[thomaswest]

The dilemna for evolution is explaining something it fails to recognize in principle, and which we all know intuitively to be true: that our condition is profoundly unique, as opposed to any other organism on this planet. I think there are two aspects to this. 1. Yes, we seem to be unique in having a consciousness of our existence, and from this we worked out numerous ethical rules that serve to protect us. We are social beings. 2. We are not unique as regards our being vertebrate, mammal, animals. In this respect, we are surely like many other primates, in terms of blood types, genetic similarity, similar development in fetal stages in the womb, very numerous body similarities. This suggests to me that we did not arise via {poof} but via a long history of evolution.

[csense]

... there are two aspects to this. 1. Yes, we seem to be unique in having a consciousness of our existence, and from this we worked out numerous ethical rules that serve to protect us. We are social beings. 2. We are not unique as regards our being vertebrate, mammal, animals. In this respect, we are surely like many other primates, in terms of blood types, genetic similarity, similar development in fetal stages in the womb, very numerous body similarities. This suggests to me that we did not arise via {poof} but via a long history of evolution. [emphasis mine]

I think it's self evident that our condition is unique. What better evidence is there, especially to one who values scientific principles, than direct observation.

That said, I wonder if you would make a similar conclusion, albeit suggestive, if you omitted the word 'seem.'