Scion in chains wrote...
Oh I see I was beginning to think that someone on here had it out for me. BTW, I said may be an evolved but I see what you mean. & thanks church 4 the point I feel my opinions shouldn't be penalized. PS. Im not arrogant but I AM a dick.
Protip: When expressing your belief that you are a better brand of human being than the standard issue, it would probably be a good idea to use proper grammar and to leave out internet shorthand.
Not that bad grammar and internet shorthand are indicative of a less intelligent person overall, but they certainly make it seem that way.
But don't worry, I still like you.
In any case, each generation is slightly more evolved than the last; and I do mean SLIGHTLY. This is not the world of the X-men, there are no leaps in evolution. Macroevolution (evolution at or above the level of species; for example, from Homo habilis to homo sapiens sapiens) happens over MILLIONS of years, and is commonly thought to be the compound effect of microevolution (evolution below the level of species; the different between homo sapiens now, and homo sapiens thousands of years ago). Macroevolution is what you will hear debated by creationists. Microevolution is pretty much undebatable if you want to be taken seriously. So is Macroevolution, really, but creationists would get laughed at in debates a lot more often if they tried to debate microevolution.
Anyway, my point is, in the natural way of things, each generation is an attempt to ensure the survival of the species; so each generation is slightly more evolved than the last. It just tends not to be particularly noticeable until you look several generations apart. This is just natural selection, and one of the things that affects microevolution. There are other things, like artificial selection and mutation, that also affect it, but I don't feel like writing an essay on evolution here.
Really, I'm just saying, you ARE more evolved than you parents, but barring some pretty astonishing mutation, you are not too noticeably more evolved than them, and are not likely much more evolved than the rest of the people in your generation, certain factors withheld. Like if your family for some reason has historically passed more favorable traits than average or something like that.
It's all very interesting stuff, evolution.
But this topic isn't about evolution...
Deathykins wrote...
I believe there are probably some other beings out there some where, but not what us humans would normally class as an alien. Other than the fact they wouldn't be from our planet. To me it is honestly more unbelievable that there wouldn't be others out there. The main argument I hear when I debate things like this with friends is that there is no air on other planets, so they could not survive. But why does every living creature have to breathe air? Look at fish for example, they would all die if that's all they had to breathe.
Your point is actually a fairly good one; Our definition of life has to do with the conditions necessary for all life on Earth to exist. There could be "life" on other planets with another definition of "life."
However, any assumption not based reliably gather information is just conjecture, and science is not based on conjectures. Science can START with a really good idea, but it has to move on to hypothesis and experiment to be science.
So we have to assume that our definition of life is what we are looking for, and is the only way life exists.