If I were to write something like this comparable to my religious beliefs you guys would be all over me so I expect that you will grant me the privilege of pointing out how absurd this is. No, bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are not even close in comparison to humans. They have had more time to prove their ability to evolve into something smarter then what they are and have failed to do so. If for some reason apes were miraculously able to survive what ever caused a human extinction I doubt they would even be smart enough to recognize that it happened.

I kinda agree, but by no means implying that there is God who created us on purpose and above the rest of the species. The weirdest thing about humans is this belief. It's one of the things that make me tend to accept that we're still monkeys.

What do you mean by the belief that humans think they're created on purpose and above the rest and therefore it makes you think we're still monkeys?

I don't want to hurt anyone's convictions, but I really think it's ******ed to believe in Creationism. And arrogant, and illogical and the best admissible proof that our brains still have inferior thinking reflexes.
But I'll stop here with this, it's offtopic and spoiling mr. DS's issue.

That's absurdly wrong, there are plenty of attributes currently restricted to only one species.

But more importantly, every attribute was once restricted to a single species. If it were "statistically impossible" for any attribute to exist in only one species at a particular time, then life itself would be "statistically impossible."

On the contrary - as for any biosphere it's extremely unlikely for two different species to simultaneously evolve a new trait, there must be a species that evolves a given trait before any other species. When this happens, that species will be the only one on the biosphere possessing that trait. Thus, not only is it not statistically impossible for there to be a single species possessing an attribute, it's statistically necessary.

There's nothing strange about the fact that we were the first species to develop advanced linguistic reasoning abilities. If we hadn't, then some other species would have (and if they had considered themselves to be anomalous, they would also have been making a logical mistake).

DS doesn't create an issue he doesn't intend to have spoiled. It's not his style.

You think believing in Creationism is more ******ed then believing that the family we belong to somehow forgot to evolve with us?

Unless of course it's true. Then this would be the example given for the other sides way of thinking.

Apologies if this is OT

Well, I put it badly. I do not actually think that those species would all evolve in conjunction, like they actually did in those movies. That would be absurd, yes. But to me it seems likely that one species would fill the human niche, and that that new species would probably be descendant of one of those species of ape. Apart from **** sapiens, both the neanderthals and **** ergaster did so previously, then got wiped out by **** sapiens. (that **** ergaster were made extinct by **** sapiens, or it´s predecessor, is slightly controversial I think, but nevertheless)

To say that the great apes are nowhere near in comparison is a bit meaningless. It´s like saying a stick that is 170cm is nowhere near in length a stick that is 190cm. If your yardstick uses nanometers as a unit, you would agree to that statement, but if your unit is miles, you would disagree.

And when you say that apes have had ample time to develop humanlike intelligence, but not having done so proves they lack the ability, I think that is a false statement coloured by the fact that you think human intelligence is a special trait that a species can´t get by evolution.
For one thing, human intelligence is not a goal of evolution, it´s merely a product of it. And secondly, all species have the "ability" to evolve human intelligence, given enough time, and the correct selection pressures.

So that I would think that some species of ape would eventually fill the same niche as humans do now, is because I think the niche is so successful, and that once intelligence reaches a certain point, it becomes a selfperpetuating selection pressure, provided other external pressures allows it. Absence of another species filling that niche already, would be an external pressure that worked against. Doubt all darwinists would agree with me on that one though.

You're absolutely right only as long as superior intelligence is one of these traits. I don't know. It looks so far ahead to anything to me.

What exactly is the goal of evolution?

[ ] exacty
[ ] exactly

If evolution had a goal, it would contradict itself. World does not contain objects but processes. The "objects" are but frozen processes that we can see only because we live and feel within blinks and are thus able to perceive nano histories. A "goal" is such a pseudo-object.

So they became dumber the past million years or so?

Like obss said, there is no goal. Just like the goal of gravity is not to keep you falling of the earth. Gravity has no goal.

So there is no purpose to evolution, really. We live only to be perceived later as a blink in nano histories.

I don't buy it.

In a world supposedly formed from results, comes an intelligence who acts on reason.

To me it looks about a half-step ahead of bonobos or bottlenosed dolphins. I'm convinced that a sufficiently significant environmental event would result in reasoning for those species.

The problem is that once that threshold is breached, there's no turning back. Technology will progress at an accelerating rate. In other words, humans, by virtue of being first in line, are now in control of the world. It's not clear that other species will ever have the chance to develop minds. (But I'm betting we'll create other intelligent species someday.)

There may have been multiple molecules in the distant past capable of eventually replicating. If that were true, then why is all current life DNA/RNA-based? Because once DNA-based life took off, it determined the environmental conditions from that point on, and no other sort of life can have had a chance.

Yeah, you're right, gravity doesn't want us to fall after all.

You do not even come close to understanding the theory of evolution. Ever think of reading a respected book on the subject? Try this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-revi...#RPJQIOI1NZ5I7

and this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Watchm...5331366&sr=1-1

and if you are too arrogant to read books by that author then try this:

http://www.amazon.com/Top-10-Myths-A.../dp/159102479X

http://www.amazon.com/gp/homepage.ht...=1&*entries*=0


If you are only going to listen to people who hold your point of view and read books which affirm the myths you hold to be true then you will never get anywhere. Take a chance Erf, buy the Blind Watchmaker. You will not regret it.

My dad always says to me "If you do what you have always done, you will get what you always got."

Einstein said "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

I guess God is as important to the stability of Mankind as gravitons are to the fall of mankind?

Guesswork on an epic scale. Wrong nonetheless.

They are actually quite close and display many behaviors which are also very similar. From a combined psychology, biology and computer science perspective the similarity is very striking.

As for "prove their ability to evolve" that does display that you are not even willing to learn the most fundamental basics about evolution when debating it. I don't see why anyone should grant you intellectual privileges when you abuse them.

i think we need to find a way to make evolution compatable to BigErf's belief / religion so that he can finally say "aight, ill try to understand it"

how bout God was responsable for creating life like the bible says, and the 6 days was 'God's time' which is 6billion years our time, good enough Erf?

Ok, now rid yourself of the psychology, biology, and computer science perspective and ask yourself:

would you let them drive your car?

would you let them babysit your child?

would you ever call them on the phone?

would you send them to the grocery store with a list of items to bring home?

would you let them fly a plane?

would you go hunting with them?

would you trust them to give correct change as your cash-register employee?

would you let them pay your bills?

would you like them to read you a story?

would you let them install your dishwasher?

would you let them program your remote?

would you let them navigate on a family vacation?

I'm really not trying to be sarcastic tame_deuces, I'm just trying to show how alike we're really not.

The most fundamental basics aren't even needed when observing the ape families ability to evolve.

the first apes climbed trees to get their banans..

the first humans made tools to kill their food, or climbed trees to get a banana..

the apes of today still climb trees to get their bananas..

humans made a gun.. and a chainsaw..

I don't see why anyone should grant monkeys intellectual privileges.

NUTS

Please, more of these! You got me almost convinced!

Erf, the gap between monkeys and humans does not automatically imply a divine intervention. There is a lot of other more reasonable options before the Christian religion, this hoax that led to more killings and tortures than communism and fascism altogether.

I've always wondered why Christians and Muslims are not severely banned from all over the world, whereas Communism and Fascism are. It's a crime to be a Fascist or Communist and a good thing to be Christian or a good Muslim. How come? There are no pros for these two fundamentalist tumors of the human spirit. All what I hear when it comes to them is murder, brain-washing and a pointless flow of empty and ridiculous dogmas. Thousands of years of darkness an evilness, promiscuity and blood. This is the glorious heritage Jesus had left to us. And we still praise "The Lord". I guess, from this point of view, monkeys have had us outplayed by far.

i wouldnt let you do any of these things for me .... def on the fly a plane thing though, but im wondering if i would rather have you fly a plane with me on it or a monkey, b/c a monkey is smart enough to think "i need to live, b/c dying prolly hurts" whereas you would prolly think "these people need to be judged or go to heaven"

I see evolution as no threat. Nothing in the Bible says that the formation of life was not natural, it was the origin that was supernatural.

I don't search too far into evolution only because I have no personal use for the knowledge. God Created Adam from the dust of the ground along with every species and I don't assume He just snapped His fingers to do it. People seem to forget that the only representation of God we can relate to is Jesus. Jesus is only the second part of the trinity. The Godhead is an unseen entity that formed this universe from itself. We label God as "Him" but "Him" is not a person, that would be Jesus.

God is the Living universe, Jesus is the Living universe in the form of Man, and the Holy Spirit is what connects us to the Living universe. It's imperative to know and understand the distinction between the three.