it. That's how empirical science works. Just because there seems to be different (scientific) explanation people start to doubt. Even if they agree that stuff like creationism is totally wrong. -
Date: Tue, Jan 12 2010 05:37:18
Ya I saw that video yesterday lol, nonstampcollector makes some great vids.