[Sopater]

“Next “evolutionary” level”? Evolution is not equivalent to advancement.

So in your opinion, humans are no more advanced that eukaryotic cells? Boy, it is tough to keep up with you intellectual types...

[allmendream]

Humans are made up of eukaryotic cells. Yes, greater complexity and new structures and features can arise by evolutionary mechanisms, yet there is nothing to say that it MUST be advancement, new features, new structures, etc in order to BE evolution. Indeed some of the most rapid evolution we see is the LOSS of features, such as eyeless cave fish.

Is not a fish that lives in a cave loosing its eyes an evolutionary change? One could certainly argue that its “loss” makes it more fit, as it doesn't waste resources making a useless structure; but it certainly isn't more “advanced”.

Do try to keep up with at least the very basics of a theory you wish to critique.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

So in your opinion, humans are no more advanced that eukaryotic cells?

That is indeed one of the many strange things we are to believe, say the Darwinians. There is no direction to evolution, and thus, there has been no progression throughout the history of life on earth, from goo, to you. Another, related thing that we have to believe follows from this:

Darwinism may be defined as a certain rational, causo-mechanical (hence, non-teleologic) explanation of the origin of new species. (Vernon Kellog, Darwinism To-Day)

In other words, it implies this: your hand has no purpose. You probably think it does have a purpose, but you are mistaken. But not just your hand, mind you--you yourself have no purpose at all.