To: curiosity; Dimensio; WildTurkey
Fundamentally, evolution relies on the hypothesis that all life forms (or certainly most life forms) trend to higher complexity. So the big question in my mind is why only primates evolved to become sentient. Why are there not a vast array of higher order being? You know, monkey-man, horse-man, cat-man, and maybe even roach-man?
Fundamentally, evolution relies on the hypothesis that all life forms (or certainly most life forms) trend to higher complexity placemarker.
514 posted on
08/19/2005 4:42:15 AM PDT by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: visually_augmented
Fundamentally, evolution relies on the hypothesis that all life forms (or certainly most life forms) trend to higher complexity.This is a fundamentally incorrect characterization of evolution.
523 posted on
08/19/2005 6:02:38 AM PDT by
js1138
(Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
To: visually_augmented
So the big question in my mind is why only primates evolved to become sentient. Why are there not a vast array of higher order being? As related to body size, our brain is bigger than the brains of most other animals on the planet.
Your brain requires a lot of energy to keep it alive. So, from an evolutionary point of view, a large brain is a double-edged sword. For most animals, evolution has taken them into a different direction where the process of evolution towards sentience is unlikely.
What would, for example, push horse species' into developing higher intelligence?
582 posted on
08/19/2005 9:35:11 AM PDT by
Modernman
("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
To: visually_augmented
Fundamentally, evolution relies on the hypothesis that all life forms (or certainly most life forms) trend to higher complexity.
Evolution says no such thing. Higher complexity only comes about where it's able due to environmental selection pressures. In environments where higher "complexity" is of no benefit or even detrimental to reproduction, you'll see lower "complexity" reigning.
So the big question in my mind is why only primates evolved to become sentient. Why are there not a vast array of higher order being? You know, monkey-man, horse-man, cat-man, and maybe even roach-man?
Your confusion is based on a false premise.
644 posted on
08/19/2005 12:38:53 PM PDT by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: visually_augmented
Fundamentally, evolution relies on the hypothesis that all life forms (or certainly most life forms) trend to higher complexity. Did you make that up?
674 posted on
08/19/2005 3:18:54 PM PDT by
WildTurkey
(When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson