It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Byrd: In other words, while things are going on in x-location, its brothers and sisters and cousins and grand-cousins and kith and kin are all undergoing change in a-b-c-d-yaddayadda locations around the globe. Yes. That's the theory of evolution. That's how we are saying that life develops on the Earth.
SC: It's the ones that apparently "don't belong" that make us THINK.
Kandinsky: If you had greater understanding of evolution and natural selection, the pre-Cambrian parallel evolution idea would not have seen the light of day. You would have worked out why it was unfeasible before your fingers hit the keyboard.
A parallel evolution arising in a bipedal, tool-using and intelligent humanoid is not a reasonable theory.
Kandinsky: A parallel evolution arising in a bipedal, tool-using and intelligent humanoid is not a reasonable theory.
Originally posted by DangerDeath
A parallel evolution arising in a bipedal, tool-using and intelligent humanoid is not a reasonable theory.
Modern humans and Neanderthals are opposed to this conclusion.
SC: Says who? If it can happen once then there is nothing - NOTHING - to say it cannot happen twice (or more). Such highly intelligent, sentient, conscious life forms may not have evolved identically to HSS but the evolution of such a species would essentially be the ultimate "goal" of evolution.
The development of highly intelligent species could, in fact, be life's ultimate goal in order to ensure continuation of life, i.e. propogation of the DNA code. Naturally, in this regard, it is essential that life produces as many opportunites as possible for highly intelligent species to evolve.
It's all about survival - life "knows" the resources of this Earth (or, indeed, any environment/biosphere) are finite and will eventually become thoroughly depleted. By evolving highly intelligent species, life is creating the means through which it can continue when the Earth is exhausted i.e. by creating intelligent species that can develop the means/technology to eventually leave this planet (ultimately) and carry our DNA elsewhere into the cosmos.
In this regard, there is every reason for life to evolve (in parallel) as many highly intelligent species as it possibly can and as quickly as possible. It's a race against time. It's all about survival - as you have already said. The Earth won't last forever. Ultimately survival will depend on us getting off this rock and successfully transplanting life (our DNA) elsewhere.
Kandinsky: They are related and come from the same phylum, class, order and genus...
Kandinsky: Evolution isn't a goal. Life seeks to survive and replicate with evolution and natural selection an outcome of the process.
Whilst I do enjoy reading your bluster and find it quite humerous (honestly), that's all you have.
You have already conceded the possibility of parallel evolution in this thread and, indeed, that it may indeed have occurred very early on in evolution. So, for you to then later say the idea is nonsense and infer that I am some kind of wack-job is entirely contradictory on your part.
SC: I'd like to see a proof of this. What library do you suggest? DNA is a code, a 'programme' if you like. For all you know that 'programme' could respond to the environment proactively as well as reactively. Do you actually know what every single part of the DNA code does? If so, do you have a reference? Thanks.
Okay then, what do we have? We have the fact that parallel evolution does occur. We are agreed that it could have occurred very early in evolution. You do not agree that evolution could have produced an independent lineage of intelligent species because the environment that "controls" evolution was not uniform all over the Earth i.e. a petri dish.
You cite the evidence on one hand and yet on the other are quick to explain that the fossil record is incomplete. So you are taking fragments of evidence and trying to build a complete picture. You see for example 50 skulls of different primate/hominid species and assume they all came from the one lineage when it is entirely feasible that, as a simple example, all even numbers evolved from one line and all odd numbers evolved from a comletely separate line. That's simplifying it, I know, but it's merely to convey the idea.
Most will say humanoids migrated from Europe and Asia to the Americas and can be traced by DNA. I say the opposite that the humanoids came from the Americas and spread throughout the Earth