Since this flippin' discussion seems to be clogging up threads that have nothing to do with their respective topics, I figured, why not give it its own thread? Now anybody & everybody who has something to say on the issue, can say it here. Argue away!

I will start by saying I'm not sure we evolved from an ape-like creature. Not for any religious reason, but I have trouble believeing humans evolved to what we currently are because there are no examples of this kind of drastic transformation in mind & body in nature. My mind frame is best summed up here:

quote:

Originally posted by MajorNougat in the 'Friendly Talk on Religion' thread:
The basic idea is that it IS pretty amazing that we and pretty much only we have managed to evolve this kind of difference. You can come closer to seeing a natural progression towards flight, scales, fur, etc., but there is a slight disconnect when it comes to the intelligence we have, where we've evolved something that nobody, even our closest animal relatives have, an ability that has allowed us to create complex tools and fire, to be so self aware, and to actually be able to rationally debate evolution. While a person could not do these things without the help of other humans to teach us, we have managed to accomplish them as a species, which no other species has really succeeded at.

(I should point out that MajorNougat doesn't hold the same ideas I do. He just understood where I was coming from.)

If we are the result of evolution, why are there no other examples of this in nature? When birds evolved, they stayed birds, they just developed longer beaks or bigger wings or stronger legs. When you look at them, they are still birds. This is true for every animal in nature. They all still look like their ancestors. Humans are born different. Our facial features change with each person. You can tell one human from another by just looking them in the face. Once again, not a trait found in nature. Sure, they have different patterns or shapes of tails or small changes in snouts, but they all look relatively the same, until you look closer.

Humans are also more "aware" than the animal kingdom. We know death is imminent. Animals have no idea. Sure, they'll fight off an attacker, but that is more due to instinct. They, naturally, want to survive, but they don't know they'll die of old age. Humans KNOW that death will occur & it effects the way we live in many instances. How did this "enlightenment" evolve into human consciousness? Sure, we have a gene (KLK8) that apes don't carry, but if we evolved from a common ancestor, why is it apes don't have this gene?

How does a species just evolve a gene to help it think? In nature, thinking isn't all that important. It really wouldn't have even been important to humans for survival. Just look at lions & tigers. Their brains are very small in order to accommodate the muscles for their bone crushing jaws. They aren't thinkers, nor do they need to be. Same with any other animal in nature. Sure, you have some smart animals like dolphins, but what does their intelligence do to help them in the ocean? To help them coordinate attacks on schools of fish. Not really to help them solve math equations or carry conversations. Every animals' abilities purtain to their respective environments.

Another qualm I have is our ability to talk & have discussions, such as these. Have you ever seen two animals, any animals, sit & chat for hours without using the same sounds over & over. Like, dogs howling, it's a territory thing. My monkey would click his tongue when he got excited & smack his lips when he was grooming me. And there were times when he would get really excited & whistle & chatter for over 5 minutes. But he never sat & "talked" with me.

Here's the animal "communication" I'm refering to, as defined by Wikipedia: In general, animal utterances are responses to external stimuli, and do not refer to matters removed in time and space. Matters of relevance at a distance, such as distant food sources, tend to be indicated to other individuals by body language instead, for example wolf activity before a hunt, or the information conveyed in honeybee dance language. It is therefore unclear to what extent utterances are automatic responses and to what extent deliberate intent plays a part.

Sure, we can train chimps to use sign language, but do they really know what they are saying? We show them the sign for apple & they use the sign to get an apple. Does that mean they can truly learn to comprehend more complex thoughts than just sign for things they find familiar? I've seen the deaf hold long conversations with sign language. Could a chimp really do that? No.

We build complex machines & use complex tools. Sure, animals tend to use tools, but nothing too fancy. A modified stick for getting to termites or a stone to break a hard shell. They aren't too inventive, though.

I've seen nature do some amazing things, but for us to have simply evolved to consume the Earth? Just doesn't make alotta sense in my mind. I know my concerns aren't enough to some of you, but they are the reasons I believe what I believe. Man is a very progressive "animal", & not seeing any other animal follow this particular evolutionary path is what makes me skeptical. If we were brought about "naturally", why wasn't any other animal? They've been on Earth alot longer than humans have.

OKAY! Pick away! Let's have some fun!!!

The very name of this thread displays your ignorance on the subject.

Evolution is both a scientific fact and theory. Taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html to save me the trouble of typing it all.

quote:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

I'm done, if you can't believe in evolution you might as well question gravity. I can't entertain this ridiculous fiasco anymore. My last post on the subject can be found in the religion thread, still unquestioned.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
The very name of this thread displays the lack of scientific knowlegde you possess.

Not really, because you believe these theories as fact. Plain & simple. I'm talking "theory" like when someone is trying to decifer evidence. They see the broken glass from the window & a t.v. missing. The cops theorize someone broke in through the window & took the t.v. BUT once they solve the crime, they discover that the guy "stole" his own t.v. to collect the insurance & he broke the window himself. Now, that completely throws their theory out the window, so to speak. THAT'S what I mean by theory. You CAN'T say a theory is fact because they are theories, until the evidence makes them FACTS. You said yourself, "we will never have all the pieces of the puzzle", but you still see it all as fact. I see it as more theory than fact. See the difference?

I know your thoughts on this discussion, Mike. I wasn't really expecting you to pop in because of your frustrations, but nice input.

quote:

My last post on the subject can be found in the religion thread, still unquestioned.

Bring it over here. We're no longer discussing religion with this topic. Just like with the UFO's.

Monkey_Boy, I'm afraid you're arguing using the fallacy of personal incredulity. You don't have anything to counter the theory of evolution, you just have the opinion that you find it to be implausible.

I'm afraid there's nothing I can say outright to say that the differences between different birds is just as much as between humans but to say go read a bunch of boring biology books.

quote:

Posted by Mike
Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution

Brilliantly put.

Evolution was discussed as a theory for life on earth by Lucretius, in the first century B.C.E., in his book, 'On the Nature of the Universe.'

Scientists have long believed in evolution, proposing different models for analysis. But Darwin's theory is the best explanation to have come along so far, which means that if a better theoretical model comes along, it will be be to merely refine evolution as fact, not dismiss it.

That's it. that's all I'm saying. I return now to my godless, soulless, dogmatic coffin to sleep until the rapture when god will return to make a hippo from a wallet and two die.

Finally. The topic was popping up in nearly every other forum. Grr, mike. That little snippet stole everything I wanted to say. I have nothing to say other than that evolution is not a theory in either sense - it is the fact that has theories to explain it, of which Darwin's theory of natural selection is the one held to be the most plausible.

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
1.You can tell one human from another by just looking them in the face. Once again, not a trait found in nature. Sure, they have different patterns or shapes of tails or small changes in snouts, but they all look relatively the same, until you look closer.

2.Humans are also more "aware" than the animal kingdom. We know death is imminent. Animals have no idea.

On point 1:

I've heard some racist humans say that all black people or all Asian people look alike. I'll assume you don't believe that MB. Other animals have distinct characteristics just as humans do.

On point 2:

How do you know animals aren't aware of their own mortality? You've said this before, but do you have any studies you can point to that indicate this to be fact?

I think for a lot of people here, it would be nice if you could actually point to some studies or research that back up some of your arguments against evolution.

First off, EricG75, thank you for actually leaving something to respond to. Apparently some people didn't get what I was trying to do with my initial post. I'm just stirrin' the Kool-Aid to get the discussion brought over here. Everyone had something to say about it until it got its own thread. Kinda like the UFO one, huh?

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
On point 1:

I've heard some racist humans say that all black people or all Asian people look alike. I'll assume you don't believe that MB. Other animals have distinct characteristics just as humans do.

I'm sure we can exclude racist thought from this little discussion . They say what they can in order to make it easier to hate. I, personally, do notice the differences in people's faces. As far as animals go, only someone trained to know what to look for on a certain species can tell a difference in another. Liiiike, whales. You have to see the designs under their tails to see the difference between them. Or, gorillas. It's the shape of their noses that biologists use to tell them apart. But, there is no animal that is born looking different from the others. They are basically clones of each other with very subtle differences. With humans, it's height, weight, shape of our heads, width of our eyes, etc., etc.

quote:

On point 2:

How do you know animals aren't aware of their own mortality? You've said this before, but do you have any studies you can point to that indicate this to be fact?

Well, this is an area that scientists are still arguing about today. There are a number who say they do & those that say they don't. However, not being able to read an animal's mind makes these assumptions difficult. That is the one thing they ALL agree on. You can read both sides of the discussion here.

quote:

I think for a lot of people here, it would be nice if you could actually point to some studies or research that back up some of your arguments against evolution.

Well, here's a theory NOBODY has talked about: 'A Theory of Creation' This, at least, let's you in on Creationist thinking. It does a very detailed comparison of both theories (Evolution & Creation) & I'm sure this might fire a bigger discussion.

I would still like to maintain that my belief isn't because of God, but if I HAVE to choose sides, I suppose it would be Creation.

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
2.Humans are also more "aware" than the animal kingdom. We know death is imminent. Animals have no idea.

I think I know what you mean but I strongly believe that animals can sense when something is coming. Whether it be watching it on a television program or noticing it in real life, animals can sense things.

I remember seeing a show were a mom hippo was taking care of her baby hippo in the water. There was a crocodile near by and the mom was careful to not let the baby hippo get too far away. However, she turned around and the baby hippo wandered too far and was underneath the water. He popped up and looked for his mom but he couldn't see her. By this time the croc was nowhere to be found. The baby hippo could sense something was up (the mom was the only one that had actually seen the croc) and panicked. He wailed in the water, splashing around. The mom was defenseless and the croc pounced and took the baby hippo. Needless to say, it was very sad (I have a deep love for animals) and the look on the mom's face as she saw her baby being eaten was disheartening.

Anyways, I think that animals can sense when there time is up. They have a certain way of sensing emotions, vibrations and even feelings.

So, here's what kinda bums me out (kinda extremely) it's 2007 and I really thought we'd have an answer to this by now, one way or the other. Has anyone heard John Lennon's "Gimme Some Truth"? That's how I feel about damn near everything right now, there should be an objective answer to this, why isn't there? Instead of looking for facts and coming to conclusions based on those, we look for facts based on our existing hypotheses, it's backward.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&mode=related&search=

If you don't know, Richard Dawkins is a big-time evolutionist advocate and just wrote a book called "The God Delusion" in which he says everybody should be atheist (as I understand it.) I'll be the first to admit I kinda don't like Dawkins, because it kinda goes back to what I was saying, rather than try to just gather facts and come to conclusions his agenda seems to be "HA! TAKE THAT RELIGION!" which, come on, you're a scientist, be objective. His response here doesn't have anything to do with the question he was asked, but I do like what he says here. So, has even popular science come to the conclusion we weren't monkeys now? Thing two that bothers me, the fact that since nobody is really looking for answers to help humanity it seems I can't take anyone's word on anything, and if I wanted a real answer to any of this I'd have to do a lot of research and the number of things I have questions about won't fit in my life-span :/ So you have to either make half-assed conclusions or just be left wondering too much. Anyway, he says later he was just stumped by the question because of how stupid it was and that "only creationists would ask it." But it seems to me if that was the case he'd just say "well, that's not a valid question because ______" you know. So, at the very least I guess, evolution happens like birds and things evolving, and we aren't different if you go back and look at caveman bones and skull forms, the different proportions and sloping brow ridge and etc. Look at our brainpower grow!

Idea on animals all looking the same except humans: I think every kind of animal can tell it's own apart, and probably not much else. Do you think a dog finds that much difference in two strange people?

On death realization: I gotta say I think it's societal. If you took a babe and stuck him in like a Twilight Zone experiment where we watch him his whole life in the wild but he isn't aware of it, I don't know if he'd grasp death beyond "oh shit, here comes that lion I might die soon". You know, beyond a primitive danger - reaction kind of way.

The rest of it: I do think we're special. I can't say enough about the power of the human mind and heart, the potential! And the gap between that potential and where we are now bums me out more than those other two things put together. But I think that's really what MAKES us special, and separates us. Some people have reached the same blissful state of animals ("ignorance is bliss") through real enlightenment (I couldn't use the term for most of us). Like, when we know we can be a dick and we choose not to be? Nature works in harmony because it's all it knows, does that make sense? That we can come to that same place for a completely different set of reasons. And, you know, complex machines and stuff. I mean I really think the collective consciousness is what it's about, and I like to think it's inevitable because holy cow I want it and I like to hope things will get better some time But not necessarily in a Judeo-Christian way, like Jehovah made us special for a special reason, more in a Buddhist "we're all God and God is all there is" kind of way. But that's religion, gah these are tangled more than I thought.

Krishna and Baha'i both say religion and science (evolution) work together, that things evolve but that instrument is of God, which makes some sense to me. I'll probably add a bunch of stuff I forgot later.

On the topic of why we seem to be unique…

First off, evolution is not a quick process. I’m sure we may see some slightly different physical traits in our millionth generation. However, when I look at an Inuit person and an African tribesperson, I see something along the lines of Brown Bear and Black Bear.

Secondly, natural selection does not affect our species nearly as much any more because of our current versatility. We don’t die off as easily because we control our food supplies, environment and have no predators. Our close relatives, the Neanderthals, died off through natural selection; we survived.

Thirdly, we’ve evolved in a way that no other animal has… through technology. Our brains and opposable thumbs have allowed to us create tools that we control to surpass the abilities of almost anything else that occurs naturally.

We were simply the first species on our planet to harness technology; of course we are unique in that sense. Technology is ever increasing our abilities to move beyond the natural limitations of all other life on this planet, at an alarming rate.

-----

I don’t know if creationism can even be debated in a topic about evolution, not because it opposes evolution, but because there’s no logical commonality between the two; one’s science and the other is religious belief. I can argue against evolution with just as much merit if I believed that aliens came down here and performed a genetic experiment, tens of thousands of years ago, altering a creature’s DNA that would later become us, a human being. There, that explains why we’re so different, right?

-----

If I were to argue logically against evolution, it would be the process by which it occurs, not that it doesn’t occur.

Personally, I think “change” is so critical to life that we are forever experiencing slight variations on our genetic makeup regardless of environmental changes. It’s the culmination of numerous (think big number here) generations separated without mingling DNA that creates different species or evolution.

We are not so much a product of our environment, but a product of slight and constant changes. In the realm of other animals, a Polar Bear probably didn’t grow thick fur because he was in a colder climate; he most likely had thick fur and more blubber so traveled to a colder region where he had less competition for food. After that geographic separation occurred, yes, the Polar Bear probably got more fur and fat on it’s body because slight changes that naturally occured were better suited to the environment… so if physical changes started happening that decreased the likelihood of artic survival, those offspring likely died, thus that genetic trait slowly died from the species in that region.

Maybe this is the consensus of evolution theorists, but I’m continually amazed by people who think that chopping off tails on generations of rats will produce rats that are born without tails. Give me a break. Now, if we genetically altered a rat to be born (or found a natural genetic mutation of a rat) without a tail and that rat reproduced, we would see tailless rats emerge. Maybe not immediately, but that genetic trait exists in the DNA now; it might surface in later generations. If the tailless rats had some benefit, like they were less likely to get caught by predators because there’s less to grab onto, you might see a larger population of tailless rats emerge because the tailed ones die more often. Then when you achieve a situation of generations of tailless rats reproducing, that trait becomes the dominant one (the mother and father had no tail and their mothers and fathers had no tail, etc.) and having a tail becomes a rarity.

Again, I may be confused on the accepted theories of evolution, but I don’t believe we actively change to suit our environment; the environment merely weeds out unsuitable variations on species.

With humans however, we use technology to adapt to almost any environment. Anybody without the desirable genetic traits can live comfortably and reproduce safely without the need for beneficial physical traits… like hair or sharp teeth and such. One has to wonder how we will evolve. Are the mentally and physically weaker dying off anymore (natural selection)? Are we mixing our genes so much that all the races may eventually be indistinguishable? Will we become weaker or stronger for it? Will we fall prey to being unable to survive without technology?

-----

I’m sort of with Nhazghaal, on the “Buddhists have it pretty much right” angle… and I also think there’s a science to it, but I won’t clog this topic with that discussion.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Echolocating,

monkey, you know i like ya, but that creation article you posted (and I read all of it) is utter, utter nonsense. C'mon man!! It provides no verifiable, testable or repeatable evidence for anything, and clouds the debate in absolute garbage like the following sentence:

By demanding a “how” explanation, the evolutionist has invoked a double standard, since the evolutionary hypothesis ultimately fails to produce an empirically substantiated explanation as to “how” everything “happened” all by itself, with no apparent cause or purpose. Unable to explain exactly “how” matter and energy appeared where previously there was nothing, and unable to explain exactly “how” genetic information appeared in massive amounts where previously there was none, the evolutionist is scarcely entitled to demand to know “how” it was done by the Creator.

This makes me really annoyed. Carefully read the above. Can you see the flawed reasoning? I won't be so patronising as to spell it out. Read it and think.

quote:

Originally posted by Nhazghaal:
I'll be the first to admit I kinda don't like Dawkins, because it kinda goes back to what I was saying, rather than try to just gather facts and come to conclusions his agenda seems to be "HA! TAKE THAT RELIGION!" which, come on, you're a scientist, be objective.

I have a strong feeling that you haven't actually read the book.

quote:

His response here doesn't have anything to do with the question he was asked, but I do like what he says here. So, has even popular science come to the conclusion we weren't monkeys now?

First of all, he's been very public about that video, saying that what caught him off-guard was the people interviewing him were hardcore creationists who pretended to be news reporters until that very second they asked the loaded question. His full response is here:http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm#note1

He didn't say that he thought the question is stupid. More that it is a question that was clearly stated with the knowledge that it could not be easily answered.

Second of all, popular science never believed we came from monkeys. Never. Which is why Dawkins said what he did. The reason creationism has so much ground is because the average person has some serious misconceptions over what the theory of evolution is.

quote:

Originally posted by kevlarcardhouse:
I have a strong feeling that you haven't actually read the book.

I'll also be the first to admit no, I haven't read any book of his in its entirety. I have read passages, and I've watched numerous videos of him - interviews, lectures, television appearances, etc.

quote:

First of all, he's been very public about that video, saying that what caught him off-guard was the people interviewing him were hardcore creationists who pretended to be news reporters until that very second they asked the loaded question. His full response is here:http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm#note1

He didn't say that he thought the question is stupid. More that it is a question that was clearly stated with the knowledge that it could not be easily answered.

Second of all, popular science never believed we came from monkeys. Never. Which is why Dawkins said what he did. The reason creationism has so much ground is because the average person has some serious misconceptions over what the theory of evolution is.

You're right, he never said "the question was stupid". I mixed up his own response to it and the response of third parties on it, big mistake on my part. But he said it was a question only a creationist would ask, and according to the website of the makers of the video he said it was invalid (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3867) After reading the in-depth article, my real point remains the same: by way of human nature (fallacy) people set out to further their own agenda rather than unearth objective information, and that to even do the research yourself (since you can't take any body's word on anything as bulletproof) takes a lot of time and effort, too much for us to come to satisfactory conclusions on everything we want answered in our brief lifetimes.

In the same light you tell me "popular science never believed we came from monkeys" and I believe you. So why is there the misconception? Creationist propaganda? General ignorance?

quote:

Originally posted by Nhazghaal:
I'll also be the first to admit no, I haven't read any book of his in its entirety. I have read passages, and I've watched numerous videos of him - interviews, lectures, television appearances, etc.

I'll admit that he can off as smug and belligerent when discussing religion, as do other popular "literary atheists" of our time like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

Yes, he believes religious belief to be ridiculous and useless. However, even he has admitted that there may be a supernatural purpose to our existence. He just doesn't think the answer can be found in any of the "holy books" of major religions.

quote:

After reading the in-depth article, my real point remains the same: by way of human nature (fallacy) people set out to further their own agenda rather than unearth objective information, and that to even do the research yourself (since you can't take any body's word on anything as bulletproof) takes a lot of time and effort, too much for us to come to satisfactory conclusions on everything we want answered in our brief lifetimes.

That's true, and pretty much a given, since there is a lot of evidence that most of us operate that way - our brain filters the information we recieve to match our belief systems. I agree with this. While I like to believe I look at things objectively, I also acknowledge that I have some biases right off the bat.

That said, we have plenty of evidence that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct, including transitional fossils and observable evidence (like how in just a few generations, insects become resistant to the pesticides of previous years. There are still arguments over exactly how certain aspects of evolution work. Even Dawkins has some controversial opinions on that. But overall, the theory is sound.

So creationism/intelligent design isn't valid because it doesn't address this evidence. It has to provide an alternate theory that explains all of this evidence that promotes evolution, and it doesn't. Even if it was valid, it can't be tested. How can you test the explanation of "God did that". It's like saying the theory of gravity is up for debate, because maybe a supreme being is making us go down when we fall, and it just looks like it's because of electro-magnetic fields. Sure, it might be possible, but it is impossible to discover, so science doesn't bother with it.

quote:

In the same light you tell me "popular science never believed we came from monkeys" and I believe you. So why is there the misconception? Creationist propaganda? General ignorance?

My opinion is that it is more the failings of society and science education. But naturally creationists like it because it is an obvious strawman. Science is complicated and unfortunately it usually isn't presented in layman's terms. Personally, my high school education neither got me interested in the scientific method, nor helped me understand it. So basically, I agree with you that it's too much research for the average person and there needs to be more attempts to explain it to us in more generic terms.

While we are on the subject of this, you might want to consider looking in the library for Richard Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker". It's written to explain evolution in a less technical manner (even shmoes like me understand it) including explaining things that creationists say make evolution impossible (like the complexity of the human eye, etc.). While you may be turned off by his seemingly hostile attitude towards religious beliefs, he truly is a very intelligent man.

First off, let me say, I'm happy for the turn out & this conversation is gettin' interesting!

quote:

Originally posted by Nhazghaal:
Idea on animals all looking the same except humans: I think every kind of animal can tell it's own apart, and probably not much else. Do you think a dog finds that much difference in two strange people?[/

Actually, animals go by smell. That's the way they can decipher territories & even fellow pack members. This is also how dogs can sense who their owner is. Why do you think they wanna sniff on you all the time?

quote:

On death realization: I gotta say I think it's societal. If you took a babe and stuck him in like a Twilight Zone experiment where we watch him his whole life in the wild but he isn't aware of it, I don't know if he'd grasp death beyond "oh shit, here comes that lion I might die soon". You know, beyond a primitive danger - reaction kind of way.

Ah-ha! The "babe in the woods" defense! I will concede that alot of what we know is through life experience around other humans, but animals aren't so quick to pick this up. Sure, they know OF death, but they don't seem to grasp it the same way we do. Take a Discovery Channel show I was watching a while ago: It was a study on a group of monkeys & one had a baby that couldn't let go of his mother. He was way too big to still be clinging to her the way he was. After a while, she died & he never left her side & died as well. The other monkeys went on with their day. Even a cheetah carried around her dead cub for days, not understanding it was dead. Could these instances be construed as "denial" or "misunderstanding"? This is the question Scientists seem to have trouble understanding, themselves.

I even witnessed behavior in my own monkey that let me see where Scientists were coming from when they say we are related in some way. He showed emotion. When he was happy, you could see it. When he was sad, you could see that, too. He even expressed anger. We even watched movies together & he actually got so into a movie, he jumped & screamed at a scary part! But, do emotions make them "like us"? Does this mean animals have a consciousness? For me, being human is alot more than emotions. It's our mind that truly sets us apart from the animal kingdom. I have to say, that is why I have the most trouble with evolution. No other animal has developed a stronger intelligence as we have. Sure, we have smart animals, but could they EVER grasp mathematics? Carry a conversation? Know that they will die one day, even if it isn't at the claws of a predator?

quote:

Krishna and Baha'i both say religion and science (evolution) work together, that things evolve but that instrument is of God, which makes some sense to me.

I actually believe the same thing. I have no problem with evolution, but people keep saying "DATA" matters, but I don't see other examples of animals evolving along our lines. Mike once said, "We will never have all the pieces to the puzzle." My only thought is, "Well, then how do we KNOW what we are seeing is true? What if we think the pieces fit together as an ape, but when we find that missing piece under the couch...turns out it was a MAN all along!"

quote:

Originally posted by Echolocating:
We were simply the first species on our planet to harness technology; of course we are unique in that sense. Technology is ever increasing our abilities to move beyond the natural limitations of all other life on this planet, at an alarming rate.

WE ARE THE ONLY SPECIES TO DO THIS!!!! Why does this not strike you as strange? Yes, yes, animals have been known to use tools, but nothing too complex. We build complex machines & require more & more schooling with every new discovery. This is something no animal can ever do! Since they've been around alot longer than us, I'd imagine they would've went along these lines FIRST! What is the explanation for that? Really, why is it we developed brains over brawn? Not really a trait of nature.

quote:

I can argue against evolution with just as much merit if I believed that aliens came down here and performed a genetic experiment, tens of thousands of years ago, altering a creature’s DNA that would later become us, a human being. There, that explains why we’re so different, right?

You should already know how I'm gonna come at this question, Echo