That’s what Chiang Kai Shek tried. That allowed Mao Tse Tung’s lobby to portray themselves as an oppressed minority and banish Chiang’s party to a tiny island.

23: Perhaps because other species have other definitions of wisdom. The bottle-nosed dolphin and the octopus may well be as smart as people, and it could easily be said they use their intelligence much better.

They reproduce both sexually and asexually. Heck, even when they reproduce sexually, they don’t pair up. They broadcast both the male and female gametes. Check out the illustration! Coral have been doing this for hundreds of millions of years and seem to thrive on it.

Biology is cool because it isn’t as cut and dried as you have been led to believe. I am sure you are having fun dreaming up ways that evolution is “impossible,” but wouldn’t you rather learn how it really works?

The vast majority of living things do not reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction is fairly recent in evolutionary time and may even have evolved multiple times.

If all living things in this world have a common ancestor, it gives the implication that all plants and animals could be considered as the brothers and sisters.

Well, distant cousins, really. But beyond that, don’t forget about the fungi (mushrooms and stuff). They are much more closely related to animals than they are to plants. If plants are our distant cousin mushrooms are our brothers and sisters!

As plants, chicken, cows, human beings and etc. could have the common ancestor, the conclusion would turn up to be weird that we always consume our plants, chicken and beef even though they are part of our brothers and sisters. Thus, evolutionâ??s theory would seem to be weird if all living things would have a common ancestor.

That is not even close to the weirdest thing in evolution!

a) As we know all living things, whether they are plants or animals or etc., need to have a couple, i.e. male and female, in order to produce the next living things. A single ancestor, such as either a male ancestor or female, would not have reproduction. How could there be only a single common ancestor in the beginning since it would have needed male ancestor as well as female of similar types in order to have reproduction? It is irrational to assume that different kinds of ancestors could perform reproduction. It is the same as a cow could not find a life-partner to mix with a rooster to perform reproduction. Certainly! If there would be common ancestor for evolution, there must be male and female ancestors with the same kind in order to achieve reproduction. To mention that all living things would have a common ancestor, is rather illogical. This is due to there must be male and female ancestors and they must be of the same kind to interact for reproduction. Not only that, they have to meet with each other instead of one was in one part of the earth and another was in another. Thus, the concept to have one common ancestor for reproduction does not seem correctly and this proves that evolutionâ??s theory might not be true in reality.

b) If all living things in this world have a common ancestor, it gives the implication that all plants and animals could be considered as the brothers and sisters. As plants, chicken, cows, human beings and etc. could have the common ancestor, the conclusion would turn up to be weird that we always consume our plants, chicken and beef even though they are part of our brothers and sisters. Thus, evolutionâ??s theory would seem to be weird if all living things would have a common ancestor.

OK, have you been thinking of the Aardvark for a few seconds? Good.

Why have other animals not evolved into Aardvarks!!!!11!!!???

What I don’t understand in the whole theory of evolution is why no other animals are evolving emotions, understand, wisdom, complex thinking, love, hate, fear, compassion, faith, abstract thoughts, why are no other animals forming the complex emotions and intelligence of us? Are monkeys the only thing capable of forming such qualities? How come no other animals can form this complexity and depth? How come not a single case has been made that animals are getting more complex?

The great apes, including Pongo [Orangutans] (and Homo), possess a type of neuron called a â??spindle or bipolar cellâ? (technically called von Economo neurons, named after their discoverer) in the frontal cortex, which appears to be unique to this clade. They are also widely thought to uniquely possess â??cognitive empathy (the ability to take othersâ?? perspectives)â? [Watts 2010], although one source suggests Maccaca might have this feature. [Flack and de Waal 2004]

Spindle cells show signs of having many more connections than the typical neuron in the brain, and the regions they inhabit are connected with positive and negative reactions to body conditions, food, and social situations, including empathy in humans. [Allman et al. 2010]

Cognitive empathy is not the same thing as â??triadic awarenessâ?, which is â??knowledge about the social relationships between others in oneâ??s social groupâ?. [Watts 2010] The latter appears to be present in several OWM clades, as well as perhaps Cebus, a NWM. [Perry and Manson 2008] Distinguishing between these two features, if they actually are different, will require much more research. However, a very tentative hypothesis might be made (and often is) that the spindle cells in the brains of great apes (including Homo) are associated with cognitive empathy, but not triadic awareness, which is much more common.

Thus, even monkeys may well lack the features necessary for what humans do. The OWM’s split from the Apes (probably) early in the Miocene (or perhaps late Oligocene), and the great apes split from the Hylobatids (Gibbons etc.) some time after. Gibbons appear to lack both spindle cells and cognitive empathy.

As for the difference between humans and other great apes, there are many opinions, but certainly the human abilities for language are central to whichever explanation(s) is/are correct.

Ref’s

Allman, J.M., Tetreault, N.A., Hakeem, A.Y., Manaye, K.F., Semendeferi, K., Erwin, J.M., Park, S., Goubert, V., Hof, P.R. (2010) The von Economo neurons in frontoinsular and anterior cingulate cortex in great apes and humans Brain Struct Funct (2010) 214:495â??517 DOI 10.1007/s00429-010-0254-0

Flack, J.C., de Waal, F.B.M. (2004) Dominance style, social power, and conflict management. In: Thierry B, Singh M, Kaumanns W (eds) Macaque societies: a model for the study of social organization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 157-181

Perry, S., Manson, J.H., (2008) Manipulative monkeys: the capuchins of Lomas Barbudal. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Watts, D.P. (2010) Dominance, Power, and Politics in Nonhuman and Human Primates In: Kappeler, P.M., Silk, J.B. (2010) Mind the Gap Tracing the Origins of Human Universals Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York ISBN: 978 3 642 02724 6 e ISBN: 978 3 642 02725 3 DOI 10.1007/978 3 642 02725 3

If it was shown that other animals have all of those traits, would you be convinced of evolution? Or is this just one of those “oh yeah? explain this? You can? How about this? oh. This?” Type situations. (Not to be rude, but we get those very often and as you might imagine, it is fairly frustrating to go through that dance).