“Yes, Simba, but when we die, our bodies become the grass. And the antelope eat the grass. Just as the sun rises from the night, and winter becomes the spring, so life arises from death. Everything is connected in the great circle of life.”
“Are humans extra?”—Oasis325
“Are extras human?”—Cecil B. De Mille
All this talk of food chains, food webs and circles of life! I thought it was called the Carbon Cycle. Fire makes fertilizer.
Oasis, I don’t know how you came to your conclusion that humans don’t fit into the system. The more I learn about life, the more proof I see that we are just another carbon based infestation. Maybe all animals were invented by plants to eat their O2 shit. And welcome to SDMB.
Now we’re down to the molecular level! Cool. 
So feed my old dead body into a reactor.
Peace,
mangeprge
Soylent Green is people!
Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
My 2 cents on this:
We haven’t repealed or exempted ourselves from the rules of the game that all other species (and ours too, IMHO) play by. What humans are exceedingly good at is shifting the game board in our own favor… and the end of the game is still nowhere in sight. Our modifications in the long run may still prove less successful than the “more natural” modifications of our friends the Arthropods.
Hello? New morphological features arise because of mutations and novel combinations of genes, or new ways that genes are expressed. They may persist if the new feature reaps more in benefits than it costs. I have trouble believing that you do not see that the benefits of opposable thumbs outweigh the costs.
…likewise you do not see the benefits of reason?
… actually, you may have a point here. Maybe we’re still a lot more like our common ancestor with the chimpanzees than we like to think. Most of the people I meet are not very reasonable.
Show why this “more advanced species” should not be eliminated via Occam, then we might be able to deal with this one seriously.
Same as above, but replace “more advanced species” with “God.”
Actually I think science does far better than provide “the most rude” explanation. It provides a pretty good explanation. Humans are instead suspiciously similar to chimpanzees…
-Steve
“Banned by the Space Pope”
occams razor is like logical fallacys. it doesent exclude things when you dont know all the facts
Do you people really think you know what you’re talking about? Because you don’t.
I disagree. There is no reason to believe that you ever can or will know all the facts. (I’m planning on having a finite lifetime; aren’t you? 
)
Given that we will always have limited information to work from, it is perfectly reasonable to use Occam’s Razor to eliminate explanations that fit the known facts, yet posit entities not required by that evidence.
-Steve
CalifBoomer wrote:
How about:
- We were preceded by a Great-Ape-like species who, as with modern Chimpanzees, could use and make crude tools. Within one population, a few members happened to be born with thumbs that were slightly opposable. These members had a distinct advantage, in that they were able to grasp their tools better than the members who lacked opposable thumbs. They survived more often and thus left more offspring than their non-opposable-thumbed brethren. Eventually, over many generations of their continued success, opposable thumbs became the norm rather than the exception. The apes eventually became us.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
Tracer 12:17-26
Thus endeth the lesson.
Amen.
Mmmmmmm, I always do love a good old-fashioned Plagal Cadence.
wevets, you can eliminate them, but also another thing is god is not extra information in evolution, god is part of creationism. These are 2 entirely diffrent theorys. Occams razor would eliminate god from evolution but not creationism.
Somehow, I think a stronger question to ask may be, if we have so arisen, why have other species not also gained such intelligence?
–Tim
You can’t accidently create a handicapped baby whilst smoking pot. - Coldfire
Other species may have – and we either mated with or killed them off (ok, if we mated with them, they weren’t technically “other species”). See my recent mailbag item: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mancestor.html
Now, if you ask why non-ape species haven’t developed intelligence, well, why haven’t we developed wings? Or antennae? What’s a good evolutionary strategy for one group may not be for another – not to mention that the opportunity may not have arisen.
Asmodean:
I think you misunderstand my use of Occam’s Razor. Specifically, the Razor can be stated: “Do not multiply entities unnecessarily.” What Occam was trying to say is that if you have two explanations, both of which are consistent with the known evidence and contain no logical fallacies; but one of the explanations postulates additional entities (variables, factors, particles, forces, whatever these “entities” happen to be); then the additional entities postulated are unnecessary and should be eliminated.
The reason they are unnecessary is because while their existence is consistent with the evidence, it is not required by the evidence. An example: Suppose I find an abandoned hut in the desert. I can explain this using hypothesis one: some people lived in this desert and built the hut here for shelter. I can also explain this using hypothesis two: Some people lived in the mountains, but moved and took themselves and their hut down to the desert.
Unless I have some evidence of people in the mountains, or that the hut originated in the mountains, or that the hut was not built where it currently stands, hypothesis two should be eliminated by Occam. It is possible that the hut did come from the mountains, but there is no reason to believe it in the face of the simpler hypothesis.
In the same vein, it is possible that humans were created by aliens or whole cloth by a deity. But such entities are not necessary to explain the existence of humans. It is irrelevant that one notion is called creationism and that another theory is called evolution. What evidence is there that we should believe in these unnecessary entities?
“Banned by the Space Pope”
originally posted by wevets:
Whoaaaa! Hold on there, big fella. You’ll have to admit you’ve got some logical problems with this statement and its implications.
If I understand correctly either you are saying:
- Everything created itself out of nothing
or
- We don’t want to consider where everything came from because it is unknoweable; therefore,
a) we’ll just ignore anything before what we think we have ‘evidence’ to support, or,
b) we’ll invent a concept called ‘abiogenis’ and go with that, asserting that although there is no evidence for it, or even how it may have happened (which according to scientific methodology must be reproducible), we’ll simply assert that abiogenisis must be fact, we just don’t understand it yet, thereby dismissing the notion of a creator.
I don’t see how you can exclude ‘intelligent design’ yet include abiogenisis.
::
“. Intelligent people, for various reasons, are a pain in the fucking ass. They all have superiority complexes, a general spite for authority, and a total incapability to deal with others in a social setting.” - Stolen from a post by Omniscient
or
- We know that life has not always existed, so life had to have come into existence by some means. Three competing theories as to how life came into existence are: (A) God created it, (B) Aliens created it, and © many different complex chemical processes occurred on ancient Earth until one of them created a molecule that could make crude copies of itself, and Darwinian natural selection took over from there. Theories (A) and (B) require the existence of an outside entity, while theory © does not. Since no observations are better explained by theories (A) or (B) than they are by theory ©, and since theory © is simpler in that does not require the existence of an extra entity, theory © is the one that should be preferred by Occam’s Razor.
Ok. Where did the earth come from?
::
Well obviously the earth was created ex nihilo by an invisible, omnipotent being that also created itself ex nihilo. Isn’t that what the available evidence indicates?