Evolution, conspiracy or fact?

seriously am I the only one who has played pokemon?

We're related to fish.

"

We're related to fish.

your're really a bird

I DON'T HAVE FEATHERS

We're referring to your brain.

As someone who was fascinated by dinosaurs before he went to kindergarden...

Evolution as a mechanic holds pretty true. Evolution as a cause, well, there are some holes for those who nitpick over those sorts of things.

I won't bore you with said nitpicking here, look it up for yourself.

Bottom line: evolution and your "creation" myth of choice are not mutually exclusive.

"

I DON'T HAVE FEATHERS

are you sure???

IMO:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread547503/pg1

"

Garr0t wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

Most animals are sentient.

And humans are animals.

However, how is it that there was no co-evolution or advancement of other species over time, just human beings? The capacity for speech/language/writing that allows human beings to convey experience through indirect teaching is the 'uplift' I am referring to. I don't believe there is another species on the planet that does anything similar.

That's your human exceptionalism speaking. You're placing humans on a pedestal that's undeservedly far above our fellow sentient beings on Earth. The differences between us are not as staggering as you believe they are.

We also evolved into our present form over an absolutely tremendous amount of time. As someone else pointed out, other animals who were similar to us were killed off relatively recently. Other species may have eventually become our intellectual equals given appropriate evolutionary pressures and time. It seems unlikely that'll happen now, given the cruel, barbaric, and downright evil way we treat the other sentient beings we share the planet with.

As for your "invisible hand" guiding evolution, there's literally no evidence that anything of the sort exists. That's purely magical thinking. What we do have evidence of, and a hell of a lot of it, is the scientific fact of evolution.

There are other options besides conspiracy and fact. For instance, fact is likely what you think most think it is but "accepted" is the term you are searching for. Meaning, as accepted science, it has gathered enough evidence to generally be commonly accepted as a valid explanation. That is not a fact.

Anyone who believes in science, generally would not call it a fact nor would they say with 100% certainty that it is right.

I fail to see the reasoning behind the continuity of this thought as a conspiracy; what do scientists get from that exactly? What did they get initially (other than ostracized)?

--------------

If you're going to ask a question, at least get the possible answers correct. The correct answer is: accepted science.