Here's why Creatards might be right

[The Grand Nudger]

yes im suggesting that maybe human intelligence isnt the apex creative intelligence in the universe based on science that is highly unlikely

No, you're suggesting that this universe is designed.  C'mon......you need to maintain a coherent string of responses for this to be a rational discussion.  We may not be that apex, but that doesn;t imply, suggest, or establish that the universe is designed.  Lets say, for purpose of argument....that there were 4billion other "better" creative species out there, and none of them designed the universe.

Do you see how one statement can be true....that we are not the creative apex, without the other statement being true - none of our betters are the "creator race"?

[Anomalocaris]

What about the poor hippo things that thought they'd go for a swim in the deep ocean till they remembered that they haven't developed fins yet! It wasn't pretty.

No it wasn't. And we're not even talking all the octopuses who accidentally tied knots in their legs!

And I bet you can't explain why modern octopuses don't.

[jenny1972]

what would account for different species of living things then ? why monkeys and humans and plants and worms and birds under this theory why wouldnt every living thing existing on the same earth under the same conditions be exactly the same and have the same properties ?

Well, A: because they didn't all live under the same conditions, since there's a huge amount of environmental variance on the earth, and B: unguided mutations are the mechanism behind evolution, and no two beings will ever mutate exactly the same way. It's the sort of question that's really simple to answer if you had any interest in the subject beyond disagreeing with it out of hand.

so your suggesting that humans evolved into humans and plants evolved into plants because of climate differences in different locations ....  bugs are different than other species of bugs all because they have intensely different environmental factors ?

[SteelCurtain]

God as a placeholder.

It's just lazy and intellectually dishonest, pool.

If we don't know something, the answer is then that we don't know. We cannot take a guess based on literally no evidence and then claim that this guess is just as good as anything else.

Your brain is good at seeing patterns and ascribing meaning to them. So yes, you see what small slice of the cosmos you can see, and you make an ad hoc explanation for it in your brain. Try harder to be okay with the admission of "I don't know."

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Well, A: because they didn't all live under the same conditions, since there's a huge amount of environmental variance on the earth, and B: unguided mutations are the mechanism behind evolution, and no two beings will ever mutate exactly the same way. It's the sort of question that's really simple to answer if you had any interest in the subject beyond disagreeing with it out of hand.

so your suggesting that humans evolved into humans and plants evolved into plants because of climate differences in different locations ....  bugs are different than other species of bugs all because they have intensely different environmental factors ?

Yes. And random mutation in non-genetically-sharing populations results in different directions of potential evolution, narrowed back down by the Natural Selection pressures in their different environments.

The fact that the species "work together" (though I'd say that bees getting their colony destroyed by wasps would differ in this opinion) is a result of Natural Selection working on all of the populations put together to form part of that environment; environment is geography + ecology.

[The Grand Nudger]

They are different species because significant genetic variation has occurred so as to make reproduction between groups impossible.  This doesn't -have- to have anything to due with differing environments, but it often does (as, for example, the criteria which manifest itself as genetic variation between two populations).

[robvalue]

I'm not saying you're wrong Pool, I'm saying your conclusion is unsupported.

I highly recommend people get a book on evolution. Expecting to go from no understanding to working knowledge in a couple of forum posts is like trying to eat eight million cream crackers in five minutes.

The question is who wants to learn, and who wants to dismiss?

[Esquilax]

Well, A: because they didn't all live under the same conditions, since there's a huge amount of environmental variance on the earth, and B: unguided mutations are the mechanism behind evolution, and no two beings will ever mutate exactly the same way. It's the sort of question that's really simple to answer if you had any interest in the subject beyond disagreeing with it out of hand.

so your suggesting that humans evolved into humans and plants evolved into plants because of climate differences in different locations ....  bugs are different than other species of bugs all because they have intensely different environmental factors ?

Crazy thought: when I provide an explanation that has both an A and a B component, maybe don't respond like the only thing I said was A?

And a misrepresentation of A, too! Climate differences? Do you really think the only difference in environment over the entirety of the earth is the temperature? No terrain differences? Or chemical? Weather? Moisture? Other species? Food sources? Geology? Sunlight? Wind? Water availability and composition? Plant life?

Just climate differences? Seriously?

[SteelCurtain]

so your suggesting that humans evolved into humans and plants evolved into plants because of climate differences in different locations ....  bugs are different than other species of bugs all because they have intensely different environmental factors ?

Not necessarily because of intensely different environmental factors. Different animals can carve out niches in the same environment. Beetles eat dung and thrive on that, while termites eat wood/grass and thrive on that---all in the same environment.

Genetic mutations sometimes are deleterious, and sometimes proffer an advantage in an environment to a specific organism. If the frequency of alleles in a population shifts enough, then that mutation will take foot.

[Esquilax]

But I'm right though aren't I?

Not without evidence you're not.

It's impossible to determine how this universal law of the universe came into being. To assume that it was created(sorry,designed) by something or someone would be the most logical thing to do

How is it logical to make assumptions based on no evidence, about phenomena that we can't even establish is possible, when all of the available evidence points in the other direction? Hell, why make assumptions at all? If you don't have evidence, the answer is "I don't know," not "I'm going to assume it's whatever I want."